Why Wouldn’t Hillary Win in 2016?

By Lloyd the Idiot

A recent article,  using some iffy polling data, names Hillary Clinton  the odds-on favorite to win the presidential election in 2016.  But why wouldn’t she win?  In fact, I’d say she’s the Republicans’ worst nightmare.

First of all, next to Obama, she’ll look moderate.  Heck, she’ll look like the model of moderation – which, of course, will draw the moderate/independent vote which the Republicans likely still will be ignoring in 2016.  Second, if Republicans continue to clutch the abortion issue like the political anchor it is, she’ll do so much better with women, and especially young women, that it will crush any Republican nominee.  Third, she has the creds – domestic experience as a senator and international experience and Obama’s secretary of state.  That’s something no Republican candidate will be able to beat.  Finally, this isn’t her first time to the Big Dance, and she’ll have plenty of time to dust off machine, oil it and get it running again.   In other words, she’s inherently tough to beat.

Republicans, on the other hand, need to a new prayer book.  Just like you don’t see people debating Free Silver anymore, it’s time to rethink the party’s position on some core issues – like abortion and immigration.  It’s also time to engage more with folks who aren’t white and Protestant.  Campaign in their language and in their neighborhoods, and embrace (not just tolerate) religious and cultural differences.  In other words, build a bigger, more welcoming tent.

Look, it’s already looking poor for Republicans in 2016 and we’re six days into that race.  They have a few years to recover, but unless Republicans achieve some fundamental changes, we’re looking not at just four more years, but a solid 16 year run of Democrats in the White House.

At least.


  • edmundburkenator says:

    “A recent article, using some iffy polling data…”

    Your track record with evaluating poll data leaves something to be desired. Just sayin…

  • BlackOut says:

    I would have not said eight years ago Hillary belonged on any list for being a potential Presidential candidate, regardless of her ambitions. But I must admit she has worked and proven me wrong. She’s got chops, and is absolutely a viable candidate, if not a front runner.

  • Laura Lieberman says:


    What makes you think she looks “moderate” next to Obama? Please cite a few examples because I’m curious as to why you think Obama seems so radical compared to her.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I will never be a fan of Bill and Hillary, but it is absolutely a reflection on the failure of the Republican brand that they are so popular now. People prefer flawed politicians to holier than thou flawed politicians who are just as bad if not worse than those they put down.

    Lloyd may not have called it right this past election but I find it impossible to argue with anything in this post.

  • Leej says:

    not a chance in hell ;:) my guess will be Rubio we will see what hapeens

  • John Marsh says:

    Nothing in Hillary’s record, or her campaign in 2008, suggests that she’s more or less moderate than Obama. Your definition of “moderation” remains distorted by measurement from the base of reactionary Republicanism — the prevailing no-tax pledging, socially-dictating, oddly freedom-restricting ideology that has consistently drummed its moderates out.

    That very lack of perspective — that distortion of what moderation actually means, economically, socially, politically — is what ails the Republican party and why it lost in 2012.

    Now, if it endorses policies to maximize business competition, provide a path of citizenship to illegal immigrants, support economic opportunity for the least advantaged, and apply market mechanisms to perfect notorious market imperfections in energy, environmental, and infrastructure management, then we”l have a winning Republican Party.

  • Alfred E. Newman says:

    Could you have picked a worse picture of Hilary for this post? Yikes.

    Seems to me that the movement toward Clinton at this early date is just gravitation toward the obvious. In the interim, there will be a midterm election which is statistically likely to favor the Republicans. Also, there are a number of promising Democratic candidates building in the wings, e.g. Mark Warner, who just aren’t as well known in the press at this point. My point is that it’s still really early.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Yes, it’s REALLY early. Don’t we have VA elections in 2013 to focus on?

  • Loudoun Moron says:

    Hilary will be 69 in 4 years, the same age Biden is now.

    Mark Warner will be 61 in 4 years.

    Clinton/Warner would be a strong ticket.

    Of course, a lot can change in 4 years.

  • Independent voter says:

    A Clinton/Warner ticket would be formidable. I recently heard the possible choices for the GOP run in 2016 and, Jeez, the Republican Party hasn’t learned a thing! They are still worshiping at the altar of the nut jobs. We certainly don’t need a parade of clowns like we had in the last GOP debates. The Republican Party left me several years ago but I would like to see and support the old Party I worked so hard for.

