What’s Wrong with the World

Lydia,

I have been saying for a while now that the "moderate" Republican standard of today is pretty close to the same location that the middle-to-left liberal standard of 50 years ago was. Are there more than 10% of today's mainstream Republicans who would have been uncomfortable in JFK's administration?

You're right about the "fiscal conservative" group. A lot like the Cheshire cat's grin.

Lydia,

Spot on! It seems to me that I read a truism some years ago that it was impossible to be liberal on social issues while being fiscally conservative - that the costs of social liberalism are so great one ends up supporting bigger government in order to support the liberal social agenda. It was put much more succinctly, but my brain is to tired today to think of how it was said.

I was never in the ranks of Brown fans so his recent vote doesn't surprise me at all. I'd say, "I told you so" to all the Brown fans, but then I don't think I ever actually said anything about it, hehehee.

Kamilla

The candidate you seek supports abortion because he presumes it shrinks the welfare rolls or the crime rate. Such manticores used to be open in the GOP, now they are more subdued. George H.W. Bush may have been among their number.

(Lawrence Auster covers much of the same ground as these next comments, but I wrote before I clicked through to his site)

"Small government" social liberals may be unreliable when big government threatens their conservative friends. Moral conservatives are a long-term threat to their liberalism. The worst of them may see anti-conservative government action as necessary and progressive, like Marx saw dictatorship necessary to destroy obstructions to the communist paradise.

Note that there has been far greater outrage about Ryan Sorba's CPAC comments than about the shutdown of Catholic Charities' 80-year-old foster care and adoption program in D.C. due to the SSM law.

Socially liberal Republicans support civil unions or same-sex 'marriage', but refuse to consider that these expand government action in education and control of business. Same-sex benefits are soon mandated for private businesses and city contractors, adding to other non-discrimination laws which create a de facto ban on morally conservative institutions.

James Poulos has envisioned the dawn of the "pink police state" whose subjects "surrender more and more political liberty in exchange for more and more cultural or 'personal' license. And the government of a Pink Police State tends to monopolize and totalize administrative control while carving out a permissive playpen for the people."

Social liberalism must pretend that all choices are equal, and thereby enables the welfare state and the cultural decline which fuels it.

Honest small government social liberals think their selective principles are enough, but it is habit that rules mankind. One cannot oppose restraint in the culture (or for that matter in the corporate world) and then expect government to restrain itself.

Finally, a word on small government rhetoric: it may be effective in the election campaign but it's counter-productive for practical governance. It alerts bureaucrats to the danger they face and prompts them to lobby against it. The most effective government cuts would come from a bureaucrats' "false friend," though clearly the voters wouldn't know to rally behind him either.

Furthermore, one must be bureaucratically savvy to take on the bureaucracy effectively. Government budget cuts, poorly enacted, will leave only the most capable bureaucrats who are protected by their patronage networks or their identity politics. The pressure to expand will reasset itself as soon as possible.

So we are left with no small government party, and few effective pro-small government factions. Is it too despondent to say that Washington is where small government conservatism goes to die?

I think we need a government program set up to study and promote "small government". :)

The root of the problem is that social liberalism is very, veeery expensive.

The thing is, I hadn't (before Auster said it and now all of you) really thought of the connection at an ideological level between social liberalism and big government. That is, I hadn't thought of it as an explanation for the "unicorn" phenomenon. It's certainly _true_ that social liberalism leads to big government, but I wonder how many candidates know that or would be prepared to admit it. If not, to what extent are their votes explained by it?

I have something very simple-minded in mind, which is nonetheless compatible with what you all are saying: Small government is out of fashion and is getting more so. It is out of fashion with both parties, and at that point it's just a question of _how big_ a lawmaker is willing to make the government. There's no principled place to draw the line at this point, so it's just a matter of saying, vaguely, "Oh, that's going too far. I don't think we need to do that" or whatever. And a lawmaker already to his own party's left on the social issues is very likely to be to its left as far as where he draws that line as well.

While concurring in the judgment that Brown is unlikely to prove himself much of a fiscal conservative, whatever that is supposed to entail nowadays, and believing that the conservative hype over his electoral upset was overblown, reflective of a certain nihilism in the ranks of the right - oppose Obama on any signature policy initiative, even if one has no alternatives, advances inadequate arguments, downplays the actual problems to which the policy is a response, and compromises what were once core philosophical and political commitments in order to "win" a transient political battle - I disagree that his vote for cloture on a piddling $15 billion stimulus package, comprised of tax cuts and infrastructure spending, demonstrates his fiscal liberalism.

Most self-identified fiscal conservatives burn a pinch of incense to the god of tax cuts, and excommunicate those who, from within their ranks, look at the actual fiscal standing of the United States and advocate a mixture of spending restraints, entitlement reforms, and tax increases, like Bruce Bartlett. Moreover, infrastructure, unless one is a raving libertarian, believing that virtually everything should be privatized, is a core function of government.

One might, of course, protest that, given the parlous fiscal status of the United States, which some (overheated) commentators have likened to Greece, no such spending should be undertaken. It would be a debatable argument, but at least it would have a coherent logic. This, however, leads into the true problem with Brown, and the more reliable indicators of his fiscal profligacy, namely, his support for the immense profligacy of American foreign policy and defense spending, which must account for nearly $1 trillion in annual squanderage; by comparison, $15 billion is a rounding error. In other words, I have no objection to the claim that someone willing to buck the party consensus on social issues will likely go further than the party on fiscal issues; I simply don't believe that this inconsequential vote demonstrates that.

As for the matter of the political valence of this little stimulus, it has none, as demonstrated by the cross-ideological appeal of payroll tax cuts.

Lydia,

I think you are right about your general point, and conservatives should do more at the local level to run social and fiscal conservatives in primaries so that these ideas are given a fighting chance with the electorate.

But in the specific case of Scott Brown, I still think that it was important to support his victory because unlike Maximos I don't think of the health care debate as a "transiet political battle". Instead, Brown's victory may have been the single event that stopped the Obama health-care momentum and given the Republicans a chance to prove to the country that they in fact (contra Maximos) do have idea on how to start to reform our health-care delivery system and there are better ways to undertake piecemeal reform than a 2000+ page bill.

And Bruce Bartlett is not the only one proposing serious entitlement reform -- check out Ryan's proposal to tackle the deficit which involves no new taxes and yet is a serious attempt to fundamentally change the relationship between the federal government and its citizens, while means-testing entitlements:

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Finally, I'm sure I disagree with most of the W4 gang about the usefulness of the $1 trillion we spend on defense and the military, but even I would except the fact that to live within our means moving forward everything must be cut.

I disagree with Maximos's priorities, and I think it incredibly important to stop so-called "healthcare reform," AKA Obamacare. As I say in the main post, I'm a purist, so I wouldn't have voted for Brown for that purpose. But in any event, even those who _did_ vote for him for strategic reasons should not have expected that they were getting a fiscal conservative for their money.

I haven't said anything about my own political priorities, merely that the GOP seems content to stop Obama's health care plan with a big, fat nothingburger. For those who believe that the present health care system is problematic, and not merely that Obama's plan must be halted, come what may, this is a bug.

Maximos, since I sincerely doubt that you and I have anything approaching significant common ground on questions like, "What are the legitimate and important powers and functions of the federal government in insuring the welfare of the American people" or "What counts as 'big government'" and the like, I am not moved by your words to start researching in detail the legitimacy of the various items of government spending in the recent stimulus bill so widely condemned as pork by my fellow conservatives. As you probably know, I am no fan of foreign nation-building and think that the best thing we could do for our foreign policy would be to ditch the "you broke it, you bought it" rule. Not that you would be likely to like that, either, but it would be comparatively much less expensive than the approach of the past 40-50 years. As Jeff Singer says, we need to be cutting costs everywhere.

since I sincerely doubt that you and I have anything approaching significant common ground....

Since it is beyond easy to find limpid reportage on the composition of the legislation, I can only conclude that the significance of the above statement is that because you, and others here, find my politics disagreeable, no actual empirical investigation is necessary. For my part, I'm not much for the "government small enough to drown in a bathtub" (it's interesting to me that some small-government folks would choose as a metaphor for their position an image redolent of child murder) position, inasmuch as it is an ideological distortion of the doctrine of subsidiarity, a doctrinal position that prefers to apply a template to circumstances, rather than adapting political forms prudentially to circumstances. Anti-Burkean, in fact. And no, that's not a defense of Obamacare, either.

Maximos,

You are simply incorrect about Republicans proposing alternatives to Obamacare -- it is almost as if you read a lot of lefy blogs and have bought into the Left's narrative that the Republican party is the big bad party of NO (you might want to start here: http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare).

But since you are a good conservative who knows better than to trust lefties, I know this must be wild speculation...

;-)

P.S. I meant to say "accept", not "except" up above, but Lydia understood my point.

Maximos, I wrote the post pretty much assuming common ground with my readers on whether the stimulus bill was or wasn't consistent with "being in favor of small government." You, of all people, would choose that particular thing to challenge. Yet at the same time, you agree that you and I probably don't agree on what constitutes a good concept of small government or on what the federal government should be up to. So, yes, why should I give much weight at all--even enough weight to make me research in detail a bill on which I took it I could take other conservatives' word (and given also my own justifiable distrust of "government stimulus")--to your judgement on the necessity of the things in that particular bill, when I have other sources I trust better *because I have reason to think they agree more with me on what government should be doing*? Why get into an interminable wrangle on whether something is "pork" or "legitimate infrastructure" with you? That wasn't the point of the post anyway.

