Coming Up: A Debate Between Klein and Malkin
October 10, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën
Well, maybe.
Ezra Klein has invited Michelle Malkin to debate him on S-chip. Ezra obviously supports expanding the program, Michelle doesn’t and - after being attacked by many bloggers after her ‘investigation’ of the Frost’s home - complained recently that liberal bloggers “wouldn’t know a good-faith argument if it bit them in the lip.”
The challenge:
So c’mon Michelle: Let’s debate health care. Prove to the world that you really want “a good-faith argument.” We can talk crowd-out, and cross-subsidization, and whether lower-middle class entrepreneurs are able to procure health care on the individual market. If this is a policy argument you care so deeply about as to travel to the Frost family’s house to see if they really deserved S-CHIP benefits, surely you’ll want to set up a web cam and talk through the issue.
It would be a fascinating debate, that’s for sure. Personally, I couldn’t possibly support the conservative blogosphere when they went after 12-year old Graeme, but I do believe that they have a good point when they point out that the expansion of S-chip would mean that it’s not just the poor who are helped, but also those who don’t need government assistance.
I’m wondering whether there will actually be an in-depth debate about this matter in the coming days, or whether both sides will just stick to alienating the other side. And yes, I wrote both sides because the Democrats aren’t innocent either. They purposefully used a 12-year old to further their agenda. They should’ve known - and probably did know - that their opponents would go after the boy and his family. Furthermore, even if nobody would’ve gone after Graeme, it still would’ve been a mistake to ask him to publicly defend the program: this was nothing but an appeal on people’s emotions. Politics isn’t the place for that.
The right-wing does NOT have a “good point when they point out that the expansion of S-chip would mean that it’s not just the poor who are helped, but also those who don’t need government assistance.” Health insurance is so expensive, and so necessary, that it makes perfect sense to expand coverage to children living far above the poverty line–because children living far above the poverty line may not have insurance otherwise.
And then you write of the Democrats’ tactics here, “this was nothing but an appeal on people’s emotions. Politics isn’t the place for that.” I have to ask you just what planet you live on. Politics has always been about passions, and always will be–it is a motivational argument, not an academic one.
Fine Will, then don’t complain when conservatives go after the Frosts. Emotions go both ways.
The point behind that criticism is, obviously, that ‘the middle class’ is able to pay for insurance. Just because they use government assistance when offered, doesn’t mean they need it.
By the way, you’re attitude is one of the reasons that politicians aren’t respected anymore. Long live the middle classization of society huh?
And the bigger issue about expansion of govt funded coverage to the middle class is that you can’t use a bandaid to stop the hemorrhage from an artery. The real problem is the affordability of health care and health insurance, and placating the lower middle class families who are currently struggling will take all pressure off of our politicians to actually repair the problem. Instead of a patch like this, quick surgery is needed to stop the bleeding (as in, tax relief for those families, allow people to purchase individual policies at same tax break they get for employer provided policies) and then get to work on the reasons that the arteries are rupturing (fraud, waste, undersupply of physicians and equipment, among many other factors).
In other words, help the families, but not in a way that delays the real solution instead of facing it head on. I think it’s no coincidence that the insurance company lobby is backing this expansion; they see the writing on the wall that something has to give, and this is the most acceptable to them because fundamentally little will change for them).
From Wikipedia:
Sounds good to me. Why shouldn’t we have your system here Michael? A child should not have to suffer for their parents financial situation or mistakes.
A debate between Malkin and Klein would be less than pointless.
Are either of them health care experts, experts on law, or even politicians? No. Both of them have done nothing but write opinion pieces for their careers. And Ezra Klein is only 23 years old, and he was an ordinary student in school (You can read more about his qualifications here).
Besides, even if they were experts, it’s unlikely that it would be a productive debate. Klein hates Malkin with an unhinged passion, and it’s unlikely Malkin likes him too much either.
The other problem is that it relies on a regressive tax to fund itself. While I support S-CHIP in theory (hell, give illegals some health care, I’m all for it), it depends on cigarette taxation to support itself.