    But first, we need some serious changes in Richmond: Gov. Ultra probe, The Cook, and all the idiots who are obsessed with “lady parts” and their social agendas have to be replaced. I would like to see MODERATE and sane Republican candidates but I am not optimistic.

  • TCJohnson says:

    I also think we are soon going to see one of the Castro brothers as a VP candidate.

  • BlackOut says:

    I am so glad we are getting around to talking about the 2016 election, it is going to be “the most important election of our lifetime”.

    Honestly, it’s harmless for a bunch of bloggers to speculate, but I sure hope those in DC plan on doing some governing before they start electioneering.

  • A.E. Gnat says:

    Well, Mitch McConnell did say that his number one goal was to make Obama a one-termer. Now that this goal has gone out the window, perhaps there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that something will get accomplished.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    “I would like to see MODERATE and sane Republican candidates but I am not optimistic.”

    I would love to see some moderate and sane Democrats as well, but I’m not too optimistic on that one either. Seriously, why is it that it’s Republicans who are always called upon to move to the center and not Democrats? Why the double-standard?

  • muriel says:

    Does anybody seriously think Obama won’t seek a third, fourth and fith term? Hillary doesn’t stand a chance, and who wants an old fat alcoholic in the WH pretending to run the country?

    Obama will re-work the rules like Bloomberg of NYC and he’ll become Prez for life. Obama daughters will have WH weddings, their daughters will have WH weddings..on and on until everybody drowns in the annual WH foam party that’ll replace the annual Easter egg hunt.

  • Ben Dover says:

    NateDogg614 –

    I’m glad to see that you are back following the election outcome. I was genuinely concerned that you might be among the missing, and have to imagine that watching the election returns from a week ago must have been absolutely grueling for you. It was, wasn’t it? To have boldly predicted one thing, only to have the other thing happen. Must have felt like you were living in an alternate universe – but your not.

    Now to your question, where you ask, “Seriously, why is it that it’s Republicans who are always called upon to move to the center and not Democrats? Why the double-standard?”

    Here’s an analogy: You and me are on a baseball field. You are standing in far right field – right next to the foul line. Me? I’m in the absolute middle of center field – literally about 40 yards directly behind second base. I’m already in the center, if I move towards you, even to a modest extent, I will be in right field. You, on the other hand, feel like you are making a big move by heading anywhere near right-center field, but in reality you are not.

  • NateDogg614 says:

    Nah, still here. The election was tough, not unlike what the Democrats went through in 2004 (the similarities are rather striking, aren’t they?) I really didn’t make any bold predictions though (I certainly didn’t go so far as to predict the outcome in the popular or EC votes. Others may have, but I did not.) With regards to your analogy, I don’t accept the premise that the Democrats are in the absolute middle of center field. They may be in left field (and I won’t even go so far as to say far-left field, but I think that some of them certainly are).

    Anyways, I will continue to press ahead (or is it FORWARD! now?) What’s the old saying? “I am wounded but I am not slain. I’ll lay me down a bleed awhile and then I’ll rise and fight again.”

  • “Anyways, I will continue to press ahead” … as well you should. The idea that conservatives should not be fighting a rear guard action as the rest of the Republicans retreat to some “middle” road to socialism and tyranny in a hopeless strategy to gain power without influencing the eventual outcome is contrary to the whole concept of American political discourse. Just cave in to or enthusiastically endorse the demands of those who did not vote for you… and never will, no matter how much they they beat you down? Nonsense.

    Throughout history there have been many voices in the wilderness whose views have ultimately been vindicated, for example Churchill in the 30’s, and though politics has rarely rewarded them for their prescience or efforts, civilized mankind will forever be in their debt.

    Good citizenship is not just about politics and saying or doing whatever you have to do to gain power. Sometimes it’s just making sure your fellow citizens are aware that there are other alternatives, things that have proved time and time again to be successful and illustrating to them how their decisions have been self destructive and foolish. Over the next four years there will be ample opportunity for you to be a good citizen, I can assure you, so keep it up.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “I am wounded but I am not slain….”

    Seems to me this is more apropos:

    King Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
    Black Knight: ‘Tis but a scratch.
    King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm’s off.
    Black Knight: No it isn’t.
    King Arthur: What’s that, then?
    Black Knight: [after a pause] I’ve had worse.
    King Arthur: You liar.
    Black Knight: Come on ya pansy.

