I do not like Newt Gingrich. As a matter of fact, I dislike him intensely, and I utterly despise his politics and his methods. Some things he has said about Obama are clearly racial slurs, such as his comment about "Kenyan anti-colonialist behavior," which was so unfounded as to be bizarre.
That being said, when Joan Walsh starts talking about “coded racism” I part company with her. People who talk about hearing “coded messages” are usually wearing tinfoil hats because the “coded messages” they heard were from an extraterrestrial. “Coded speech” is what the listener hears, not what the speaker says.
Newt referred to Obama as “the food stamp president” and Walsh claims that is a racist slur because, “It's a short hop from Gingrich's slur to Ronald Reagan's attacks on ‘strapping young bucks’ buying ‘T-bone steaks’ with food stamps” and because most food stamp recipients are minorities. The problem is that he did not say anything of the sort, those interpretations were in her own mind. What he said was that food stamp usage is high on Obama’s watch, which is absolutely true. His attribution of blame to Obama for that is largely false, but the racist element of the statement existed in Joan Walsh’s mind, not in Newt Gingrich’s statement.
Gingrich said that “Obama knows how to get the whole country to resemble Detroit," which Walsh is quick to point out “just happens to be home to many black people.” It also happens to be the symbol of the collapse of American manufacturing and the loss of manufacturing jobs. If Gingrich wanted to pick a city which was predominately black he would have picked Birmingham or Atlanta, both of which have a higher percentage of African-American population than does Detroit. Here, again, Gingrich was talking about loss of manufacturing jobs, and Joan Walsh heard racism.
I am not defending Newt Gingrich, who is a duplicitous hypocritical jackass, but Joan Walsh wants to create a situation where there can be no criticism of the President without the critic being labeled as a racist. It is Joan Walsh who creates controversy by hearing racism where it does not exist. Obama does not need her protection. He should not be attacked because of the color of his skin, and he should not be defended because of it either.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Contradictory Thinking
Paul Krugman comments on his blog this morning that it has occurred to him that some people in the financial commentary strata seem to be able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. I believe that shows that Doctor Krugman is a little slow on the uptake, because I noticed that proclivity quite a long time ago.
His particular point involves “tax the rich” and means testing for “entitlement programs” and, as is par for the course with him, he rather stretches the point on both arguments. He says that proponents of one are “by and large” the same as proponents of the other; a point which I would not really argue.
He ends, “So apparently the universe of people so affluent that they don’t need Medicare is a large segment of the population, while the universe of people who can afford to pay even slightly higher taxes is a tiny segment.”
I have not seen any claims that means testing of Medicare would eliminate a “large segment” of participants, merely that it would be a step toward alleviating the problem. As to “tax the rich,” almost no one other than Barack Obama cares how many of them there are, the prevailing sentiment seems to be, “Sock it to them because they can afford it.”
In any case, his postulate actually requires that three ideas be held at once, because it also requires that the “tiny segment” of people who can “afford to pay even slightly higher taxes” will pay enough additional taxes to eliminate a huge deficit. The combination of “tiny segment,” “slightly higher” and “huge deficit” just doesn’t seem to make for believable rhetoric.
Paul Krugman has apparently failed to notice that the entire nation has believed since Ronald Reagan that we can cut taxes and increase spending simultaneously; that politicians of both parties promise it and voters of both parties demand it. If that isn’t “being able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time” I don’t know what is.
His particular point involves “tax the rich” and means testing for “entitlement programs” and, as is par for the course with him, he rather stretches the point on both arguments. He says that proponents of one are “by and large” the same as proponents of the other; a point which I would not really argue.
He ends, “So apparently the universe of people so affluent that they don’t need Medicare is a large segment of the population, while the universe of people who can afford to pay even slightly higher taxes is a tiny segment.”
I have not seen any claims that means testing of Medicare would eliminate a “large segment” of participants, merely that it would be a step toward alleviating the problem. As to “tax the rich,” almost no one other than Barack Obama cares how many of them there are, the prevailing sentiment seems to be, “Sock it to them because they can afford it.”
