Applying Conviction Politics to Iraq/n
I saw a new Zogby poll last night showing that a majority of Americans would support a US military strike in Iran to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon – in short, preemptive strike on Iran. This is the result of failing to make the core case for why President Bush has made us less safe. Forget the peripheral bits, President Bush and the Congress – including my opponent Virgil Goode (R-VA) – made the decision to subvert over 200 years of American strategic and moral wisdom about security through legitimacy and validate the idea that might makes right. Our failure to make that case, resorting to the safer arguments about mismanagement and bad intelligence, leaves us playing defense again as the drumbeats crescendo.
Before applying conviction politics to Iraq, it is worth looking at an example of where the international community pulled off regime change in the right way – Liberia. The proudest moment of my life was playing a role in forcing Charles Taylor from power in Liberia. I served as Special Advisor and Spokesperson to the prosecutor of the Special Court that indicted Taylor – an indictment which became the lever and the legitimizer forcing Taylor from power. I have seen the elation on the faces of amputees and survivors of systematic sexual violence after seeing the mastermind of their torment locked up. And I have seen that when a strategy combines legitimacy, aggressive diplomacy and a credible threat, we can make the world a better and more secure place.
In early 2003, Taylor was a brutal dictator with a history of crimes against humanity, destabilizing his region, flaunting international agreements, and (unlike some others who fit that description), he had meaningful links to al-qaeda. Today, Liberia is enjoying a rare period of peace and stability, recently elected the first female Head of State in Africa, and has a new window of hope. In short, they have everything we promised Iraqis.
The reason this regime change succeeded where Bush’s strategy failed is the key. In Liberia, the key was (1) legitimizing the departure through Taylor’s indictment by a court anchored in the region and validated by the international community; (2) smart diplomacy and regional leadership; and (3) a credible, over-the-horizon threat by US troops. Iraq had one of those legs and the table was destined to topple.
The Iraq war, now in its fifth year, continues to morph, but it is still the same at its core. We replaced an illegitimate dictator with an illegitimate democracy. The Iraqi constitution is a lousy deal that is not trusted or respected by the Iraqi people, and we are seen as a primary source of this illegitimacy. One of the arguments from Republicans and Democrats that infuriates me is that it is time for Iraqis to “step up” and do their part. Which Iraqis? Using what Parliament, police force or army? This entire argument is premised on a belief that the Maliki government is somehow more legitimate to Iraqis than any other faction in this civil war. Is it really possible this late in the game not to understand that legitimacy is the precursor to any functional security strategy?
Equally untenable is the “moral” argument that we cannot abandon the Iraqis. Though the principle is beyond reproach, it assumes as a factual matter that staying with the Iraqis helps the Iraqis. Again this misses the point about legitimacy as if some number of troops could change the political crisis that prevents a solution in Iraq.
We need to regain the moral force of legitimacy that can only come from acknowledging that the pre-emptive attack was unjustified, that the current government is illegitimate, and that a new process must be initiated including relevant Iraqi interest, nations of the region, and some independent entity acceptable to the Iraqis an overseer of the creation of a new constitution. This is the basis of the plan I support and helped to develop for a solution in Iraq. We call it the N.E.W. plan, which I helped to develop as part of the precursor to Avaaz.org and run in full-page ads around the world during key diplomatic moments. We developed the plan in consultation with security experts from the region and with the 5,000+ Iraqis that are part of the Avaaz.org community.
The result was a near consensus, some of which was also converges with the Baker-Hamilton report:
NEGOTIATE: Iraq will be stabilized by a negotiated political process. All Iraqi factions and neighbors must be included.
EMPOWER INTERNATIONAL MEDIATORS: Who has the legitimacy to organize such a process? Neither the US nor Iraqi governments are seen as impartial. Some combination of international actors will be necessary to mediate new talks.
WITHDRAW RESPONSIBLY: The US should honor the wishes of 71% of Iraqis and permanently and completely withdraw its military presence under terms supported by the Iraqi people.
Withdrawal must be about more than getting our troops home. It should be a catalyst for bringing key actors (particularly Sunnis) to the table. In other words, we initiate a political solution by acknowledging both the moral obligations we have created and the practical concerns we are entitled to in regard to Iraq. This is the basis of legitimacy. We recognize that we owe the Iraqis both support and a commitment to withdraw, while we seek both a stable Iraq and path home for our troops. This is why withdrawing troops is not a cut and run strategy, but rather the key to winning in Iraq. But when we talk about it as needing Iraqis to step up or needing to take care of things back home, we should not be surprised when we get accused of selling out Iraqis. The sequence goes commitment to withdraw in order to create the new talks and once the talks are done we withdraw.