Wait, Maximos, you think the ENTIRE 1 Trillion of defense / foreign spending is "squanderage"? (Nice new word coinage. Can I use it elsewhere?) I could go along with there being a million or two of waste, sure. Or a billion or two, fine. Or 100 billion. Or 300 to 600 billion of squanderage just to be on the safe side. But every dollar of the entire 1 trillion? Is that a little, I don't know, maybe, hyperbolic?

That's not really what I am writing about, though. It is awfully early days on Scott Brown to come to any settled conclusion about his true colors. Admittedly, voting for the stimulus package was a bit off-putting. But hey, he's probably more than a little distracted at trying to put together a staff, and get himself on some committees, and locate the closest liquor store that has the right kind of scotch, and so on. A piddling little 15 billion compared to 787 billion last year is more along the line of mere signal noise. I grant you that there is very little in his rhetoric that leads me to think we are LIKELY to get much better out of him in the future fiscally. But can't we give him until he at least has a legislative aide up and running?

Jeff, I'm afraid that I'll be hewing to my description of the GOP alternative as a 'nothingburger', not merely because the summaries, fact sheets, and comparison tables over at the GOP website are remarkably content-free, and not merely because I, like everyone else reading this forum, lack the time to read 230 pages of obfuscatory legalese, but because actual health care economists have evaluated the GOP proposals, and concluded that they will not achieve their stated objectives of affordability and cost control. This is scarcely to state that I consider the Obama plan a triumph of statecraft, which it manifestly is not; even if it were a monument of enlightened policymaking, I'd still oppose it, on the grounds that the barrier between federal funding and abortion "services" should be raised, and not eliminated. My point is that nothing should be opposed with something.

What the health care debate truly concerns, despite all of the wonkery now surrounding it, on both sides of the aisle, are divergent and incommensurable philosophical commitments, regarding the nature of the actual problems to be resolved, the responsibility of public authority as regards those problems, the nature of the common good (if any), and so forth. I trust that this is obvious.

So, yes, why should I give much weight at all...

I haven't taken a position one way or the other on the substance of the bill, except to state the patently obvious, which is that conservatives normally favour tax cuts, even to the point of ridiculousness, and that infrastructure is a core responsibility of government, since we are neither utopians, nor desirous of living in places like Somalia. What is the principle at stake in opposing this miniscule piece of legislation? That anything called "stimulus" must be bad, regardless of the actual substance? That it must be opposed because it might lead people to believe that "government doing something" leads to improvements in the employment situation? It couldn't be that, inasmuch as this would utterly invalidate every argument for every tax cut ever advanced. That doing things that even conservatives normally approbate, and performing core functions of public authority, should be avoided if the budget is in deficit? This might, as I have indicated, be a consistent argument, if not a particularly cogent one, but it is scarcely what conservatives are actually arguing.

As I said, the logic of the argument appears to be that we trust the people with whom we agree, regardless of the actual evidence, and absent any deeper reflection upon the adaptation of policy to changing circumstances. Politics is not an empirical and prudential undertaking, but a dogmatic one.

Why get into an interminable wrangle on whether something is "pork" or "legitimate infrastructure" with you?

Choose your battles. I get it. My point is that, despite my agreement with the overarching thesis, the evidence advanced does not lead to the conclusion. Conservatives are falling all over themselves to reject a tiny little bill that most of them would have approved under any Republican administration, for reasons that don't withstand much scrutiny.

Is that a little, I don't know, maybe, hyperbolic?

Of course it is, but I was busy at the office, and rather exhausted, and having realized it was hyperbolic, decided to let it stand as originally written. Believe it or not, I don't normally do this. My actual belief is that, if the total spending on the Pentagon and the (pointless) wars is $1 trillion, then a good $650 billion is easily squanderage. And yes, everyone is free to use the coinage.

lack the time to read 230 pages of obfuscatory legalese

Is THAT how short the Republicrat offering is? Why, that's 9 times better than the 2000 page Democrudic Obamacare offering is. I would probably be willing to spend a good share of that 650B of squanderage to avoid 9 times as much obfuscatory legalese, when each additional page adds to the bureaucratic busybody burden (and expense, of course). After all, I might only have to spend the 650B once to stop the bill, whereas the gross over-expenditures and harmful practices in a bad health care plan will follow us year after year after ....

I concur.

The non-existence of the beast might also be proved from a different starting point:

I maintain that the logical flaw lies in the notion of a practical libertarianism. I've heard people who consider themselves socially liberal/fiscally conservative speak as though it is possible to bring about a liberal social agenda merely through shrinking the government. On paper, this is perfectly true; but in the modern American political climate this is absurd. The expansion of "rights" in the American mind, means that the government will inevitably act as guarantor of access to such rights (through funding and regulation) and facilitate social acceptance of the practice of said rights (through education). However much lip service is given to libertarian arguments in public discussions ranging from gay marriage to drug legalization, the reality is that American government only knows one way to "expand rights": more government. When a libertarian asks "How will it in anyway affect you?" the flippant answer is: as you've dreamt it, none at all, but as it will be implemented, plenty.

Thus, a social liberal/fiscal conservative is a myth because in modern America bringing about the former, in practice, invariably leads to an expansion of government that contradicts the latter.

Max, "pointless wars"? Perhaps from your moral pinnacle you can find the time to shout down to our islamist "followers of the Book" and so inform them as well as your hopelessly benighted fellow countrymen.
Max, sometimes you are more contemptible then other times, the levels, like that of a cesspool, vary.

In brief, the Iraq war had not a whit to do with the actual jihadist threat, and if anything, aided in jihadist recruiting. The Afghanistan war, while just if construed narrowly - ie., as an effort to capture and neutralize al Qaeda - has assumed wider national and regional objectives which are frankly unattainable. I leave it to the reader to determine whether futile meatgrinders are consonant with just war doctrine.

Hence, the Iraq war was always pointless, and the Afghan war, in my judgment, has become pointless. At least one paleocon disagrees with me on that latter point - Daniel Larison.

As for the tone, it should improve, and that's not a suggestion.

Thus, a social liberal/fiscal conservative is a myth because in modern America bringing about the former, in practice, invariably leads to an expansion of government that contradicts the latter.

This is true of the homosexual agenda almost as a matter of logical necessity, because guaranteeing "non-discrimination" is not a small-government thing, and neither is insisting on the recognition--in countless legal ways--of homosexual "marriage." Libertarians who don't realize this are outright fools.

Still, it might seem that one could shrink things like various welfare programs, bailouts, takeovers of industries, increasing regulation (not related to discrimination), pork projects, and the like, while remaining a committed social liberal. But that, too, doesn't seem to happen.

To quantify our military situation, and give a hint to how much could really be cut, consider aircraft carriers. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, all nuclear supercarriers; the next highest is the UK and Italy, which both have 2, and no other nation possesses a single supercarrier. Our smallest carrier, the Enterprise, is 93,500 tons. The next highest is a Russian carrier weighing 67,500 tons. Most of the others around the world don't even come close to that. France's carrier, which is the only nuclear carrier outside the US, comes in at 42,000 tons. Altogether, the rest of the world has 11 carriers in service, meaning that the US is literally making up half the carrier fleet of the world.

Do we need 11 supercarriers with full strike group complements? I don't know how you could possibly answer yes. That we have them is great for me, since it guarantees me a job for the foreseeable future, but it is undeniably 'squanderage'

Lydia, so you think that libertarians who say that the government should keep its nose out of other people's bedrooms advocate big government? Don't you think the national-wide implementation of anti-abortion laws or of anti-homosexual instructions for the Army etc. would lead to more government as well?
You might reply that abortion and homosexual behaviour are immoral, but so is (in the eyes of a liberal/libertarian) discrimination against homosexuals. So, the debate is not about more or less government, but about moral issues. There is neither a necessary connection between social liberalism and big government, nor between social conservatism and small government.

By the way, there still is a fiscally conservative, socially liberal (with the exception of abortion) Republican (at least by name): Ron Paul. He had quite a bunch of followers during the last primary elections, as you certainly know.

It seems as though pretty frequently, social conservatives are confronted with the hypothetical scenario: What would you do if you could vote for someone who was liberal on social issues like abortion and gay "marriage" but who was fiscally conservative?

Me, I'm an unabashed purist and would tell such a candidate to go pound sand. But some people seem really worried by this hypothetical, and, indeed, there have been movements in conservatism to downplay the social issues in order to back such hypothetical candidates.

It depends. Scott Brown is no social or fiscal conservative, but he is more socially and fiscally conservative than the place that elected him. In other words, he's an improvement on Massachusetts. Also, he was necessary to kill the health care plan, which isn't just some transient battle, but the big kahuna - the point of no return. Cap and trade could be undone at any time, but socialized health care would probably mean the end of America (unless God graciously allowed our federal government to default on its debts - thus forcing an end to federal spending - while some embers of the American spirit still glowed).

That said, I fully expect this guy to be another McCain or Snowe or Specter who will constantly need to be on guard against.

Matt, and if we tossed them out, that would save us money, how? And how does that compare to, say, the money we spend on foreign aid? Hey, I have an idea: Let's stop "training" the "moderate Palestinians." We could save some money there, I'm sure.