  • liz says:

    ND, a few examples of how the Dems are centrists:

    ObamaCare isn’t universal single payer.
    We’re using drones to kill people
    We’re still entrenched in the Middle East
    We’re still deporting people
    We’re not taking 75 cents of every dollar from folks who make more than $50,000.
    There’s no maximum wage
    We don’t have free education through college (or med school!)
    Death Penalty, we has it.
    We lead the world in prison population
    Pot isn’t legal in most places
    Churches aren’t taxed.
    EPA not strong enough
    FDA not strong enough
    FCC too strong
    Corporations are people, my friend.

    Now, I’m not for most of those positions, but I’m here to tell you that there is a big segment of voters on the Left who said that Obama was indistiguishable from Romney.

    I think they’re wrong, but they’re out there.

  • Liz, if Obambi and the Democrats had their way and there was no opposition, what would that list look like?

    As to Obamacare, on that one you are wrong. When the government in the form of an unelected HHS secretary can define what is to be covered, a minimum coverage that a citizen by birthright is compelled to purchase, which government proxy insurance company he can purchase it from and at what price, you in fact have a de-facto single payer system. The fact that the health insurance companies sold their American souls to feed off their fellow citizens and become yet another crony capitalist segment of the economy does not in any way make what they are doing “private sector” or market based.

    One proof in plain sight but doubtless noticed by few is the fact that since Obamacare has been passed you have seen a dramatic increase in government advertising concomitant with the virtual disappearance of private health insurance advertising from the likes of Cigna, Aetna, etc. Why? Because now that you are compelled by law to purchase from them and there is little opportunity for them to differentiate between their government defined product offerings, there is no need to waste money talking to you. They are safely in the cartel and they’ve got you right where they want you, thus marketing is unnecessary.

    It’s really that simple… where there is no marketing, there is no market, thus no supply and demand, no efficiency, quality, availability or affordability. So now, our fellow citizens who have so often falsely complained that there is no market in oil, that the big companies control everything, can for the first time experience what it is like being captive to a real, government endorsed monopoly.

    As always, I will be laughing my ass off as those tens of millions of my fellow citizens who foolishly bought into this economic and logistical impossibility angrily come out of their stupor and discover they are in a health care prison cell. But even more amusing will be the creativity with which the Democrats struggle to find a way to blame the failure of their master plan on those who opposed it, rather than those who “first had to pass it… so they could find out what was in it.”

  • liz says:

    TDP, single payer universal health care is paid for with taxes, plain and simple. If we had it, it would be on our tax bills. We would not be paying checks to private insurers (as I do each month).

    It would, in short, be Medicare for Everybody. We haven’t got that.

    If Obama had no opposition, we would still not have it, because that was not his starting point. His starting point was Mass Care. We didn’t even get that.

  • LoudouninNC says:

    Can we all please stop using words like socialism and tyranny. Read a little bit. These are not even remotely accurate uses of the words in historical contexts. I understand the reaction of the Republicans and Nate is right, it very closely resembles the overreaction of Democrats in 2004 (not any more/less appropriate).
    Calling the current Democrat agenda socialist or tyrannical is akin (perhaps moreso) to the reference to the Tea Party as the American Taliban.
    Further, whether or not anyone cares to accept it, Ben’s analogy to the baseball outfield is, historically, very accurate and appropriate. Take a look at any of the political science writeups of the policy positions over the past few years and notice that the bulk of what is being referred to as “tyranny”, “socialism”, etc. pales in comparison to the history of the United States. You don’t have to accept that the Democrats are at the center, but they are a whole lot closer to it than the national GOP. That is why people like myself have found themselves largely alienated by a party that, historically, I have supported.

  • Liz, you will be paying for it in both taxes AND payments to alleged “private” insurers, but the difference will now be, like when you pull up to an intersection and look at the signs, all the prices will be within a penny and only three choices of grade. But the worst thing is that even if you are riding a bicycle you will still be compelled to fill your canteen with gasoline.

    Obamacare IS single payer because the government is entirely in control of what gets paid; the fact that insurance companies are acting as de-facto agencies of the government instead of actual agencies disbursing tax revenue is moot. You don’t pay your taxes? You get fined or imprisoned. You don’t pay for health insurance, you get taxed (thanks to Justice Roberts), and if you don’t pay that tax you get fined or imprisoned. There is no difference between your tax payments and your health insurance payments, nor any difference in how those receipts are disbursed… both are disbursed by masterminds based upon political analysis and not market analysis.

    Just like single payer, there will be no cost/benefit market forces at work, only cost/benefit political forces, and it will be yet another way for the Democrats and Socialists to pit a growing group of Americans who consume the national wealth against a dwindling group of those who produce it.