So on one hand, government is advocating health coverage, while at the same time linking its programs to unhealthy, suicidal behavior. AND, the government spends tax dollars educating people against smoking!
Good government this is not.
Chris.
Great point.
Did the “socialized” health care destroy the Netherlands and turned them into Bulgaria ?
Also, while I have my issues with Klein, I would side with him on this one.
You provide for kids. Is the program going to be perfect? Not necessarily. But all of these things are half measures until we get a clue (trying to earn back some liberal cred here with Matt Stoller!) and move to a universal system.
Also, while I have my issues with Klein, I would side with him on this one..
I would side with having an actual debate/discussion on the issues involved. I don’t know that we’ll get that from either Klein or Malkin, though it would be nice to see. But they deserve to be heard on their actual arguments, not someone’s ad hominem rundown of Klein or Malkin as stupid wingbots. Or their own ongoing demonizations of the other side.
Chris: in fact, if it weren’t for the US our health care would be much more expensive or of a lower level. Why? innovation comes from the US. We follow your lead. Furthermore, have you ever read something about the debate here about waiting lists?
What Tully said. But, as he and I both can tell you, it’s very, very hard to get a solid debate going on about the specific merits of a proposed policy. The participants actually have to know some real facts about the policy, have to have done some research beyond just checking what other blogs are saying. And then it’s boring and nobody wants to read it.
Symbols, labels, and personal attacks, however, are quick and easy and fun to debate, because it’s all opinion, and everybody’s got one.
My point: our system isn’t perfect and if you would reform your system, you’ve got to realize that the quality offered will get less if for nothing else than because innovation won’t be encourages as much as it is right now. We all realize that in Europe.
I agree with Will here- just think of all of the emotional appeals that were recently aired on TV to save Bush’s surge. Was it any more unfair to use the families of soldiers who didn’t want their efforts to go to waste, than to use a 12 year old? I think not. But no one stalked those families.
Michael,
So you want us to keep subsidizing your healthcare, but you’re opposed to us subsidizing it for our own children?
But that’s really beside the point. A lot of healthcare innovation comes from government grants, not high prices for drugs or treatments. Case in point, pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice the amount of money on marketing as they do on research and development.
WTH does that have to do with it? “They do it too”? So what? Kim, it’s seriously time you realize that “they do it too” isn’t much of a defense.
Let me just ask you, if your friends (or enemies) jumped of a bridge… would you do too?
Michael, can you elaborate on what you think the “conservative blogosphere” has done wrong with the Graeme Frost issue? Certainly the tempers in comments on some blogs have gotten too hot and made it too personal, but I’m not sure how you have a real policy debate without getting down to brass tacks, which includes how the policy impacts real people.
When it comes to health care (and many other subjects), there is a general feeling among “conservatives” (speaking very broadly) that frankly a lot of people on government assistance, people who claim to be “needy” are, in fact, just making choices in life which leave them poorer than they could otherwise be. How do you have that debate without looking more closely at representative samples of the people who are receiving assistance?
It’s a pretty simple basic issue. If you want taxpayers to help pay for what YOU want, what YOU (or your family) consume, then taxpayers have some interest in looking into your affairs and judging whether you are actually deserving, or whether you are trying to get us to subsidize your life choices.
Remember your parents’ old adage, “as long you live under OUR house, you’ll live by OUR rules?” If people want taxpayers to pay for their stuff, then the taxpayers, just like daddy, have a right to see that you’re not squandering it on bar hopping and friviolities.
Pat: Malkin shouldn’t have visited their house. That’s just ridiculous. Especially since the intention wasn’t to find out what the truth was, or to get more info from them, but simply to find something that could be used against htem. That’s not journalism. That’s activism.
Chris: different countries have different cultures, different things work in different countries. We have reformed our health care system and I’m in favor of reforming it more so that the waiting lists disappear and we do more research. This means that more competition is necessary.
