Clinton's Right Response to Romney's "CEO President" Fantasy

The most ridiculous promise that Republican presidential candidates make every four years is the pledge to "run the country like a business."

The federal government is not a business. And those who have tried to run it as such -- like our current "CEO President" -- have confirmed the danger of confusing the two.

Yet, multi-millionaire candidate Mitt Romney is busy touting his business experience on the Republican campaign trail. Romney's radio ads refer to the federal government as "the largest enterprise in the world" and suggest that Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton is not up to managing it because, " She hasn't run a corner store."

Romney, on the other hand, declares himself to be prepared for the presidency because, "I've learned how to run a business."

Referencing that campaign theme, Clinton and Barack Obama were confronted with a "run-government-like-a-business" question during last night's Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles.

"Neither one of you (has) ever run a business," the inquiry began. "So why should either of you be elected to be CEO of the country?"

Obama finessed the question ably. "Let me just point out that Mitt Romney has not gotten a very good return on his investment during this presidential campaign," he responded, noting the Republican candidate's massive out-of-pocket spending on a campaign that so far has left Romney trailing the more modestly-funded John McCain. "I'm happy to take a look at my management style during the course of this last year and his. I think they compare very well."

That drew laughs and applause from the debate's friendly audience of Hollywood celebrities and Democratic hangers-on.

But Clinton drew much louder applause for a much better answer.

Instead of a defensive dodge, the senator from New York cut to the heart of the matter and delivered an answer that Democrats -- and responsible Republicans -- should commit to memory.

"I would, with all due respect, say that the United States government is much more than a business," Clinton began. "It is a trust. It is the most complicated organization, but it is not out to make a profit. It is out to help the American people. It is about (what we do) to stand up for our values and to do what we should at home and around the world to keep faith with who we are as a country. With all due respect, we have a president who basically ran as the 'CEO/MBA President' and look what we got! I am not too happy about the results."

The idea of running government like a business is as crazy as it is dangerous. Yet, for years, Democrats have failed to effectively counter Republican promises to apply corporate values to public duties.

Clinton's response was refreshing because it made no apologies for saying the corporate Republicans are wrong.

Democrats need a candidate who is prepared not just to ridicule the "MBA president" pitch for the silly spin that it is but to confront the lie that government should be run as a business.

By placing the issue in moral terms -- and framing the work of governing as a public trust rather than a race for profits -- Clinton indicated that she wants to treat Americans as citizens rather than customers. Whether Clinton or Obama is the Democratic nominee, that ought to be a central tenet of the party's fall campaign.

Comments (61)

1. Once again children, who controls the money...the President or Congress?

   Posted by ACook at 01/31/2008 @ 11:49pm

2. I guess Hillary knows the difference from all her days on board of Walmart.

   Posted by martincaver at 02/01/2008 @ 12:03am

3. well, good for her.

   does that mean she won't privatize the little that's left to privatize?

   Published on Saturday, November 16, 2002 by CommonDreams.org

   In U.S., Government Privatization Is Going Forward

   by Seth Sandronsky

   Government has many functions. One is to legitimize the class system, the heart of which is the job market. Against this backdrop, the Bush administration recently announced that it is planning to privatize up to 850,000 federal jobs.

   Supporters of the plan claim that government privatization is a good deal for the U.S. public. "This is inherent to getting the taxpayers the best deal for their dollars and the best service from the government," said Trent Duffy, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget in a Nov. 14 AP article.

   Some union leaders of federal workers bitterly denounced the plan as the administration paying back its corporate paymasters. Such criticism potentially questions the legitimacy of the system. Such legitimacy is an integral part of the political stability (a docile population of loyal consumers, not dissenters) that corporate America wants.

   http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1116-04.htm

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:04am

4. Social Security hysterics - Pres Clinton's proposal to privatize Social Security - Column

   Progressive, The, June, 1998

   Bill Clinton will go down in history as the gravedigger of the New Deal. In his first term, he interred welfare. Now he's preparing an adjoining plot for Social Security.

