UPDATE 1 - 3/27/08: See additional responses below
Below is a political conversation I have had with a friend here in Atlanta over the last week. We initially talked about Rev. Wright, then religion, then preconditions on negotiations, then healthcare, and tax policy. Many other topics were touched on also, including Alan Greenspan, China, NAFTA, the recession, racism, Bush, abortion, and socialism.
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: wright
Hey there,
I knew you were an Obama supporter so I wanted to get some insight about the latest events involving his former pastor. Obviously I will assume you don't agree with those statements, but how do you feel Obama's close association with Wright this will impact the race? Are you satisfied with Obama's reaction?
Obviously as a conservative I have feelings about this but just wanted to get your perspective since it's just unraveling.
Talk soon,
[cut]
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: wright
Hey [cut],
Yea, I agree Obama's former pastor is on the crazy side, I don't agree with the things he said, and find many of the things offensive. I think almost all Americans would agree, across all demographics. But those are not Obama's views. I don't think it is that big of a deal that someone has a close relationship with someone of differing views. And I think most of the American public is smart enough to make that distinction. I think Obama's speech this morning on race and politics was very impressive, probably one of the best in recent memory.
I am not entirely sure why all of this is being hyped up all the sudden. I would like to think that if I ran for office that the views of those near me would not be confused for my own, no matter how radical they are. Because I know I have some extra crazy friends and family!
John
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: RE: wright
Sure.
But how do you respond when your relationship with the "crazy" is not incidental, but ongoing for 20 years, especially when you claim to have better judgment? In fact, he is competing on his judgment capabilities. Yet this preacher's ideology has gone unchecked for 20 years?
I don't want to believe it, but I would have to be somewhat naïve to think being associated with Wright and belonging to his church, and claiming that he was my mentor, didn't affect Obama's views and beliefs. I heard the speech and at the very least, am glad that reverse-racism is now being dealt with by someone that the blacks can identify with.perhaps they will listen. And I can assume it is being hyped up all of a sudden because that's how politics works. It's all timing. But it's something that needs to be addressed in my opinion. I don't have the resources to figure these things out but I feel the need to be most informed about everyone. I'll make up my mind on my own, though.
However, I am not comfortable with the fact that this crazy guy was such an integral part of Obama's life for the past 20 years. To say this relationship has had no effect on Obama's views would be a vulnerable statement.
But I just wanted your take on it. This will be interesting.
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: wright
These sound bytes are not what most of the sermons are like at the Church of Christ. Obama himself said he would walk out if he were there for some of the more controversial sermons. I don't understand why it shows better judgment to change churches just because you don't agree with all of the sermons. I am not sure how exactly people expect this to be addressed further.
I see strong judgment when he is faced by these pundits in the media and he does not hesitate to stand up and talk about it. I see strong judgment when Obama forms his opinion on a subject not by talking with those that agree with him, but those that disagree with him. I see strong judgment when he continues to stand by what he believes in even when it is unpopular in the media.
I know that Wright played a part in Obama's life. He is the one that helped introduce him to Christianity. But I do not think that, at all, implies that Obama is someone that secretly hates white people, America, and that his 11 years in public office are just a ploy to become president so he can finally destroy the country.
Obama has shown an impressive ability to get things done in office; passing lots of tough legislation by bring the sides together and opening up the government. He shares the same skills and characteristics that have made past presidents such as Lincoln, JFK, and Reagan great: A strong speaker and leader not afraid to take on the tough issues of our time.
I think the attacks that Obama has come under are just plain silly. First he was a Muslim, then he didn't love his country because he was didn't wear a flag pin, then he was not black enough, now he is too black and a radical Christian.
The real issues are being neglected: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration, healthcare, homeland security. These are issues where Obama shines. He has taken a stance on the issues that may not be perfect, but they are impressively reasonable, issues that most Americans can get behind and believe in.
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: RE: wright
I never thought he hated America and had a secret agenda to destroy it. I've never really met anyone who thought that, either. That's silly and ignorant.
But I would expect that if the COC continues to preach this ideological and false theology and doesn't have a significant change of heart, I can't imagine Obama would continue to associate with a place that endorses/doesn't retract hatred. I think we could both agree that would defeat his agenda of unification. I mean, if those sound bytes, as insignificant as you may feel they are, don't show how racist that guy was, then nothing will. The church continues to support him. What's in your heart eventually surfaces and therein lies the problem with Wright. But I will take Obama at his word.
And I absolutely think he should disassociate/leave a church that continues to preach this type of hatred now that he's aware of it. It's not a small deal. You must stand up for your convictions if you expect to be taken seriously as a Christian. Having been raised in church all my life, I can tell you my family left a church in Guam because the leadership has allowed things that we knew were wrong according to our faith. Perhaps Obama should've taken action earlier-years ago-when Wright would make controversial statements. Controversy isn't always a bad thing--Jesus was controversial for his time. But to be in an ordained position and say things that are anti-Biblical is a mistake. The church isn't a place to advance civil rights. It's a place to worship God. This brings to mind the scene where Jesus lashed out at the merchants in the temple for making a mockery of the place of worship by profiting from selling goods. Same idea: church isn't meant to promulgate humanistic agenda. The Bible is the ultimate authority. If my preacher preached anything out of context with the Bible, I would-and have--left pronto. Christianity is a full-time commitment.if you can't trust your pastor to interpret the Bible as you know it should be, then to stay under his guidance is a mistake as the trust has been broken. Although we should always search out what we are taught by our leaders, the congregation needs to be pretty sure we can count on what they say. If not, what's the point? As you can imagine, this is why the situation was so near to my heart as a born-again believer. Hopefully Obama will be more proactive about choosing his mentors in the future.
BTW, what are his plans on the economy? That is an area I have studied for years and have been researching the viability of candidates' plans. However, I have a hard time coming up with material to even assess him because he doesn't have concrete plans. "Helping the economy grow" and "providing better healthcare" is great and all, but words can only take you so far. Pragmatists don't care about speeches.we need evidence. And not just "I'll do this and that", but sensible approaches-not taxing an economy already in recession, etc. Once I see better plans, I will know he is a more qualified candidate. To Hillary's advantage (not that I support her by any stretch of the imagination), at least she has plans-although controversial. But A for effort for her at least.
And attacks will always be there no matter who you support. Obama and racism. Hillary and sexism. McCain and ageism.
And I don't think this event is a non-issue. Racism has been swept under the rug or dealt with by the wrong people. I'm actually glad he dealt with it. Too bad he's pro-choice.he might've had my vote, but that is where I draw the line. I can't abandon my moral conscience. That's a whole other debate though, how can a true "Christian" that follows the teachings of Christ be pro-choice? His claimed value system doesn't align up to his voting record on pro-choice issues.