I’d like to point out something else (related to my last comment) as far as the issues are concerned.
Shouldn’t the so-called conservatives be fighting to end government grants for research to pharmaceutical companies? Seems like if you’re against socialized anything, and for free markets, that these sorts of grants are heretical.
Especially since the intention wasn’t to find out what the truth was, or to get more info from them, but simply to find something that could be used against htem. That’s not journalism. That’s activism.
Unfortunately, that all too often IS journalism (or what passes for it) as practiced in the US. The mike-in-the-face “How do you feel about your child’s gruesome murder?” school is a fairly well-grounded stereotype. Once someone is in the public eye, if there’s any audience share to be gained from them, the journos will do their best to supply it. One way or another.
I’m pretty sure that very few Americans are actually familiar with the the assorted European health-care systems, Michael. They just assume they’re all single-payer government systems. (I know they’re mostly not.)
I can’t agree with you there, Michael. “Finding something that could be used against them” is in fact part of finding out the truth. If a reporter did it, it would be called follow-up and thorough reporting. You acknowledge that the Democrats were wrong to use this 12 year old boy as a poster child, but there’s no way to unring that political bell without getting at the facts, and the facts in this case did not paint the family in the light the Democrats used them.
Had Malkin gone there and had a nasty, public confrontation with them, that would be inappropriate. But simply verifying for herself the claims being made is not, in my opinion.
Is that true, Michael, (the last part, that is)- do most Europeans realize this? I ask because this ALWAYS seems to come up in US conversations, where people who support a govt funded or single payer approach like to say “If it works in Europe, why not here?” which ignores the fact that you mention- it works (which varies- sometimes it works, other times not, and depends on what your standards are) only because the US doesn’t have the same system. If we move toward it, all the systems will suffer down the line.
Had Malkin gone there and had a nasty, public confrontation with them, that would be inappropriate.
It would be inappropriate–but might or might not be “activism.” And it would still be consistent with the less ethical but widely-used practices of modern journalism.
Most of the European systems aren’t single-payer, Christine. They’re government-mandated and regulated, but privately run using mandatory payroll taxes for financing. In fact, by some remarkable coincidence they bear a startling similarity to Hillary Clinton’s current proposal….
In any case, the original template for many of them was a German system begun in the 1880’s, under Emperor Wilhelm I.
OK, Tully, I get you…but my point wasn’t whether or not those systems are as people think they are. I’m just saying that the people who think they are, use the arguments that this provides an example that the US could follow but if you change the US system then you’d affect the way those systems work too.
If what you’re saying is correct (and I’m not doubting you), then they’re wrong on two counts because the systems they compare to aren’t what they think they are and then they’re ignoring the effects our current system has on the others.
Chris,
I’ve seen you make the arguments about R&D grants before but there’s never anything specific in what you’re arguing against. Are you proposing that we cut NIH grant funding?
President Bush encouraged 9 states to cover not only kids but their poor parents too under SCHIP when Republicans controlled congress. Now he’s cynically playing politics trying to look fiscally “responsible” by scuttling the whole program. It will cost Illinois alone an extra $75 million in Medicaid costs to push these adults, by far a more expensive program to both Illinois and federal taxpayers than SCHIP.
That makes no financial sense at all. Hopefully it will make no political sense either when the American people kick the Republican party to the curb next year.
Family of 4 earning up to 82.6k equals the 400% mark.Just thought ya’ll might want to know the levels of which people are at.
The “socialized” medicine systems of Europe. It’s great to debate the mandated fees,privatization and all that and claiming it isn’t the government. Facts beg to differ though. France educates it’s physicians who then in turn provide services. England is primarily all government. Switzerland is a good system. Mandates coverage on the people. I think people need to start wrapping their heads around the thought of being told by the government that YOU WILL SPEND YOUR MONEY !!. BTW I live in Massachusetts, Romneys health plan not Hils( where she got the idea)mmm ???