In any case, his postulate actually requires that three ideas be held at once, because it also requires that the “tiny segment” of people who can “afford to pay even slightly higher taxes” will pay enough additional taxes to eliminate a huge deficit. The combination of “tiny segment,” “slightly higher” and “huge deficit” just doesn’t seem to make for believable rhetoric.
Paul Krugman has apparently failed to notice that the entire nation has believed since Ronald Reagan that we can cut taxes and increase spending simultaneously; that politicians of both parties promise it and voters of both parties demand it. If that isn’t “being able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time” I don’t know what is.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Failure of "Tax The Rich"
Digby has a post critical of rich people objecting to higher taxes because they misinterpret the impact of marginal tax rates. She points out the error, which she says is typical, of a person with an income of $262,000 per year. As Dean Baker points out, she reports,
Digby has been an advocate of the “tax the rich” plan since it was first advanced, but what we see here is that it doesn’t really raise taxes very much. It does not appear that it will come even close to raising enough revenue to balance the budget. The "tax the rich" plan which is supposed to allow most of the country to enjoy its "free lunch" mentality indefinitely is not going to work. If the middle class want to have the government provide programs like education, flood insurance and such, they are going to have to be willing to be taxed to pay for it.
Since the 3 percentage point increase in the tax rate would only apply to income above $250,000, or $12,000 of his income, Mason would have to pay an additional $400 a year in taxes.
Digby has been an advocate of the “tax the rich” plan since it was first advanced, but what we see here is that it doesn’t really raise taxes very much. It does not appear that it will come even close to raising enough revenue to balance the budget. The "tax the rich" plan which is supposed to allow most of the country to enjoy its "free lunch" mentality indefinitely is not going to work. If the middle class want to have the government provide programs like education, flood insurance and such, they are going to have to be willing to be taxed to pay for it.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
More Money For Less Work
A staff writer at the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote a glowing tribute to the concept of “concierge medicine” last Tuesday, making it sound like the greatest thing to happen to medical practice since the invention of the stethoscope. I’m not convinced. It may be great for doctors who engage in it, and for their patients, but I see it as a disaster for health care delivery.
The idea is that a patient pays a flat fee, in this case $1800 per year, in cash, in advance and in addition to the “fee for service” as usual, for a very high level of service from the doctor and the doctor, in turn, limits his practice to only those patients who are paying the fee so that he can render that very high level of service. The article doesn’t mention it, but that fee is not covered by any medical insurance. In the case described in the article, the doctor reduced his work load from 2000 patients to 300 patients.
My sister, after reading the article, promptly asked what happens to all of those patients whom the “concierge doctor” does not any longer “have to see.” The answer to that is that they are now seeing a doctor who knows nothing about them and who is now even more frenetically busy than he was before because the “concierge doctor” is seeing 1700 fewer patients. I have no problem with the idea that people who have money benefit from the fact that they have money, in fact I’m all in favor of that, but when they do so to the detriment of those who don’t have money… Well, I do tend to have something of a problem with that.
The article does mention that “Some people say this new medical model creates a two-tier system in which people who don’t pay a retainer fee will wind up with second-rate care,” and then goes on to tell us that we don’t need to worry about that because it is a nonsensical argument.
AAPP is the outfit that coordinates the concierge plans, and notice that in almost a single breath the writer references both a “shortage of primary care physicians” and a claim that there are “plenty of doctors,” and makes no effort to reconcile those two contradictory statements. In the case of the doctor who is the subject of the article, there are 1700 more patients dumped into a system which has one less doctor, so how can an increase of the concierge plan, which is by definition for primary care physicians, not be harmful to the majority of patients overall?
If the plane is full, and there is no question that our health care system is full, and you keep adding first class seats while removing coach seats, you crowd out those who cannot afford first class. Eventually some people do not get to London.