  • liz says:

    TDP, if you are talking about the cost for “opting out” I don’t think it’s a legitimate concern. And even if it were, it’s also a requirement for opting out of auto insurance, and I’m not seeing you shouting about that.

    I don’t know a single person who would rather not have health insurance. I know a boatload of people who can’t afford it, and I know more people who used to not be able to get it at any price (pre-existing conditions R us). And I know other people who had insurance and were about to lose it because of going over their lifetime maximum (child with congenital liver disease).

    ObamaCare has fixed the problem for the latter two categories, the first one will be fixed in 2014.

    But I don’t know a single soul who has said to me, “you know, insurance is for suckers, I’m not buying into that even if I could afford it”.

    Now, you may be such a person, but I truly hope you’re not, because I hate arguing with the permanently befuddled.

  • “what is being referred to as “tyranny”, “socialism”, etc. pales in comparison to the history of the United States.”

    LoudinNC, can you give a few examples of tyranny and socialism that has occurred since our Constitution was adopted other than the slavery defended by force of arms by the Democrats in the south prior to the Republican abolition of same, the late 19th and early 20th century monopolies similarly broken up by Republicans, the socialist programs of FDR in the 30’s or his desert internment camps for our fellow Japanese citizens during WW2?

    As to definitions or labels, I find tyranny, “the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”, to be entirely in keeping when you have a legislature that changes its own rules and inflicts thousands of pages of unknown landmark legislation in the dead of night upon a deliberately misinformed public, or an Attorney General, supposedly the people’s lawyer, thumbing his nose in contempt at the people who want to know why he was distributing thousands of automatic weapons to criminals and murders and his boss abusing the doctrine of executive privilege to protect him… all and many more examples I could provide, to fit perfectly within the scope of that definition.

    We’ll leave socialism for another chapter, but we’ll launch it with a President who says, “I believe at some point, you’ve made enough money” and, by the way, since “You didn’t build that”, if he wants to “Spread the wealth around, it’s good.”

  • edmundburkenator says:

    At some point, I just get tired of correcting the cynical bullshit and half-truths from guys like T. Doom.

    Perhaps that is what he’s counting on…

  • Liz, please do not compare health insurance mandates to car insurance… at least not until your friends decide that the cost of auto insurance is too high so everybody must buy it even if they do not own or drive a car.

    Myself, I would prefer a world where the price and availability of medical services was determined by market forces and insurance unnecessary. “But health care costs are so high, they are unaffordable!”, you cry. Now why is that… because there are too many market forces at work, or too few?

    Since you bring up the automobile analogy, let’s for a moment compare the lifetime costs of auto acquisition and maintenance to the lifetime cost of health care services. Though I have not crunched the numbers, I feel very safe in predicting that you would find the average citizen pays at least an order of magnitude (that would be ten times, for the innumerate among us) more for cars and transportation over their lifetimes than they do healthcare… even if they were paying for everything out-of-pocket. If they are paying via insurance they are actually paying more for their health care because all those buildings up in Hartford were not built with money that was paid to doctors, meaning the collective cost of “the system” is far greater with the insurers laundering the money than without.

    That being said, what is the fundamental problem with health care? No market. I have been in health care all my life as a technology entrepreneur and have known hundreds of physicians in all aspects of care. What I always tell them is, “The only problem you guys have is that nobody thinks what you are selling is worth a penny of their own money… what you are offering is only worth it if somebody else pays, which means it is essentially worthless to your customers unless you happen to be selling larger breasts, a flatter tummy, whiter teeth or perfect vision without glasses.”

    Why is it that a high school graduate salesman in a dealer showroom can extract say, $40,000 from somebody who may not even be able to afford it, yet the guy with fifteen years of the finest education, residency and accreditation can’t convince somebody that the $10 co-pay for a wellness check-up is a good investment?

    If I were one of Obamas un-vetted Czars and put in charge of tackling the “problem” of health care costs via the unconstitutional means he is so fond of utilizing, I would just make all third-party payment other than from friends and family illegal… and overnight you would have all these brilliant physicians trying to obtain a high school education in salesmanship, an education that they have never had because they have never had to deal with the price objection. Either it’s covered or it isn’t and the customer isn’t really paying… what a beautiful world when you’re trying to move a product.

    I can see it now in the showroom:

    “Let’s see… the Mercedes or the Yugo, which should I buy?”

    “Well, sir, that depends upon your coverage.”

    “What coverage?”

