Bobby Jindal, Dan Quayle and Socialist Health Care

Bobby Jindal has "seen enough" and Dan Quayle thinks President Obama needs to "tame the left wing of his party." Perhaps it is time to give the Republican Party some credit for consistency, if not exactly relevancy or accuracy. Dan Quayle, who has gracefully made the transition from boy wonder vice president to elder statesman of his party without pausing along the way to actually accomplish anything, and Bobby Jindal, who seems to have succeeded in combining the politics of Ronald Reagan with the earnestness and credibility of Ronald McDonald, seem to agree that the biggest threat to the country is that President Obama will pass health care reform and lead the country irrevocably down the road to socialism.

For most of Obama's presidency, the Republicans have vacillated between attacking the president for being weak and unable to get anything done and attacking him for being a socialist who, as Quayle suggested, is a captive of radical elements in the Democratic Party. You might say the Republican Party cannot decide whether Obama reminds them more of Jimmy Carter or Josef Stalin, two people who, other than having been born in Georgia, have almost nothing in common. The Carter angle seems to have less sticking power than the red baiting because an ineffective president is not as frightening to the Republican base as socialism is. Fear, not surprisingly, has remained one of the key tenets of the Republican message during Obama's presidency.

Labeling any program seeking to use public resources to help poor people or provide opportunity to more Americans as socialist has been a tactic employed by many Republicans and no small number of conservative Democrats over the years. It has at times been quite effective. In this regard, Quayle, Jindal and others in the Republican leadership are not employing a new strategy. To the contrary, they are relying on a the same tactic conservatives used more than 40 years ago to fight against Medicare, and more than 70 years ago to fight against Social Security. Labeling any progressive program socialist remains a tried and true conservative tactic, but in the 21st century it feels almost quaint and seems to have little power to move voters outside of the Republican base. One cannot help but wonder if this message, and these messengers, are the best the Republicans can find.

If Obama succeeds in passing meaningful health care reform, his political skills, the large majorities and relative unity of the Democratic Party in both houses of Congress and the decades of work activists contributed to this cause will all be singled out as reasons for Obama's success where other Democratic presidents have failed. The failure of the Republican Party to recognize the limits of their appeal and that hollering "socialist" repeatedly on Fox News does not exactly swing voters during a time when getting sick, or having a family member get sick, without health care is a far greater concern to most Americans than creeping socialism or Soviet expansion.

The threat of socialism may strike fear into the Republican base, but seems to have little impact beyond those voters. This was demonstrated during the campaign as luminaries such as Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber spent the last days of the campaign calling Obama a socialist and watching the Republican poll numbers drop.

Bobby Jindal and Dan Quayle notwithstanding, the struggle for health care will still be very difficult. In addition to strong opposition from the Republican Party, free market ideologues, insurance companies and others, there are many Democrats in Congress who have not yet committed to doing pushing for strong reform. Additionally, the final bill still has not been written so we cannot yet be at all certain that Congress will vote on something truly meaningful. Even with the implosion of the Republican Party still showing no signs of abating, opposition to a genuinely significant health care bill will be very strong.

If Obama is able to push through a real health care bill it will have an immediate and positive impact on millions of uninsured Americans and will rationalize a complex and costly system more generally. A victory for Obama on health care will also put to rest the scare tactics which have been used to defeat health care reform for about half a century. It may also discredit playing the socialist card in general as a useful conservative tactic for fighting against any and all progressive change. This would be a powerful and paradigm shifting victory.

 

Comments

[S1m0n]

Who do those hard-core anti-socialists call when their house is on fire?

Right, the socialised fire department!

[offred]

Quayle's a fine one to talk about socialism. He's an affirmative action baby.

In Time magazine article called "The Worst Vice Presidents," this copy appears: [Quayle] had failed an undergraduate comprehensive exam at DePauw University; one of his former professors referred to him as "vapid"; and he was admitted to law school at the University of Indiana under an "equal opportunity" program for poor and minority students.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1834600_1834604_1834585,00.html

I haven't been able to find any backup for this; I'm a little surprised, because Quayle comes from a wealthy family. I'm also amazed that Quayle has been brought out into public view again recently. Maybe they're looking at a Palin/Quayle or Quayle/Bachmann ticket next time around.