   In early April in Kansas City, Clinton held the first of what he says will be four public meetings around the country this year on Social Security. While he hasn't come out with a proposal yet, he signaled that he would entertain a whole range of changes to Social Security, including privatizing part of the system: letting workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market, instead of having the Social Security Administration invest those taxes in Treasury bills.

   Clinton is not the only Democrat singing the privatization tune. Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska, has been belting it out for some years now.

   Full privatization would be a dream come true for Wall Street investment houses, but for people who depend on Social Security for survival, it could be a nightmare. It would make their retirement savings vulnerable to stock-market dips. If there was a crash, or anything close to one, many people could see their savings wiped out.

   http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n6_v62/ai_20645726

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:05am

5. Clinton Proceeds With Plan To Privatize Security Checks

   By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

   Published: July 2, 1996

   The Clinton Administration is pressing ahead with a plan to transform background investigations of many Government employees into a profit-making business run by a newly created private company, despite protests from some members of Congress, Cabinet officials and investigators worried about confidentiality and security lapses.

   http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E3D71339F931A35754C0A 960958260

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:07am

6. Tax farming sows seed of discontent - Bill Clinton's support for private tax collection services - Column

   Insight on the News, March 28, 1994 by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

   The Clinton administration, believe it or not, wants to privatize a government function. No, not the mails, the parks or the highways. Showing an unexpected faith in capitalism, the administration is preparing legislation that would allow private business to collect unpaid taxes.

   Profit-driven private companies would, no doubt, do this more efficiently than lumbering government agencies. Even so, tax collection is one "service" that private enterprise should not provide. Or do we, for the first time in American history, want real robber barons?

   http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n13_v10/ai_14976264

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:12am

7. Clinton advisor defends Net privatisation

   Tags: Privatise, Ira Magaziner, Internet

   John Rendleman, ZDNet US ZDNet.co.uk

   Published: 05 Feb 1998 10:19 GMT

   WASHINGTON-With full recognition that the government is stepping into a minefield of controversy, President Clinton's top policy adviser on technological issues today said the administration has taken the wisest course in its plan to privatize management of key portions of the Internet.

   http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,2067586,00.htm

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:13am

8. this one's for you, fritzthecat:

   CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATION BLAMED FOR TODAY'S SOARING URANIUM PRICES

   Strathmore Minerals Consulting Geologist Explains Why Uranium Prices Should Continue Rising

   The Clinton-Gore "Swords to Plowshares" program may be the reason why uranium prices are shattering the 20-year highs.

   How long will the price squeeze continue? StockInterview's Andy Barrett continues his four-part interview with Wyoming legislator, David Miller, who is also an expert on uranium exploration and a consulting geologist to Strathmore Minerals (OTC Pinks: STHJF; Toronto Venture Exchange: STM). In this third interview, Mr. Miller blames the Clinton-Gore administration for privatizing the Department of Energy's enrichment program and creating a Wall Street IPO, the United States Enrichment Corporation (NYSE: USU). Mr. Miller said, "The Clinton-Gore administration took the enrichment part of the DOE and made a private corporation out of it. They made an IPO on Wall Street, I think in 1997, and also guaranteed a dividend. To fulfill that dividend, the DOE gave them 70 million pounds of what we call yellowcake, which is the finished mined product…The only way they could pay that dividend was to unload that yellowcake into the marketplace. The price of uranium at the time this occurred was $16. It immediately started going down. Spot uranium bottomed out about $7 about a year or two ago. They got rid of all that uranium. Since then, the price of uranium has been marching up."

   http://www.stockinterview.com/News/07062004/miller3.html

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:16am

9. Yeah, Hilary's the one to curb corporate influence in Washington. Right... With the uber-corporate lapdog Mark Penn scripting all her policy tactics. The guy's forte is making Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, the Military-Industrial Complex, and Union-Busters look like America's Saviors. So I guess his biggest professional challenge ever is dressing up the Big-Money-Addicted HilBill sow's ear as a Progressive, Populist silk purse.

