Hillary Clinton
Beginning Score: 300
Score History:
10/22/07: Paul recommends a 4 point loss based on "being a bad motivator" (in so many words.) Being the first player to supply candidate activity information, he gets his wish along with my squashy agreement. (See comments)
NEW SCORE = 296
10/26/07: Fred & Dave come to an agreement on a 24 point loss on Clinton's health care proposals & subsidized savings plans (combined).
The debate is in comments #3 through #9, if anyone cares to join in (it's never too late...)
NEW SCORE = 272
[Waiting for more...]
***
By the way, it's easier to read the existing comments if you scroll all the way down and click on the "Post a Comment" link
***
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Hillary Clinton
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"We have a lot of kids who don't know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word." --Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
4 points deducted for pointing out the obvious!
All right, I'll throw in my (overly-thought out) two cents on that one:
While I've got a head full of Clinton economics problems, I'd have to argue that this is only a slight one.
If we feel like stretching it, though, it can be made pretty useful:
You'd think that her complaints about lazy kids might signal her desire for government policy that provides incentives for working. This is actually moderately reasonable & at a minimum not a disincentive (unlike welfare.) I'd therefore assume she's a fan of things like EITCs (earned-income tax credits) that are only be given to poor people who are working, and other similar programs.
The problem, though, is that the EITC and similar government targeted incentives puts downward pressure on wages AND raises taxes. By the very definition of 'bureaucracy,' spending on work-incentive programs is generally worse for the populace (at least in the long term). If our goal is to increase wages & decrease poverty, the odds are against the success of policies that try to decrease the cost of doing business through a government subsidy (which is, very basically, what these programs are...) at the cost of both unsubsidized low-wage workers as well as all tax payers.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the statement taken by itself is actually a good thing for this country: If young workers can be motivated by presidential inspiration to be more productive, we'll have a wealthier & healthier economy. Clinton - like all politicians - is talking to an older populace (like the parents of lazy kids) and if it works, that means the threat of government taxing/expenditure is actually reduced (in terms of incentives policies, et al.)
---
While I disagree with a point reduction for "obviousness", I'll agree with it for two reasons:
1. I'll assume Clinton's statement is more of a threat of coming bad economic policy instead of a promise of being a future "motivator." She might be a great motivator (like FDR) & a bad economist (also like FDR). Since she's called herself a "Progressive," I'll assume this is true (for now), and agree to a point reduction...
But more importantly,
2. Paul: You deserve my respect & at least some form of reward for being the first person to supply information to the Gamepaign. That's worth at least 4 points taken from whichever candidate you please.
It shall be done.
Okay - I'm not sure how to deduct the point scale on this one - but...
What about Hillary's medical plan? Her proposal for granting the government the responsibility of everyones' health care. Thus INCREASING taxes, giving the citizens an even more DECREASING choice of doctor care. I see this as a problem 2 fold -
1. It's already bad enough that we have limited Dr. choices (as a whole) due to HMO's and PPO's. Now we are being proposed with a government appointed Dr?!? I've heard enough horror stories from Vets and the government practices with VA. Leave that for those (like veterans) who CHOOSE government involvement with healthcare.
2. Another complaint I have is that HMO's and PPO's already give Dr.'s guaranteed business, thus allowing for less competition, and LESS of a need for workmanship - leaving malpractice an actual possibility (and causing healthcare to more expensive due to malpractice insurance). Having the government involved would alleviate what little competition currently in the medical field.
I really feel that a socialized program would make our country's healthcare situation worse because of this. I'm a free choice of Dr. kind of guy.
-------------
The social security savings plan.
Earlier this year I spent a couple of months in New Orleans. Now you must keep in mind that many many family's received their FIMA monies because of Katrina. Most of them either were living in new places, tearing down their old ones, or left the area entirely. Now all that's left is a thriving 'Grillz' dentistry market, and piercing/tattoo market. I asked a local man how this became so popular (mainly because gold grillz were on everyone...even grandparents! A little wierd...) and I was informed that it's known as Katrina's gold - I laughed.
What this has to do with Hillary, and social security? Her plan is to have an apportionment (roughly 1000 dollars a year) of paid taxes to go back to the citizens for investment purpose. Well, Katrina should teach us all - don't let the government do this. A very small percentage of people would actually invest the monies, where as the majority would take a trip, buy a car, or in the case of Katrina - get some gold grillz.