Grobi, baloney. Anti-discrimination laws mean that private people may not discriminate. The absence of such laws means that private people can. You may think that this will mean that private people are asking questions you don't like about sexual behavior, though actually, as we've discussed elsewhere, it usually means instead that people who shout their sexual behavior from the rooftops are _permitted_ to be treated differently in society, so no "prying" is remotely necessary. In any event, that has nothing to do with government. As to military policies "leading to more government," get a clue: Military personnel can _presently_ be punished for blogging that is critical of the government, for all sorts of things. Military personnel are not and never have been free to do what private citizens are free to do. As a conservative, I tend to think that in the current climate this probably bears most hardly on conservatives in the military who might, for example, wish to criticize the policies currently in place regarding women in the military. Merely keeping such extremely minor policies in place as are currently there regarding homosexuals certainly doesn't "lead to more government." It _might_ apply something like the same standard to open expression of one's intent to commit homosexual conduct as is undoubtedly applied to open expression of non-PC ideas, though myself, I doubt how much this actually happens in practice. But it is, in any event, not a matter of "more government" but rather a matter of "you can't be military and do anything you like; military personnel are subject to different standards from ordinary people."

I have said times without number that pro-homosexual-agenda commentators are among the most time-wasting commentators in the Internet. I don't intend to waste much of my own time with your silly attempted equivalences, Grobi, because I happened to mention homosexual "anti-discrimination" laws as an example of big government in action.

By the way, it's ridiculous to call someone "socially liberal except for abortion." Really ridiculous. Abortion is a litmus test of social conservatism. I'd think even less of R.P. than I presently do if I thought him a social liberal. And in any event, you know as well as I do that R.P. is a libertarian in all but name. He's one of the tiny minority of pro-life libertarians. They even have a web site, though I haven't checked it out in a while. Last I checked, they were also opposed to physician-assisted suicide--another socially conservative position.

There is neither a necessary connection between social liberalism and big government, nor between social conservatism and small government.

With emphasis on the "necessary". Sure, it's logically possible to conceive of a socially liberal society with a small government, but it never, ever works out that way in real life. Socially liberal, secular societies always end up having massive, intrusive governments to handle the social chaos and decay caused by their social liberalism.

Don't you think the national-wide implementation of anti-abortion laws or of anti-homosexual instructions for the Army etc. would lead to more government as well?

That's just weird. In the military, homosexuality used to be outright banned. It didn't involve more government, or "special instructions", or special panels or anything of the sort. If you were gay, you simply kicked out or not allowed in. Likewise, abortion used to be illegal nearly everywhere. The government was smaller, not bigger. If someone was caught performing them, they were taken to court and sent to jail, plain and simple. In fact, "liberalizing" these very clear, simple laws has increased the size of government, since handling all the complicated and fuzzy cases requires an increase in government regulation. I'm not even sure where you're coming from on this. Are you working from the assumption that laws are the same things as regulations or something?

With emphasis on the "necessary". Sure, it's logically possible to conceive of a socially liberal society with a small government, but it never, ever works out that way in real life.

This, with reference to the political reality of modern America and our interpretation of "rights," was pretty much the gist of what I was getting at in my post.

You might reply that abortion and homosexual behaviour are immoral, but so is (in the eyes of a liberal/libertarian) discrimination against homosexuals. So, the debate is not about more or less government, but about moral issues.

I can't makes sense of this one, Grobi. If you are indicating that the debate being shifted to moral issues it wrong, I'd say you've contributed to that. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that the fundamental thing at stake here is a moral issue--an odd argument for a doctrinaire libertarian.

Still, it might seem that one could shrink things like various welfare programs, bailouts, takeovers of industries, increasing regulation (not related to discrimination), pork projects, and the like, while remaining a committed social liberal. But that, too, doesn't seem to happen.

Lydia, this is certainly true for negative legislative activity, but it still remains that an American social liberal qua social liberal is destined to contradict fiscal conservatism for all the reasons you highlight. And no, Grobi, this is not logically necessary, only circumstantially.

As you say though, even in the negative capacity, it doesn't seem to happen often : /

Matt, and if we tossed them out, that would save us money, how? And how does that compare to, say, the money we spend on foreign aid? Hey, I have an idea: Let's stop "training" the "moderate Palestinians." We could save some money there, I'm sure.

Well I doubt anyone is suggesting that we scuttle good ships, but each carrier by itself costs about 8 billion to build now. After construction, you have maintenance costs, personnel costs, overhaul costs, and cost of all the aircraft to fill it plus pilots to fly them. After that, you have the total costs, construction and maintenance, for the escort groups that accompany a carrier.

It ends up being a massive bill, much larger than the 22 billion annually that goes to foreign aid. That's not to say that foreign aid couldn't use a large cut too...Israel would be the place to start, as they are the number one recipient.

Well Matt, as Linus once said to Sally, we are clearly divided by denominational differences. I'd cut the aid to our allies--and then, only _outright aid_, not sales and loans, after, and only after, cutting the aid to the jihadist terrorists (aka "moderates"), the boatloads of condoms to Africa, the program for rebuilding Haiti from the ground up, the aid to Egypt, dues to the U.N., the AIDS superfund, the trust fund for the Taliban (who's paying for that, btw?), and on and on and on. Oh, and cut all domestic spending on Planned Parenthood, all federal welfare programs, all federal meddling in the housing loan market to "encourage minority home ownership," and on and on and on.

Oh, lookee, here's a good place to cut government spending:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015796.html

1.25 billion. You read that right.

Max, To recite the various connections and support between Iraq and various terrorist activities, for example, Iraq's financial gifts to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers being just one, would not be proof to one aloof from proof. Your assertion that the war in Afghanistan had validity only in relation to al Qaeda presumes the rather stupid notion that the entire struggle we find ourselves in relates to that one group, as if there aren't alliances of a trans-national & border nature, the Taliban itself having such relationships. As If in fact it's not global, a war on different fronts and by different means. Again, why do I bother.

But if Iraq is pointless maybe some people who have voted there or who lost family members to Saddam's torture chambers might disagree, a bonus you might say as outcomes go, though meaningless to you, sensitive humanist that you are.

If you get time do give me the rational & connections for the gem "futile meatgrinders & "Just War Doctrine". Meatgrinder does sound a bit subjective.

This is the islamist resurgence, we don't get to pick up our marbles and leave the game, this they hope, is the big one, the cap on 1500 years of war and repression so stop the moaning about us defending ourselves and giving these murderers recruiting incentives. They don't need any.

Max, I rather like my tone. A war we did not start is hardly pointless, the dead the world around are not pointless, the conflict that like it or not, will last for years to come, is not pointless. Your sniffing and huffing may be pointless but you'll never know it.
And what. other then suggestions, do you offer?

johnt, I'm not eager for this thread to become a discussion of the legitimacy of this or that foreign war, whether it be Iraq or Afghanistan. Speaking for myself, I'd rather focus on stopping Muslim immigration and perhaps even immigration of what Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch calls "IslamoChristians"--where the latter position is not likely to earn me any good points with Maximos. This, however, is obviously an argument for another thread.

More importantly, your reference to Maximos uberhaupt (not even to some particular idea just expressed) as "contemptible" and your analogy to a "cesspool" are not welcome. Maximos and I have very little in common, I fear, these days, but you may not abuse a blog colleague in that fashion on my thread.

Johnt, as I said, my admonition about your tone was not a suggestion, so let me spell it out, for you, and for everyone else who has cast abusive language my way in these pages: change the tone or you won't be commenting here.

Do we need 11 supercarriers with full strike group complements? I don't know how you could possibly answer yes. That we have them is great for me, since it guarantees me a job for the foreseeable future, but it is undeniably 'squanderage'

Matt, I probably agree 100% that it is very hard to say that we need 11 carriers. But I have often wondered if saying that "we just don't need 11 carriers" is logically equivalent to "spending on them is squanderage" or even "we should get rid of some". Here is what I am thinking:

Getting from "need a carrier" to "now we have the carrier" is not a 10-hour assembly line process. It takes over a decade from start to finish - even the breaking-in process and trials take many months. Out of the 11, probably at least 2 are nearing the end of their useful life, and I know for a fact that one just came on line and I think that it has not completed its full work-up.

But aside from the sheer logistics of cycling inventory (if you can use "inventory" for such an enormous object), there are other considerations: building some aspects of a carrier or submarine requires advanced technical abilities and enormously complex tools. That know-how and those tools cannot just sit waiting in the warehouse until we decide we need another unit in the inventory, being unpaid in the meanwhile. The manpower will fritter away into other jobs, and the skills will gradually be lost. Same with building a bomber wing: it's one of the most complex single pieces of equipment around, built to incredibly small tolerances. So part of the decision of whether we "need" another carrier is really a question of whether we can maintain the required capacity to build what we need over the long term without building another carrier.

Which is not to say that it is impossible to overdo it: obviously if we don't need carriers at all, maintaining the know-how to build them is squanderage in itself. Yeah, I see that, and there are other problems that I haven't mentioned. But heck, it's only 20 years since the fall of the evil Soviet empire. It's a little early to be confident knowing just what we DO need in the emerging world.

This is true of the homosexual agenda almost as a matter of logical necessity, because guaranteeing "non-discrimination" is not a small-government thing, and neither is insisting on the recognition--in countless legal ways--of homosexual "marriage."

Lydia, you've made some valuable points on the "almost necessary" correlation between an agenda against "anti-homosexual discrimination" and "more government". I agree, in principle. But you cleverly avoided answering the really hard question: What about the following argument put forward by a liberal Lydia McGrew-counterpart:

This is true of the pro life agenda almost as a matter of logical necessity, because implementing "non-abortion" laws is not a small-government thing, and neither is prosecuting US citizens who aborted or assisted abortion in foreign countries."

