Webloggin » GOP Debate - Good Format, Nice Discussions, Definate Losers, No Clear Winner

I watched the GOP debate tonight with another one of those, “oh no, not another 2 hour forum where the candidates simply sit there spewing canned lines and rehearsed phrases”. But it was clear early on that ABC had hosted the first true debate of the 2008 Presidential election season; with some notable exceptions.

The biggest loser in my opinion was John McCain for his stances on greenhouse gas emissions, his idea that we should allow back door socialization of drug prices by reimporting them from Canada, his meandering on immigration and his substance less jabs at Romney. The underhanded one liners weren’t funny at all and simply made McCain look desperate which always means less presidential.

Ron Paul simply looked and sounded like the kook that many claim he is. It’s OK to oppose the war in Iraq but tone it down on the “America the Imperialist Bully” crap. I had admonished Fox news earlier for excluding Mr. Paul from the debates and I stand by that stance but Ron Paul proved that he is a bit of an embarrassment on that issue. His rant is much more in line with Democrats who side with ungrateful foreigners on the issue of America’s position as a world leader.

Mitt Romney handled the attacks well but you could see the frustration build as he kept taking it on the chin with underhanded attacks on his flip flops. Sure they are fair to an extent but I didn’t see any candidate sitting on that stage with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul that hasn’t changed their position over time in an effort to secure votes. Thus the attacks fell on deaf ears for those in the know. I guess it makes sense if you think that pandering to the uninformed is the way to get elected.

The three major areas of focus for the GOP side of the debate was foreign policy, health care and immigration.

Nearly all candidates agree with President Bush and the issue of preemption. Ron Paul of course thinks the world will simply stop trying to bring us down if we simply ignore them and stop forcing ourselves on the world. This is more than ridiculous, it is stupid and dangerous. Giuliani seemed to embrace the Bush Doctrine more than others but all were on board with the need to prevent attacks rather than react after the fact. Fred Thompson was also very clear by specifically talking about the threat of biological weapons and other more sinister acts of terrorism.

Mike Huckabee attempted to backpedal from that horrendous article he wrote referring to President Bush’s “bunker mentality” but it didn’t work for me. He tried to squirm out of the issue yet still hung onto the point about American being arrogant although he tried to rephrase it to seem less direct and perhaps misunderstood. On the up side Mike Huckabee is a good speaker, he seems to have a good grasp of the issues and is quick with getting to the point.

The illegal immigration discussions were amusing. It was interesting to see Rudy Giuliani try to weasel out on amnesty by saying a fine doesn’t equate to amnesty. Technically I guess he is correct but that still lets people jump in line and everybody knows that the issues surrounding how fines would be implemented are the true test of amnesty. Rudy is correct, we can’t simply kick all 12 to 20 million out. Fred Thompson fumbled here when he tried to get fancy with the concept of attrition. He did make his point however.

Like Giuliani, John McCain tried to weasel his way out of his stance on immigration and I’m not buying it. Everybody knew what the Z-Visa’s were and McCain can call it whatever he wants. In this instance Mitt Romney was correct although McCain kept talking over him when he tried to discuss it.

I can see where people may think that Fred Thompson is lifeless. He just isn’t quick with his words and his articulation isn’t very sharp at times. That does not bode well in this day and age where younger voters lose patience, have short attention spans and will be voting in record numbers. I think this is a real problem. You must be very clear on the issues, articulate clearly and quickly.

Healthcare is where I see the real differences between candidates. John McCain is the biggest loser here. That garbage about reimporting drugs at lower costs from Canada is the biggest line of bull that anyone has put out there in a long time. Canada has cheaper drug prices because the Canadian government puts anti-competitive caps on the prices. This results in higher prices for Americans. Simply allowing people to buy these drugs from Canada will result in an offsetting rise elsewhere; either in less research or higher prices all around. This is a back door plan to have government caps on a free market that has served us well.

I also give Rudy Giuliani 2 big thumbs down for his emphasis on health savings accounts. The only reason those accounts make any sense at the moment is because the government taxes the shit out of us and we can use HSA’s to save money on those taxes; thus it has less to do with healthcare and more to do with taxes. HSA’s are a stupid scam.

Update: Reader HappyHorse correctly noted that I have confused HSA’s with FSA’s.