    “Your replacement car insurance coverage defined and mandated by Liz, but administered via companies purported to be participating in a marketplace.”

    “Oh, I see. But I just want to buy a car. How much do these two cost?”

    “It depends upon your co-pay.”

    “Are you telling me the price is not important?”

    “No, we are all concerned about the rising price of cars, I am just saying that the price doesn’t matter in your decision.”

    “But I don’t want to use insurance, I just want to pay cash.”

    “Well, that’s against the law, just like spending your own money for health care services up in Canada, so if you want a car you are going to have to buy it through mandated insurance, and your choice of car will be determined by the coverage you elected in advance.”

    “I see. So what’s your job, aren’t you supposed to be some kind of salesman?”

    “No, ever since the LizCar Act was passed we have not needed any salesmen. I am what is called a pre-qualifier.”

    “A pre-qualifier?”

    “Yes, just like the faceless person in a cubical wearing a headset telling you which doctor, medicine or procedure you are allowed, my job is to tell you what car you can own depending upon your coverage, and report you to the IRS if you don’t have any.”

    “Oh, that’s a relief. For a moment there I was beginning to feel like I was living in some type of socialist country, but I can now see that all these restrictions upon my personal liberty and market choices are for the common good.”

  • A.E. Gnat says:

    Signal-to-noise ratio needs to be improved there, TL;DR. Whoops. I meant TDP.

  • LoudouninNC says:

    I meant it in terms of policy positions. To rephrase: I don’t believe that the policies of the modern Democratic party are substantially more “tyrannical” or “socialist” than those of any major American political party at any point in American history. If anything, I would be more likely to tend towards agreeing that there are elements of “tyrannical” behavior, but those are an extension and continuation of an existing trend (i.e. Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.). I dislike these elements as much as anyone, but, quite frankly, I would cast immense doubt on anybody that thinks Romney was going to decrease the amount of surveillance or counteract the erasure of constitutional rights.

  • LoudouninNC says:

    And rather than leave socialism to another time, I think I will decline that invitation. There have been more than enough studies and graphs posted over time.

  • Liz Miller says:

    Difference is, ND, that cancer can strike you even if you’re 10, or an 18 year old college student, or 90 and on a fixed income. It doesn’t only strike those who can afford to be cured. When we are all in insurance pools, the cost of curing the very sick is shared among the healthy too, as safe drivers help cover those in accidents.

    You’re right that there is a difference in that not everybody buys a car, but everyone does need a doctor at some point or other, and it doesn’t always happen when they are flush in the pocket.

  • A.E., perhaps your receiver has limited front end gain or selectivity, though I do note the sub-carrier encoding in your transmission 🙂

    Loudon, your point is well taken and I believe you will find that I have never proposed that Mr. Romney would have been willing or capable of reversing or even arresting the gradual depletion of our liberty because just as when he was a governor he would have allowed and in some cases encouraged the slide to a bigger, more controlling government. That is what always happens when you have somebody who doesn’t stand for anything trying to get along with those who will stop at nothing… we lose ground.

    So, if I understand the majority of opinion around here, it seems that the Republicans must first be concerned about being elected, then and only then can they do…. what?

    In order to get elected, we have to “move to the center”, which some here propose to be where the Democrats are. Then, if elected, we must also “move to the center”, meaning allow the Democrats to move the goal post, in order to effectively govern and, finally, to be re-elected we have to continue moving to wherever the Democrats take us. That’s the winning formula, right?

    So, when the Democrats do not offer or pass a budget in three years I suppose we should only demand they pass one every other year? If they want a deficit of two trillion we should only agree to one? After the taxes go up next year and the revenues go down due to even slower economic growth, when the Democrats propose raising taxes yet again we should only agree to raise them by half? When the Democrats propose amnesty and immediate citizenship for all illegal residents we should agree to only 75% of them? You really think that’s going to sock it to them, huh?

    All this time they have been getting what they want… bigger and bigger government doling out more and more of the national wealth and our childrens’ future to their voters, and yet some think that if we had been making it easier for them along the way we would have been in charge by now? To what end? You’ll never win a game just by playing defense, you have to put points on the board for your team and I don’t see anybody even trying.

  • Liz, you’re right, it doesn’t always happen when you are flush in the pocket, but there again it doesn’t “always happen”, either, the self-destructing twenty-something crushed to death in his new BMW and the spry old farmer who punches out riding the tractor in his nineties having never seen a doctor in his life being just two examples. I reject the notion that “everybody will need it” and that when they do they cannot or will not be able to pay their own way.