So, the anti discrimation laws are for the social liberal what the anti abortion laws are for the social conservative. I fail to see any relevant asymmetry here. Please enlighten me.

And sorry, your claim that social liberalism would be a ridiculous thing without a pro abortion agenda is complete balderdash. What about the legislation of drugs, homosexual marriage, pornography and so on?

Brett, you seem to mistake libertarianism for moral relativism. However, I can consistently hold, as I indeed do, that some ways of life are OJECTIVELY better than others and at the same time esteem other people's freedom to make their own decisions (and failures) and to mold their character as they please (as long as they do not seriously interfere with the freedom of others). Immanuel Kant, inventor of the categorical imperative, was a libertarian in this sense, but surely not a relativist.

I meant "drug legalisation", of course. By the way: Is not the war on drugs another example of big government opposed by liberals/libertarians like R.P., but defended by conservatives like you, Lydia?

Grobi, laws against abortion are manifestly NOT a big-government program, since that is exactly what we had in this country for many decades before 1973, without big-government involvement in the affair. For one thing, it was completely at the state level, and for another, the entire mechanism of enforcement was already in place to enforce the rest of the normal laws protecting ordinary citizens.

Yes, there would be a certain amount of disruption to go back to prosecuting for abortion, but that would pass.

I meant "drug legalisation"

I make you a deal: I will go for legalized drugs, if you will go for imposing the death penalty on anyone who sells, procures, or gives drugs to a young person who is still in the process of becoming a mature, self-sufficient individual (i.e. someone whose ability to decide whether to use drugs is impaired by not being fully - emotionally and psychologically - established yet.) Have I mentioned recently that I think that in our overly-protective culture, virtually all people under 21 are certainly too immature to decide for themselves, and probably most people under 25 are. Better set the age at 30. I am OK with a law that allows 30-year olds to take any drugs they want, as long as they pay for the consequences. Make them post a bond for the cost of foreseeable consequences (hey, let's include smoking in this too). Then sell them the drugs at the pharmacy, kill anyone who sells drugs on the street, and poof, no more illegal drug problem. OK with you?

I don't recall ever advocating prosecuting U.S. citizens who perform or procure abortions in foreign countries. It's a thought, but it's certainly not where I'd start. I'd settle for prosecuting abortionists in the U.S. In any event, I would start by returning the issue to the states, where I tend to think it belongs, so the whole "big government" thing is an apples and oranges issue. In the main post, I was thinking principally of the expansion of federal government power. And for that matter, in the main post, I was thinking of government bailouts, buyouts, expansions of programs, takeovers of the private industry, regulation, etc. I brought up the homosexual agenda only in the thread. And homosexual rights activists definitely do want to address their issues with new, positive legislation at the federal level. I, at any rate, as a pro-lifer, am not principally seeking that for life issues.

If R.P. supports homosexual "marriage," I'm very sorry to hear that, and it tarnishes his libertarian credentials, among other things, big-time. But I've never heard anything that indicates that he does. Certainly, social conservatism comes in degrees and is manifested in a variety of issues, but everything I've seen indicates that R.P. is far more of a social conservative than a social liberal. Really committed pro-choicers would have a fit if you told them someone was a good liberal but wanted abortion outlawed! Some libertarians get focused on the "war on drugs" (on which I like Tony's suggestion) and tend to think someone is on their side across the board if he agrees with them on that.

Lydia, my apologies.

Lydia, there are more than 800.000 legal abortions in the US each year now. If, say, 25 % of the women involved would still try to have an illegal abortion (a rather modest number) in case of a ban, there are 200.000 abortions to prevent and(or) to prosecute. Do you really think that would be a minor thing to do? That there wouldn't be collateral damages to civil liberties?
Don't misunderstand me: if abortion is murder, as you think, lamenting "more government" would be no argument against taking severe measures. But it is just plain wrong to claim that social conservatists are qua social conservatists opposed to big government.

Tony, regards drug policy I am fine with your general approach (legalise it, but draconically punish those who give it to non-adults)!

But it is just plain wrong to claim that social conservatists are qua social conservatists opposed to big government.

I don't think I ever claimed that they are. In fact, the whole point of my musing in the post is the set of fairly contingent interactions between social and fiscal conservatism. In fact, I'll go you one better: I can imagine a "green" social conservative who wants lots and lots more big government control of business--say, to "prevent global warming"--and who also wants abortion outlawed. Mike Huckabee may be exactly such a candidate.

The post was rather about the opposite question: Are there any real social liberals/fiscal conservatives currently running in the Republican party? If not, why not? And if not, then pro-lifers, in particular, shouldn't be duped when they are told that some particular candidate is such a unicorn and that they must therefore stifle their pro-life beliefs and vote for him to "stop big government." Because probably, voting for him will not help to stop big government, because he's probably a highly phony fiscal conservative.

Certainly, whether or not abortion is murder influences one's opinion of whether prohibiting it and prosecuting abortionists is a legitimate function of government! I would never deny that.

As the Bush tax cuts, Medicare part D, and the Iraq and Afghan wars clearly show, there are, for all practical purposes no real fiscal conservatives in either party in Congress. As this graph shows there is little or none amongst the general populace. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/corrected-graph-on-conservative-cuts.php

If one means that one takes a responsible approach to funding government ventures there can be none in the Republican Party as that approach is impossible without tax increases of some sort and any Rep advocating such will be taken out by the Club for Growth folks.

Since everyone, for all practical purposes, wants the government we have and more while not wanting to pay for it, we would seem to have a problem.

Lydia, all the programs you list are a drop in the bucket. Eliminate them and we still have a problem without higher taxes.

Oh, Al, that was just me getting started. The real biggie is Social Security. All those entitlements for the whole populace. Impossible to maintain. I think it should be phased out. Medicare, too. I realize no one who said this could be elected, probably.

Yes, SS is the elephant in the closet. Too big to actually do anything about, without major, major headaches. It is also probably too difficult politically for a Republican to get consensus on any real fix for it, so for practical matters it would probably take a Democrat ("only Nixon could go to China"). Any fiscally sound Democrats out there at all? Even one? Blue Dog Dems?

Any fiscally sound Democrats out there at all? Even one? Blue Dog Dems?

Uh-huh. Democrats tried to contain spiraling Medicare costs in the health care bill, and Republicans milked it for all they could. One stab in the back is plenty, thanks.

Gee, Step2, why didn't I think of that? Let's vastly increase government entitlement commitments to the populace at large, while vastly increasing government control and regulation of an entire sector of the economy. Meanwhile, let's combine this with controversial and highly targeted limitations and rationing of medical benefits for the elderly. I'm sure that'll balance the budget and shrink the size of government.

Or maybe not.

I said that the government needs to phase out Medicare, not that the government needs to micromanage Medicare. The two are actually diametrically opposed to one another.

and Republicans milked it for all they could. One stab in the back is plenty, thanks.

I'm puzzled about why you would say that. I didn't follow all the nasty little twists and turns of the plan and its evolutions, so I must have missed this one. I am not even sure what the plans for Medicare were. How did the Republicans milk the Dems' attempt to rein in costs?

While eliminating social security would save some money, it would mostly shift cost. Given the number of old folks in my community that would be thoroughly impoverished were social security to go away, my property taxes would likely have to double. Social security was created after all because local communities were being bankrupted in trying to serve the indigent elderly. There would also be other unintended consequences like elderly ghettos and parts of cities where you would rarely see a person over 60. And perhaps folks would be willing to take the trade offs. Whether or not it is the feds writing the checks will be immaterial in determining if it bankrupts us.

M.Z., I agree with much of what you say: cutting off SS all at once would do many of those things. Fortunately, it would not be necessary to cut it off all at once to make great changes.

UNfortunately, the option of leaving it alone to pay seniors indefinitely is NOT available, eventually the money won't be there anyway. So whether we start to shift the costs now and intelligently, or later and stupidly, are the only options we have.

The point is to shift the costs it in a manner that respects long-term the nature of human motivations. If you shift the cost of taking care of Grandma from family to society, then you gravely modify the very dynamic of family itself, and you probably end up doing so in a manner that makes it virtually impossible for society to take care of her also. (See "stupidly" above).

Social security was created after all because local communities were being bankrupted in trying to serve the indigent elderly.

I don't really understand how that works: you shift the cost of taking care of the indigent elderly from the community where they lived and raised families, off to...where? Some other community who are taking care of their indigent elderly? Oh, no, you spread the burden around to all the folks, including the young. Including the young who would otherwise be taking care of their own elderly Grandma? Wait, I know, you ONLY share out the costs to people who didn't have any grandparents in their ancestry, 'cause they are getting off scot free. That's it.

"How did the Republicans milk the Dems' attempt to rein in costs? "

Short answer. By getting folks to believe things that simply aren't true. Hence we get assertions like this:

"Meanwhile, let's combine this with controversial and highly targeted limitations and rationing of medical benefits for the elderly."

Some of the Medicare "cuts" are the adjustments that every insurance company puts on providers. Part of the cuts were to Medicare Advantage programs that are overpaid relative to regular Medicare. The over payments allow some providers in large markets to provide extra benefits although in an inefficient manner but Advantage programs in medium and small markets generally suck. Cutting these over payments to Advantage would make things a bit fairer.

There is no rationing in either bill beyond that which already exits in Medicare and there would be considerably less rationing in general under either the Senate or House plan then under the current system.

Tony, as you have indicated that you haven't followed the issue, you should understand that all health care systems ration access in some manner. The only exceptions are those folks who have relatively unlimited resources. With health care, that means very few indeed. This rationing is unavoidable so when someone invokes it as a talking point you should probably assume it is an unserious assertion.
All this is especially obnoxious as Republican plans for medicare are designed to destroy the system.

all health care systems ration access in some manner.