With an HSA you get the interest in the account and you can invest your balance in stocks, bonds or mutual funds, any investment that is IRA qualified.

So, please correct the post above.

My mistake. The statement I made below refers to FSA’s and not HSA’s.

First of all you have to spend whatever you put in or you lose the money. Duh. Second, you have to guess what you are going to spend, erring on the side of underfunding otherwise you get penalized in the use it our lose it scenario. Third you have to set aside the money in advance. So Rudy is full of shit as is everyone else up there hiding behind this scam. (BTW, who makes all the interest on those funds that are sitting somewhere waiting to be spent? Not me.)

HSA’s do in fact allow you to recoup your money and roll it over. According to Families USA HSA’s have serious drawbacks. The three major ones being that they require high deductibles that could be in the thousands of dollars before the funds can be used, they can only be used for medical expenses specifically covered by the plan (so much for patient choice), and there is a cap on the coverage. Here is an example:

American Widgets contributes $100 per month to the Health Savings Accounts of employees with family coverage. Employees can contribute additional amounts to these accounts themselves. Money in the accounts can be used to pay for medical care until they meet their deductible, for copayments (once the deductible is met and coverage begins), and for other medical expenses not covered by the plan. Together, an employer and employee can contribute to an HSA an amount up to the employee’s deductible each year. In this case, if the employer contributes $1,200 a year for family coverage, an employee can contribute up to $2,900 a year, which is about $242 a month ($4,100 deductible - $1,200 employer contribution = $2,900).
Under the high-deductible plan purchased by American Widgets:

Families must pay the first $4,100 of medical expenses out of their own pockets (their annual deductible) before the plan will begin paying for most medical care. This particular plan will pay for some preventive care, such as annual physicals, before employees have met their deductible.

After families pay $4,675 for medical care themselves (the “out-of-pocket maximum”), the plan will pay 100 percent of covered medical services. However, this coverage comes with some caveats: The only expenses that count toward the $4,675 threshold are those that the family pays toward covered services. For example, if a family pays for a service that their plan never covered, such as a prescription drug that is not on the plan’s formulary, or a type of therapy that the plan does not cover, that expense does not count toward the out-of-pocket maximum. Further, for services that the plan does cover, only amounts up to the plan’s approved prices will count toward the out-of-pocket maximum.

While American Widgets’ new plan may sound reasonable, many of its employees will find that their health and their pocketbooks both suffer when they join the plan, as shown by the following three examples.

It looks like HSA’a are much better than FSA’s under certain scenarios so I am glad to admit when I am wrong. But my following statement still stands. I should be able to deduct all qualified expenses with the government forcing me to create this kind of account.

Hey, here’s an idea. How about allowing Americans to simply exclude all health care costs from being taxed come filing time? If I happen to spend $30,000 on health care then the government gets to tax $30,000 less of my dollars. Then I don’t need a third party company and a crystal ball to set aside my money in advance to avoid the big bad tax man from stealing more of my money. Plain and simple. But these big government types simply don’t get it when Americans say they want less taxes and a simpler system. Or perhaps they do and we are just stupid enough to keep voting them in.

I am not so sure about Romney’s health care plan either. The problem with individual plans is that everybody can’t get insurance because of pre-existing conditions. When these politicians talk about shopping for insurance on an individual basis they are making the assumption that everyone is insurable. Real world example, I have a form of Rheumatoid Arthritis that also happens to be associated with a slew of other auto-immune conditions. Now I may or may not become afflicted by any of the other illnesses but I come with the risk nonetheless. As a result insurance companies won’t touch me on an individual basis. Group plans however will cover me. Thus I am fine as long as I am employed by a company with a group plan; even if I have to pay for my family plan myself. Fact of the matter is that group plans give leverage. On this point ABC is 100% correct so if these candidates are proposing moving away from group coverage then I have a problem as do most people in this country.

But I am not an advocate of socialized medicine. Charlie Gibson mentioning that we are the only industrialized country without government provided insurance doesn’t mean that we are wrong; especially considering that patients in Great Britain and Canada suffer under such systems. On this point Fred Thompson gets it right.

All in all I can’t determine if there was any clear winner. New Hampshire will be sure to let us know.