   I can't wait to see who rents the Lincoln Bedroom THIS time around! Or was that embarassment too far back for the American electorate to remember?

   Posted by sjduskin at 02/01/2008 @ 12:21am

10. The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration.

    Like the Clinton administration, the Bush administration is relying heavily on private military companies to wage the war on drugs in South America.

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_365_01.html

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:21am

11. public trust.

    hmmmmmmmmm?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:21am

12. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 12:21am

    FZ, does Mother Jones mention the private military companies by name?

    Posted by ACook at 02/01/2008 @ 12:26am

13. When candidates campaign by citing their business background, most especially those w/entrepreneurial ground-up type of experience, they are NOT trying to equate Government w/Business in the way Dumbocrats think. What they mean is that they are better equipped to instill more responsiveness to the gov't or seek better processes.....to best cater to customers, YOU the PEOPLE, at lower or at worse, flat costs!

    All else being equal, I'd think Americans want someone w/some meaningful business background since it is the creator of jobs and wealth all over the world. One sorry ass fact that gets in the way.....every business person w/real SKIN in the game, deems essential the ability to fire, from the top on down....Presidents, alas, have no such luxury....therein lies our perpetual problem of an inefficient gov't. Another thing, them darned Lobbyists and earmarks!

    Posted by Happy at 02/01/2008 @ 12:38am

14. The Clintons are owned, lock stock barrel. We know that.

    Now, how different is Obama? Do we know?

    Posted by sloper at 02/01/2008 @ 12:46am

15. Posted by ACOOK 02/01/2008 @ 12:26am

    Mention private military contractors to many civilians, especially to liberals, and they'll think of red-state good old boys working for a firm like Halliburton--the Texas-based corporation formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney--who appear to constitute a rogue, mercenary element favored by a Republican administration.

    In fact, the former Halliburton subsidiary of Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) consummated its veritable marriage with the U.S. military during the Clinton administration, when the firm's logistical capabilities were indispensable to the Balkan interventions that many liberals supported. The KBR-designed military bases in Bosnia and Kosovo became templates for those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200709u/kaplan-blackwater

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:47am

16. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 12:47am

    OK, but can you tell me if Mother Jones mentions those private militaries by name? So far, I've only heard one name...Blackwater

    Question? How did KBR go from supporting petro chemicals aka the oil industry to building military bases? Now, I could understand if they designed and constructed an oil or natural gas pipeline, but building housing structures?

    Posted by ACook at 02/01/2008 @ 01:05am

17. Now, how different is Obama? Do we know?

    Posted by SLOPER 02/01/2008 @ 12:46am

    who knows?

    but he's got nice teeth.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 01:06am

18. Posted by ACOOK 02/01/2008 @ 01:05am

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3780/is_200707/ai_n19433636/pg_5

    This success prompted the Clinton administration to use a similar strategy in the training of the Bosnian army. This time, MPRI trained the Bosnian army to develop combat skills. Another example can be found in the termination of hostilities between Kosovo and Serbia, in which another private company, DynCorp, played a key role: the International Peace Force in Kosovo came later. 'Founded in 1946, DynCorp (now owned by Computer Sciences Corporation) is one of the largest private military contractors in the world. The company has provided police officers for operations in the Balkans and pilots for the U.S.-led war on drugs in South America' (Center for Public Integrity, 2006). DynCorp is one of the most controversial of the private military companies, being 'involved in a series of recent high profile scandals', including participation in the illegal arms trade and in the trafficking of women (Beaumont, 2002).

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 01:09am

19. Posted by ACOOK 02/01/2008 @ 01:05am

    from qwiki:

    Activities in Afghanistan

    KBR was awarded a $100 million contract in 2002 to build a new U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, from the State Department.