Um=huh. It's a logical truth, right? So that must mean that my local grocery story rations food, too. Or perhaps it's the "food system" that rations it.

As usual, the standard equivocation on "rationing." I'm just sorry a few conservatives have fallen for it, too.

As I said, the best thing would be for the government to get out of this business altogether. Read my lips: I do not want the government telling me what medical care it is "fair" for me to receive. I'd rather die because I can't afford something. Which is not rationing, by the way.

Read my lips: I do not want the government telling me what medical care it is "fair" for me to receive. I'd rather die because I can't afford something. Which is not rationing, by the way.

It also isn't insurance, and I don't see any libertarians canceling their insurance policies because of "socialism". What you have is what your access to the risk-pool of insurance coverage provides, not what you can actually afford unassisted.

Rather the HMO than Big Brother as well, especially considering the difficulty of working outside the system in special cases once the system is under greater government control than ever. But better still, old-fashioned insurance rather than HMO's. And yes, higher deductible policies and a restoration of a normal customer/provider relationship for routine medical care. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, there are legions of things which 'we' do not get, foremost among them, for present purposes, why it is somehow ethically tolerable (I'll use the more existential terms, instead of bringing in - quelle horreur! - any of that "communist" talk of justice) for people to simply die or suffer from otherwise preventable, treatable, or meliorable illnesses/conditions, merely for the evil fortune of having been born unwell, or, through the vicissitudes of life, of having "failed" to accumulate the private fortunes wherewith to treat them; why it is ethically tolerable, in a first world nation of historically unparalleled wealth and abundance, for there to exist no minimum guaranteed provision of medical access, as in every other civilized nation of our shared Western heritage; why a minimum guaranteed provision is thought to be a terrifying step upon the slippery slope to the road to serfdom, when it has not proven such in any other nation, notwithstanding certain marginal problems in only a relative handful of such systems; why, moreover, so many Americans feel a compulsion to cloak their contempt for any sort of social solidarity in the raiment of various ethical concerns, when even the elimination of such concerns from any legislation would not prompt them to support reform; why so many Americans assimilate virtually every health care system other than our own to an abstracted vision of the British NHS, when it is manifest that, where health care policy is concerned, 'not the American system' does not entail Big Brother; and why, when economists themselves will analyze the price mechanism as a means of rationing scarcity, this somehow, magically, ceases to be the case the moment health care enters the discussion.

Yes, there are many things, with respect to health care policy, that I do not 'get', and never will. Perhaps, in certain respects, that is a blessing. One thing I do understand, however, is that the problem with health care policy is not anything political, technocratic, or even financial - at least, it is not these things in the sense that these would the originary causes. No, the problem with health care policy in these United States is primarily cultural; we do, in fact, have the sort of health care system we deserve, collectively, though this is not true of every individual in the system, for many people receive far from what they deserve. As a people, we seem to insist upon this system; as such, we can bloody well suffer with it.

You smoked me right out, Maximos. I'm not a socialist. I don't consider inequality unethical.

But actually, when I used the phrase "don't get it," I meant with regard to my own position and the way that I reject--with some annoyance--the continued implication that if anybody tells me "You can't have such-and-such," this should all be called "rationing" and is no less objectionable than having the government do the same thing. I don't accept that use of the term rationing. I don't accept the equivalent undesirability of having _somebody_ refuse me something with having the _government_ take over the industry and then refuse me something. What you and others "don't get" is that some of us have a special objection to having Uncle Sam control the flow of goods and services in the name of equality and then tell us all what we can and can't have. You can stomp your foot all you want to say that having the insurance company refuse payment is the same thing and that I should object to that just as much, but that won't make me agree with you.

Except that no one is stomping his foot, least of all because Big Brother is threatening to "take over" something and "determine what everyone can and cannot have." That's not happening here, and it's not what happens in most of the health care systems of the developed West. What is happening, is that people on the political right are employing this as an excuse to go and offer their incense and sacrifices to an abstract, jealous god, inequality, which they invoke tediously, as though the mere sound of the word, sight of the letters on the page or monitor, or thought of the concept, sufficed to prove that any particular inequality is warranted or justified. It's altogether reminiscent of the tedious and irritating debates over meritocracy, some of which we've entertained in these pages, where the critique of meritocracy, even when articulated by unimpeachable conservatives, even reactionaries, is transmogrified into a doctrinaire egalitarianism, a rejection of hierarchy per se. Of course, it was fallacious in those debates, and its no less fallacious here; of course there both is, and should be, inequality and hierarchy - the questions concern the forms these should assume. The bare existence of a specific form of inequality tells us nothing terribly interesting in and of itself; what tells us something interesting, however, is the ritualistic invocations of inequality-as-abstraction, and the assumption that its maximal expression in practice is uncontroversial, and perhaps even desirable. Let me be honest: to get to the conclusion that form of inequality X is warranted, and should not be messed with, from the major premise 'inequality is natural', or some such thing, particularly when X is neither necessary nor desirable, requires much more argumentation than we ever receive. What we receive, instead, is "underpants gnomes!" arguments: 1. Inequality is part of the human condition. 2. Underpants Gnomes! 3. This specific form of inequality, X, is really awesome, and we should all support it.

You see, I don't consider inequality ethical or unethical. It depends. And I don't expect everyone to accept my strictures on rationing; but I've long since accepted that our political discourse in America occurs in multiple, non-overlapping realities.

That's not happening here, and it's not what happens in most of the health care systems of the developed West.

Obviously, you and I are not speaking the same language, Maximos. To give an example of one country in the developed West, it happens in England, as I use the words, constantly. After the government nationalized healthcare (aka "took over"). But obviously, we just mean radically different things by our words.

1. Inequality is part of the human condition. 2. Underpants Gnomes! 3. This specific form of inequality, X, is really awesome, and we should all support it.

Oh, baloney. How about a more honest rendering of the conservative argument, even if you don't agree with it:

1. Initial inequality is part of the human condition, some of which can be changed by human measures, and some of which can never be changed by human measures. And the lack of some of the resources one needs is also part of the human condition in similar manner.

2. Of the human mechanisms available for those changes, governmental control of the forces and efforts of change typically tends to violate the principle of subsidiarity, and as such tends not to solve the inequality without causing more severe problems.

3. Leaving the inequality to be solved by non-governmental means is generally going to be preferable to governmental means which violate the principle of subsidiarity, and we are justified in requiring close scrutiny and a high level of evidence that the governmental effort will NOT cause more damage than it solves before allowing the government to take over such efforts.

(4. And if that means that we have to live with a situation of inequality for a longer period of time while we are working out other methods, that is less unacceptable than having the government make a governmental-sized mess of it.)

Maximos, unless you want to reject all of the papal encyclicals since Leo XIII, you can't pretend that the principle of subsidiarity is "Underpants Gnomes."

And if you think that an average conservative who donates twice as much of his wealth for actually taking care of the poor than the average liberal is somehow shirking his God-given duty to the poor, then you ought to be coming down far harder on the liberal, hadn't you?

Errrr, that was the reason I employed the qualification, "most", because the UK is something of an outlier here.

Tony, the principle of subsidiarity entails neither a bias in favour of, or in opposition to, government involvement in the provision of goods of human flourishing; it merely stipulates that such goods should be provided by the lowest competent authority, private or public, and that where such authorities and institutions are inadequate to the situation, the next highest level of authority should act to secure the common good. In particular, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church has condemned the guaranteed minimum health care systems of Europe - quite the contrary, from what I've seen, though there may well be objections to discrete features and practices. Subsidiarity is simply not a Christian ethics analogue or stalking horse for libertarianism, American conservatism, small-governmentism, or even an ideological decentralism.

To quantify our military situation, and give a hint to how much could really be cut, consider aircraft carriers. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, all nuclear supercarriers; the next highest is the UK and Italy, which both have 2, and no other nation possesses a single supercarrier.

Do we need 11 supercarriers with full strike group complements? I don't know how you could possibly answer yes. That we have them is great for me, since it guarantees me a job for the foreseeable future, but it is undeniably 'squanderage'

Some of it is certainly squanderage. On the other hand, the nature of modern war is that if a country like China gets a bug up its ass, you have a matter of days to ramp up, not months or even a year like we did in even WWII. I don't know if the economic issues have changed their plans, but in the mid-2000s, it was reported that China planned to have a blue water nuclear navy that matched ours in size and armament by 2020-2030. There are parallels here with the liberals who say "almost no one never has a good reason to own a gun for 'personal defense'" and then some day they find that they did actually need it.

Maximos,

Yes, there are many things, with respect to health care policy, that I do not 'get', and never will. Perhaps, in certain respects, that is a blessing. One thing I do understand, however, is that the problem with health care policy is not anything political, technocratic, or even financial - at least, it is not these things in the sense that these would the originary causes. No, the problem with health care policy in these United States is primarily cultural; we do, in fact, have the sort of health care system we deserve, collectively, though this is not true of every individual in the system, for many people receive far from what they deserve. As a people, we seem to insist upon this system; as such, we can bloody well suffer with it.

Truly, we are getting the system we deserve because we want all of the benefits of a single payer system like Canada with all of the freedom of our own. Like a woman finding out that a high power job and genuine motherhood require a crushing amount of her personal time to maintain equally, most Americans are finding that they can't "have it all" without serious pain.