What the writer does not address is that this plan not only doesn’t work toward solving the rising cost of health care in this country, it seriously worsens that problem. This plan is a step in precisely the wrong direction, causing us to systematically pay more for our health care rather than less. It fundamentally allows one doctor to make more money for treating fewer people. What in the hell is wrong with this country that we admire that kind of model? And the issue is worse than a single doctor/patient one.
The doctor gets $480,000 per year for doing nothing, bad enough in itself, but at least he/she had to go to college and earn a medical degree in order to be in a position to receive that money. The remaining $240,000 is what “the group” keeps, pure overhead, administrative burden. Useless money spent for no purpose whatsoever, that raises the cost of healthcare for additional paper shuffling and profit.
We already spend more than twice what any other developed nation spends in a health care system that is bloated with greed and designed more to slurp money from the public than it is to preserve health and wellness. This “concierge” model is just another step down that road. It is not a solution to the problem, it is symptomatic of the problem.
The idea is that a patient pays a flat fee, in this case $1800 per year, in cash, in advance and in addition to the “fee for service” as usual, for a very high level of service from the doctor and the doctor, in turn, limits his practice to only those patients who are paying the fee so that he can render that very high level of service. The article doesn’t mention it, but that fee is not covered by any medical insurance. In the case described in the article, the doctor reduced his work load from 2000 patients to 300 patients.
My sister, after reading the article, promptly asked what happens to all of those patients whom the “concierge doctor” does not any longer “have to see.” The answer to that is that they are now seeing a doctor who knows nothing about them and who is now even more frenetically busy than he was before because the “concierge doctor” is seeing 1700 fewer patients. I have no problem with the idea that people who have money benefit from the fact that they have money, in fact I’m all in favor of that, but when they do so to the detriment of those who don’t have money… Well, I do tend to have something of a problem with that.
The article does mention that “Some people say this new medical model creates a two-tier system in which people who don’t pay a retainer fee will wind up with second-rate care,” and then goes on to tell us that we don’t need to worry about that because it is a nonsensical argument.
There’s already a shortage of primary care physicians in the U.S. and skeptics fear that number will continue to dwindle as more doctors go into concierge medicine, creating even longer waits and shorter appointments for traditional patients. However, AAPP’s Blue maintains that there are plenty of doctors satisfied to practice medicine the same way they always have.
AAPP is the outfit that coordinates the concierge plans, and notice that in almost a single breath the writer references both a “shortage of primary care physicians” and a claim that there are “plenty of doctors,” and makes no effort to reconcile those two contradictory statements. In the case of the doctor who is the subject of the article, there are 1700 more patients dumped into a system which has one less doctor, so how can an increase of the concierge plan, which is by definition for primary care physicians, not be harmful to the majority of patients overall?
Arnstein argues that two-tier systems are nothing new in our society. “Some people can afford to fly first class to London, and some fly coach. But, in the end, they all get to London,” she said.
If the plane is full, and there is no question that our health care system is full, and you keep adding first class seats while removing coach seats, you crowd out those who cannot afford first class. Eventually some people do not get to London.
What the writer does not address is that this plan not only doesn’t work toward solving the rising cost of health care in this country, it seriously worsens that problem. This plan is a step in precisely the wrong direction, causing us to systematically pay more for our health care rather than less. It fundamentally allows one doctor to make more money for treating fewer people. What in the hell is wrong with this country that we admire that kind of model? And the issue is worse than a single doctor/patient one.
If 400 patients pay a $1,800 retainer fee, that comes to $720,000 (MDVIP doctors, who must give a third to the group, keep $480,000). This is on top of reimbursements from insurers for standard office visits and exams.
The doctor gets $480,000 per year for doing nothing, bad enough in itself, but at least he/she had to go to college and earn a medical degree in order to be in a position to receive that money. The remaining $240,000 is what “the group” keeps, pure overhead, administrative burden. Useless money spent for no purpose whatsoever, that raises the cost of healthcare for additional paper shuffling and profit.