But good discussion :-)
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Tue 3/18/2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: wright
I will try not to get drawn into a debate among religions too much. There are many variations in Christianity, what they take away from the Bible. I am not going to say anyone's church is wrong and another is right.
Some have used the Bible to justify slavery. The Church my Dad and Stepmother are members of in Savannah has broken away from the Episcopal Church because they allowed an openly gay bishop. My Grandfather (on my mother's side), who was a preacher, believes the bible teaches us that violence is never acceptable and that war is wrong, he abstained from World War II. Who is right?
Obama's 2006 speech on religion is amazing relevant to this conversation:
Video: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid353515028/bctid416343938
Transcript: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/index.php
Some write off Obama's skills as a speaker as empty rhetoric. But I think the opposite is true, I think he has by far the most detail of any of the campaigns.
I also consider myself pro-life, but I weight many other things when making my decision about a candidate.
My Dad's side of the family is conservative and my Mom's side is liberal and I have friends that have a variety of views all over the place. I actually wrote an email to most of them the other week on why I support Obama. I attached it rather than repeat most of the topics on why I like him. [Attached document is here: http://blog.johnvonhollen.com/2008/03/obama-all-american-choice.html ]
Yes, good conversation. :-)
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John (10100)
Subject: RE: wright
Good stuff. Yeah, I watched that video--all 45 minutes of it--when I still lived in Florida. Once again, as a believer who has a defined set of Biblical convictions, I was so disappointed that he agreed the innate Christian virtue of the right to life but since we live in a pluralistic society he could overlook his convictions. A Sunday-only Christian is a disappointment to me. I appreciate his caution to go to war...I wish he could have the fortitude to do what he knew is right as far as the abortion issue. Also, I know his church to have very different views on social issues than what I believe--stark differences that cannot be supported with the Bible.
But I do whole-heartedly believe I can know what is right and who is wrong if you search and are courageous enough to speak up and stick to your beliefs. If I didn't feel that I was right on some aspect of my beliefs, I would continue to search until I felt I was certain. I am not a moral relativist. I believe in absolutes.
It sounds like your family has very diverse views. All I can do is tell you my experience; I feel it's important to know exactly where one stands on issues before situations come up where you have to make these types of decisions (ie Daniel in th Bible "purposed" in his heart to do what was right--awesome story!). But of course all that comes as a natural progression of a relationship with Christ. My convictions come about though constant prayer and studying the Bible. Anyways, I'm sure it's an overwhelming topic if you're not used to it, but if you have any questions I am always open to questions and, of course, non-judgemental. My boyfriend and I have been visiting a non-denominational church in [cut] and I think the pastor is very understandable and practical. If you'd like to join us one Sunday, we'd love to have you come. Above all, the most important question isn't who will be president but who you put your trust in for eternity. Anyways, this certainly is a huge departure from our original topic, but it's important to me that my friends know who inspires me--I know who inspires you!
Anyways, I understand the moral issues aren't the be-all, end-all of decision making but for me it tips the scales. I don't agree with Obama's other ideas regarding foreign policy, especially his willingness to meet with hostile nation officials without preconditions. I think that's dangerous. Things like that and others bother me. So I guess we can agree to disagree, no problem.
Take care,
[cut]
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: wright
Thank you for the offer. But I am very happy with my relationship with God. One of the main things that it has helped me with in my life is understanding and respect for the varieties of different views that I have encountered.
On the issue of abortion, which has become a strong polarizing issue, I failed to find a literal passage that directly condemned abortion. But I took the lessons that I learned and meditated and prayed and came to consider myself pro-life based on those values. Life is valuable especially our children and un-born children are still our sons and daughters.
I think the First Amendment serves an important purpose. It protects the church from the states, and the state from the church. It gives you the freedom to find the church that applies to your beliefs, instead of a nationally controlled church. But in turn our laws apply to all of us therefore cannot be written solely based an individuals church but they must take those beliefs and define them for our broader society.
Abortion is hardly the only moral issue. I think practically all issues should be based in your beliefs. On Obama's foreign policy, my beliefs have taught me to show compassion towards my enemies. I think if we continue to shun them it will only cause more problems. What sort pre-conditions must be met in order to allow a nation to talk with us?
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: RE: wright
Good to know that you're also a believer. But the offer is still open to you and all friends if you'd like to visit [cut] Church with us.
I would agree with you there's no literal passage of ant-abortion condemnation besides though shalt not kill, but of course it is an inferential conviction to us who have a broader understanding of the Bible. This is why I don't, and hate it when other Christians do--judge non-believers for being pro-abortion if they happen to be-we don't come from the same point of view and shouldn't expect others to see things the way we do. But I would expect that people that other believers (Obama) would match up words to actions.
The Constitution never talks about a separation of church and state, but rather the freedom of religion and its unprohibited exercise. I wouldn't say I would ever support the notion that Christianity should become the national religion, but I don't think it's fair to say to act/vote based on one's beliefs and morals (which are usually formed by one's religion) somehow violates the separation between church and state. They are fundamentally linked. To me, if the politician isn't using his own values and morals to make decisions, he is by default basing his decisions on other peoples morals and judgments (ie the popular, or as you called it, "broader society"). Values and morals are an excellent means of basing rules and laws. Who would argue that killing or stealing is wrong since it's based on a certain moral code? I feel it's dangerous to say morality is relative and we cannot truly use our judgment to make decisions based on individual morality (which more than likely stem from religious beliefs). It's dangerous because in the end, there is no "real" right or wrong.
However, I can see where you're coming from. If your grandfather were president and as a pacifist didn't take defensive action against terrorists due to his personal beliefs and morals (and I stress, morals are very personal and individual for every single person), I would guess the whole of America wouldn't be satisfied. If my pastor's morals allowed him to feel it was acceptable to have an openly gay associate pastor, it would conflict with my set of morals.
The bottom line is that everyone's morals and values differ to an extent based on environment, life experiences, culture, etc. Party lines and candidate decisions are based on economic, fiscal, social, and other types of morals. And we choose whom we identify with most-to your point. The differences in opinion of supporting McCain vs. Obama come from our differences in values and the way in which we prioritize them. For some, its strictly economic, for others its moral. For me, it's a lot of things, but again, I'm disheartened when fellow "Christians" abandon their beliefs to be acceptable to the broader public. To me, it's a sellout or a front to get more votes.