------
My apologies to the conglomerate for the length of this comment, but it needed to be said. And as complicated as this comment is, I am unsure the how to score Hillary in this situation. Now if you ask me, she deserves a full 40 point deduction - but please, expand - I would love to see 80!
Now that's a good unleashing of opinions - thanks Fred!
Let me try to defend the things I can:
First, you're right about increasing taxes. Her plan, as well as John Edwards & Barack Obama's (as they're all pretty similar) does require subsidization.
It is incorrect to assume the plan limits choices in doctors, though.
Here's TheStreet.com's take of the matter - I think it does a so-so job laying out the basics...
The reason why health care is this election's major issue is because health care is much more expensive than it was ten years ago. People like to complicate this matter, but I say the simpler answer is most likely the correct one: Demand for health insurance is higher than ever, as more Americans are covered than ever, and this shift has occurred over such a short period that supply (mostly health care [hospitals/doctors] AS WELL AS establish insurance companies) has yet to catch up. This implies that health costs should go down on their own in due time - HOWEVER:
Another reason insurance & health care costs have gone up so much in the past decade is the fact that Preferred Provider plans are actually less popular and people have become more willing to pay more to choose their own provider. It's actually the opposite of what you mentioned, Fred: people have more choice in doctors today than ever, and that's a major driver of rising costs.
I'm not sure how basic economics escaped all our politician's opinions on the matter (actually I do...), but the shockingly, annoyingly simple fact is this: The price has gone up because people are more willing to pay higher costs. Just like gas and cigarettes, health care is pretty inelastic (rising costs doesn't immediately lead to a drop in demand), especially when everyone is so convinced that both:
A) the most expensive and least restrictive health care is the best, and
B) health care is an absolute necessity.
Competition would have worked its magic (it still might!) had Americans paid more attention to restrictions, been less picky in doctor-choosin', and been willing to take a few risks by not having health insurance "at any cost."
---
Basically, Clinton's plan is not half the market-killer her opponents are making it out to be.
There are some higher costs (taxes) involved in her plan, but also some good reasons for those taxes (e.g. forcing groups into insurance plans in order to offset the higher costs of high-risk patients [diseased/unhealthy/etc.] with the forced contribution of low-risk patients. That's how most insurance is supposed to work: The low-risk community helps to offset the high risk community for maximum (average) social benefit.
It's an effin' shame, though, that a private company isn't offering this type of grouping. Why not? If we calm the hell down in the politicization of health care costs and revert back to PPO-type plans, it'll happen... in time...
So here's my point recommendation, which I'll wait until someone else throws in their knowledge to finalize:
Clinton, as well as Obama & Edwards (and I think, possibly, Mitt Romney), are ignoring both the power of the market and the crowding out caused by existing gov't intervention. That being their "only" crime, I recommend -16 points for any candidate, Clinton included, that has a similar health plan.
---
As to the savings plan, Fred, I'll say this and let you (or anyone) decide on the proper punishment:
Giving money back to citizens directly (or in the form of welfare), even with stipulations, is better than spending it on farm subsidies (or other crap).
However, I haven't looked into this plan, so if it's only "forced savings," I'm against it (for Libertarian as well as economic reasons that might take a lot of explaining... Sometime soon, I'm sure...)
So I'll say -8 points for not being that crappy...
This is the longest comment I've ever written...
By the way, I'm gonna wait to see if any one reads and/or argues with us, Fred, until I post points...
I'm not sure you see the healthcare issue at all the same way I do. Most people who have insurance are only limited to certain doctors, thus guaranteed business. Sure, that limit might mean 45 doctors within a ten mile radius of your house, but that really isn't going to give you true 'choice' in the matter. It forces the insured to do the same as voting - go for the lesser of two evils as you suggest, or choose from a certain availability. In this case, having a choice of 45 Dr's will be better than not having a choice at all. But why choose between 45, when there are 200 available!?! Not to mention, is there actually market demand for 200 Dr's?
If anything, they should stop focusing so much on corporate responsibility for health insurance, and focus more on personal responsibility. Then the people would actually care, they wouldn't just go with whatever the company has to offer, they would actually have a choice in the matter.