We already spend more than twice what any other developed nation spends in a health care system that is bloated with greed and designed more to slurp money from the public than it is to preserve health and wellness. This “concierge” model is just another step down that road. It is not a solution to the problem, it is symptomatic of the problem.
Panderer In Chief
AP headline in today's San Francisco Chronicle, "Obama announces steps to speed US oil production." Oh, give me a break.
"Drill, baby, drill" replaces the steely-eyed slayer of dreaded terrorists.
Facing continued public unhappiness over gas prices, President Barack Obama is directing his administration to ramp up U.S. oil production by extending existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast and holding more frequent lease sales in a federal reserve in Alaska.
"Drill, baby, drill" replaces the steely-eyed slayer of dreaded terrorists.
Friday, May 13, 2011
On The Evils of Mergers
The demagoguery about the oil companies is starting to border on hilarious. Chris Matthews had a couple of Democratic Senators on Hardball yesterday, Chuck Shumer and Debbie Stabenow, and their pitch was that the problem is that we allowed the oil companies to merge, creating too few companies that are too large, and that stifled any competition. Shumer agreed that they don’t “meet in a smoke-filled room” and set prices, but claimed that one company raises the price of gasoline and “since they don’t have to compete” they all follow suit.
Do I need to say that the facts do not bear that out? Do I need to say that if they were doing that their profit margins would be quite a lot higher than a paltry 5% to 10% on revenue, which is what they are currently making?
I long ago lost count of how many software companies Microsoft bought out, but their policy has been to purchase anyone who might compete with them, and who is left that actually competes with them in business software systems these days? Oracle has bought everyone other than Microsoft who makes computer database software, and these two companies generate profit margins on revenue of 30% and 24% respectively.
And what industry has not merged into a handful of mega companies? How many cell phone companies were there a few years ago as opposed to the number that exist today? How many auto manufacturers are there today? Railroads have diminished from hundreds to about ten.
Lets talk about banks. Banks have been on a merger spree that created “too big to fail” and contributed to the Great Recession. One merger was so blatantly anti-competitive and illegal that Congress had to pass legislation that legalized the merger retroactively. What effect has that had on banking profits and pricing to consumers?
Well, Bank of America is not exactly gorging itself, making 7.6% profit margin on revenue in the first quarter of this year, but Wells Fargo is clicking along at 18.5%, Union Bank at 27.4%, Chase Bank at 21.7%, Citibank at 15.2%, U.S. Bank at 23.2% and Capital One at 24.9%.
As a reminder and for comparison, the big three oil companies are making 10%, 9% and 5% profit margins on revenue in that same fiscal period.
So, of every dollar that you pay in bank fees, about 22¢ is profit to the bank, while of every dollar of gas that you pump into your tank, about 8¢ is profit to the oil company.
That kind of makes oil companies look like paragons of virtue, doesn’t it?
Do I need to say that the facts do not bear that out? Do I need to say that if they were doing that their profit margins would be quite a lot higher than a paltry 5% to 10% on revenue, which is what they are currently making?
I long ago lost count of how many software companies Microsoft bought out, but their policy has been to purchase anyone who might compete with them, and who is left that actually competes with them in business software systems these days? Oracle has bought everyone other than Microsoft who makes computer database software, and these two companies generate profit margins on revenue of 30% and 24% respectively.
And what industry has not merged into a handful of mega companies? How many cell phone companies were there a few years ago as opposed to the number that exist today? How many auto manufacturers are there today? Railroads have diminished from hundreds to about ten.
Lets talk about banks. Banks have been on a merger spree that created “too big to fail” and contributed to the Great Recession. One merger was so blatantly anti-competitive and illegal that Congress had to pass legislation that legalized the merger retroactively. What effect has that had on banking profits and pricing to consumers?
Well, Bank of America is not exactly gorging itself, making 7.6% profit margin on revenue in the first quarter of this year, but Wells Fargo is clicking along at 18.5%, Union Bank at 27.4%, Chase Bank at 21.7%, Citibank at 15.2%, U.S. Bank at 23.2% and Capital One at 24.9%.
