McCain Could Have Won for Losing
With the economic earthquake and the Bush backlash, 2008 was destined to be a Democratic deluge. If McCain lost the nomination to Romney in 2008, he quite likely would be the Republican nominee now. Economic stagnation and, at best, ambivalence to Obamacare, would have made 2012 McCain's to lose.
As have often been pointed out, most recently by Sean Trende at http://realclearpolitics.com, defeating an incumbent takes two steps. First, the public must be convinced to vote against the sitting President, as is presently the case. Second, the challenger must be an acceptable alternative, a combination of personality and biography. As an ever feisty, war hero, McCain would have easily cleared the second hurdle. Although Ms. Palin would no doubt have claimed that, "she could see the economy from her house," she would not have been the VP. Not needing a game changer, McCain would have picked someone to shore up his economic credentials.
Neither personality, not biography, are Romney strong suits. On camera he is insincere and appears smug. Romneycare prevents him from running as a former governor, and attacks on Bain fetter his emphasis on his business experience. Pictures of him with his dog saying, "Roof, roof'" would be over the top. As a Mormon, he has apparently determined that emphasizing his deep personal, financial and philosophical commitment to his church is too risky. As a Nowhere Man, he may indeed go nowhere in this election. His only advantage over McCain is that he can enumerate all of his houses.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Conservative Republican Governors Vow to Support Obamacare
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that failure of some governors to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Healthcare Act will reduce the cost of the program by 84 billion dollars. Conservative governors will provide financial support for Obamacare by refusing to expand Medicaid, resulting in of the largest unintended transfers of wealth in the nation's history.
Obamacare has two key elements. Receiving the most attention has been the mandate. Increasing participation by those who can afford health insurance through imposition of a penalty on those who fail to buy coverage is important. It is the quid pro quo for removing preexisting condition restrictions on coverage.
But the big-ticket item is the expansion of Medicaid to cover the working poor. For the first 3 years this expansion is fully paid for by the federal government, and 90 per cent thereafter. Citizens of all states will bear the cost, but, if conservative governors have their way, only citizens of some states will receive the benefits.
This will result in the reduction of insurance premiums in purple and blue states relative to deep red states. The Center for American Progress has estimated that annually $410 of individual, and $1110 of family, insurance premiums cover provider loses for treating the uninsured. If premiums only drop by one half of this amount it will result in a significant income transfer to residents of adopting states. Holders of individual policies will have more money, corporations, that provide insurance coverage, will have more profit. Lower insurance premiums will factor into decisions of location, or relocation, of businesses. By placing principle over principal, Republican governors deny health coverage to the working poor in their states, and financial benefits to those already insured.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