There are only two ways that civil wars end – overwhelming force or a negotiated deal. If we want to continue on the path of might makes right, we had better sign up for overwhelming force, and we had better sign up to hit Iran while we’re at it. Such a strategy is not likely to work, and we can be sure our enemies will become even bolder in their “self-defense” preparations. But conviction in might makes right suggests this option. Otherwise, negotiation is the choice. Negotiations require that you get the right people to the table and offer a mediator that all sides trust. And any sort of meaningful negotiations must start from the premise that we are not accepted as an objective mediator. That was what we got wrong going in (unilateral legitimacy) and what we continue to get wrong about solving this crisis.
We can make the world more secure and be a standard-bearer for freedom again, and I believe America must do so. America was founded on the rule of law as an explicit rejection of the capricious rule of any one man. We understood that the rule of a King, no matter how compassionate, was ultimately arbitrary. We must understand that the same is true about this global community. When we validate “might makes right,” even for ostensibly compassionate reasons, we destabilize the world. The greatest gift of the Greatest Generation was offering our system of rule of law to the community of nations. For as long as we ignore that gift, we put our nation’s security and soul in grave peril.
Good stuff. I can support this provided that it has a very strict timeline for withdrawal attached.
We say: We were wrong. The Maliki government is illegitimate. Lte's all sit down and forge a legitimate government and we'll help any way we can. But, no matter what, we're out by the end of July so... hurry up.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 30, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The hope of this strategy working is the one reason that I am reluctant to get behind withdrawing right now. President Bush is not capable of implementing this strategy on many levels even were he convinced that is was the right course of action. That means that it is up to the next president to get this done (assuming that we do not have our 'helicopters lifting the last man from the roof of the embasy' moment before the end of Bush's term). Sen Obama or Ron Paul would have the chance of making something like this work.
October 30, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything but call for immediate withdrawal. Perhaps if lightning were to strike and he were to become president he would change his tune but I doubt it. He is a pretty hard core libertarian.
October 30, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom--
This is wonderful stuff. A few comments for you. Like destor23 above, I believe the US needs to get out of Iraq and avoid getting into Iran...and the sooner we get out of Iraq the better. But your strategy for a lasting, legitimate settlement, is the only thing I have heard that would lead me to support leaving troops in Iraq through the summer and into 2009.
I am of the opinion that one cannot deal with Iraq in theory. We have Bush and Cheney until January 2009. I have very little confidence that a strategy such as yours can be put in place with these bozos running our side of the equation. The side of me that wants to see US integrity AND Iraqi sovereignty restored could see how a January-March 2009 peace process, led by outside actors but supported by the new US administration and nations in the region, could accomplish both. The trouble of course is two-fold: Do we really have the stomach to hold on until Dubya is out of office? And what confidence do we have that the neo-conservatives won't take actions before January 2009 to make things worse?
So I guess I want YOU to apply your conviction politics to Iraq/n IN LIGHT OF the Bush Administration's continuing presence through January 2009.
Thank you.
And if you have time, I'd like to hear answers to questions from the previous thread. (1) Do you have a primary opponent? (2) How will you deal with campaign finances and keep your integrity?
October 30, 2007 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even if what you want is withdrawal, you have to have a plan for making that happen in a safe way. He certainly would do the first step outlined in this plan - saying to the Iraqis and the world that we were wrong to go in and that we have no legitimate claim on power in Iraq. That would come closer to a good option all by itself than anything that is likely to happen between now and 1-20-09.
October 30, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
He would have a plan for the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops. I don't think he has any interest in the future of Iraq. He is a true isolationist.
October 30, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is still a plan that is more likely to work out well for both us and the Iraqis than anything that Bush (or any of the other GOP candidates for that matter) is likely to do. I always want the best man to win each primary.
This year that means rooting for Ron Paul on the GOP side. He may be a libretarian but he has the advantage of not being batshit crazy like Guliani, has integrity over Mit, and has the advantage of not being a fear monger over the entire GOP field.
October 30, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, As a Charlottesvillian, I welcome your words and thoughts. I will be so glad to see Virgil Goode depart.
Although I agree that part of the solution includes an acknowledgment that we were wrong to invade, I don't hold much hope of it ever happening; except, of course by historians. Still, you provide a clear voice of reason -- I think Virginia is starting to wake up.
