The boys were upstairs for their nap, and I was struggling energy-wise in a bad way due to back to back 3AM school nights (drinking coffee right now at 11PM, so…). These days I like to get some work done while they’re asleep, but some days I have to just collapse and stare at something on TV. Being the hip guy that I am, that means CSPAN is on. Good debate on the Senate floor on the bill to up the cigarette tax in order to pay for health care for children. Republicans (Trent Lott began just as I turned it on) were bemoaning the cost of this program, basically settling in to the old groove they’ve been wearing out since the 80s, after leaping out of it while they controlled 100% of the spending for 6 straight years…anways, now they’re back to playing the part of Ebenezer Scrooge, and the notion that working parents should be provided assistance from the government to ensure their children have medical coverage is too much lunacy for them to abide.
Once again I’m woken up by Massachusetts speaking in response to something Scrooge-like…Ted Kennedy making this voter proud today, here’s a clip:
“My just listened to my friend, and he is my friend, from Mississippi (Senator Trent Lott) talking about the cost of this program. $60 billion over five years. That’s what we’re spending on five months in Iraq. What would the American people rather have?”
Blast from the (recent) past – Senator Kennedy on Republicans and the minimum wage:
Seems like such a fundamental thing. How can you argue that American children should be provided basic health care? I don’t mind my tax dollars going to that. I’m sure Mississippi kids would need it the most, since I’m pretty sure that state is among the poorest of the union.
From a conservative perspective the problem with this program is that it might work better than the private inurance that the wealthier kids and their parents have. In fact it is likely that it will work better as most private insurance companies have become so good at avoiding payment that in a many ways most of us are “uninsured”.
It will work as well as other programs, like airport security, post office, dept of motor vehicles. Lining up for stuff that you don’t need. And stuff still gets smuggled through, letters still get lost, and licensed drivers still drive stupidly.
I disagree. As underfunded as most government services have been, what we have now represents a much better bang for our buck than we’d get from a private company acting in its stead.
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: August 3, 2007
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 — The Senate defied President Bush on Thursday and passed a bipartisan bill that would provide health insurance for millions of children in low-income families.
The vote was 68 to 31. The majority was more than enough to overcome the veto repeatedly threatened by Mr. Bush. The White House said the bill “goes too far in federalizing health care.
I guess the other side of this bill is now all families can afford to medicate their children with things like ritalin and drugs that until now have only been “needed” by the the children of the upper middle class. Now that poor people can afford these kind of drugs, thanks to this program I bet the diagnosis of ADD and ADHD will increase dramiticaly in lower income groups. Until the U.S regulates big Pharma maybe being excluded from the health care system is not all bad.
I disagree. People flying (airline companies) and people driving (car companies) are better than Amtrak, which is heavily subsidized by the government. How many miles do you put up in planes and cars vs. trains guys?
caveat – are you arguing that in a single instance, where cars and airplanes outperform a mode of transportation that both of those two things replaced, we have proof that the private sector outperforms government 100% of the time?
That example is of apples and oranges first of all, and it excludes subways, commuter rails and other public transportation run by local and state governments that provide an enormous service to the taxpayers. When Southwest Airlines advertises a flight from Boston to Washington DC for 75 bucks, it makes a 200 dollar ticket by train a dumb decision to begin with.
Seriously, what other areas can you point to where the private sector provides a great cost/benefit ratio than the government? What I believe we are dealing with politically right now, is an ideology that resonated under Reagan that assumes the government is incapable of competing with the private sector. Honestly, when it comes to certain think tanks and Grover Norquist types, I don’t think that’s even a consideration, whether the public is getting more in return for the money it gives in taxes…with the mindset today, it seems as if there’s no reason at all to consider the actual details, but rather to assume that privitization is always the right answer.
I’d contend that there are various public services which, in order to remain viable and usefull to taxpayers, must not be integrated with the corporation, as by law (and rightly so) the corporation’s duty is to its own bottom line and the profits it generates for shareholders.
That inherently creates a conflict of interest that can’t be ignored. Certain government services must be mission-oriented with the public in mind first and foremost.
The ideology of those in favor of privitizing everything doesn’t address that fact. There’s a disconnect. I think it is this disconnect that is turning so many disasterous results involving the privatization of government into a natural argument against it going forward…or at least a considerable amount of analysis and OPEN contemplation on the part of our elected officials.
I am a strong believer that the government provides public goods, some of them better than the private sector. Transportation is not one of them.
Its like going into the department store and comparing the cosmetics for women to the cosmetics for men. Consumers overwhelmingly direct their dollars to fully priced private transportation goods and services, and only throw a few crumbs at public goods and services (most of which are subsidized).
It’s a simple matter of looking at the evidence, at the data. I appreciate and respect your advocacy, but that’s different from economics or other science.
Caveat.
I agree that the private sector seems to do a good job with long distance transportation of people, and the trucking industry handles packages well, of course the trucks are using public roads and the planes that transport most people are using public airports, so even the successful transportation industries seem to need public, ie government help.
Local mass transit seems to work best when it is subsidized, if you ever go to Vail Colorado it seems like you can get a bus at almost anytime that wil take you throughout the town or to other nearby towns, which is where most the employees live. This system is not only convinient but my guess is that it keeps traffic congestion to a minimum and makes the whole town a better place to live and makes it more tourist friendly as well. The same can be said of most urban areas, it is better to keep the price of mass transit artificially low to encourage use, as it seems to make the whole area better.
I spent a little bit of time in New York city recentely and even though the subways smell like urine they are very efficient at moving a lot of people throughout the city, and the trains to the surrounding burbs are almost pleasant. DC and its surrounding suburbs also seem to be well served by their mass transit system. Without these systems the cities would be a much more congested mess than they are, and far fewer people would be able to work in the cities while living in the suburbs.
In other words mass transit does make a lot of modern life possible, and it is unlikely that a private company could come in an make mass transit work better.
With all that said, the mass transit system where I live, Denver, really sucks and maybe they should give a go at privatizing as the system seems pretty lacking and it seems that all the busses jsut add to congestion.