[offred]

Is there any way to verify that Quayle indeed qualified for and received an admission to law school at the University of Indiana under an "equal opportunity" program for poor and minority students.

According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle): "His maternal grandfather, Eugene C. Pulliam, was a wealthy and influential publishing magnate who founded Central Newspapers, Inc., owner of over a dozen major newspapers such as The Arizona Republic and The Indianapolis Star. James C. Quayle moved his family to Arizona in 1955 to run a branch of the family's publishing empire. While the Quayle family was very wealthy, Dan Quayle was less so; his total net worth by the time of his election in 1988 was less than a million dollars."

Quayle was in college from approximately 1965 to 1969. Yet the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Quayle) for James C. Quayle, his father, says this: "Quayle married Corrine Pulliam, the daughter of wealthy newspaper publisher Eugene C. Pulliam, at Indiana University. ... In 1963, he became the publisher of the Huntington Herald-Press. He purchased the newspaper the following year and became chairman of Huntington Newspapers, Inc."

How could Dan Quayle have qualified as either poor or a minority? Was the Times article inaccurate? I'm also forwarding this comment to Time magazine to see if they can support the article's assertion.

[offred]

This is the link:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1834600_1834604,00.html

It appears in a link in the Cheney article featured on HuffPo's front page today.

[Hiphopcrates]

Baby!

[LMPE]

Bobby Jindal's biggest fear:

Health care for volcanoes!

Dan Quayle, meanwhile, probably can't spell anything that he talks about.

[Konnie]

what i don't get is why the limpublicans who are all about business profits are not

all over universal health care/single payer/ public option/ whatever you want to call it .

here is a golden opportunity to get this sucker off the bottom line of every

business in the country...­.......and yet..........here they are blocking the very

savior of the businesses they purport to care about.....­..........­.........s­pose

it's all about who brought you to the table...........

[Mike Barden]

I think we all know where i come down on this issue, but...

Qualye also said he thought Obama had done a good job of pickin' advisors.

[larry278]

Dan Quayle is experiencing a just fate. His comments on many serious issues are being solicited constantly. They are popular & used as comic relief. He will go down in history, way down.

[lj9283]

"According to studies, many of hospitals in the U.S. are facing bankruptcy ..... The Wall Street Journal, for instance, reported that a study conducted by Alvarez & Marsal restructuring firm, disclosed more than half of the U.S. hospitals aren’t seeing enough patients to provide sufficient revenue to fund operations and are teetering on the brink of insolvency or already are insolvent.

Moreover, the researchers found out that more than 2,000 of the nearly 3,900 acute-care hospitals don't make a profit treating patients, and nearly 750 hospitals that do turn a profit still don't have enough to reinvest in improvements or other essential expenditures.

The study also found that hospitals' capital expenses are underfunded in the range of $10 billion to $20 billion because they are using these dollars to fund their operations. It also suggested that the trend of hospitals moving into insolvency and filing for bankruptcy will continue."

http://hubpages.com/hub/Will-Hospitals-Face-Bankruptcy-Like-GM

[treboi]

I'm just wondering what your point is?

Personally, I think hospitals should not be turning a profit on people's lives, its really sick if you think about it. They should all be nonprofit.

[lj9283]

That there are a significant amount of underutilized resources in the Health Care System that could benefit from an increase in the number of people with access to the system.

[LeighAnnes]

LOL. I like that you list what he "coulda done" on his list of accomplishments. I think I'll start doing that.

[BlackNeoCon]

Jindal attended Brown University, graduating with honors in biology and public policy. He went on to study at New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar and received an M.Litt. degree in political science from the University of Oxford in 1994 for a thesis on "A needs-based approach to health care". He was accepted at Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, and coulda returned to Oxford for a D.Phil. in politics. After Oxford, he joined a consulting firm McKinsey & Company, advising Fortune 500 companies.