    KBR has also been awarded 15 Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) task orders worth more than $216 million for work under Operation Enduring Freedom, the military name for operations in Afghanistan. These include establishing base camps at Kandahar and Bagram Air Base and training foreign troops from the Republic of Georgia.

    Activities in Iraq

    KBR employs more American private contractors and holds a larger contract with the U.S. government than does any other firm in Iraq. The company's roughly 14,000 U.S. employees in Iraq provide logistical support to the U.S. armed forces. [4]

    The United States Army hired KBR to provide housing for approximately 100,000 soldiers in Iraq in a contract worth $200 million, based on a long-term contract signed in December 2001 under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). Other LOGCAP orders have included a pre-invasion order to repair oil facilities in Iraq; $28.2 million to build POW camps; and $40.8 million to accommodate the Iraqi Survey Group, which was deployed after the invasion to find weapons of mass destruction.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 01:13am

20. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 01:09am

    Interesting...

    Posted by ACook at 02/01/2008 @ 01:15am

21. Posted by ACOOK 02/01/2008 @ 01:15am

    you still sure about "of the people, for the people"?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 01:30am

22. Posted by SJDUSKIN 02/01/2008 @ 12:21am | ignore this person

    can we put the Lincoln bedroom arrangement into the context of the 200 visits to the white house by the male prostitute?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 07:44am

23. Sure, Mr Nichols...it's a good line.

    Now...if only she gets to run against Mitt Romney!

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 09:14am

24. BEWARE !!! Hillary's so-called 'Universal' Health Care Plan is to make it AGAINST THE LAW FOR ANYONE TO NOT BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE (LIKE AUTO INSURANCE)That's not health care....that's just a law (that's what mandate means) !!!!! Under Hillary's health care plan everyone who breaks her law and does not buy their own health coverage (if not offered through their job) would be fined and wages could be garnished. Also, everyone would have to prove that they already have health insurance (show an insurance policy) before they could get a new job if that new job does not offer coverage.If people could afford health care they would have it.To make it a law will just make people unable to afford the coverage afraid to go to the hospital when ill in fear of getting caught breaking the law (without coverage). TERRIBLE !!! DON'T BE FOOLED AMERICA !!!!!

    Visit: http://Blacks4Barack.homestead.com (A Multi-Racial Organization)

    Posted by gregjones at 02/01/2008 @ 10:13am

25. GREG, I don't know if it is cause for alarm...yet. But I did note Hillary really didn't answer the question posed about what happens if someone doesn't get universal healthcare. Fines? Fees? Jail time? Maybe she did answer it and I missed it but it sure seemed to me that she politiced around it.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 10:21am

26. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/01/2008 @ 10:21am

    Not that I agree with her plan, but her answer will be quite simple...

    "Why should those who DON'T buy insurance on the cheap...get a free ride?"

    And then explain how those without it will still get treated, but "the rest of us WITH insurance will pay for it!"

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 10:32am

27. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 10:32am

    don't you realize,

    if you're sick just "TAKE A DEEP BREATH".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 10:35am

28. I think healthcare should be affordable and available but I'm not sold on this whole universal thing. I keep seeing DMV lines in my mind. Everyone has to have a car registration and the only place to get it is at the DMV. However, if you go you'd better take a full day off work and bring a book and sack lunch because you'll be there for a while.

    Then, here's the best part, when budget cuts are needed, the DMV is usually on the top of the list. So now you have all these folks who still need to the registration and still have to go to the DMV but now the DMV is only open 3 days a week and is half staffed with people willing to work for less so they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed and the wait is even longer.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 10:40am

29. I can't wait to see who rents the Lincoln Bedroom THIS time around! Or was that embarassment too far back for the American electorate to remember?

    Posted by SJDUSKIN 02/01/2008 @ 12:21am

    Yes, too far back.

    We are overwhelmed by revelations of the utter and complete corruption of the chenybush admin.