Also, from what I can tell, the reason why health care costs have gone up so much in the last 10 years is because the cost of malpractice insurance has risen - how many Dateline and 20/20 shows have there been about it? Why did it rise? Bad doctors! That's why I propose we abolish the security of insurance PPO's, HMO's, and the similar, as well as any cloud the government might provide (if Hillary wins). Doing this would allow the free market rules of competition to affect the doctors, thus the price of medicine would greatly DECREASE and the QUALITY would INCREASE!
Not to mention, what does this say in regards to me as a customer. I'm LESS likely to go to the doctor now, not because of cost, but because of liability! It's really hard to find a doctor with reputation anymore...why? - because we are over saturated with crap doctors - and just like tobacco, and petroleum - you are stuck with what it is, so use it. That is NOT right! Give me a quality product and I will be more likely to buy. Where's the Malaria Net now!?! :)
---------------
As far as social security - I really don't think that a refund is a good idea at all. If the government is willing to pay social welfare back to the citizens, the government already had its time to gain any interest on those monies before handing it back. It would be better to allow the citizens to keep the money to begin with, and let them do as they see fit.
And yes, I know...then how would the government afford to operate? I propose that the government uses the taxes alloted from the citizens...as the system is DESIGNED to work.
Follow the money, and you will find all of the holes in the government spending issues. (To steal from Mike Gravel, who I'm disappointed isn't even on your gamepaign! It would be interesting to see how people would blasphemies his wild ideas (some are fantastic too by the way)).
------------
My vote will stand as -40 points for Hillary, she seemingly does not truly have MY best interest at heart, nor the American voter...in my opinion.
What you're ignoring, though, is that limiting doctor choice is how insurance companies (PPOs) force down the price of doctors. If you force your insurance company to stop making doctors compete with each other, your insurance will be much, much more expensive.
And it turns out that's what people have been doing over the past decade or so - they now have more choice, not less, in general.
---
"Then the people would actually care, they wouldn't just go with whatever the company has to offer"
That's a damn good point.
---
Malpractice lawsuits CAN'T (by themselves) increase the cost of your health insurance unless doctors who are high-risk are able to pass on their own marginally higher insurance rates (for malpractice protection) to your health insurance company. First off, malpractice insurance for doctors is competitive, second, the slightly higher costs are not only nearly insignificant, but they're often borne by doctors, as long as they're in a PPO. That's just in theory, though - if your doctor is allowed to operate as a monopoly, he'll pass the costs right on to you... (but they're pretty insignificant anyway!):
This study by the Congressional Budget Office says that trying to fix malpractice will have essentially zero effect on your health insurance costs.
Dateline 20/20 is very, very wrong on this one...
---
Don't forget - insurance companies ARE the free market. PPOs and choice limitation are not only safer in terms of quality-checking doctors, but it's the very thing that was - WAS - keeping costs down in health care...
That link I posted in my last comment sums of Hillary's plan reasonably well, I think - again, it's really not as bad (or "socialized") as people think.
OK, I searched for the $1,000 thing and came up with this:
"Under the plan, the government would give a dollar-to-dollar match for the first $1,000 saved by Americans who earn up to $60,000 annually. For those who earn $60,000 to $100,000, the government would provide a 50 percent match, or $500 for the first $1,000 saved."
Is that what you're talking about?
Yes that was what I was talking about - though I had a different impression of it. It's not AS bad, but still not impressed. Citizens should not rely on the government to save money for them, or to impress it upon them.
If the government were to use this as a ploy to teach people how to save, then why not do it the right way.
Here's my proposal for the "right" way:
Think about your High School 'mandatory' classes to graduate. If we were to put a mandatory finance class the Senior curriculum, in place of lets say, Senior English (which doesn't teach you anything new after grade 10), then maybe the majority of citizens would then understand how a personal budget works, how interest rates on loans and credit cards work, and maybe make wiser decisions out in the real world. This would then teach the generations to be more fiscally educated on how to save for their future.
Now to match some sort of savings might be a good 'in-betweener', but I still believe that if we were to make it mandatory to take these classes, we would not leave it to the math and business departments to teach the students. Especially since the minimum requirements of math can be completed by grade 10, and business classes are usually optional anyway.