I think one day you will finally come around to the conservative understanding that a guarantee of basic health care for everyone, out of respect to human dignity, is not realistic policy if for no other reason than society cannot sustain that. Even in Europe, the "successful" systems are starting to crack under the sharp increases in costs due to supporting a disproportionately large elderly population. In the last few years, the UK and France have seen cost increases nearly as large as our own system, so it stands to reason that in a decade or so Europe will no longer be a viable counterpoint in argument on costs.

I think one day you will finally come around to the conservative understanding that a guarantee of basic health care for everyone...

What I could understand, and appreciate, is such an argument from unsustainability - which would, of necessity, have to be coupled to a demographic analysis - coupled to an argument that such circumstances are ethically undesirable. It is precisely this argument, or combination of arguments, that I never, ever see made explicit; what I see, instead, is the argument that, because a system might be unsustainable on present demographic and cost trends in 2075, and because certain other features of political economy are valorized, that people should suffer needlessly now. That's an argument I don't really respect, and never will, not only for reason of the begged question - present trends projected decades into the future, on the assumption that nothing can be done to alter any of them; I also disrespect the implicit ethical/politico-economic contention that, in the present, the afflicted should be afflicted still more so that many of the comfortable can be more comfortable still.

Errrr, that was the reason I employed the qualification, "most", because the UK is something of an outlier here.

Please, Maximos, stop running me around the barn. It is merely infuriating. They do it in Canada, too. And, get this: It happens here, even with, _and because of_, the amount of government takeover we already have. Did you know that you and your loved ones are more likely to be dehydrated to death because various facilities are unsure as to whether Medicare will or won't pay for tube feeding and hydration in different cases? Think about that. Yet you want a greater role for government in healthcare in the United States. Moreover, _you_ are the one who has urged, _again and again_, in thread after thread, that "everyone rations" and that it is just a matter of who does it, whether it's "fair," etc. I am not going to waste my time documenting this. You are the one who has urged it and said it repeatedly. Yet now you want to come saying that no one in the government is going to tell you what you can have or can't have! Yet you've said before _everyone_ does, you just don't see any reason why it shouldn't be the government, if that would make things better or more fair somehow! And indeed it is _inevitable_ that the government will have to "control costs" somehow if it further nationalizes our healthcare. Everyone, including you, recognizes this. Yet you want to tell me, "No one is taking anything over, and no one is going to tell you what you can and can't have." This is crazily frustrating. I beg you not to waste my time in this fashion. It is just annoying and upsetting.

Say we posit as true that the federal government will not be able to sustain social security or medicare for the elderly. This does not mean, though other seem to be implying it, that the private sector can assume said burdens. For me to claim that the government cannot afford to give everyone a new Cadilac every year does not mean that every person can be provided a new Cadilac. When a person fails to address the consequences of their change in policy, I think it is reasonable to assume that they really don't support the object of that policy. In the case of medical care, I have the distinct impression that many people in this country do not support the poor or the elderly receiving medical care. It is not merely that they don't want the government to provide it, because they haven't given any consideration to how it would be privately provided. It would be more respectable if these folks would be honest and claim that that they don't support federal care on social darwinian grounds rather than offering the fig leaf of concern over efficiency.

It is precisely this argument, or combination of arguments, that I never, ever see made explicit; what I see, instead, is the argument that, because a system might be unsustainable on present demographic and cost trends in 2075, and because certain other features of political economy are valorized, that people should suffer needlessly now. That's an argument I don't really respect, and never will, not only for reason of the begged question - present trends projected decades into the future, on the assumption that nothing can be done to alter any of them; I also disrespect the implicit ethical/politico-economic contention that, in the present, the afflicted should be afflicted still more so that many of the comfortable can be more comfortable still.

"Decades" into the future is hyperbole, unless you mean "within about 15 years." Boomers on the lowest end of their generation range will qualify for Social Security in about 16 years at the most.

15 years is not long enough for even a spiritual revival of nearly unprecedented scope to end the economic onslaught, simply because it's not long enough for productive workers to flood the economy and make up for the decades of demographic collapse that preceded them. The only policy prescription that would "work" here would be a massive **immigration** flood a la Europe with all of the foreseeable cultural rot that it would inflict.

Anything started in the present will, by the nature of our political culture, continue into the foreseeable future. The entitlements made now to help the "afflicted" will not go away tomorrow unless China stops lending us money and Congress is pitted with the choice of scaling back our entire system or having the federal government end up literally bankrupt.

Then there is the "chicken versus the egg" issue with regard to these policies. There is a vicious cycle between the provision of maximum safety in regards to welfare and societies losing the will to continue going. One can't help but notice that the more protective the state is, the lower the fertility is. I doubt there is a direct causal link here, but there is an undeniable link between the level of welfare a society provides and the tendency toward selfish, autonomous behavior on the parts of the citizenry and a manifestation of that behavior is an implosion of birth rates.

I would also caution you to not regard those economic predictions as anything other than "optimistic" projections. These are likely the same economists who even now insist that we are in an "economic recovery" despite all of the signs that we are in a real depression, not a recession.

Lydia, okay, it happens in Canada as well. That doesn't really affect my overall argument. And these death-by-dehydration scenarios occur in circumstances that do not touch Medicare, as well. I don't think that, "It's okay for these things to happen as the outcome of the deliberation of a private-sector, possibly for-profit death panel, because, if someone is rich enough, she'll be able to escape the situation" amounts to much of an ethical argument.

M.Z., yes, I'm afraid that this is precisely the underlying issue; people are taking their altogether liberal - in the political philosophy sense of that term - voluntarism and applying to the health care question: people should be cast upon the shoals of fate, unless someone should deign to cast them a lifeline.

Mike, I've read altogether too many articles and essays in economics and entitlements this year, and the projections really do vary, depending upon the assumptions built in by the analysts. Yes, there is a chicken and egg issue with respect to these programs, but it is simply mistaken to consider the entitlements aspect of the social question in abstraction from broader changes in political economy. I would argue, based on the history of this nation in the 75 years preceding the Great Depression, that the increased incidence of selfish-autonomous behaviours antedates the advent of the welfare state. Moreover, the elimination of the welfare state would not inaugurate a new era of "self-reliance", family stability, community, or any such thing; it is not merely that the social causality is complex, but that history really is sort of dialectical: you cannot go back, but must work with the actual social substrate that you're given in any epoch. When the all-providing communist state collapsed in the Soviet Union, family and community were not revived, outside a few pockets of the religious; they collapsed still further, which is why the older generations still look back with longing upon the world that is now lost. The collapse of the welfare state in America would leave us still more atomized and antisocial.

I hope to write a brief post for the frontpage, either later today to tomorrow, to continue this discussion.

I don't think that, "It's okay for these things to happen as the outcome of the deliberation of a private-sector, possibly for-profit death panel, because, if someone is rich enough, she'll be able to escape the situation" amounts to much of an ethical argument.

I'm not making an ethical argument. I'm telling you what _I_ object to more. When I told you before what I objected to more, you said,

no one is stomping his foot, least of all because Big Brother is threatening to "take over" something and "determine what everyone can and cannot have." That's not happening here, and it's not what happens in most of the health care systems of the developed West. [Emphasis added]

So now we're back to, "Private people tell people what they can and can't have too, and why should you object more to one than to the other." Which has been your theme since auld lang syne. But make up your mind. Don't tell me, "That's not happening here" and then tell me, "It is happening, but you have no particular right to object to it."

Your very own rhetoric, Maximos, about the rich having more than the poor in this area makes it _absolutely clear_ that in your preferred alternative, the rich would have less. Yet you have the gall to tell me that "it's not happening" that the government would "determine what everyone would and would not have."

Oh, and by the way, you also ignored my evidence when I did a careful analysis on my own blog of the House bill and showed that it does involve (as _of course it must_) benefit caps and controls by the government. You just brushed it off when I brought that up in another thread.

You're going to jump back and forth between this and that and not admit that, yes, the government _would_ control what you could and could not have, but you think that's okay.

I don't.

But please stop playing games.

"I would argue, based on the history of this nation in the 75 years preceding the Great Depression,"

Which, given our species ability to exploit new niches, is what we would expect. Industrialization provided new opportunities and those with the chops exploited them.

"Did you know that you and your loved ones are more likely to be dehydrated to death because various facilities are unsure as to whether Medicare will or won't pay for tube feeding and hydration in different cases?"

Let us, for the sake of the discussion, take this statement at face value even though it really requires considerably more information to be properly evaluated (more likely than what, for example, if one is on Medicare they are either aged or disabled, if your source is comparing them to folks not on Medicare we are likely doing apples to oranges). All that brings us to is the, "OK, what is the present alternative?" Since payment is the factor, we can assume the parties lack either the resources or the will to use those resources to pay for the treatments themselves. Since we have already been informed that it is better to die than be treated through Medicare, we can eliminate the option of requiring Medicare to cover all such cases. That leaves private insurance assuming that the person of medicare age could afford that coverage and assuming that they could get it if they could afford it. What is the solution?

One thing that has occurred to me is that most of the folks posting on this may not have recently filled out an insurance application. I filled one out a couple of weeks ago. The is a page of boxes to check, anyone of which will disqualify you for an individual policy. By the times a person reaches medicare age most are likely to be uninsurable on the individual market. Tony, check out what the market actually provides and tell us how we get from here to a solution. Lydia, you have the right to choose to die rather than accept government help but if the only option for insuring your children was through SCHIP, would your principles require them to die?