    The single most mendacious and venal admin to EVER "occupy" the WH.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 02/01/2008 @ 10:41am

30. Posted by DR DECIBELS 02/01/2008 @ 10:41am

    Actually, you've hit a very salient point there Doc for the next Administration (especially a Dem one)...

    what the hell can the Republicans/conservatives COMPLAIN ABOUT it?

    Aside from turning the White House into a brothel and using the profits to buy crystal meth to sell to kindergartners....all anybody has to say is "You didn't mind when Bush and his crew...blah,blah,blah" and what can they say.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 10:48am

31. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=FritztheCat

    in my neck of the woods the DMV is not a problem.

    have you ever dealt with a private heath insurance company? now that's a nightmare.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 11:11am

32. The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration.

    Like the Clinton administration, the Bush administration is relying heavily on private military companies to wage the war on drugs in South America.

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_365_01.html

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 12:21am

    What is completely out of the debate and has been is the insane amount of money the U.S. dumps into the military industrial complex mostly being the pentagon and NSA. Those entities are draining the country dry and for what? If we are spending more on military than all of the combined nations of the world, I'd say we definitely have a senior level management problem not to mention people who can't add too well running the country.

    It's time the god damned pentagon, NSA, president, congress, and supreme court started serving the American people versus international businesses and businessmen, foreign countries like Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. Two ex presidents have warned about getting to friendly with foreign govermnents and also about the military industrial complex. The first would be George Washington and the other would be Dwight Eisenhower.

    This country is heading for a fall unless our leaders pull their heads out of their asses and start representing and working for Americans again.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/01/2008 @ 11:20am

33. While it is true that the federal government is not a business and has a higher social purpose, we should not cede to the Republicans the mantle of fiscal responsibility. This is what got Democrats in trouble after the New Deal and Great Society, and this is what led to the Reagan Revolution. We must therefore make sure that "all" of our progressive social programs that help ordinary Americans are well thought out, well executed, and not wasteful.

    I wish Barack would have had a chance to address this, but Wolfe changed the subject.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/01/2008 @ 11:25am

34. While I agree with the general message of this editorial I think it is unfair to critisize Obama's answer. Clinton answered before Obama and one would assume he would have made the same basic point had he gone first. They've both been coached so much that their takling points are essentially the same.

    Posted by millercd at 02/01/2008 @ 11:28am

35. Posted by MILLERCD 02/01/2008 @ 11:28am

    barackally clintama.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 11:31am

36. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 11:11am

    You're lucky then. I do have to admit that our DMV has really started to embrace technology and now most of the stuff you once had to go in for you can do online.

    I've never had to deal with private health insurance companies. Luckily. I have had to deal with military health care for the last almost two decades. It hasn't been real fun I can tell you that. You never know who you will be seeing as you never, ever see the same doc twice. Then to top it off, as a military member, I cannot sue for any damage done due to medical malpractice. There have been several cases where that malpractice has had horrendous results (Jacksonville Naval Hospital seems to have the most).

    Personally I can't complain though as while my quality of care hasn't always been first rate, it has never truely been that bad.

    Brings up another question for government universal healthcare. If a person signs on, would they be prohibited like the military under the Feres Doctrine from malpractice suits?

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 11:33am

37. We also should stop this corporate boggeyman thing. I think one way Democrats can distinguish ourselves from the Republicans is by calling on "all" corporations to be socially responsible, and even change the corporate tax code to reward corporations that meet social responsibility metrics and benchmarks.

    Developing a Democratic policy which encourages corporations to consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment in all aspects of their operations, is what we should be doing as Democrats rather than painting "all" corporations with the same anti-people tag. Employee ownership, sustainability practices and green energy, corporate ethics, demographic composition of management and board of directors, labor practices, healtcare, and pensions - there are a number of areas where Democrats could lead the way in insuring that American corporations are the most socially responsible in the world.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/01/2008 @ 11:44am

38. Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/01/2008 @ 11:20am

    And what is your solution?