    More importantly, there are lots of other things that cost as much or more than health care that people are even more likely to have to purchase in their lifetimes, like food, housing and transportation, all of which are affordable because market forces are at work, at least at the time of this writing. As I said before, when it comes to breasts, tummies and laser eye surgery, all subject to the same training and liability costs but instead participating in a vibrant market where there is no insurance and no government function other than license and accreditation, the price for all those products has steadily become more affordable at the same time the quality and availability has increased.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    T. Doom, at what point in our country’s history did we have it just right? Was there a time when you thought: hey, that was just the right blend of liberty, taxes and safety nets.

    Or has the perfect blend ever occurred?

  • RichmondDem says:

    ” like food, housing and transportation, all of which are affordable because market forces are at work”

    Food, housing, and transportation are totally taken care of by the private sector? Are you freaking serious? Those are all heavily subsidized and regulated to various degrees by all levels of government.

    Let’s just take probably the most egregious example here. FOOD you say is left to market forces? REALLY? Have you ever heard of farm subsidies? Food stamps? Sugar tariffs? School lunches? WIC? And on and on. How on earth could anybody think that the food market in the United States, in the year 2012, is somehow a shining example of unfettered capitalism at work. LOL!

  • RichmondDem says:

    As to 2016, I don’t think Clinton runs. In any event, I’m for Andrew Cuomo.

  • EdBurk, there is no “perfect blend” because man is imperfect, which is why our founders crafted the cumbersome system we have, so yes, we will keep experimenting. As WSC said, democracy is the worst system in the world, except for all the others, however when you reach the point where we are now, where the takers outnumber the producers and and are encouraged to vote to confiscate whatever they please, you end up with tyranny and destitution.

    And RichmondDem, can you explain how all those Democrat supported and expanded programs regarding food have worked to make prices lower and supplies greater? Food, housing and transportation are affordable DESPITE government meddling, not because of it. Farm subsidies use tax payer dollars to pay farmers NOT to produce food or create artificial demand for things like cheese in order to drive the price UP. School lunch programs, especially now, limit the control parents have over the feeding of their children because the masterminds don’t trust the parents to feed them “properly”, basically telling them “Mommy doesn’t love you as much as we do, she puts all that bad stuff in your lunch bag”.

    The various affordable housing acts forcing the sale and financing of housing to those unable to pay are in large part what led to the collapse of the real estate market, mass transit is so inefficient and unattractive it cannot survive without taxpayer subsidy, the crumbling infrastructure we always hear about (toward which that trillion was supposed to go to all those non-existent “shovel ready jobs”) was supposed to be maintained by hundreds of billions worth of fuel taxes in the so-called highway trust fund that instead has been spent on ever increasing “entitlement” programs, etc., and the list goes on and on and even comes around in full circle… now we subsidize ethanol so that we can burn our food instead of eating it, then wonder why food prices are going up.

    Yet despite all of that meddling we have more of everything than any place else on the globe because the consumer is still in control of the marketplace and making economic decisions in their own best interests. They are not compelled by law to buy minimum quantities of food, transportation or housing whether they need to or not, nor are politically appointed masterminds setting the price and product offerings, at least not yet. To suggest that by injecting even more government meddling into healthcare, where there has been little to no market forces since the advent of the Great Society, it will somehow make both availability and affordability greater is a pipe dream. It won’t work, it never has worked and it can’t work, as you will see in just a few short years.

  • LoudouninNC says:

    Two points:

    “The various affordable housing acts forcing the sale and financing of housing to those unable to pay are in large part what led to the collapse of the real estate market”

    On affordable housing, there is a big difference between affordable housing programs (created by Reagan through the Tax Reform Act of 1986) and the low underwriting standards that led to the collapse of the mortgage markets. That was fueled by unscrupulous trading practices and worsened by bad consumer practices like taking cash out of a refinance and spending it on vacations, cars, etc. The actual affordable housing program (Low Income Housing Tax Credits) is perhaps the single best example of public-private partnerships in existence and has created more local jobs than almost any other similar program.