I agree with you regarding compassion to our enemies, just as Jesus taught, but of course, there needs to be consequences for actions. I'm sure we can agree on that. I feel comfortable knowing Obama intends to move the was to Afghanistan. However, I feel McCain has more experience in this arena, hands down.
Ok, so I typed this up in 5 mins and have to go to a meeting. I think I still need to answer your questions about pre-conditions. I will when I get back.
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: RE: wright
Ok, real quick:
* Preconditions mean that some sort of change will have been made before a meeting will take place. We generally place preconditions on hostile leaders for obvious reasons. For example, before we would meet with Chavez or Castro, or Ahmed-whatever, we would ask to show proof of policy changes that their citizens are granted certain human rights, or that the enrichment of uranium would stop for our national security.
* Our position as world leader enables us to use this as a tool for negotiations. Of course liberals will say it's arrogant and it hasn't worked, but they are also the sort of people who think having a tea party and chat session will eventually change the points of view of guys like Iran's president or Chavez-let's be honest--if you believe that you'll believe anything.
* Preconditions are critical with hostile leaders are a means of earning the rights to gain access-we consider Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. as hostile for a reason-as a sign of good faith to us, preconditions prove they are willing to change whether it regard human rights, etc. I understand the whole point of preconditions negate the need for negotiations since the US would have already had its way it preconditions were met before the meeting. However, preconditions don't mean a total change of hostile nation's policies, it's a starting point that shows good faith that will lead to a working relationship.
* As US-centric as this sounds, it is quite a privilege to meet with the most powerful country. The status can't be given to leaders who oppress people/are a threat to the US. In my mind it's not a matter of arrogance. A lot of countries hate us because we are a superpower and have high standards of foreign policy, but we earned it! Humbly but sincerely we have definitely earned the right to call these shots.
* It's pure politics and diplomacy. It's the case not just for us but for our allies as well.
* Innovation in foreign policy runs the risk of breaking down and denigrating our negotiation status.
* Claims to speak to hostile leaders w/o pre's is a statement which proves political inexperience on a macro level.
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: wright
Yes, the First Amendment does not directly use "separation of church and state" directly, nor did I. But it was directly used by the founding fathers and by generations of court rulings.
McCain is also guilty of playing politics on abortion; he has reversed his stance on Row v. Wade.
McCain is defiantly an American hero from a line of American heroes. His book is a great testament to that, and a great read. I think McCain would be a good leader, and I would still support him over Hillary. But I do not think he is the best candidate this cycle. He has shown little understanding on many critical subjects including the economy and the Middle East. He often misstates points such as confusing Sunni, Shia, and Iran's ties to Al Qaeda.
Also, I also am not a fan stereotyping "conservatives" and "liberals". I have met far too many people to know that those stereotypes rarely uniformly apply. The words are often distorted and manipulated.
We may have to agree to disagree on pre-conditions. Try to empathize with the other situation. What if China calls in its loans on the U.S. Government, crashes the US economy, and takes the role as the main super-power? Should we humbly submit ourselves to their wishes just for the honor to negotiate with them? These preconditions can only hurt relations. I think Obama's stance is more a sign of maturity. "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate" -JFK
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John (10100)
Subject: RE: wright
I don't ever see China making such a move since it's not in their best interests. They need us much more than that are they are pretty cooperative. That's similar to Obama wanting to be prez to ultimately take down the country. The preconditions for meetings towards hostile nations don't require hypothetical scenarios. It only applies to a handful of countries/leaders whose reputations are indisputable.
How can it be reasonable to assume negotiation without preconditions would be successful with irrational and radical guys like Chavez, Ahmenadijab (?sp), Kim, or Chavez? To me, expecting that these guys have the capacity to cooperate without concessions sounds noble, but in reality it's a naïve assumption.
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: wright
We have already had to back down on some of our stances toward China about artificially manipulating their exchange rate last year due to threats. But I agree, it is not that likely, it would hurt the world economy too.
The point of that exercise was to try to get you to view the situation from other points of view. If you lived in Iran under Ahmadinejad would your view of the U.S. not be changed by the demand for preconditions? If the U.S. was willing to negotiate and Ahmadinejad was just playing games, who would you think better of? Who would the world think was more mature?
I am curious, which handful of countries has earned the ability to demand these preconditions? Which countries are they allowed to use them on? You think these guys are more or less likely to cooperate at negotiates if we give them preconditions? I know you have stated that "liberals" can give plenty of examples of where these preconditions have failed, in what situations do you believe they have succeeded?
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John (10100)
Subject: RE: wright
Hmmm.where are you getting you info on these threats from China? Its currency management has always been an issue--understandably so as it does in fact manage its currency (although it has appreciated as recently). We have always been in talks with them but have never received threats from them. At least not threats that were significant enough to make the news as I have never heard about it.and I keep a pretty close eye on economic current events. If you have any sources, I would be interested to see them.
I understood the point of the exercise. I understand how oppressed citizens could be angered by US foreign policy, but understanding their anger doesn't mean meeting without preconditions would lead to results. I'm curious if you've ever studied the backgrounds of Castro, Chavez, Kim, etc. If these guys were halfway reasonable, I could see your point better.
Preconditions are objective-oriented. And the risk of losing influence in order to seem more mature is a risk I'm not comfortable with, once again considering the types of folks we're talking about. I don't feel the need to prove to the world that we are more noble than oppressive world leaders. Liberals (and yes, I call it like I see it because they generally think this way) that support the notion that we must always bend to win some geopolitical popularity contest and would sacrifice the US reputation and status as figurehead don't fully understand the caliber of leaders they wish to deal with.
The handful of countries I was referring to were the leaders of the hostile nations we've been talking about. Since we tend to meet with cooperative countries that don't have hostile leadership, we don't require preconditions like we do from Cuba, Venezuela, NK, Syria, Iran, perhaps Russia in the future. Their reputations are "indisputable" as far as hostility is concerned/it is generally known by most countries that these guys need to straighten up for the world to be a better place.
So to answer your question of whether or not I think these guys would be more willing to cooperate with preconditions, let me ask you if this: if they aren't willing to provide concessions, why would you think they would cooperate without preconditions? Any situations you can recall outside of the US where meeting w/o pre's has worked? I'd really like to believe it would work, and between rational people like you and me, it would, but that's not the case here.
The UN has placed preconditions on East Timor for their human rights violations and although progress has been made, there are still ongoing efforts. Egypt recognized that it needed to have better ties with Israel for its own economic development, thus strengthening its ties with the US. Now it is the 2nd largest recipient of US military aid besides Israel.
