Grover Norquist advocates power to the people

[Universe Prince]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/127420.html

In May, Norquist sat down with reason.tv Editor Nick Gillespie to discuss his book, the future of partisan politics in the U.S., and more. Video of the interview is online at reason.tv. Comments can be sent to letters@reason.com. [...] reason: If you could snap your fingers and institute three policies, what would they be? Norquist: The first would be personalizing Social Security, privatizing Social Security, instead of having the state take 12 percent of your income and then promising to pay you something if you make it to 65 or 67. Instead, they should let you put that money into a 401(k) [retirement account], and then you would control it. That would make everyone in the country independent; their pension and retirement would come from their own activity rather than the state. reason: They'd be able to bequeath it. Norquist: They could pass it on to kids, relatives as they saw fit. reason: Or nonprofit organizations. Norquist: Yes, like reason, for instance. That's I think the most important one. The second that we've been working on is transparency, getting government at all levels, from the federal government to state to local government, every public school, to post every check they write on a website that's searchable and to post every contract they enter into. We need to make Spend Too Much a hanging offense. If the politician said I'm going to take your guns, there would be people who walked out of the coalition on that politician. We don't have that on Spend Too Much. We need to make the $900 hammer, the expenditure on the contract that's too much, a fighting offense. reason: So one of your arguments is that we just don't have that information in a way that it can be unearthed to become a motivation. Norquist: Right. The federal government spends $3 trillion. Yawn. My eyes glaze over. What does that mean? Is that too much? Too little? I don't know. The government just spent $900 on a hammer. The government spent $1 million to get the lawn mowed. The contract went to somebody's cousins. That you can get angry about. That you can focus on. Why have we had such success in beginning a conversation on spending with earmarks? Because they're singular. They're identifiable. [...] Norquist: The third policy is getting the government out of health care. That's sort of a series of policies. But allowing you to buy your health care from any state so that you don't have to live under the mandates and regulations of New Jersey just because you live in New Jersey, but could buy your health insurance from a company in Iowa. And the whole idea of moving more towards health savings accounts where people can pre-save and you're actually spending your own money. reason: The idea is that will introduce market competition and we will see an improvement in outcomes and the lowering of prices? Norquist: Absolutely. You can always save overall money with rationing, which is what all these government programs are. We'd rather have competition squeezing down costs. reason: Is this a pipe dream? Besides spending a hell of a lot of money on war, one of the things that George W. Bush and a Republican Congress spent taxpayer dollars on was the prescription health care benefit package. That's a legacy of a supposedly conservative government. So are we just inevitably going more and more toward socialized health care? Norquist: No, I think health savings accounts, which were brought in as part of that whole deal, now have something like 5 million people. Those are growing very rapidly. If we get those numbers up sufficiently, I think [it would] have a real effect.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Norquist: Right. The federal government spends $3 trillion. Yawn. My eyes glaze over. What does that mean? Is that too much? Too little? I don't know.


So according to Norquist, any amount too large for him to spend causes him to feel inadequate, and therefore he is against spending it.

One wonders whether he is qualified to deal with the affairs of a country with 300 million people. Perhaps he would be happier in Belize, or St Lucia, where all the numbers are smaller.

Norquist appears not to understand insurance and the principle of shared risk. It is the nature of capitalist companies to refuse to insure the sickly, which will cost them money, and who need insurance the most, and to seek out the healthy, who need it the least.

Grover Norquist. A man without a plan beyond his legendary bathtub.

What would he do with those who have been paying into SS since 1963? Pay us nothing?
He never says. But unless he does, no one with a brain will agree with his plans.

[Universe Prince]

So according to Norquist, any amount too large for him to spend causes him to feel inadequate, and therefore he is against spending it.

No, that is not what he said at all.

One wonders whether he is qualified to deal with the affairs of a country with 300 million people.

That might seem more relevant as a criticism if you had not obviously failed to comprehend what Norquist said.

What would he do with those who have been paying into SS since 1963? Pay us nothing?
He never says. But unless he does, no one with a brain will agree with his plans.

Ah yes, the old "he didn't go into exacting detail about every possible aspect of his plan, therefore it is stupid" bit. Which, in point of fact, is itself stupid.

[Michael Tee]

I dunno, seems to me that XO nailed it - - Norquist never did get into the issues of shared risk, which is what health insurance (or any other kind of insurance) is all about.  Never addressed the issue of economies of scale, which basically benefit the members of the biggest pool, and never addressed the fact that the biggest pool possible (300 million) is only possible through universal insurance-single payer systems.  What was the point of saying a guy in NJ could shop all 50 states by internet and get an insurer in Iowa?  All he's doing is splitting up the shared risk into smaller and smaller pools, with necessarily built-in waste and duplication of effort.  He may or may not be a dummy, but on this one, he's just beating his head against the wall. 