    “mass transit is so inefficient and unattractive it cannot survive without taxpayer subsidy, the crumbling infrastructure we always hear about (toward which that trillion was supposed to go to all those non-existent “shovel ready jobs”) was supposed to be maintained by hundreds of billions worth of fuel taxes in the so-called highway trust fund that instead has been spent on ever increasing “entitlement” programs, etc., ”

    You could substitute automobile transportation for mass transit and have an equally correct sentence. Study after study have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the subsidies for car ownership, oil production, road construction, etc. are massive and on par with those of any other form. In fact, the transportation modes that 1) cost the least, 2) create the most jobs, and 3) spur economic development more than anything else are bicycling and pedestrian amenities; however, those are exactly what the House has been trying so hard to remove from all funding packages.

  • RichmondDem says:

    The debate was not whether you agree with government involvement in those fields, I was simply pointing out that they exist. So you do admit that you were wrong to call food, housing, and transportation in this country some kind of shining example of the ‘free market’ at work? That’s all I’m pointing out.

    And no, the subsidies in those fields aren’t just for low income people or those who take mass transit. The interstate highway system and the mortgage tax credit are two huge examples of middle and upper class subsidies.

  • RichmondDem says:

    ” The actual affordable housing program (Low Income Housing Tax Credits) is perhaps the single best example of public-private partnerships in existence and has created more local jobs than almost any other similar program.”

    I love the LIHTC. Best affordable housing program ever instituted by the federal government. We have several LIHTC complexes in Richmond and they’re all huge successes. Solid, mixed-income communities of working people. Nothing at all like the 1950s/60s style housing projects. LIHTC is probably the most successful federal program that very few people have heard of.

  • LoudouninNC says:

    I guess I should have also added this disclaimer:
    I work for a small business that syndicates LIHTC. And RD, we own several of the complexes you’re probably referring to in Richmond.

    The program is phenomenal, but I must say, it is downright hilarious to visit an old school converted into an elderly apartment complex and hear some folks badmouthing federal programs like this from the comfort of their federally subsidized home.

  • RichmondDem, I am talking about market forces in play RELATIVE to health care. That the government is meddling in all aspects of the economy and our lives is, as you say, without question. The question is whether increasing the meddling in the health care market makes things better or worse for both our standard of living and our personal freedom, and over the next few years we will see that things will be dramatically worse.

    Only a true Democrat like you feels that allowing people to keep more of the money they earn is somehow a “subsidy”, as if all wealth created is firstly the property of the government and it is the government that decides what you may spend as you please. There is a big difference between government telling you that if you bite the bullet to saddle yourself with debt to buy a home or take a risk by drilling for oil or yes, building a wind farm it will take less of your money away from you, verses giving away food stamps, cell phones or directly investing taxpayer dollars into a failing automobile manufacturer and a failed solar panel manufacturer.

    After all, when the government tells you that unless you spend your money in the manner they please you will have to forfeit more, it’s not really your money to do with as you please, is it? For example, I have purchased major medical insurance for over 25 years, since a time when only two companies even offered it, and transitioned to HSA as soon as they became law, preferring the low premiums, high deductible and coverage tailored to my needs. I have saved a few hundred thousand in premiums while at the same time doing my small part to try to inject market forces into the health care system… when I would ask what something cost and get the usual “Your insurance will cover it”, I would explain that I was the insurance company for the first ten grand and to please give me the price.

    Now under ObamaNoCare, policies like that will no longer meet minimum coverage requirements and despite the fact that I have appropriate coverage to my financial needs and have always paid my own way, I am going to be fined, excuse me, taxed an additional two grand or so for not spending my own money in a manner the masterminds deem to be correct.

    According to your logic, therefore, if I instead were to spend $13,000 per year on a larded up policy containing things I don’t need, like contraceptive and fetal dismemberment and evacuation “care”, instead of the $6,000 I pay now, the retention of my current tax rate in exchange for paying more than double for my insurance would somehow be a “subsidy”.

    But playing tricks with the lexicon is not new to your side, you’ve been doing that one for years, for example the current tax rates that you have been calling “cuts” for the past ten years, as if the Clinton tax rates were not “increases” over the prior twelve years. Actually, the prior eleven because after promising a middle class tax cut throughout his campaign he instead retroactively increased the taxes on everybody for the year prior to him assuming office. And he’s the one who was recently telling us how important it is for the President to tell the truth… we’ll see at the lap dog press conference today:

    “Mr. President, what was George W. Bush’s involvement in the murder of our Ambassador in Libya, what did he know and when did he know it?”

    Anyway, after the rates go up in a few months and the economy continues to slow but at an accelerated rate, will we be able to call it the “Obama Tax Depression” for the next ten years? Of course not. Because the “Bush Tax Cuts” were terribly unfair despite the fact that every wealthy Democrat and liberal complained about them personally took advantage of them, the increases will now also be blamed on Bush, hence the “Bush tax increases.” That’s the great thing about being a Democrat… everything can always be blamed on somebody else.