Now honestly, I haven't looked at what most of the candidates have in mind for education, but there's my suggestion. I do recall however the last Republican debate that I watched they all think that 'No Child Left Behind' needs to be ratified and/or removed - which I do agree with.
---------
Considering the updates on the subject, I would be willing to deal with the prior suggested cumulative of -24 points. Only because you do bring good argumentative points back my way.
"Citizens should not rely on the government to save money for them, or to impress it upon them."
Agreed, big time. Not only is it overly inefficient, it's also not as necessary as a lot of people believe. Here's a really good take on the matter...
I'm not sure anyone else is going to take the time to catch up on all this & debate with us, so I'm going to post a 24 point loss - provided we give equal treatment for all similar health plans, including Obama & Romney (if Romney lets one out...)
However, no issues are ever closed, so if anyone disagrees and/or has extra stuff to add, do it - we can change our minds (and the score) later...
Thanks, Fred, for poring into this - you're the man.
-4 Points to Hillary because in the process of denying the 'Gender Card" at the Las Vegas debates, she still uses a gender role joke to deny it. Poor, Poor taste.
On another note - the true winner, in my opinion, was Joe Biden (which isn't even on the Gamepaign!!!). He actually knew what he was talking about, treated all of the rest of the candidates with due respect, and almost every candidate used his prior comments for thier own answers. He spoke about all subjects very objectly and matter-of-factly giving a positive impression to his candidacy since he actually (seemed) more genuine. Good job, Joe!
That was poor taste? I watched the video and saw no poor taste... Here's the proper analogy: If a guy with one leg was running for president (no pun intended), would it be in poor taste for him to not only exploit people's sympathies, but to also make one-legged ass-kicking contest jokes?
I think not - Accusations of "Playing Cards" is the comeback of last resort for politicians without good arguments, it seems, especially when there's such a high poll differential.
And besides, you can't lose points in Gamepaign for exploiting nor defending the exploitation of people's sympathies. As much as Clinton's implied sexism or Giuliani's implied racism might suck, they have little direct economic effect...
But I am glad you're keeping the vigilant eye, Fred - If only you'd pledge your vote to Gamepaign, you'd get "debate priority" and I'd concede more easily... heh heh heh...
I would have joined in the pledge if you would have given ALL canddates their fair chance...but you are being as choosy as the media play book suggests. I would much rather give all candidates a fair trial...it seems a bit more democratic.
Though I do understand why you are going with the statistically most viable candidates, as they will have more to be discussed, and the no-namers wouldn't have many points deducted, as they would probably be dropped from candidacy before actually having any good discussion regarding any of them. -That's my only objection to the gamepaign rules...but I'm willing to work with it.
I, as you know, am a persuable voter (but so is everyone) - which entails the addition of emotion to any candidates view. And as we have discussed MANY times, emotion doesn't always play congruently with economics. I'm also guilty of paying more attention to the under-dog because the normal, dare I say empirical candidates, already have name recognition, whether they are right or wrong on the issues. This also gives me the freedom to bring on political subjects that may lean away from economics and look at the character - to later judge whether or not the candidates' character is economically viable...or so I would like to think!
I think it is probably better that I am the 'laymen voice' for the gamepaign, rather than a 'pledge'.
That being said - her retort was tasteless indeed. She should be honorable enough in herself as a candidate to be above the lame criticism. When she commented, "...it's because I'm ahead..." that was fine. She should have left it at that...instead she chose to take it into a further pissing match.
Lame.
The reason I didn't include Gravel, Edwards, McCain, Richardson, et al, was that I didn't have enough space nor enough patience to pay attention to so many candidates, especially when there's almost no chance that they'll be their party's nominee. The only exception to this was Ron Paul, only because Darrell was/is so vocally and obviously in love with the guy. (Also, I thought Ron Paul would provide good fodder for economics debates.)
However - rule #3 states that a candidate can be added at any time, provided he/she receives a point deduction. (it's in the quick rules).
So, Fred, if you want to add Gravel or any others, all you've got to do is ask.
And I just remembered that I promised you a breakdown of the reasons I think Mike Gravel is insane, didn't I? I'll get to it here at some point. :)
Post a Comment