Thursday, March 25, 2004
Newt's Still Nuts
Newt Gingerich has an amusing column on the unemployment problem in today's Washington Post. I probably shouldn't dignify Newt with any attention whatsoever, but he has a couple of laugh lines.
The first merely reflects the bizzare wingnut assumption that if Bill Clinton did it, it must be wrong (the dangers of this idiotic heuristic are on display in the 9/11 hearings). Hence if Clinton somehow did something right (or at least that a winger agrees with), it is "ironic":
Of course, I seem to recall Clinton being consistently pro-free trade, usually to the center-right on economic issues, and frequently criticized for "stealing" Republican policy proposals. Of course, today's Republicans don't seem to remember the principles they espoused way back in the 1990s, so why should they remember anyone else's?
The second laugh line is funnier, but a bit more complicated. America spends far more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country, yet has many millions more people lacking access to health care. With few exceptions, other countries provide health care publicly, more or less as a right of citizenship, and they have found that (because of peculiarities in the behavior of health care markets), a single government payer is much more effective at keeping costs down, especially administrative costs---this is an area where the private sector generates more bureaucracy than government. Of course, American right-wingers (but not their overseas compatriots) oppose government-provided health care. So you can imagine my surprise when Newt opines:
Is Newt going to propose radical changes in American health care to cut costs? Nope: he thinks we can sell our lousy delivery system to the rest of the world:
I doubt he'll find many takers; the American system is so reviled around the world that any government which "sought American expertise" in delivery of health care would rightly fear voter retribution. (Note the difference between medical technology and techniques, which are frequently shared among countries, and the American delivery system, which is not imitated: who else wants HMOs and endless insurance forms?).
Moreover, I thought Republicans were usually the first to point out that adding an undersecretary is hardly likely to solve a major policy problem. But then, this proposal isn't really meant to. What Newt really wants is for people to think Republicans even care about unemployment. Good luck.
Update: A picture of an earlier post of Newt's column, which WaPo managed to both screw up and improve at the same time
The first merely reflects the bizzare wingnut assumption that if Bill Clinton did it, it must be wrong (the dangers of this idiotic heuristic are on display in the 9/11 hearings). Hence if Clinton somehow did something right (or at least that a winger agrees with), it is "ironic":
Ironically, President Bill Clinton understood that focusing on the future and on new jobs, new technologies and the creation of larger markets was the key to ensuring that our children and grandchildren would have the best, highest-paying jobs in the world...
Of course, I seem to recall Clinton being consistently pro-free trade, usually to the center-right on economic issues, and frequently criticized for "stealing" Republican policy proposals. Of course, today's Republicans don't seem to remember the principles they espoused way back in the 1990s, so why should they remember anyone else's?
The second laugh line is funnier, but a bit more complicated. America spends far more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country, yet has many millions more people lacking access to health care. With few exceptions, other countries provide health care publicly, more or less as a right of citizenship, and they have found that (because of peculiarities in the behavior of health care markets), a single government payer is much more effective at keeping costs down, especially administrative costs---this is an area where the private sector generates more bureaucracy than government. Of course, American right-wingers (but not their overseas compatriots) oppose government-provided health care. So you can imagine my surprise when Newt opines:
A new, better health care system would lower the cost of health care for employees so that it is no longer an obstacle when competing against or attracting foreign companies.
Is Newt going to propose radical changes in American health care to cut costs? Nope: he thinks we can sell our lousy delivery system to the rest of the world:
A truly first-rate health care system has the potential to be the largest single creator of high-value-added, high-paying jobs and the largest earner of foreign exchange as citizens abroad seek American expertise in health care delivery systems. This calls for an undersecretary for health in the Department of Commerce, whose job it would be to promote the American system of health care worldwide.
I doubt he'll find many takers; the American system is so reviled around the world that any government which "sought American expertise" in delivery of health care would rightly fear voter retribution. (Note the difference between medical technology and techniques, which are frequently shared among countries, and the American delivery system, which is not imitated: who else wants HMOs and endless insurance forms?).
Moreover, I thought Republicans were usually the first to point out that adding an undersecretary is hardly likely to solve a major policy problem. But then, this proposal isn't really meant to. What Newt really wants is for people to think Republicans even care about unemployment. Good luck.
Update: A picture of an earlier post of Newt's column, which WaPo managed to both screw up and improve at the same time