*Sigh*. Yes, we've been over this previously, and I believe I said something about it, but, in case I didn't, let me say it now: if the proposed legislation - which I'm not inclined to support on quite other grounds - does in fact contain regulations establishing, as a matter of statutory law, maximum allowable benefit levels, which may not be exceeded either outside the insurance system, or via supplementary insurance, then it is condemnable on those grounds. This is, in fact, not what the European programmes I'm recommending the US learn from do, and I'd condemn it as the injustice that it is.

Your very own rhetoric, Maximos, about the rich having more than the poor in this area makes it _absolutely clear_ that in your preferred alternative, the rich would have less.

Errr., no, I've never advocated that maximum benefit levels be imposed, only that risks be socialized more thoroughly, in a regulated, private system.

Manimos, all the Democratic proposals and certainly the ones that have passed either house prohibit caps on peivate policies and do not impose a cap on Medicare which also currently doesn't have one. The only caps Medicare currently allows is for supplemental policies to cap benefits while out of the US.

Errr., no, I've never advocated that maximum benefit levels be imposed, only that risks be socialized more thoroughly, in a regulated, private system.

Many states have tried to socialize risks thoroughly through a thoroughly regulated private system and the result has been unacceptable increases in insurance costs. I would have to side with the Canadians and Brits on this one in that if your goal is to socialize risks and reduce costs further, an outright socialist system is the only elegant model. I would lean toward the NHS model simply on the grounds that it does allow a private market to coexist for those with the capital to buy their way out of the lowest common denominator misery.

Megan McArdle for once had a good point about how the elephant in the room here are the people who simply cannot qualify for **any** private insurance on their own. I don't see how you can morally justify forcing an insurance company to take on a client who is the insurance equivalent of forcing a bank to take on a borrower with no credit and savings. The only way to socialize those costs in an ethical way would be to create rigorous guidelines about who qualifies. For example, you will never convince me that someone who is dying in their 70s from a failing liver killed over a lifetime of alcoholism deserves half a million dollars of taxpayer-funded surgery and a transplant. There have to be consequences to certain behaviors, especially if we allow individual liberty in those areas, otherwise we are liable for creating a licentious environment by providing terrible incentives.

False, Al. I analyzed all of that regarding the House bill carefully. All new enrollments in "private" policies must be in policies that are regulated through the insurance exchange. The "Secretary" (or perhaps it was the "commissioner") selects the allowed benefits for all insurance companies and policies in the exchange, including any extra benefits included in the top-level plans. Hence, the government decides what benefits may and may not be covered in so-called "private" insurance policies.

As for "no caps in Medicare," once again, we must be dealing with word juggling. You're surely not saying that Medicare covers everything anyone seeks or any doctor orders or would wish to order, are you? Of course not. Because you know that's not true.

Mike, I'm not really in disagreement, so long as we're talking about 70 year old alcoholics. Where I part with most of my critics in these pages is in rejecting the notion that people should be treated as though they were responsible for inherited maladies, illness, tendencies.

I could live with Medicare if it were highly discriminatory. The problem is that I don't think you can have a program like that that covers the general public outside of extraordinary circumstances like serious car crashes without having every Tom, Dick and Harry wanting to have his self-inflicted conditions covered too. You have to remember that this is a country that actually has a non-satirical "fat advocacy group" called the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance.

I think the people you would want covered could be covered by the Church.

Tony, the principle of subsidiarity entails neither a bias in favour of, or in opposition to, government involvement in the provision of goods of human flourishing; it merely stipulates that such goods should be provided by the lowest competent authority, private or public, and that where such authorities and institutions are inadequate to the situation, the next highest level of authority should act to secure the common good.

Maximos, sorry to take so long to respond, I was out applying for money from the government.

Now, I think you are wrong to say that the principle of subsidiarity doesn't entail a bias. Saying that it merely stipulates that such goods should be provided by the lowest competent authority, implies, in and of itself, that the default position is that the lowest competent agency cannot be ASSUMED to be at the governmental level - the burden of proof is on those who would remove the activity to any higher level. That is a built-in bias. Since private agency is below public, the principle constitutes a bias in favor of private over public activity.

The burden of proof on those who raise the activity above that of private falls variously, depending on the gravity of the issue and the remoteness of the level to which you wish to raise it. Going past local and state governments to the federal, for something as deeply important as to constitute 1/7 of the economy and is literally a matter of life and death, should require a pretty heightened scrutiny and pretty strong establishment of the need and benefit. The fact that Obamacare isn't entertaining more modest and limited approaches that reasonably might solve the worst of the problems while leaving more in the hands of lower agencies, before jumping into approaches that are far more governmentally involving than is clearly necessary, indicates (to me at least) that subsidiarity is nowhere to be found in this plan. Why? For one thing, precisely insofar as the current proposals go so much further than where we are now, so far then is there less certainty as to the unexpected consequences. And therefore less certainty that they meet the close scrutiny tests that are required.

Which is not to say that I would vote down any reform proposal that increases governmental activity: The measure of how much government to accept isn't rooted in "how much is there right now", but rather "how much is absolutely necessary to achieve the common good." I don't agree with the libertarian theory that you get government out of the way altogether and let the chips fall where they may.

I think the people you would want covered could be covered by the Church.

That simply is not true, and it isn't really debatable.

That simply is not true, and it isn't really debatable.

Thank you for your well-reasoned response. I stand in awe of your insightful rebuttal.

I did a reductio here: http://vox-nova.com/2009/10/27/no-it-isnt-a-good-idea/

You said:

But this isn’t the only problem. In the Archdiocese of Milwaukee there are 650,000 Catholics. A very rough estimate of the cost of providing health care for this population would be $3,250,000,000. The bishops appeal last year was for just short of $8 million. Is there any evidence anywhere that Catholics would be prepared to offer the support necessary for such a system even if they desired such a system? It isn’t like the Church has the power to tax people.

I see a few problems with your argument. First, most young people have significantly lower health care costs than middle age and elderly people. Like most young people, even without insurance, most of my health care costs would never rise about $1.5k a year for everything from my optometrist appointment (and contact lenses), to regular checkups, to dental work. Catastrophic insurance is more than sufficient here. Second, a great many of those Catholics are able to pay most of their way or all of the way either through their own funds or insurance. Third, the church has no responsibility to pay for the medical needs of people who have the means to pay for it on their own. Fourth, the church has no moral responsibility to pay for the medical needs of unrepentant sinners whose health problems are directly caused by sin. This means it has no duty to fund a liver transplant for alcoholics, to care for drug users who have finally blasted out their last brain cell, to treat the STDs of promiscuous people and other things where the person will not even repent of their behavior. In fact, it has a moral duty to not pay for those things lest Christ judge its "charity" as subsidizing sin. Finally, the issue of health care costs is itself a separate issue from what the church can and cannot do. If the church cannot do it, then the state can only do so through serious coercion the likes of which are harmful in and of themselves.

So no, M.Z., I'm not impressed by your frustration with this topic or your belief that you have conclusively "debunked" the notion that the church could handle this because your assertions to the contrary are not tied directly to the natural competencies of the church, but rather are directly related to external factors which apply equally to the state.

This has some good discussion of the actual costs of not doing tort reform and how medical malpractice threats make doctors more likely to order unnecessary tests. That is a good starting point for fixing the system. What we need is not a series of patches but an entire rearchitecting of our medical system starting from the legal code going up to ensuring that anyone who wants to become a doctor and has the chops for it can become one.

Less than 2% of health costs are related to malpractice. That 2% of costs includes all legitimate malpractice claims, not just illegitimate ones. The CBO is the source of that number by the way.

So you only want catastrophic care. Would we agree that claims of $100,000 or more are cat claims? The Archdiocese would be able to cover 80 cat claims. 80/650K = 0.012% of the population could have a cat claim. I'll be very conservative and say there is about 1 cat claim for every 1000 per year. I think the number is closer to 300, but I'll use 1000. In the archdiocese, you'd be looking at 650 cat claims. That pencils out to $65 million, and that is probably on the low end and only includes claims over 100K.

Less than 2% of health costs are related to malpractice.

So you say. Others claim otherwise. I've seen plenty of articles showing that the burdens that medical practices face from the malpractice insurance they must carry are a good deal of their cost of operation so I find the argument that it's not even 2% to be suspicious.

As I said, it is a starting point. Tort reform would cause many doctors to order fewer tests and to not practice "defensive medicine" unless asked by a patient. As the article I linked to said, many doctors admit readily to tests that their patients don't need simply to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit. Those tests cost a lot of money.

Just as you are frustrated with my argument that the Church should be the primary institution to aid the needy, I am frustrated with people who won't even take the easy steps to optimize the functioning of the medical profession while discussing costs and payment systems. In fact, I think that that is one of those basic "you must be this tall to ride the ride" qualifications for even discussing the issue.

Furthermore, the ability of the church to fund medical operations is greatly hampered by the consumption of income by the state. If the federal government were dramatically reduced in size by an abolition of its entitlement programs and the reduction of the military to a self-defense force based on Japan's (adjusted for population differences), there would be significantly more money for charities.

Evangelical churches are even now highly successful at raising money for charities. Studies have shown that conservative churches tend to give significantly more (several times more in some cases) than liberal ones. Since liberalism is rampant among American Catholics while it is not among evangelicals, if the Catholic Church wants to strengthen itself it needs to start disciplining itself and expecting genuine obedience to Rome from its American congregations.

Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.(
CBO http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

Evangelical churches are even now highly successful at raising money for charities.
Are they 8 times more successful? Is partly an issue of composition, given their white, middle to upper class make up?

The CBO? What's next? You're going to tell me that the CPI accurately tracks inflation?