    Posted by ACook at 02/01/2008 @ 11:44am

39. Posted by METTEYYA 02/01/2008 @ 11:44am

    Don't you mean "legislate" how companies should do business? Because if I'm reading your statement correctly, you want the government to force idiot regulations on them to do the will of the majority, right?

    Posted by ACook at 02/01/2008 @ 11:49am

40. Posted by ACOOK 02/01/2008 @ 11:49am

    I think a combination of carrots and sticks would be appropriate. We already have some sticks in place with NLRB, SEC and FTC regulations, but I think we haven't done enough with the tax code to reward socially responsible corporations, and thereby encourage others to be socially responsible as well.

    Posted by Metteyya at 02/01/2008 @ 12:09pm

41. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2008 @ 12:16pm

    Guess again......read the "Move On" post.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 12:26pm

42. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=FritztheCat

    in other words the gov't pays your health insurance. you must be suffering from this socialized medicine. 50 million have none, and their care and life expectancy suffers.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 12:32pm

43. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 12:32pm | ignore this person

    of course single payer is not the same as the VA system of hospitals and doctors, although they are most often conflated.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 12:42pm

44. Fritz,

    Please remember that no one is actually calling for an exclusively government run health care system, i.e., one where all of the hospitals and clinics and offices are managed by the government. The most radical mainstream option - also the most popular one in most polls I've heard about since the early 90's - is "single payer" insurance, whereby the government provides everyone with health insurance (how comprehensive would I'm sure cause quite the debate). The chief virtue of single payer is that it eliminates the need for the enormous private sector bureaucracy working for the insurance companies, and replaces it with a much smaller government bureacracy comparable to that running such broad social insurance programs as Social Security and Medicare. Some have even taken to calling it "Medicare for All."

    The vast majority of us will continue to access health care through private practices - many of which are now virtual clinics, anyway, instead of your traditional individual doctor's office - and private hospitals, non-profit and for-. Said medical practices and hospitals could also reduce, under single payer, their bureaucracies that are currently dedicated to serving the insurance companies, and shrink their billing offices down from the size of their cleaning staff to that of their payroll offices. The most delicious shift in personnel, to me anyway, will be putting all of those doctors and nurses who currently work for the insurance companies at the job of denying medical care back into the practice of actually providing it.

    And no, I don't anticipate utopia with a single payer health insurance system, but if we keep the right-wing from underfunding it, like they've been doing for the last 25-30 years in both Canada and the UK (Actually, anyone know if Blair reversed the trend?), then we should be able to avoid many of the "problems" with those systems that the right-wingers constantly harp on, after largely causing them themselves.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/01/2008 @ 12:45pm

45. Posted by CKA2ND 02/01/2008 @ 12:45pm | ignore this person well summarized. there are many many countries with single payer, so we should be able to crib from them what works and what doesn't.

    when everyone is insured by the gov't, that constituency will be enormous, and any politician who messes with them, will be unemployed.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 12:52pm

46. but if we keep the right-wing from underfunding it, like they've been doing for the last 25-30 years in both Canada and the UK

    Posted by CKA2ND 02/01/2008 @ 12:45pm

    FINALLY!!!!!!

    someone who understands.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 12:59pm

47. when everyone is insured by the gov't, that constituency will be enormous, and any politician who messes with them, will be unemployed.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 12:52pm

    hence its impossibility.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 1:01pm

48. Please remember that no one is actually calling for an exclusively government run health care system, i.e., one where all of the hospitals and clinics and offices are managed by the government.-----Posted by CKA2ND 02/01/2008 @ 12:45pm

    They couldn't sell it if they did, CKA....but that's NATURALLY what it MUST degenerate into.