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: Wright
Yes, I was being somewhat sensationalist when I called it a threat. It has never been directly threatened in public negotiations, but it is a factor: http://www.currencytrading.net/2007/how-china-could-crash-the-us-dollar-on-a-whim/ We did end up backing down, and China still keeps its currency artificially pegged.
Regardless of how unreasonable these leaders are, preconditions will not make them more likely to work with us on negotiations. How do we lose influence by not asking for preconditions?
And we are talking about two parts related to "preconditions". 1. That a presidential visit should be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. 2. That asking one side to make an initial concession will benefit negotiations.
1. I don't think any of our enemies truly place that much value in a presidential visit to concede anything of significance.
2. I agree that this can be used effectively sometimes. If the weaker side really wants to negotiate, they may in effect trade something just to get to the table. But if they are not particularly inclined to negotiate, as I would say is the case with most of the counties we are talking about, I think they will be a lot less likely to negotiate.
The examples you give do not involve trading for a presidential visit, and yes one side must often take a first step of conceding something to help spur negotiations. And I think the later situation is far more common than a side making demands. Israel- Palestine negotiation rarely started up with demands, the Paris Peace process.
Let me bring the conversation full circle.
I get a kick out of watching the ridicules things people say on the news too. But I have been thinking and I am still trying to understand why the Wright thing was such a political issue.
Let's assume that Obama and the other members of his church, black and white, are wrong and Wright's sound bytes represent some of his core beliefs. That Wright is racist toward white people and he thinks that America is evil. And even though accounts have Obama missing the most controversial sermons given by Wright lets assume Obama heard them, as he obviously has at this point.
So you have suggested that this shows bad judgment on Obama's part. And that these sermons have affected his views.
Why is it bad judgment? Because he cannot trust himself to be around people with different views without them negatively affecting his own? Or that he should have lived his whole life concerned of media scrutiny, disowning anyone close to him that has said something controversial?
Which of his views do you think it has affected? You have already said that you don't think this means Obama is a racist or Anti-American. I agree. Do you think he has had a negative impact on his economic policy or some other issue? Why can we not find issue with that view instead of Wright?
Now in this controversy Obama has shown himself to be the most presidential. He gave a speech that received praise in the media across the nation (but they are all "liberal elites" like the National Review right?). His speech is brutally honest, and he takes the issue of racism straight to its core. He is able to empathize with both sides. Obama shows loyalty and integrity by only denouncing the remarks but not his pastor and the black community.
I suppose these a president that shows this level of honesty, integrity, empathy could just be written off as naïve idealism. But holding to these morals, even when it is easy to make your problems go away by caving to the media and disowning someone close to you, is what is most important to me. Why should I care about the rest of the issues if you lack moral values?
But let's cast this naïve idealism aside. Do you really think we can trust another Republican candidate to control government spending? Or correct a tax policy that results in Warren Buffet to be in a lower tax bracket than his secretary that makes $30k? Or quit wasting money and lives in Iraq, where the Al Qaeda presence has only increased with the resentment towards the U.S., to focus on Afghanistan and homeland security? Or reverse an irresponsible fiscal policy that Alan Greenspan (his book is a surprisingly good read btw) confirms will hurt the economy in the long run?
But I suppose it is naïve to hope for "conservatives" to back fiscal conservatism, just as "liberals" have their conservative ties to their "smoke filled rooms."
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: RE: Wright
I'm familiar with the issues/potential problems that could arise because of China. It's been an area of interest of mine for a few years now, but don't let it freak you out too bad. Truth is, China wants to be a big player, and they depend on us just as much as we depend on them. But of course they don't want to be bullied. They're generally cooperative economically speaking. With our economy in such a weak position it won't be likely we can strong-arm too many countries for the time-being. It's an interesting situation not only economically but get this: when I was in grad school, my classmates were air force academy pilots who admitted that their drills and daily flights were not in preparation not for N Korea, Iran.but China. China will be something to keep an eye on, that's for sure. It's GDP is projected to pass the US' in the next 8-10 years if they continue to manage their currency and grow as much as they are right now. Luckily, China has allowed somewhat of an appreciation of the yuan. The WTO is still working on the currency situation.
As far as preconditions, I'm afraid we'd be going in circles if we continue to debate it.we can move on to nafta, universal healthcare, or the recession if you'd like :-)
And I agree Obama's speech was good-I'm glad he made it. My only deal with Wright is that he was a chosen mentor (teacher) by Obama. You can't choose your haircolor, but you can choose your mentor. I highly doubt his racist views affected Obama's economic policy since it was probably more of a spiritual relationship. Either he kept a blind eye but knew of Wright's radical views, or isn't as active a member of the church as he'd like everyone else to think in hopes of getting more votes for Christian conservatives on the fence. My deal is this: Obama is a unifier, correct? Wright is not. He is the antithesis. A continued association will either the church or Wright, who have yet to apologize, is confusing to this image Obama wants to keep. If that's not clear, I can't explain it any other way. That's how my logic works. But then again, I'm just a "typical white person" as Obama calls us.he really is confusing me. And what's up with his campaign releasing the photo of Wright and Bill Clinton? I don't get the message he's trying to give with that. That was a weird move.
And yes, the current administration has squandered many things-where to begin. Who in their right mind can argue that? My ideal candidate: the charisma of Obama with the experience of Colin Powell with a doctorate in economics. Ha! I guess the only good thing that comes to mind with Bush is that he put some excellent justices into the supreme court.
But I think we both agree that it's time some sense of honor is restored to the office. We just have different means to an end. But don't forget to keep things in perspective with Obama. People follow and trust him to a fault as if he's the political equivalent of the Messiah. Halle Berry said she would get on her hands and knees to clear the way for him. The Obama camp is getting a bit cult-ish to me. Transformational, charismatic leaders tend to be most effective and gain the most power when citizens are discouraged, which is the case in America right now. But I encourage you to be cautiously optimistic and not take everything he says as gospel as you should with any candidate. Just approach his plans with common sense to avoid "groupthink" and I think you'll be fine. The same could be said for Ron Paul followers as well as hard core Bush fanatics..
And Alan Greenspan, bless his heart, in my opinion, misses the spotlight but needs to shut up and let Bernanke do his job.perhaps if Greenspan had tried harder to communicate to Congress the need for banking regulations when the housing bubble was in its hey-day while he was still in office, maybe Bernanke wouldn't have to clean up the mess.
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:56 PM
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: Wright
Yea, China is moving up. I saw how hard working and smart they were when I visited last summer. There is no denying that both countries are training for a war between us just in case. As I am sure there will be some power struggles between us to be global powers. Both us and the Chinese students talked how we would be proud to serve our nation if it were in a time of need. But we all became great friends, as I am sure the U.S. and China can become close allies. Regardless, it is very dangerous for us to be on such weak footing.