THERE IS NO WAY that you can possibly create a "free-market" healthcare system that will be more economical to operate than a universal coverage, single-payer system.

[fatman]

That would make everyone in the country independent; their pension and retirement would come from their own activity rather than the state.

Which is why you'll never see it happen.  What should have happened with SS a long time ago is individual accounts that the government couldn't access, but that's like leaving a jar of quarters on a table with a kleptomaniac.  One of the few good ideas Bush had was to reform SS so that the younger generation doesn't have to bend over and take it, but the AARP and bluehairs took care of that idea in a hurry with a bunch of half-truths and misconceptions.

I dump money into an IRA and a 401(k), and have a pension.  I'll probably be damned lucky to live to 65, but at least I can pass on that money as I see fit.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I dump money into an IRA and a 401(k), and have a pension.  I'll probably be damned lucky to live to 65, but at least I can pass on that money as I see fit.

=======================================================
The Roth IRA is a good deal for everyone. There are no compulsory withdrawals, and you can pass it on to your heirs. You can also withdraw from it in order to keeps taxes low when you retire.

============================
As for the annoying Grover Norquist, if he ignores what is going to happen with the pensionsm opf those who have already retired, this is NOT a petty detail, it is absolutely essential to both groups: those who have retired, and those who will retire.  I would sooner trust my fortunes to my cat than to this fool. His most famous quote is that he wants to make the government so puny and weak he can drown it in the bathtub.
 
The people would not be powerful under any of Norquist's plans. They would be old and penniless, bilked and left to die by the side of the road.
I am pretty sure he would do just that if he could.

[Universe Prince]

I dunno, seems to me that XO nailed it

I'm sure it does.

Norquist never did get into the issues of shared risk, which is what health insurance (or any other kind of insurance) is all about.  Never addressed the issue of economies of scale, which basically benefit the members of the biggest pool, and never addressed the fact that the biggest pool possible (300 million) is only possible through universal insurance-single payer systems.  What was the point of saying a guy in NJ could shop all 50 states by internet and get an insurer in Iowa?  All he's doing is splitting up the shared risk into smaller and smaller pools, with necessarily built-in waste and duplication of effort.  He may or may not be a dummy, but on this one, he's just beating his head against the wall. 

THERE IS NO WAY that you can possibly create a "free-market" healthcare system that will be more economical to operate than a universal coverage, single-payer system.

He's not splitting up anything. I see no point in blaming him for what other people might choose. He's arguing people should be allowed to choose. I realize that is a radically bizarre concept. And I think by economical what you mean is removing the most responsibility from the individual by taking from other people, which frankly I find problematic on moral and ethical levels.

[Universe Prince]

That would make everyone in the country independent; their pension and retirement would come from their own activity rather than the state.

Which is why you'll never see it happen.

Oh, it might. Not soon, but gradually it could happen. Many young people are interested in plan like that.

I dump money into an IRA and a 401(k), and have a pension.  I'll probably be damned lucky to live to 65, but at least I can pass on that money as I see fit.

And that one major reason they are interested.

[Universe Prince]

As for the annoying Grover Norquist, if he ignores what is going to happen with the pensionsm opf those who have already retired, this is NOT a petty detail, it is absolutely essential to both groups: those who have retired, and those who will retire.

That he didn't go into vast detail in the interview does not mean he has no plan regarding that. Assuming this interview defines the limits of Norquist's thoughts on the issue seems, to me, really stupid. It is sort of like looking at one of your posts in this thread and assuming that whatever you say there is the full extent of your thoughts on health insurance. You and I both know that would not be true.

I would sooner trust my fortunes to my cat than to this fool. His most famous quote is that he wants to make the government so puny and weak he can drown it in the bathtub.

Really? Your cat is pretty smart.

The people would not be powerful under any of Norquist's plans. They would be old and penniless, bilked and left to die by the side of the road.
I am pretty sure he would do just that if he could.

That self-righteous AMBE attitude is what makes talking to some liberals such a complete waste of time. You claim to be open minded, but you cannot be bothered to consider that someone like Norquist, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, might genuinely desire to help people. You assume he wants people to suffer and die in poverty. Don't be such a frakking asshole. And no, that wasn't sarcastic in the least.

[Michael Tee]

<<He's not splitting up anything. I see no point in blaming him for what other people might choose. He's arguing people should be allowed to choose. >>

Well, he MUST be splitting up the risk pools if he is allowing people to choose.  A choice implies at least two alternatives.  So in his system, there will be at least risk pool A and risk pool B, both drawn from the potential risk pool of 300 million, and therefore each smaller than the maximum possible.  Sorry, Prince, but on this one, you have no logical way out.  By offering a system that fails to maximize the risk pool (single payer, universal coverage) the Grovemeister is necessarily splitting up the risk pool.  And that was just theoretically speaking - - in real life, there'd be far more than just two choices.