    Look, the prime problems are going to be ABUSE/FRAUD, COST, and SERVICE AVAILABILITY. Not every doctor (or patient) will be frugal, some may even be a bit extravagent when the Fed is paying for it. Plus, we simply cannot spend enough money to provide everybody with everything. So it's going to be very important how "fairly" the availability of services affordable are distributed.

    All of which...fraud/abuse prevention...cost controls...and ultimately the RATIONING of services...will require a massive and DOMINANT Federal bureaucracy...it cannot be avoided.

    People who say "Oh, no, the Fed will simply hand out checks to the doctors and hospitals...they won't 'control them'" are being self-delusional or lying.

    Money is power (even the Left must agree to that) and whoever "controls the purse-strings" will control what is paid for out of them.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 1:03pm

49. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 12:59pm

    You guys running a budget SURPLUS, FZ? Tons of C-dollars just lying around, not getting spent on your health care system?

    Or has it reached an equilibrium, where you can't spend any more (because you don't have it)...and you can't TAX anymore (or you cripple your economy)?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 1:04pm

50. Sorry for double...hate these f***ing Time Warps!

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 12:59pm

    You guys running a budget SURPLUS, FZ? Tons of C-dollars just lying around, not getting spent on your health care system?

    Or has it reached an equilibrium, where you can't spend any more (because you don't have it)...and you can't TAX anymore (or you cripple your economy)?

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 1:04pm

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 1:05pm

51. 50 million have none, and their care and life expectancy suffers.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 12:32pm

    The numbers don't tell the whole story.

    20% of the 47 million make $75,000/yr. 30% of the 47 million make $50,000/yr. This doesn't include the young and healthy who also refuse to buy health insurance. Between 15 and 20 million are illegal. It is estimated that up to 1/3 of the uninsured simply don't apply.

    The actual number of "truly uninsured" is closer to 20 million. That's still too many, but not enough to ruin health care for the other 280,000,000 in this country (Whoops. Was that an editorial comment? haha.)

    Posted by usc1 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:09pm

52. I was watching the (R) debate two nights ago and was struck by something Romney said. He said that in doing the research before introducing his health care plan in MA, they found out that many people who could afford health insurance didn't buy it because they could GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND GET IT FOR FREE!!! These weren't the poor abusing the system, but people who could afford it...I can't imagine how much worse that entitlement mentality is going to get with "free health care for all."

    Posted by usc1 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:44pm

53. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 1:05pm

    OTTAWA -- The federal government was running a healthy $6.7-billion surplus eight months into the current fiscal year, even after including the cost of retroactive income tax cuts for the 2007 tax year, which were announced in the fall budget update.

    The latest monthly report on the government's finances suggest it easily has the cash to cover the cost of other tax measures - such as the GST [goods and services tax] cut, which kicked in on Jan. 1 - and meet its commitment to provide $1-billion in relief in the upcoming budget to help offset the impact on manufacturing and forestry industries of the strong dollar and weakening U.S. economy.'

    Meanwhile, the Finance Department reported that during the first eight months of the current fiscal year "revenues increased by $7.5 billion, or 1.5%, reflecting growth in nearly all revenue streams, particularly corporate income tax and other revenues."

    The results also include the $2.7-billion cost of the reduction in the bottom tax rate to 15% from 15.5%, and the increase in the amount Canadians can earn before paying any tax to $9,600, both of which became effective as of Jan. 1 last year.

    It also reported that program spending rose $7.9-billion, or 6.7%, reflecting higher transfer payments and operating expenses of government departments and agencies, while public debt charges eased slightly to just under $22.5-billion.

    http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=263891

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 2:38pm

54. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 2:38pm

    Okay...would C$6.7 Billion fully fund (to your satisfaction) your health care system?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:45pm

55. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 2:45pm

    well, some of that needs to be used to pay of the debt. and they need to stop spending billions on tanks. who the fork needs tanks?

    but a few extra pennies here and there sure could help some underfunded communities.

    and a couple billion for new medical schools..................

    health care cost $160 billion in 2007. that's 10% of gdp.

    in the u.s. it's 16% of gdp.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 3:08pm

56. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 3:08pm

    FROSTY...you ruined your own argument.