I will agree that all this media hype around Wright will not work in Obama's benefit as some may be confused by the messages coming from the media. But people will realize that racism and hate are not the core values of Trinity COC even if its former preacher gave reckless sermons. But I think Obama has continued to show his strength regarding the issue. And I think he will recover and continue to gain support as people learn more about him on more substantive issues, both moral and logical.
On NAFTA, I think he has a good policy. Free trade is obviously necessary for our nation to prosper. But we need to amend NAFTA so those goods that are brought in to the U.S. are made with the same safety and environmental standards that are enforced if they were made here. This levels the playing field and gives Americans the ability to compete for more jobs, ensures the products we buy are safe, and it has the added bonus of spreading worker safety and a responsible environmental policy abroad.
On Healthcare, I am sure you will agree some changes need to be made. The US ranks somewhere from 37th to 72nd in Healthcare quality (depending on what statistic you look at: World Health Organization rank, life expectancy, infant mortality, preventable deaths, ect). The one place we do place #1 is healthcare spending. Both France and Canada, where basically all healthcare spending is done by the government and many call it a bloated inefficient bureaucracy, is spending less per person than the U.S. government. Yes, U.S. government, once you factor in private healthcare expenses in the U.S. we are almost out of the park.
So what do we do about it? I have been very impressed with Obama's plan. He wants to help get healthcare to everybody. So he will set up a government insurance plans that will compete with free market plans. For most Americans regular insurance would likely still be more competitive as part of the plan from their employer. Obama even wants to set up a "National Health Insurance Exchange" that will help Americans shop for the best Insurance, setting up a new market for Americans.
While I agree it is not perfect and I can find issues with it, it is the best I have heard this election cycle. Hillary wants to put price controls and mandates in place that will garnish your wages if you do not buy into her plan. And McCain's is little more than a symbolic plan that will offer tax incentives.
On the recession, I think the president has little direct control over the short-term effects of the economy. But some seem to feel the urge to explain the fact that in our life time Republicans has reigned over a lack-luster economy while Democrats have reigned over the longest period of growth in U.S. history since WWII as some time-delay in Reagan policies (Which, I agree, that Reagan was probably the best president in our lifetime). But we can see a direct impact in the short term on our national debt. Doubts on the U.S. ability to back its own loans and currency could be disastrous. Why the likelihood may not be all that high, the consequences would be a crash in the world economy that could be more devastating than anything in world history. And Bush Jr. and Sr. have borrowed more money than the rest of the presidents in the history of the country combined. The logic of giving tax breaks to the rich has failed too.
I am glad we both agree that Bush has run a very bad administration. And while I like McCain, he will not change Bush's failed policies on taxes, Iraq, and he fails to seriously address others such as healthcare.
I think the next president is going to face huge challenges that that best policies may only be able to lessen. And Obama is not perfect, I would love to see a degree in economics too. Some more years around Washington could help, as long as the do not compromise their integrity as seems to happen too often. I think there may be a correlation between less time in Washington and a better president. Obama has spent over 11 years in public office more than many of the candidates (Including Hillary). But I do agree a "Colin Powell" level of experience would be nice plus.
But one thing that I really like about Obama that is hard to quantify is his approach to solving problems. He takes an interest in both sides. He is not afraid to admit mistakes and fix them. It applies to his approach to basically all issues. He may not have a degree in economics but he will surround himself with the best people and work out the problems together.
Obama has gained a "cult-like" following. I think we have seen that with great presidents in the past: Reagan, JFK, Washington. I would even say it is a characteristic of a great leader. But I still make an effort to stay un-bias about it myself.
And yes, I am sure Greenspan misses the spotlight (as does Bill C), and his defense that he had little control over long-term rates falls flat when you consider that most of the problem lies with adjustable rate mortgages. Greenspan did not run a flawless term in the Fed. But few would argue he has not been one of the most successful in its history.
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: RE: Wright
Would I be taking things out of context if it bothers me that Obama generalized folks with his 'typical white person' comment? And I'm sure racism isn't a core value, but since it's a church I don't think it's unfounded to want it to repudiate statements that were made by a former pastor. I think what Obama said was pretty racist, seeing as how if I called someone a 'typical black person' I would also be a racist. I haven't met a typical white person, that's for sure.
I don't think it's necessarily a dangerous position to be in as we are economically. It's all natural and part of the business cycle. We'll spring back eventually, then go back down.
On healthcare, yes, something needs to be done. I detest Hillary's plan, and I am not convinced Obama's can be considered universal since he has no enforcing mechanism. Yes, she will garnish wages. I actually blogged about this issue and its economic impact. I blog about economic issues on myspace so my friends can have a good basic understanding about these issues. I'll attach it if you'd like to see my thoughts on this. [See below for attached] The answer is not to have a government takeover, but to create a more conducive market environment for competition to correct the problem. This is McCain's (conservative) approach. My only concern is that he-or any other candidate--will not make it a priority once in office. I do not feel adding the extra tax burden on the citizens is smart, especially when things are about to tighten up even more. Less government, not more governmental expansion!
The correlation between the time spent in office and leadership abilities is kinda like making me managing director starting Monday. I'm definitely not ready and the company would definitely lose clients and its reputation as an industry leader once the clients realize I don't have the experience for the position. But, yeah, I guess they could take a chance on me. The argument that Obama would surround himself with experts to have a better chance of making the right choices is a better one and my saving grace if he gets elected.
Yes, all great leaders had a following, but so did the crazies like Hitler, Stalin, and Jim Jones. As long as I don't say something as weird as Halle Berry, I think I'm ok.
Greenspan is definitely a great intellect, no doubt. I just wish he had more of a sense of urgency for the "irrational exuberance". But his deal is that he feels it's not the Fed's responsibility to burst any bubbles but to react to them. I don't know that creating a sense of urgency within Congress via educating them on the consequences would have hurt.
I don't think an administration has too much leverage in the economy it either inherited or is currently in charge of. If you'd like to see my blog on the recession, just let me know. For now, I think universal healthcare will be enough.