1996 Jindal was appointed secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. As secretary, Louisiana's Medicaid program went from bankruptcy with a $400 million deficit into three years of surpluses totaling $220 million. In 1998, Jindal was appointed executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, a 17-member panel charged with devising plans to reform Medicare.

In 1999, requested by the Louisiana Governor's Office and State Legislature, Jindal volunteered his time to study how Louisiana might use its $4.4 billion share of the tobacco settlement. In that 1998 Jindal was appointed to become the youngest-ever president of the University of Louisiana System. In March 2001 he was nominated by President George W. Bush to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation. He was later unanimously confirmed by a vote of the United States Senate and began serving on July 9, 2001.

Jindal has more Healthcare experience than Obama ever will..

[lj9283]

FYI:

Appointed by George Bush, Mr. Jindal was the principle adviser to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the uninsured between 2001 and 2003.

How effective was he:

In 1999 there were 40.2 Million with no Health Insurance
In 2000 there were 39.8 Million with no Health Insurance
In 2001 there were 41.2 Million with no Health Insurance
In 2002 there were 43.6 Million with no Health Insurance
In 2003 there were 45.0 Million with no Health Insurance
In 2004 there were 45.8 Million with no Health Insurance

It seems that Mr. Jindal was VERY effective at suggesting policy to grow the numbers of the Uninsured in the country.

[PartisanLove]

Exactly, obstructionist. If we do nothing on healthcare, then how does he help our country. We will continue to go backwards as a country if we ignore the needs of the people. Amazing how they throw around the socialist comment, complete nonsense. As if some social programs will turn us into fascist communists, ridiculous. Meanwhile, W had shills in the press room, was sending talking points out to the media, used fear to control the masses (you're not patriotic) and using terror alerts to keep people scared, talk about fascism.

[BlackJAC]

Brown University doesn't have failing grades; what's your point?

[WinterParkMom]

Ctd..
47 million un insured
20 million under insured
Subtract 10 million poor/indig­ent/mental­ly ill, etc, who are uninsured and will have to get free care = 37 mill un-insured who can pay.
18.5 million can pay $50/mo = 925,000,000
18.5 mill can pay $100 = $1,850,000,000
20 mill under insured will switch and can pay $100 = 2,000,000,000
That is a grand total of $4,775,000,000
That is FOUR BILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN PREMIUM PAYMENTS PER MONTH. FIFTY SEVEN BILLION THREE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PER YEAR IN PREMIUMS FOR ONE SET OF PEOPLE.
That does'nt count the millions who'll switch from private companies if they can pay $100 or 200 per month and have their entire family covered even with pre-existing conditions. Repeal bush tax cuts asap another 700 billion.
After thinking about it more, institute a 1 penny federal sales tax on EVERY item. I can hear the opponents shouting about making the poor poorer, but my statement is 1 cent on each item NOT on every dollar or hundred dollars. From candy bars tto big screen tv's to your house. 1 cent on everything. If your grocery bill was $100. for 53 items, your bill would be $100.53. That's not putting people in the poorhouse Also look at the fact that if you are saving 300-500 per month in insurance premiums, you have that much more money to: spend and put into the economy, save, invest.

[lj9283]

A 1% VAT Tax on all retail sales (which would not need to include groceries or soft drinks) would be a viable solution. Retail Sales in 2008 were $4.6Trillion Dollars, so if a 1% VAT Tax were imposed on all retail sales with the expectation that retail sales will grow year over year the 10 year gross for a VAT Tax would be about 500 Billion dollars.

[LeighAnnes]

Go ahead and include the tax on the soft drinks...