Your real argument is that of two competing values (freedom of choice, optimum health-care coverage) you have sacrificed the latter to the former.  You basically chose ideology over pragmatism.  Which is a perfectly legitimate way of thinking, but we might as well be clear as to what it is.

<<I realize that is a radically bizarre concept. >>

Now, now.  Be nice.  Freedom of choice is neither radical nor bizarre, nor did I ever indicate that it was.  Freedom of choice is fine in the supermarket.  And in the spiritual world.  And even in the political world, although I think the dictatorship of the proletariat through its vanguard the Communist Party would be preferable if the appropriate safeguards could be found against careerism, Caesarism, nepotism, and a few other isms could be found.

<<And I think by economical what you mean is removing the most responsibility from the individual by taking from other people, which frankly I find problematic on moral and ethical levels.>>

No actually I meant lowest cost/maximum benefit, bigger bang for the buck, best value, however that idea is expressed.     Minimum waste reasonably achievable.  This does remove some responsibility from the people, just as it's more cost-effective for people to pay a cardiac surgeon than to attempt to fix each other's cardiovascular systems at home.  REAL responsibility would be exercised if the average voter recognized that maximising the risk pool and setting up a single payer would be his or her best health-care plan.  The healthiest and the wealthiest might responsibly come to other conclusions, but they'd be outvoted by the average joes and janes.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And I think by economical what you mean is removing the most responsibility from the individual by taking from other people, which frankly I find problematic on moral and ethical levels.

=====================================================
In this view, all insurance is immoral, since it takes from the living and gives to the dependents of those who checked out early, it takes from the healthy and cures the sick, it takes from the lucky who avoid accidents and glare ice and drunken drivers and gives to the victims.

So go ahead and find it "problematic on moral ands ethical grounds", but know that what you are really saying is that you , like the  dorky Norquist do not care a damn for anyone but your own selfish selves, because deep down inside, you know it is all about YOU.

[Plane]

When there is only one choice what is there to drive the prices down?

A monopoly can charge anything up to the maximum that can be paid , so why should it minimise?

[Michael Tee]

<<When there is only one choice what is there to drive the prices down?>>

Well, in our system, it's government-run, so first of all, it's 100% transparent.  The public knows the cost of every procedure, the fees paid for it, the cost of materials, the salaries of all the executives, etc.  And also, because it's government, it's accountable.  You can't have them buying $900 syringes the way the U.S. government buys $900 hammers.

<<A monopoly can charge anything up to the maximum that can be paid , so why should it minimise?>>

If the "monopoly" overcharged 1000% on everything across the board, what's the point?  Where would the money go?  Back into the hands of the people, who own the system in the first place.  Where's the incentive for a civil servant overcharge the public when he or she won't see any of the money anyway?  AND would get his fucking ass canned for his trouble?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  We've had this system for decades.  We spend LESS per capita on health care than the U.S.A. does, AND we've got superior medical care with universal coverage and longer life-spans, lower infant mortality and all the other indicia of superior health-care.  Somehow, what you fear hasn't happened yet.

[Plane]

<<When there is only one choice what is there to drive the prices down?>>

Well, in our system, it's government-run, so first of all, it's 100% transparent.  The public knows the cost of every procedure, the fees paid for it, the cost of materials, the salaries of all the executives, etc.  And also, because it's government, it's accountable.  You can't have them buying $900 syringes the way the U.S. government buys $900 hammers.

<<A monopoly can charge anything up to the maximum that can be paid , so why should it minimise?>>

If the "monopoly" overcharged 1000% on everything across the board, what's the point?  Where would the money go?  Back into the hands of the people, who own the system in the first place.  Where's the incentive for a civil servant overcharge the public when he or she won't see any of the money anyway?  AND would get his fucking ass canned for his trouble?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  We've had this system for decades.  We spend LESS per capita on health care than the U.S.A. does, AND we've got superior medical care with universal coverage and longer life-spans, lower infant mortality and all the other indicia of superior health-care.  Somehow, what you fear hasn't happened yet.

What is the tx rate in Canada? 

Is it very progressive?

I have to plead ignorance on that.

[Michael Tee]

http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/taxcomparison.htm

This table shows, for each Province, the total Federal and Provincial income tax payable on earnings for wage earners earning from $10 to 200K per year.  As you can see, it's heavily graduated.  The rich pay more.  (But nowhere near enough!!)  In addition there is a national goods and services tax ("G.S.T.") of 5% on the retail value of all goods and services, payable at the point of purchase, collected by the vendor and remitted to the Federal Government directly by  him.