________________________________
[Attached Document]
Universal Healthcare's taken a backseat to issues such as the war, immigration, and the economy in the tight Democratic race. I personally don't feel that McCain is capitalizing on the program's weaknesses, so I will. Here's how universal care will work under Hillary's plan. Obama's is discussed in comparison at the end. Let's see how a vote for Hillary or Obama will affect you:
Hillary's plan will require coverage for every legal citizen. However, YOU will be required to pay for it (if your company doesn't already). As she just disclosed a few weeks ago, her enforcing mechanism would include garnishing wages. Plus, you have no choice. You cannot decline it. Sort of like FICA taxes or state income taxes on your pay stub. Healthcare would be a huge beauracratic mess with more governmental control because they're the ones operating this whole process of compliance. It's sort of like a government takeover of the health-care market. What does this mean for you as an uninsured, low-to-middle class working American? Your wages will be diverted from more pressing needs towards coverage whose price and quality you can't control. And if it's your employer who gets stuck with the bill, the increased costs will ultimately get passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices of goods and services. Just imagine the inflationary pressures caused by the passage of universal healthcare while your wages remain about the same.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention—worst case scenario--since she's a socialist (universal coverage is a socialist standard) and you as a voter empower her to put similar programs in place while she's in office, let's pretend the whole time you're continuing to be a productive citizen working super-duper hard and finally make it to the upper echelons of income-earners. Well, that's not fair to the less fortunate. The gap is closed by taxing you more to subsidize socialist programs that make the less fortunate more fortunate. So then what's the point of working hard to get ahead? None and you won't. Fun fact: socialistic societies aren't the most productive or innovative either because there's no incentive to compete. In Denmark, you would consider your salary competitive if you make the equivalent of 2 cents more than your neighbor. That's because the government distributes the money from the more wealthy and essentially gives it to the poorer (think Venezuela—they're in the process of socialization by Chavez as we speak). Over time, no one makes any more income than the other. I bet the celebs didn't realize THAT when they endorsed Hillary or Obama! And what has Denmark done for you lately? Exactly. On the bright side, no one's really destitute over there but a whole lotta people are complacent! Take away economic incentive to get ahead and you have Denmark (hopefully with milder winters). No more motivation to discover life-saving medicines or other ground breaking discoveries because there's no rewarding financial pay-off. Competition is the lifeblood of capitalism. (A word of caution: being a capitalist is beginning to be equated with the evils of communism. Ask a euro-centric citizen or sympathizer and they will be happy to tell you American greed, ie capitalism, is the root of all that is wrong in the world, even global warming). Anyways, keep that in mind when you vote for a socialist or use it as reinforcement when you vote for a capitalist Republican. However, I'm getting off-point of universal care (but I can do that because it's my blog)…
Businessweek ran an article on the world happiest countries (which is an entirely different topic!) and cited Denmark as number 1 with Norway and Sweden being in the top 10 (as part-Swede, I can honestly tell you I've never met a happy Swede. It's kind of like saying there are happy Russians). Forgetting to mention the fact that suicide and alcoholism rates tend to be extremely high in these countries, the author went on to inform me that the criteria to be "happy" includes high literacy and low unemployment rates, and (dum, dum, dummmm….) universal healthcare.
Let's do a study on a micro level so that you can see for yourself what happens when the government mandates coverage. Surprisingly, Mitt Romney mandated universal coverage for all Massachusetts residents while he was governor two years ago. What happened is that the demand for insurance was greater than the supply of coverage. What usually happens when demand is greater than supply is that prices increase in order to cover the cost of doing higher-volume business or the company will raise prices to manage the demand (put simply, if the company jacks up prices, less people will want to buy it, thus deceasing demand, which is fine for clothes or housing—you have other options—but it's a different question when you have no control). In Massachusetts, premium increases have increased 12% in '07, or double the national average of voluntary, non-required insurance premiums. The state is looking to spend $400 million or 85% more than originally anticipated in the coming year. And if you don't qualify for government help, which means you have to pay for it yourself, the cheapest plan for a couple in their 50's **before the premiums skyrocketed** was an annual $8,200. So unless this older couple in question got an exemption from the government, it was cheaper to just pay the penalty! Also for non compliance, you will lose your tax exemption. Does this make sense to you? The Wall Street Journal author of the article where I got this info called it legalized extortion. Then comes the price controls on insurance companies to "help out" the people who can't afford insurance. What's the next step? Poor quality and substandard care. I won't even go there. Hopefully you have all heard of the poorer quality of healthcare citizens in universal-care countries like Canada or France receive. BTW, the US ranks HIGHEST in terms of healthcare that is provided as well as contributions to medical breakthroughs—there's a reason why this stuff's expensive.
Let's go to France: if you lived in France, 30% of your paycheck would go to the healthcare pool, add in about $400/month for dental and eye plus a 45% deductible for non-life threatening illnesses. In the US, the part of your paycheck for most taxes altogether is about 18%. I personally had a Swedish boss who told me her parents absolutely love to go to Wal-Mart when they came to visit because things were so cheap. Although they had everything they absolutely needed in Sweden, they didn't have anything more or anything fancy because they were simply taxed to the nth degree. But they DID have universal coverage.
I worked with a Canadian expatriate who told me they would buy additional insurance in order to be able to choose the doctor they wanted since it took on average 2 weeks to see a doctor otherwise.
At least Barack Obama has wised up by admitting that he will not provide a mandate until premiums become more affordable because if people could afford insurance in the first place, they probably would already have it. It's nice he's only mandating it for children. Otherwise, under his plan, the choice is up to the individual. Wait…by definition, is this even universal coverage? The argument is that universal coverage will have an enforcing mechanism. Obama has not stated that he will enforce it. I personally wouldn't call my plan universal if it's not enforced, but that's just me.
Or you could take the best approach like McCain: allow markets to work and decrease governmental interference. You know this is my favorite. If market forces of competition are allowed to work without governmental interference or unnecessary regulation the problem may begin the get better.Here is a direct link to his plan on healthcare. Read it at your convenience: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
But this piece isn't to tell you how free markets work, it's to let you know that Hillary's healthcare plan starts an economic domino effect where everyone ultimately loses in some form. But remember I'm a compassionate conservative so I DO think the correct way to go about this is to make coverage more affordable by bringing the cost of healthcare down. It's not right that Americans die of treatable diseases when prevention and treatment are within reach. And I honestly think Dem's care about Americans, we just have polar opposite world-views of addressing the problem.
So let's review at a high-level:
· "Hillary-care" is socialist and is required. You pay for it.
· Obama's plan really isn't universal (but hey, has he really showed us any concrete plans on anything? Point for Hillary on this one.)
· Socialism limits the potential of the entrepreneur while the US champions the entrpereneur.
· Vote conservative.