  • Liz Miller says:

    There are no market forces in health care. When people get sick they go to the doctor. Either the one they’ve been seeing or the one that has the next appointment available. If its an emergency, they get taken to the nearest ER regardless of price. This is one of the many reasons doctors are licensed, because there isn’t a real way to apply market forces to what they do.

  • Liz, that is precisely correct, there are no market forces at work and that is why the cost of care has been going up by several times the rate of inflation since the sixties. Admissions to medical schools are restricted in order to keep the supply limited, licensing is designed to preserve the turf of regional monopolies and the dream of many of these physicians for decades has been to have a single payer system where they can continue to earn an above average standard of living through the compulsory payment of their “customers” through government mandate rather than pricing their services based upon quality, supply and demand. That is why they all, regardless of skill or outcomes, get paid the same for their services… it is a cartel, often incestuous and generational, where doctors marry doctors and are better positioned to get their children into medical school.

    When I was a kid doctors made house calls and coordinated family care, two things we have not seen since, and that is because they had to package and price their product so that ordinary people could afford it, otherwise they would not have a job. We did not run to his office, let alone the emergency room to get a bottle of pills every time one of us had the sniffles. Those who could not afford care still got it either through doctors honoring their oaths or charities… in America there were no people dying in the streets due to lack of care like in some third world country, religious charity hospitals were numerous and fellow citizens looked after each other as best they could, perhaps because they had been through a war or two together.

    With the introduction of Medicare and the gradual redefinition of health care as a “right” instead of a marketable service, those dynamics are virtually gone and with ObamaNoCare they will become extinct, thus health care financing and delivery will be decided politically instead of economically or medically, just like it is in all the other socialized economies where every election cycle centers around “reforming” their ever degrading national health systems, choosing winners and losers, raising taxes and lowering services.

    The only difference is that where the ruling class in those countries used to have the option to come here for superior service they, as well as our own ruling masterminds, will instead be flying to exotic clinics in the Far East and Caribbean where they don’t have to swallow the same prescription they have shoved down our throats.

  • RichmondDem says:

    “If its an emergency, they get taken to the nearest ER regardless of price. ”

    Which is, of course, the worst, most expensive, inefficient and ineffective way to deliver healthcare. And yet that’s the only “solution” Republicans offer to working people unable to afford health insurance, including their most recent presidential candidate.

    Thankfully, ObamaCare will be be a huge step towards solving this problem, and it is safely the law of the land.

  • RichmondDem says:

    You know, there’s one state where healthcare costs are very low and have not increased at the rapid rate they have in the rest of the country–Hawaii. Why? Hawaii essentially passed the old Nixon plan in 1975 (basically a mandated combination employer/employee contribution to health insurance, with expanded Medicaid for the unemployed). They have some of the lowest healthcare costs in the country, despite the fact that Hawaii is a very high cost of living state, with some of the best health outcomes.

    “Market forces” will not lower healthcare costs. Guaranteed, universal coverage does.

  • Novaguy says:

    Whoever the hell this T Doom guy is, he is delivering a serious beatdown on the local liberal talent. Keep up the good work.

  • Last time I checked, Hawaii did not have an open border with millions of poor, untrained and indigent flooding across and into their emergency rooms to drop anchor babies… swimming across the Pacific is so much more difficult than wading across the Rio Grande.

    Why don’t you talk about how things have been going in Massachusetts since they adopted compulsory insurance? Have costs gone down there? Are doctors flowing into, rather than out of that state? I know… just like the stimulus spending, if it weren’t for RomneyCare things would be even worse. All those medical procedures “saved or created” and such. I don’t know why you don’t just say that if it weren’t for Obama NONE of us would have a job by now and nobody would get medical care.

    Hawaii… a statistical spec in the ocean with a fraction of the economic and ethnic diversity we have here. What a joke. Why don’t you point to Iceland as another shining example of socialist utopia where everybody rides bikes, are all the same color, everything is forfeited to and paid for by the government (meaning it’s “free”) and there is no need to strive to achieve more than your neighbor because everything is just right for you. All for one and one for all! Officers laboring alongside the enlisted men… As Colonel Saito used to say, “Be happy in your work”

  • LoudouninNC says:

    Leave the bikes alone! Bicycling is the most conservative mode of transportation imaginable.

Leave Comment