The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : This is Tom Daschle Speaking

Text Size

The Wall Street Journal has a report on a speech Tom Daschle is supposed to give in Denver today, which is highly anticipated in the policy community because Obama's health care czar will be discussing the push for reform. There's been hope among some conservatives that Obama's hands would be tied as a result of spending on the economic crisis, thus limiting the amount of money available for a major government expansion in health care. But unsuprisingly, according to the WSJ, Daschle is exploiting the economic crisis by arguing that it will only reinforce the need to do something about health care, highlighting the pressure that health care costs put on businesses. Also, in keeping with the idea of trying to mobolize the grassroots as Obama did during the campaign, Daschle "will suggest that Americans hold holiday-season house parties to brainstorm over how best to overhaul the U.S. health-care system."

View all comments (14) | Leave a comment

Bob| 12.5.08 @ 12:02PM

It's interesting to note that not only the insurance companies are beginning to support a more universal, but still insured, heath care platform, but today, in the hearings with the auto companies, they all support some form of universal health care as a way to compete with foreign companies.

In part of my career, I did work at an insurance company on group insurance (which is the category that contains health insurance). With the growth of the boomer segment, group health is becoming far less profitable than in the past. Furthermore, the overhead required for each company to do their own negotiations with hospitals and drug companies is significant. If the government can take over some of the overhead, it will be a boon to the insurance companies. This will also lower the cost for industry.

I suggest you look at the work done in Taiwan when they studied the health care systems in all countries and came up with some very innovative solutions. They managed not only to reduce costs significantly, but improve the businesses of local doctors and improve the poor surgery rates found in Canada and the U.K. Innovation ususally comes from the U.S., but Taiwan's solution is very innovative.

Here is an article about their program:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/77

Rather than just take the anti-intellectual approach on this issue I've heard from many on this board, we should be looking at more efficient and innovative systems that retain elements of free enterprise while reducing total overhead. Being conservative should also mean being pragmatic and efficient.

ruth| 12.5.08 @ 12:59PM

Bob, I would like your 'intellectual' opinion on the merits of the Brit's and Canadian's Socialized Health Care Systems. Please further expound on the long waiting periods for such small matters as cancer surgery. And, finally, use your omniscience to explain to us why you think we would end up with your favored Taiwan's program and not the Brit's or Canadian's?

Bob| 12.5.08 @ 1:09PM

Ruth, here I would agree with you. I believe the Canadian and U.K. programs are flawed -- and, by the way, so did the Taiwanese. There must be an element of free enterprise and choice in a system that would work here. Would we end up with a Taiwanese type system? I think Obama and his crew are smart. We'll see if I'm right. If we move towards Hillarycare, then I'll be against it. However, if we move towards efficient elements like universal medical cards, reduced paperwork, immediate billing systesm, etc., as they have in Taiwan, while keeping individual doctor choice, there may be some hope.

ruth| 12.5.08 @ 1:26PM

Bob, look at Obama's cabinet. If Obama is so smart why is it loaded with Clinton's retreads, including Hillary herself at State? What makes you think Obama's independent? Doesn't look that way to me, and I do not trust Daschle.

Bob| 12.5.08 @ 1:56PM

Ruth, I don't agree with all of his appointments, and Hillary would not be my first pick by far. However, Obama knows he lacks the experience. He also knows by studying both Clinton and Bush, that he needs to bring in people that know "where the bathrooms are" in order go get things done. Bush and Clinton brought in a lot of their local friends and they were just not competent enough to get things done. If you assume this, then logically, he needed to bring in experienced people who had policy specific knowledge and experience in the White House, the Hill, or both. Most of those people who were Democrats, by that definition, had to work for the Clintons when they were younger. Obama's logic is iron clad. He is now personally reaching out to Republicans. I know you won't agree, but I think this guy is real. The problem he faces is whether he can control the people he brought in. If he keeps it at an intellectual level and continues to involve Republicans on the hill in the decision making process, he just might succeed.