Sources (these articles contain useful information whether or not you agree):
World's happiest countries: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/10/happiest_countries/index_01.htm?chan=rss_topSlideShows_ssi_5
Universal Healthcare:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119984199293776549.html?mod=sphere_ts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119966560507871097.html?mod=sphere_ts
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120173996744030445.html?mod=sphere_ts
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Fri 3/21/2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: Wright
Yes, Obama did imply that many white people of his grandmother's generation hold some racial prejudices. Good thing we have decided not to generalize people into labels in this conversation.
On healthcare, I think Clinton is passionate about healthcare, but I am not that much of a fan her plan either. I have issues with your attempts to link them together, and then try to criticize him for not having a plan and for not being true 'universal' healthcare which you despise. I am a big fan of market forces. I am curious what you think that McCain is going to do that is going to make healthcare so much more market oriented and solve healthcare. Are tax breaks (government incentives, artificially redistributing wealth) market forces?
But I think some form of regulation should exist in many places. I think the SEC serves an important role. Some markets have very high inelastic demand and benefit from more government regulation. Such as the market for personal safety, though there are some private companies that handle mall security and the such it is a market clearly dominated by government police and military. The market for healthcare is also very inelastic. And as the data I gave in my last reply supports: Countries that have more government involvement not only have higher healthcare quality but lower costs, in many cases significantly lower. But, I side with Obama; going to a single-payer system would be too drastic of a change.
But you also touch on tax policy briefly in your post too. Do you really think we should keep the Bush tax cuts intact as McCain does; a system where Warren Buffet is in a lower tax bracket than his secretary? I am all for money in my pocket, but do you not think the government should run a more balanced budget? Sure we may benefit if we ever make the big bucks, but do you think it is in the best interest of the country to tax the poor more than the rich?
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Fri 3/21/2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: RE: Wright
Ok, well I'm retiring this convo for the weekend. But, I think you're Obama-glowing by taking his racist comment and applying it only to the elderly. I took it as a major slip--more than likely one of those statements i'm supposed to ignore because he's so gosh-darned teriffic. It was a huge mistake to say that and Axelrod is pulling his hair out as we speak. For those who don't generalize, Obama's statements were 'just words", to me, someone who takes the freedom to generalize as often as common sense tells me--it was a racist statement and i personally take offense to it.
Obama does NOT have an enforcing mechanism, unless I missed the news in the past few weeks--I may have--I don't follow politics as much as the economy. It's just that me following the economy requires me to pay attention to the race right now. Otherwise I think all politicians are liars--it doesnt help if youre a lawyer, either. Anyways, back to the discussion...by him not having an enforcing mechanism--except for children, it cannot be called universal healthcare. It is merely another healthcare plan. And let's be honest: democrats may seem to champion less taxes, and i'm well aware of buffet's secretary tax situation which is apalling, but do you feel taxing the rich disproportionately MORE than the middle class is fair? Do you support wealth distribution in order to subsidize the less fortunate? I think we can agree that at the very least the gap between the rich and poor needs to narrow. But i don't think the answer is to heavily tax the rich and the corps--it will, in effect, take away the incentive that makes this country great.
And i must ask for your sources on these countries that subsidize healthcare for its citizens whose? On all accounts I've read, all foreigners I've personally met and talked to, the care is substandard and expensive. As i said in the blog, the QUALITY of healthcare that is received in the US is much higher than other socialist countries.
As far as tax, if you recall, Bush's platform in '04 was to simplify the tax code. Of course this never happened. I would like to see a fairer tax system, yes--absolutely. But it needs to be fair. Dems are off point in my view when it comes to taxes--why else do you think they are the party of the lower-to-middle class?
Have a good weekend.
ps--the link in the blog will take you to Mc's website explaining his ideas for healthcare.
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: Wright
Let me just make sure we are talking about the same quote:
"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."
That makes Obama racist? Suggesting that many Americans have different reactions to race? Do you really think many Americans do not react differently to race ( http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v94y2004i4p991-1013.html )?
Look Obama is not perfect, it is not going to help him that the media will be able to pull that sound byte out of context from his unscripted interview. And no, your are not suppose to "ignore" it but weight it against the many other things that he has said and done on the subject and place it in the context of the many critical issues in this election.
And yes, people generalize. I do, and I think it would be near impossible to find someone that does not. If Obama were to truly generalize he could have said "all white people." But I think you see, how even this incident can show, how generalization can work against you.
And before you get on the slippery slope of "just words"; remember that this whole Reverend Wright thing is "just words" he has never done anything to harm someone of another race or harm America. In fact, the opposite is true, he has helped out many people of all colors, and was in the Marines for many years.
You are being counter-productive in your argument on healthcare. I don't care about the definition of "universal healthcare." You are arguing the you "despise" universal healthcare, and then argue just as strongly that Obama's plan is not universal healthcare.
I have meet many people, including some good friends, from many other countries. Some have issues with the way some things are done there. Some have praises, but I try not to generalize my view on a country based on a limited points of view. I think the data usually gives a better picture.
As for America having the best "quality" healthcare in the world, how are you measuring that?
Life Expectancy?: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
Infant Mortality?: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Decline in preventable deaths?: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/1/58
World Health Organization rank?: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html
Doctors, nurses, hospital beds per capita?: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
Healthcare cost statistics in the U.S., take you pick: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
By the way, the data on the U.S. government spending (and private, and total spending) verse other nations is also in here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/2/38980580.pdf
Yes, I have read McCain's policies before. Please elaborate how those will fix these problems.
On taxes, let me ask you, why should we not have a tax policy that charges a flat, equal amount for each man, woman, and child in the country? Why would that not be the most "fair"? Maybe because many households in this country do not have enough discretionary income to afford that even if they spent it on nothing else but the taxes.
We should have a system that takes into account how much one could afford to pay. Do you not agree that many of the poor will have a very low percentage of discretionary income? Is it not fair to tax based on the ability to contribute?
So to answer your question: Yes, I think it is fair to tax the rich disproportionately more than the poor. You should be taxed based on your ability to pay. I don't think anyone is suggesting taking away incentives to earn money. If you earn more money, you will get to keep more money. If you don't work you will live in poverty.
You have a good weekend too, talk to you next week.
________________________________
From: [cut]
Sent: Sun 3/23/2008
To: Von Hollen, John
Subject: RE: Wright
I guess as far as Obama is concerned, we will drop the issues of race. No, I don't think he's a true racist--I think his pastor is, but I think Obama needs to watch his words carefully for people like me who are suspicious. No one knows too much about him since he's a relatively new player and I'm not as easily convinced as his loyal, eager followers. I haven't seen a politician than wasn't hypocritical so yes, I'm skeptical.