Are they 8 times more successful? Is partly an issue of composition, given their white, middle to upper class make up?

Evangelical churches run the gamut of social strata.

You're still ignoring the other malpractice-related costs like unnecessary tests. The cost of health care comes from somewhere, and it's not doctors taking home half a million dollar salaries.

The only four realistic sources are bureaucracy, overconsumption of medical services, inefficient medical practices (like using defensive medicine to avoid malpractice lawsuits instead of assuaging a patient's nerves when prompted) and malpractice insurance/litigation.

If you want to argue that it's the health insurance industry that is to blame, then Obamacare should be even worse to you since it strengthens that industry rather than help patients deal directly with doctors in cash.

I have a Harvard study that says the same. If you read the CBO study I linked, it stated the defensive medicine resulted in negligible costs that probably can't be measured because they are so small. Unnecessary testing was more likely to be due to economic factors like the doctor having an interest in the testing facility. But that's CBO. What should I expect from government agency? I should be looking to pajama's media apparently.

For being a codemonkey, you are surprisingly immune to math. Surpringly, I'm going to take issue with your four realistic sources. At this point, it is apparent that all you are going to bring to the game are assertions. You have given me no reason to believe that you are competent in any of the particulars of health care. Hopefully someone has gotten something out of this.

Tony, subsidiarity - always to be paired in Catholic and Orthodox doctrine with solidarity - does not presuppose that government is the appropriate repository of authority with which to redress some social evil; subsidiarity, rather than the caricature of it commonly presented in conservative discourse, wherein it is a strong, well-nigh indefeasible presumption of libertarianism, is best conceptualized as the right-sizing of government, the assumption of authority by government commensurate with both social problems that cannot be redressed, consistent with the common good, at lower levels of authority, and with concentrations of private power that must themselves be balanced, lest they become violative of the common good.

Now, I haven't much interest in defending Obamacare; in point of fact, despite the intermittent accusation in these pages, I haven't really advocated the legislation or its passage, beyond praising certain discrete provisions. It is highly probably that the legislation violates subsidiarity both in specific regulatory provisions, and virtually certain that it does so by ceding too much authority, and perpetuating of the privileges of, private sector health care/health insurance oligopolies. One might make an identical criticism of Medicare D, which, even apart from the funding/deficit question, ceded too much authority over reimbursements, pricing, and the like to Pharma. Oligopolies such as exist in every nook and cranny of our health care system violate subsidiarity, pretty much as a business strategy. By contrast, as I have alluded previously, not all health care systems regulated by the highest political authority in a nation violate subsidiarity, at least not egregiously. The critical matter, in determining the right-sizing of authority in any particular case, is to first determine whether some actual social good, requisite for human well-being and flourishing, is competently secured as presently provided. In health care, this simply cannot be claimed with any credibility, least of all when the necessary solidaristic elements of any social good are considered; American health care excels at providing cutting edge care to those for whom ability to pay is not an issue, but is otherwise rife with localized and regionalized monopolies, inadequate risk-sharing, grotesque inefficiencies, and so forth. And here, the very nature of medical/insurance provision enters into the equation, for we will never be able to answer the question of where authority over these things should be lodged, until and unless we first agree that these are social goods, goods of solidarity, demanding the social sharing of risks.

I wrote,

"Maximos, all the Democratic proposals and certainly the ones that have passed either house prohibit caps on private policies and do not impose a cap on Medicare which also currently doesn't have one. The only caps Medicare currently allows is for supplemental policies to cap benefits while out of the US."

Lydia replied,

"False, Al. I analyzed all of that regarding the House bill carefully. All new enrollments in "private" policies must be in policies that are regulated through the insurance exchange. The "Secretary" (or perhaps it was the "commissioner") selects the allowed benefits for all insurance companies and policies in the exchange, including any extra benefits included in the top-level plans. Hence, the government decides what benefits may and may not be covered in so-called "private" insurance policies."

1. We are now dealing with H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate in December of last year. You are simply wrong about the House bill you reference, but let us deal with the present.

2. "Analysis" presumes understanding. The topic was "caps" so here is the bill's language:

"H.R.3590
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)

`PART A--INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET REFORMS';

`Subpart II--Improving Coverage

`SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.

`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish--

`(1) lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary; or

`(2) unreasonable annual limits (within the meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.

`(b) Per Beneficiary Limits- Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage that is not required to provide essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law."

I believe that is pretty clear.

3. Besides being offpoint your "analysis" seems to have nothing to do with the legislative language and everything to do with your personal preferences as to the role of government. That isn't real analysis. Real analysis would have the process through which we get from a commonsense and necessary regulatory role to something bad. Here are some of the restrictions under which the Secretary must operate:

" (4) REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION- In defining the essential health benefits under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--

(A) ensure that such essential health benefits reflect an appropriate balance among the categories described in such subsection, so that benefits are not unduly weighted toward any category;

(B) not make coverage decisions, determine reimbursement rates, establish incentive programs, or design benefits in ways that discriminate against individuals because of their age, disability, or expected length of life;

(C) take into account the health care needs of diverse segments of the population, including women, children, persons with disabilities, and other groups;

(D) ensure that health benefits established as essential not be subject to denial to individuals against their wishes on the basis of the individuals' age or expected length of life or of the individuals' present or predicted disability, degree of medical dependency, or quality of life;

(E) provide that a qualified health plan shall not be treated as providing coverage for the essential health benefits described in paragraph (1) unless the plan provides that--

(i) coverage for emergency department services will be provided without imposing any requirement under the plan for prior authorization of services or any limitation on coverage where the provider of services does not have a contractual relationship with the plan for the providing of services that is more restrictive than the requirements or limitations that apply to emergency department services received from providers who do have such a contractual relationship with the plan; and

(ii) if such services are provided out-of-network, the cost-sharing requirement (expressed as a copayment amount or coinsurance rate) is the same requirement that would apply if such services were provided in-network;"

Here is the bill, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:6:./temp/~c111vbtYS7::

Tony you are conflating provision with compensation. I will assume the good Pope understood the way insurance functions but just in case, I will point out that, in general, the efficiency of insurance increases in direct proportion to the size of the base. That is why a nation of some 300 millions will be able to do what a small town on the Colorado Plateau can't (having a bake sale, real story).

We already have all of the possible systems.

Medicaid is single payer.

Medicare is single payer with supplemental insurance.

The Veteran's system is socialized medicine.

Private insurance, either individual or group

Personally paid usually followed by bankruptcy and Medicaid.

"It is highly probably that the legislation violates subsidiarity both in specific regulatory provisions, and virtually certain that it does so by ceding too much authority, and perpetuating of the privileges of, private sector health care/health insurance oligopolies."

Yes it does, but if this is the best we can do, and this bill would do much good, then we should live in the world in which we find ourselves and then seek to improve it. Not passing this bill will do far more harm then passing an imperfect bill which will certainly be improved (especially if we stop sending Republicans from the Party, as it is now constituted, to the Congress).

The question, Al, was having the government "tell you what you can and cannot have." Caps on dollar amount value of lifetime benefits are not necessary for the government to tell you what you can and cannot have. All that is necessary is for the government to be empowered to say what benefits may and may not be offered. That was, indeed, built into the bill I discussed in the other post I was describing, and given that mandatory purchase is part of all bills thus far, my strong guess (of course, the other proposed bills have been changed frequently--such is our "transparency"--so it is difficult to confirm this) is that they include a "health care exchange" as in the original bill I discussed and that the "secretary" has the same power to determine what benefits may be included in plans in the health care exchange. And that's what I'm talking about. You are just subject-shifting.

"You are just subject-shifting."

Maximos wrote:

"*Sigh*. Yes, we've been over this previously, and I believe I said something about it, but, in case I didn't, let me say it now: if the proposed legislation - which I'm not inclined to support on quite other grounds - does in fact contain regulations establishing, as a matter of statutory law, maximum allowable benefit levels, which may not be exceeded either outside the insurance system, or via supplementary insurance, then it is condemnable on those grounds."

As Max qualified "benefits" with "levels" instead of just writing "benefits", I interpreted that as synonymous with "caps". I"ll continue to hold that as the best reading, your and others mileage may vary. If Max didn't mean caps on benefits but which benefits, the law also covers that, so a comment or two, but first.

"...so it is difficult to confirm this." Huh? I just posted the link which took me a few seconds to find on Thomas. The bill has been available for months.

Anyway, on to this, "All that is necessary is for the government to be empowered to say what benefits may and may not be offered."

State governments already perform this function - some doing a better job than others - why is it a problem for the federal government to do the same ? If we are going to have exchanges, mandates, and subsidies then we are going to have to set some standards. Now we understand that you don't want a national health care system; fortunately it appears likely you are not to get your way. The standards to which you object are necessary to make things work. Why is it a bug and not a feature to require that certain things be covered?

Left to their own devices insurance companies will tend to advantage their bottom lines over the welfare of their customers. Experience has shown this.

Max asked about statutory maximums and all the law mentions are minimums, why is that a bad thing?

And why are these bad?

"SEC. 1302. ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS.

(D) Maternity and newborn care.

(J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

(B) not make coverage decisions, determine reimbursement rates, establish incentive programs, or design benefits in ways that discriminate against individuals because of their age, disability, or expected length of life;

(5) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit a health plan from providing benefits in excess of the essential health benefits described in this subsection." - as I said minimums not maximums.

Analyzing a bill means one reads it and applies reason, not mere prejudice and preference, to the language. I have yet to see this by anyone on the right.