On Daschle, it is not a matter of trust with me, it is whether he can keep an open mind and look for innovative solutions that are not ideological. He's a better pick for HEW, than Hillary at State, but not by much. The Richardson pick also bothered me because I'm not really sure he knows much about Commerce. That said, Obama's economic team is very good an with the exception of Hillary, his foreign policy team is also very good. I believe Napolitano will do a much better job at HS than Bush's team. She is as dedicated as they come. The issue at AG is a matter of bringing the moral back in the department and at the FBI. Bush ruined both with Gonzales and Mukesy. Holder is well known there and they think he's one of them. That's far more important in my book than Holder's ideology.

ruth| 12.5.08 @ 3:09PM

I still don't see the CHANGE that Obama trumpeted throughout his campaign, it was disingenious at best. You didn't address the independence of Obama, especially regarding his socialized medicine program. I just don't see it. Eric Holder is not fit to be AG. He's the reason Obama can't find a CIA Director; talk about morale problems. I find it amusing that you claim Bush ruined the Justice Dept. and the FBI, especially after what Clinton did to both via Janet Reno. What a joke.

Bob| 12.5.08 @ 3:32PM

Ruth... The "Change" Obama talked about was three things:

1. Change from a neo-conservative invasion policy.
2. Becoming post-partisan -- involving both sides in decision making.
3. Bringing competence to government.

He has certain done #1. He is calling Republicans a lont right now -- we'll see if it continues. If it does, then #2 is on its way. The people he has chosen, on average with a couple of exceptions, are far more competent than Bush's crew. So he is making progress on #3. Just because you disagree, does not make them incompetent.

Regarding Janet Reno -- yes, she started the ball rolling in a bad direction and the Bush guys continued the trend. Despite what you think about Holder, from what I've heard, the people at Justice and the FBI like him. The career people evidently hated Bush's guys. Again, he is not the strongest of picks, but find a political person who is really clean on either side -- impossible.

ruth| 12.5.08 @ 3:38PM

Disingenious = disingenuous

ruth| 12.5.08 @ 3:51PM

Stop trying to re-write (recent!) history. Obama specifically stated that he was not an 'insider', that Washington had to get away from Inside-the- Beltway's influence and its way of doing business. There is no more of an insider than Hillary Clinton. Are you Obama's official propagandist now? If you aren't, you should be, and you should be paid well for your services. Who hated Bush's guys? The libereal bureaucracy that's who because they didn't want someone coming in and shaking up their little fiefdoms. After 9/11 the CIA and FBI both deserved some serious scrutiny. Your defense of Obama is ridiculous, like putting lipstick on a pig.

John| 12.5.08 @ 6:09PM

A new health "system" which will cover costs for catastrophic illnesses/accidents for all who are in the US legally, reduce national costs (without significant rationing), provide effective incentives for individuals to live healthy life styles, and improve the quality and effectiveness of services delivered should be the objective, regardless of one's party or ideology. None of the politician's proposal's I have heard about address the last two goals which is where a lot of the "waste" in the system are. Are any of you aware of a proposed plan that even attempts to satisfy all 4 of these goals? If so, get behind it and advertize it from the rooftops.

Bob| 12.6.08 @ 9:48AM

Ruth, I am certainly not rewriting history like Bush is doing right now. McCain also ran as an outsider because he was a "Maverick". Everyone runs as an outsider if they can. That does not define "Change". Change means policies. If you don't think that policies will change from Bush to Obama, you've really lost your marbles.

ruth| 12.6.08 @ 2:18PM

Don't lie, Bob. Obama said he wouldn't govern as an insider like Hillary. He either lied then or realized he was woefully unprepared and inexperienced (ahem) to be president and selected Clinton's people to make up for it. Obama is in way over his head and he knows it.

Bob| 12.6.08 @ 4:27PM

Ruth, please post a link to the Obama quote that he would bring in only outsiders to his cabinet.... Can't find it? I didn't think so.... He is getting high marks from both Democrats AND Republicans for his choices so far -- and for the competent method he has chosen them. Now if we only had a Republican candidate who was as smart and competent....