You have my support.
Jan
October 30, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is a true isolationist.
Ron Paul isn't an isolationist and I think that he understands that sanctions, wars, etc..., are the things that isolate people to the point where rational discussion can no longer occur.
That's why I'd say that Bush is an extreme isolationist.
If the Zogby Poll asked people: "is terrorism OK as long as the US harbors over 7,000 nukes" all americans would say no and make naked the double standard.
The Zogby Poll is actually showing isolation since the measured opinion indicates that racism and seperation is flourishing-- we're seeing others as less human.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, would withdrawl from Iraq because it's supposedly a sovereign state.
As Paul noted, "it took guts to go in and it will take guts to come out."
"If you love something, set it free; If it loves you, it will come back!"
To boldly go...
October 30, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
I hope that areas of Virginia are waking up, but from up here in NOVA, this has turned into the nastiest campaign so far. The Republicans are in deep negative campaigning mode, slamming Democrats on guns, taxes, and illegal immigration whether their positions warrant it or not. They're hitting the fear button hard up here, and I can't imagine they're doing less down there.
I wrote in Nathan Newman's piece that Virgil Goode gets elected for a reason. Not necessarily because those that vote for him are the "stone racist" and "neanderthal" types that Newman labels Goode as, but that the conservative ethic in southern Virginia considers him "moral". With two candidates running on "moral issues" what will the points of differentiation be?
Again I'll say, if I found myself down in that territory, I'd welcome Tom as an alternative. I just don't think his message will connect with the conservative nature of the area.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
October 30, 2007 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem I have with your comments here is this statement:
a credible, over-the-horizon threat by US troops.
I have very strong feelings that US troops should be utilized only in the case of an attack on our nation, or a CREDIBLE threat to our nation.
In any other situtation (peacekeeping, etc), we should leave that up to the UN, and only send troops if voted on by the UN.
Regime change ain't our job. International Police Force ain't our job.
You catch more bees with honey than with a fly-swatter.
October 30, 2007 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Ron Paul is the batshit craziest of them all. The left loves him for his Iraq positions, which I agree with, but on everything else he is a loon.
How do I count the ways...no IRS, flat tax, no public education, no industry regulation, no Social Security, or Medicaid, or Medicare, or national health care, the south should have been able to secede from the Union, the NAFTA superhighy bullshit.
True, Paul is the least likely to nuke the planet, but he is surely just as looney as the rest of the GOP crowd.
October 30, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul may not be an isolationist; he's certainly no libertarian, at least by the current LP Platform, no matter what the spin is. Transparently, Ron Paul is diametrically oppositional to Three Libertarian Party Planks, and since the LP only lists 15 planks, three is a significant 20%.
The LP: I.8 Reproductive Rights - The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition. Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Ron Paul: Life and Liberty - The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle...In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.Proposed legislation by Paul in 2007 - H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .
H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.
H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
The LP: I.9 Sexuality and Gender - Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals....Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation.
Ron Paul: Proposed Legislation in 2007: H.R.300 - To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.
Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act.
Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal.
Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.
The LP: IV.1 Immigration - The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders...The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements.
Ron Paul: Border Security and Immigration Reform - The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
2007 Proposed Legislation by Paul: H.J.RES.46 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
Constitutional Amendment - States that a person born to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any state solely by reason of U.S. birth.
This last one sort of flies in the face of his defense of liberty and standing firm on The Constitution's Original Intents, doesn't it?
October 31, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
First off, Ron Paul is running as a Republican... and colors his statements accordingly.
with regards to "reproductive rights," I also lean pro-life for I am an environmentalist who believes the unborn have rights! ron paul was a doctor and dedicated himself to the pro-life cause of "successful medical outcomes."
with regards to "same sex" marriage ron paul noted that the government should get out of the licensing business and I agree. the only marraige law we really need, and have, is that relationships need to be based on respect and freedom of choice. if people want to adopt other arrangements, lawyers are available and churches can be consulted....
with respect to immigration, Ron Paul wants to enforce "border security" because he views it as a civil rights issue. the current attempts at "immigration reform" tend to make immigrants second class citizens. I moved toward Paul's view primarily because the "guest worker" program would, in my opinion, turn people into refuges w/o rights and people in this country would feel economically assaulted...
