factual politics, or not

Some things emerge from the debate. Mostly what I'm noting repeatedly in both campaigns, but especially on the Dems side, is a faith in the ignorance of the American voting population.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/schneider-clinton-vs-mccain/

"Though the Arizona senator is a champion against wasteful spending, Clinton pointed to his support for the Bush tax cuts...colossal expenditures unpopular"... I think the IRS would be surprised to know that the record hauls of tax money they have from the last two years was a colossal expenditure. This is a concept that most people don't understand. When taxes are cut, to reasonable levels, the amount of money generated by those taxes actually increases over time. There's a delayed reaction, but despite the counter-intuitive nature of economics, it is true.

And second, McCain actually did not support them (despite her claims that he does) because tax cuts are expensive when they first come out. He wanted them tied to reductions in spending to compensate while the cuts took effect. They weren't, so the deficit spending began. He still only barely supports them and mostly because they do fundamentally strengthen the general economy, if not the government's influence over it.

So yet again, it's easy to poke at people when the facts are omitted from the war of words. Incidentally, I still don't like either party. But I'd still like to see them make factual arguments when attacking or debating once in a while. I'd also like the media to stop asking sappy questions intended for a personal response, because these people are not personal at all. Almost any question will be spun and twisted magically into a relation toward the public. Just stick to policy questions. I'd rather be bored than disgusted.

Speaking of policy questions, Hillary kept trying to bring up hillarycare, or health care. According to the media, this is an issue she 'understands'. She actually does not. Most of the figures being used as facts or problems are not. The 47 million figure includes people who are generally young and go without coverage as a choice. Choosing not to have coverage is a risk, but if instead the money goes toward purchasing a home, education, or other enriching activities, I can't fault their thinking. Without some immediate health risks and necessary expenses for medical care or prescriptions, I don't see a need for health insurance right now or next week, probably even next year. 30-40 years from now, sure (HSA baby). Under Clinton's plan, I'm fairly sure the element of that choice is removed because it implies mandates for coverage. Obama's plan has constantly been attacked because 'it doesn't cover everyone'. I'm not sure that everyone needs a doctor all the time to be healthy. His plan instead works to cover children. I can accept that children do need medical attention for things like vaccines and they're constantly getting sick or hurt from one thing or another anyway. But adults are free to make the adult choices of where their dollars will go (except if they're a parent, where they'd need to have some sort of coverage on their children). I'm not sure I like that plan much either, but it's certainly an improvement to have some options as individuals and some responsibility. Insurance as a general purpose instrument is long mis-understood. It works to pay money in case of traumatic events. Car accidents, home burns down, surgery. And so on. In fact medical insurance was essentially for the expensive stuff, the risk that such things would happen for years and not for basics. It has entered a massive spiral because medical care is more widely sought than before. More tests, more drugs, different basic surgerical procedures available. I'm not seeing that Hillary understands this any more than anyone else. She just sounds organized because she's been harping on it for decades. What is necessary is a means to reduce the demand and provide an understanding that spending 'other people's money' is not the way to fund our illnesses.