Back to post. this “debate” really lacks a point imo
Michael,
Why do you assume that the position the US holds as the leading innovater in the medical field is somehow based on, and dependent on the fact that 15% or so of the population lacks health insurance?
Do you really think that guaranteeing universal coverage must inevitably destroy the ability of the American medical community to innovate?
Umh, well, yes. And if you’re going to reform the system, it means that if you want to continue to be the leading innovator you’ve got to have a plan on how to do that. In other words “covering everyone” isn’t as simple as it seems to many. There’s also the part of innovation. How are you going to do that?
Also, and this has to be pointed out, I’m a conservative in the Netherlands so I tend to oppose all change or to at least remind people that caution is wise.
Why do you assume that the position the US holds as the leading innovater in the medical field is somehow based on, and dependent on the fact that 15% or so of the population lacks health insurance?
Do you really assume that, Michael, or were you answering the second question? Because I fail to see the linkage. I think the answer to the second question is debateable–a matter of how much in the way of resources is put into research and in what fashion, not the structure of the payments system.
I’m fine with letting the Netherlands do all the innovating as long as Americans can all have access to the healthcare they need.
the art of course is to have both things at the same time. That’s why we’re privatizing now and you’ll probably socialize more.
Like stem cell research?
Chris, the problem is that the “need” (demand) is unlimited, and the supply is not. That doesn’t change, no matter which system we use. All that changes is how its rationed and how efficiently it’s provided.
Michael,
Back in 2005, I did a couple of long posts on this subject you might be interested in.
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2005/02/great-divide-part-one.html
Medical research and development happens all over the world. It’s funded primarily by governments. Recent advances in stem-cell research are one of the most prominent examples of this. Another is the Pasteur Institute (government-funded) in France that discovered HIV in 1983.
Industry figures actually show that privatised medicine and the big companies that profit so hugely off it are the free riders, seeking profit from research funded by taxpayers by stepping in, buying and patenting innovations made using public grant money.
In actual fact, US Government expenditures accounted for 59.8% of total U.S. health care costs in 1999, according to a Harvard Medical School study published in the journal Health Affairs. At $2,604 per capita, US government spending was the highest of any nation - including those with national health insurance. Indeed, government health spending in the U.S. exceeded total health spending (government plus private) in every other country except Switzerland. (Estimated total U.S. health spending for 2002 was $5,427 per capita, with government’s share being $3,245.)
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a study author and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard, noted: “We pay the world’s highest health care taxes. But much of the money is squandered. The wealthy get tax breaks. And HMOs and drug companies pocket billions in profits at the taxpayers’ expense. But politicians claim we can’t afford universal coverage. Every other developed nation has national health insurance. We already pay for it, but we don’t get it.”
Dr. David Himmelstein, study co-author and a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, commented: “Our study shows that universal coverage is affordable - without a big tax increase. Government already spends nearly enough, but its spending it wrong. ”
Regards, C
#35 “Cernig” wrote:
There’s a reason for that, that no one is discussing here. The US has the most inefficient adversarially-based jackpot tort system in the world, and we use it an awful lot to sue everything connected to health care.
A heck of a lot of that annual spending goes toward malpractice insurance. settling lawsuits, attorneys on the hospital payroll, defensive medicine, suits against drug companies, etc (almost every popular drug on the market gets sued), you get the idea. Nursing homes are another cash cow for attorneys as well, if you count those as part of overall health care sosts (some studies do include nursing homes, and some don’t which can really skew the results).
What Tully said about supply/demand. And not only is supply not elastic enough, it’s actually rationed under our current system. Decades ago, decisions were made about how many physicians to train-and with our aging population and increased use of new technologies, even a lot of physicians groups now recognize that they grossly underestimated the number needed to meet the demand. When you add in the distributional problems (doctors choose where they want to practice, so a lot of areas are terribly underserved- I think Chicago is one of them if I’m not mistaken) and then think about how the supply will be affected if more people are put into the system on the demand side, and I think we have a recipe for disaster. Seems to me that prices will increase, not decrease, with universal coverage- unless we address the supply side.