[WinterParkMom]

The basis for any public option should be:
Coverage for EVERYONE who applies
Structured premium payments of not more than 100 per individual, 300 per family
Deductibles capped out at $2000 and based on income. (Means testing every year, just like the VA)
No mandates forcing people to purchase insurance (this is a windfall for private carriers.
No subsidies to private insurance carriers
No taxes on employer provided benefits
If someone has private insurance and wants the public option, they can drop private with no problem and be covered immediately under public.
No mandates on employers to buy into the public option to cover employees. Has to be free choice.
Everyone with coverage gets treated for new or pre-existing conditions.
Fairly negotiated reimbursement to private pracitce, specialty doctors and hospitals
Fairly negotiated prices for medications, even on name brand stuff which has no generic equivalent.
AND IT HAS TO BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Within 1 month of the above bill passing, Americans must be able to start buying in and using it.
See my next post on funding

[BarryS]

The computers are already programmed. both privately and at SSA. No need to wait more than 60 days.

Initial prices:

private: cost of plan provided to US government.
public: medicare.

no cancellations except for non-payment. Community ratings, with 10% cap nation-wide.

We can quibble next year AFTER everyone is insured.

[Downing]

Arcana: 50s mentality dept. Socialism = Russia = nuclear war.
Reality: we have socialism to a degree. We have socialized military, infrastructure, schools, colleges, police, fire departments, co-ops, parks, etc. It's not scary any more. In fact, it makes sense to compassionate people.

[DEJM]

This article is a perfect illustration of why nothing ever gets done in Washington, D.C
Professor Mitchell is a willing participant in Washington's game of Dems vs. Republicans:
Name-calling 101.....to keep us busy enough not to notice that Congress is not doing its job of passing meaningful laws. Professor Mitchell should stop the mud-slinging and realize that taxpayers don't care whether Repubs. or Dems have the right answer. We elect these people to work together.
He needs to step up and give us a realistic analysis of why people want universal health care, but we're afraid of what we'll get. It's because the U.S. already governs healthcare for veterans and it's a big mess.
The government does a better job of denying healthcare to veterans than it does delivering it.
We all see the elephant in the room: If we get universal healthcare, it won't be done properly.
Rich people and Congress will continue to enjoy top notch treatment and poor people will be told they'll have to wait...just as they are told in England and Canada. We'll be told that if we want better universal healthcare, we'll have to pay more. The rich and the destitute will be taken care of and the working class will get the shaft.

[schicklett3]

Bush and company waged fearmongering for 8 years, and people are still stuck in that mindset.
The democrats are failing in that they're not forcefully backing our president and his healthcare agenda....and the media is focusing on all the negative instead of the positive. So, what to do??
The democrats are going to have to toughen up and support our president, otherwise, they're doomed.
It makes me sick to think the republicans are gaining strength simply because the Obama supporters aren't fully supporting him.
Oh well, the republicans will get re-elected and start another war based on lies, torture more people, disregard the constution at every turn, and finish destroying our economy....and it's all because people believe the lies of the conservatives and the main stream media have given the republicans free reign to spew their fear and lies on every news network possible. And where are the democrats?

[annie g]

Your right. The fearmongering the Right uses is shameful, disgusting and has become unbalanced at times. The real fear that I have is that the Democrats will not stand up and do what is right for the American people. To think that the Democrats control the House and Senate and will not be able to pass healthcare or other important legislation only shows they do not deserve to be in power. When will they start standing up to and speaking out about the lies, distractions and the rhetoric the Right has pursued since 20 Jan 09?
I am disappointed in Obama to think that he can "make nice" with anyone on the Right. Obama needs to realize that the Right is out to destroy him and the Democratic Party regardless of how they do it. If Obama and the others do not start changing their tactics in dealing with the Right, America and it's people will lose big time.

[Nofuzzydreams]

Insure all but cut costs first - otherwise Obama will be a lier - he will not be able to bend the rising cost curve downwards. Unfortunately, Pelosi and Dodd are taking the easy way out - taking our money to provide healthcare to the uninsured but not reforming the stricture of the system which is the hard work.

[apduncan1]

We get lost in semantics.

The health care reform is a social reform not a socialist reform. As in the social reform started by Lincoln, a Republican, that emancipated blacks. This reform will emancipate all from the servitude to a business block, the insurance industry and its minions, that is exploiting us all.