    First...how many "tanks" does the Canadian Forces (or Forces canadiennes, if you like) have? Maybe 100? And the TOTAL expediture for defense (or defence) is maybe 17 Billion?

    Cut it in half...and you still don't get ONE-TWENTIETH your health care budget ($160 Billion, your figure).

    Sorry, but the REALITIES of government health care in a high-tech, high-pharmaceutical era are hitting home...and...

    NOBODY can pay for what is demanded! The "horror stories" may not be THAT "horrible" or THAT "often"....but eventually it will come down to a tax rate that cripples the economy (and Ottawa ain't going to do that) or ...rationing.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 3:46pm

57. but if we keep the right-wing from underfunding it, like they've been doing for the last 25-30 years in both Canada and the UK

    Posted by CKA2ND 02/01/2008 @ 12:45pm

    FINALLY!!!!!!

    someone who understands.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person

    Actually, I just remember reading some articles in the Canadian left press detailing the cutbacks over the years, along with the ideological campaign against public funding led by the Frazier Institute.

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/01/2008 @ 5:08pm

58. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 3:46pm

    so what's your solution, brainiac?

    canada: Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2004): 3,173

    united states: Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2004): 6,096

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 5:23pm

59. Please remember that no one is actually calling for an exclusively government run health care system, i.e., one where all of the hospitals and clinics and offices are managed by the government.-----Posted by CKA2ND 02/01/2008 @ 12:45pm

    They couldn't sell it if they did, CKA....but that's NATURALLY what it MUST degenerate into.

    Look, the prime problems are going to be ABUSE/FRAUD, COST, and SERVICE AVAILABILITY. Not every doctor (or patient) will be frugal, some may even be a bit extravagent when the Fed is paying for it. Plus, we simply cannot spend enough money to provide everybody with everything. So it's going to be very important how "fairly" the availability of services affordable are distributed.

    All of which...fraud/abuse prevention...cost controls...and ultimately the RATIONING of services...will require a massive and DOMINANT Federal bureaucracy...it cannot be avoided.

    People who say "Oh, no, the Fed will simply hand out checks to the doctors and hospitals...they won't 'control them'" are being self-delusional or lying.

    Money is power (even the Left must agree to that) and whoever "controls the purse-strings" will control what is paid for out of them.

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 1:03pm | ignore this person

    First, any readers from Europe, Canada or any other countries with mixed health care systems - public financing and both public and private provision of services - please, please, please join in this discussion and add some much needed facts to the limited ones on display so far.

    Second, Mask, you theorize, yes, THEORIZE, that a single-payer insurance system will inevitablly evolve (devolve?) into a government-RUN health care system. Given the myriad failures of free market economic theory around the world over the last 30 years (falling growth rates + increased poverty + increased unemployment in Latin America, historically mediocre recoveries in the developed world, the joys of shock therapy in Eastern Europe and Russia) and the relative collapse in the legitamacy of the IMF and the World Bank (a GREAT unknown story), while I do not dismiss some of your particular fears and worries, I just do not think that you are correct on this issue, or have proven your point with enough data from enough countries. I will grant you that I am not exactly providing reams of stats myself, but I think I try to qualify my optimism (Of course, you've probably archived some post of mine where I sound like a carnival barker for single payer! ;))

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/01/2008 @ 5:25pm

60. Posted by CKA2ND 02/01/2008 @ 5:25pm

    i sincerely love our health care system in canada. it's the #1 thing that unites this country.

    but the most important thing is to not get sick (as best one can)

    stop eating pork!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 5:44pm

61. that a single-payer insurance system will inevitablly evolve (devolve?) into a government-RUN health care system.

    there is no evidence for this. it is a lie made up out of whole cloth.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 5:52pm