Yes, you are correct, I despise universal healthcare. Yes, I do not believe Obama's plan is technically universal, thus I don't despise it-as much. Maybe that will clear up some confusion since it appears you feel my argument is counterproductive. I never tied his plan as one that was truly "universal" since his plan, without an enforcing mechanism, is by definition, not universal. Yet I believe it is a terrible idea in the long term.
And if you will notice, I didn't say that the US has an overall better quality healthcare in the world, I said the healthcare that is given is of the highest quality. No other country has the innovation or made the technological or R&D advancements as the US-this is an undisputed fact. So if you DO have insurance and DO have access to healthcare, that is the quality I am referring to. As far as life expectancy and infant mortality, much of this is due to the fact that so many people are NOT covered and don't have access to quality healthcare. That is the point I was making. I think we can both agree that the system is in trouble, but it is feasible to argue that when healthcare becomes granted to all the level of quality will go down. It is a fact that right now hospitals are going bankrupt waiting for the government reimbursements for medicare and medicaid. I am working for a client right now (MedAssets) whose customers are hospitals-many of which are written off to bad debts at MedAassets because they can't stay liquid because they don't receive govt payment owed. Doctors respond to salary incentive and are paid according to specialty-thus there is incentive to provide the best healthcare to stay competitive. If we were to stop giving doctors and researchers incentive to be innovative than there would be no guarantee that the rest of the world would pick up the slack. Are you ok with that? This is the quandary of the healthcare crisis. The question isn't why or how everyone should be covered, it's how will the quality and care sustain itself? Another problem with having a lawyer as a president: its obvious he doesn't understand the financial impact of forcing employers to pay for healthcare if it doesn't already. This is econ 101.
So your links: france's healthcare system is highly ranked, but how many of their docs are performing complex, non-routine, highly revolutionary surgeries?? The US has the equivalant of 75% of France's population 47 million people without healthcare, which has to make regulating their system easier than with a more dense population. If you want to compare France to Nevada, I can deal with that. A real problem plaguing the US healthcare system is the insurance business. For some doctors, their malpractice insurance is in the 6 to 7 digit range a year. That forces the doctors to charge a premium. The greed of this country could be the biggest problem in the US healthcare system. You have to compare apples to apples here.
If I am not mistaken that poll ranks countries according to the percentage of people with medical insurance in that specific country. This ranking does not address the quality of healthcare actually received.
Also, undoubtedly, the flood of illegal immigrants that have entered the country in the last 2 decades contributes to the uninsured figures and even though the data shows newcomers aren't usually the most frequent visitors to the ER, the fact that the ones who do and are unable to pay are putting a strain on the system. This is also supported by my sister who is an ER nurse. Their hospital cannot turn away anyone. This, along with the lack of govt reimbursement for those who ARE qualified for subsidized care, creates a situation where the hospital, and many other hospitals, cannot sustain itself competitively! Any sort of subsidized govt care is simply a transfer of wealth from the younger to the older-the younger who do not tend to use their plan as much as others anyways.
I am confused by your mention of govt spending versus other countries: do you really think govt spending would decrease under either obama's or clinton's plan? If you feel that the govt can do a good job with healthcare just like it does for education, then I don't think these convos will be going anywhere J That being said, our system does have its problems, but I don't think that a Universal Healthcare system is the answer to those problems, especially since it would increase government and taxpayer costs.
How will McCain fix the problems? By not getting directly involved but by creating incentive for the market to fix itself.
As far as taxes-besides the buffet deal, are you trying to tell me that the poor in this country are paying too much in taxes? Hmmm..if you earn 30k or less and have a kid, you wont pay a dime in taxes but are actually given money back!! The rich already pay 35% in taxes vs 0% for the poorer. Give me stats that say the rich-and define rich and poor because this argument heavily relies on that--already don't pay a ton of money and then we can talk. What will the dems be happy with--50% taxes? What's the point of trying to get ahead/earn more? Just kill the incentive to try harder? In what universe does that make sense? A lot I guess if you're willing to give up the title of hardest-working, most innovative society. Perhaps Obama should run for president in a country already happy with socialism.
________________________________
From: Von Hollen, John
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008
To: [cut]
Subject: RE: Wright
Healthcare is not a normal good. The demand is way too inelastic, even close to perfectly inelastic. You cannot turn away “customers” who cannot pay. That is why all these hospitals are losing money, and then they turn around and close their ER to cut their losses and it reduces the supply of healthcare further. How exactly is McCain going to “create an incentive for the market to fix itself”?
We are the only industrialized country in the world with a privatized healthcare industry. We spend the most money of any country, not only total, but per person. You can slice and dice it by state or how ever you want, but you cannot deny it. And we have far from the best healthcare quality. I am sure we probably have some of the best individual hospitals and specializations, but I am interested the country as a whole. Try to find me a significant healthcare statistic, besides dollar amounts spent, that shows America has the best healthcare (I haven’t looked at everything, so I would actually be surprised if there is not something. I am just curious how significant it is).
It is clear that the current healthcare market is not functioning to do what we need it to do (ensure quality healthcare to as many Americans as possible for the lowest overall cost). If we could start from a blank slate it would be easy to go with a single payer universal healthcare system. But we need to do something; and garnishing the wages of those that do not buy insurance is not the answer (No wonder Hillary has the most campaign donations from the healthcare industry of any candidate, how great would it be if your product was required to be purchased under law with the threat of garnished wages?). Offering a very low cost competitor to other insurance companies is the start to fixing our problems. It is far from perfect, but it is a start. No, I do not think that Obama’s plan will lower government healthcare expenditures, it will raise them. But I do think it will lower overall healthcare costs because it will lower personal healthcare cost more than it will raise government costs.
On tax policy, let’s try some numbers. So a single parent with a kid earns $30K a year, or $2500 a month. Let say they managed to find somewhere a heck of a lot cheaper than were I live to raise their kid and pay $500/m for rent, $100 for utilities. $500 for food (I spend more than that just for myself, but lets say the parent does not eat much and baby food is cheap). They pay the national average $12,100 a year for their health insurance premium to cover the parent and the kid, or $1k a month (If only we had some system to help lower or cover that cost). And let’s even say that they are so healthy that they don’t ever have to go to the doctor or take a prescription and thus have no out of pocket cost. Say they got a cheap car and stretched their payments out (hooray debt!) to make it just $100 a month and they some how managed to get car insurance for $40/m. Lets say they drive less than the national average (Feds say 15k, lets say they do 12k miles/yr), lets say the get slightly better than average fuel economy: 25mpg, and lets say gas drops to $3/gal (even though it is expect to hit $4). That works out to $120 a month on gas (1k miles / 25mpg * $3).