As a reminder and for comparison, the big three oil companies are making 10%, 9% and 5% profit margins on revenue in that same fiscal period.
So, of every dollar that you pay in bank fees, about 22¢ is profit to the bank, while of every dollar of gas that you pump into your tank, about 8¢ is profit to the oil company.
That kind of makes oil companies look like paragons of virtue, doesn’t it?
Fishy Story
The Obama Administration strikes me as being essentially fairly honest, but I’m not sure I can give it high marks for coherence, and especially not in the aftermath of the Osama bin Laden mission, given the number of times that story has changed. We now hear from Robert Gates that “we all agreed that we would not release any operational details,” but just hours after the raid National Security Advisor Donilon was babbling those details, inaccurately it turns out, to the press.
We are also being told that President Obama was so farsighted as to order that additional helicopters be included in the mission, but the actual purpose of those extra choppers seems to me to be a bit unclear.
The phrase most often given for those extra choppers is that they were “backups in the event that it became necessary for the mission to fight its way out,” but that description of purpose is self-contradicting. If they were for the purpose of the mission “fighting its way out” they would be full of troops and would not be able to serve as backups, and if they were “backups” they would necessarily be empty and be useless in the event that fighting became necessary.
The “fighting their way out” bit does make some sense. Given the location and the time on target of only forty minutes, the chances of Pakistan rallying any significant number of ground troops to the scene was pretty small, but not zero, so having one or two helicopters full of troops on scene to cover that possibility would be pretty good judgement. I can see the military being too conservative to suggest it and the President bringing it up and insisting on it.
But it doesn’t match with the helicopter being able to carry out the troops originally carried by the damaged bird. Other than the Chinook, which no one is suggesting was used, helicopters carry very small numbers of troops, so any chopper carrying support troops would not be able to serve as a backup to carry those in the destroyed helicopter.
I’m also having a bit of a problem with the bit where the original plan was to have the backups ninety minutes away and that it was Obama who insisted that the backups accompany the mission, for whatever purpose they did so. Our military is not generally stupid, and making a raid in what is essentially downtown Pakistan with emergency help being held a full hour and a half away strikes me as really stupid.
I’m really hoping that was not the plan that our military really presented to the President, because if they presented it to me I would conclude that our military is so inept that we should just surrender and be done with it.
We are also being told that President Obama was so farsighted as to order that additional helicopters be included in the mission, but the actual purpose of those extra choppers seems to me to be a bit unclear.
The phrase most often given for those extra choppers is that they were “backups in the event that it became necessary for the mission to fight its way out,” but that description of purpose is self-contradicting. If they were for the purpose of the mission “fighting its way out” they would be full of troops and would not be able to serve as backups, and if they were “backups” they would necessarily be empty and be useless in the event that fighting became necessary.
The “fighting their way out” bit does make some sense. Given the location and the time on target of only forty minutes, the chances of Pakistan rallying any significant number of ground troops to the scene was pretty small, but not zero, so having one or two helicopters full of troops on scene to cover that possibility would be pretty good judgement. I can see the military being too conservative to suggest it and the President bringing it up and insisting on it.
But it doesn’t match with the helicopter being able to carry out the troops originally carried by the damaged bird. Other than the Chinook, which no one is suggesting was used, helicopters carry very small numbers of troops, so any chopper carrying support troops would not be able to serve as a backup to carry those in the destroyed helicopter.
I’m also having a bit of a problem with the bit where the original plan was to have the backups ninety minutes away and that it was Obama who insisted that the backups accompany the mission, for whatever purpose they did so. Our military is not generally stupid, and making a raid in what is essentially downtown Pakistan with emergency help being held a full hour and a half away strikes me as really stupid.
I’m really hoping that was not the plan that our military really presented to the President, because if they presented it to me I would conclude that our military is so inept that we should just surrender and be done with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)