This last one sort of flies in the face of his defense of liberty and standing firm on The Constitution's Original Intents, doesn't it?
no, not if you view immigrantion as "illegal." in general, I support a path of citizenship and think life is "too short" to call people "illegal" but Ron Paul makes a good point, I think, that we shouldn't let people into the country unless we grant them full economic and political rights-- libertarian politics, I think, demands that.
Where Ron Paul and I disagree is on NAU (north american union). I tend to think that combining Canada, Mexico and the US into one political body would go a long way towards solving some problems, by removing artificial barriers, but Ron Paul warns that our sovereignty will be lost if NAU happens.
To boldly go...
October 31, 2007 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are claiming that fetuses at conception should be a 'person' as understood in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, as Paul is, then you are doing one hell of a lot more than leaning. You are diving into a nightmarish hole chasing a well-dressed bunny without considering the implications.
It is not good to become incensed with emotions, when contemplating Constitutional amendments, as they have far reaching effects, which need be rationally reasoned out. The whirlwind's harvest from these seeds being sown into the howling wind need be well understood.
Ectopic Pregnancy
This is not an exceedingly improbable event, nor is the Mayo Clinic exaggerating Ectopic Pregnancy's potential to cause considerable harm to the health of the Pregnant woman.
This article continues on by mentioning that up until the mid 18th century, Ectopic Pregnancies were generally fatal for the pregnant woman, and the first successful surgical intervention was performed. The mortality rate had dropped to 2.6 per 10,000 by 1992,but at the same time, the frequency of Ectopic Pregnancies has increased exponentially, and now occurs in approximately 2% of all pregnancies.
If a fetus is a 'person' in the context of the 14th Amendment, then it is a human, and if conceived in the USA, it is also a citizen. Any termination of an Ectopic Pregnancy would be 1st degree murder. This is not a position held only by anti-abortion extremists either. Wisconsin Right to Life says it would be murder, as would be the termination of a twelve year old girl's pregnancy, even if the conception was the result of a forced incestuous rape.
This is also what Ron Paul is proposing, but its even more reprehensible in his case, because of his intention to continue to cut public health funding, while he shields MDs from from the free-market costs of potential liability, even as he willfully exposes women to greater health risks, and its concomitant higher health costs.
That's some sanctity of life attitude, eh?
Still The Wisconsin Right to Lifers have a point, because if there can be an exception made, then obviously, conception is not the same as becoming a 'person' or a US Citizen, and the choice to terminate a pregnancy or not, would then not rightfully be a power of the state in a free society, but a difficult private decision made by the pregnant woman, and her attending physician.
This isn't an argument about being for or against abortions; it is instead a place where one either stands in defense of liberty, or falls prostrate to lick the boots of a sadistic nanny state. Paul is not a friend of liberty or a believer in the Constitution's Original Intents; he's just another long-term poseur politician with the presidential monkey on his back.
October 31, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only positive thing I EVER hear about Goode (and it comes up fairly frequently in the letters to the editor) is that Goode responds to pretty much every citizen request about nuisances. Someone mad about not having a stop sign at the end of their road? Call Virgil and the red hexagon is a done deal; not happy with traffic flow by the church on Sunday -- Mr. Goode is the go-to-guy.
He has a reputation for this, and it serves him well. He also has an uncanny ability to know if a request is from one of his own. For example, when some CVille residents showed up at his office to protest his behavior re the Koran, his office closed up shop early and had the "constituents" arrested for trespassing.
He really is as dumb as a post, but he knows how to keep the natives on his side.
That said, Obama had more than 4,000 people here at an outdoor event in freezing weather Monday night; Hillary a smaller crowd at an indoor event sponsored by John Grisham, but she made a real splash nonetheless.
I think we are moving in the right direction; helped mainly by the good management of our latest 2 Dem governors. I really don't know if it will translate to action, but I try to be hopeful.
Jan
October 31, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are diving into a nightmarish hole chasing a well-dressed bunny without considering the implications.
Good to see the calvary still has it's sense of humor when providing much needed clues to, uh, those who need them. :-)
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins
October 31, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, I still believe that Goode can be flogged into submission with strong Jeffersonian rhetoric coupled with a light touch of humorous self-deprecating, 'go to the mirror' styled parody.
Monticello is in Virgil's district; hit him with both barrels, loaded for bull with original intent:
From that to his?
For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Goode, don't just read a transcript, when you can experience for yourself, through the magic of YouTube" how this man butchered the pronunciation of Mohammed horribly, as he gave testimony to his rampant ignorance, implying that Mohhamed is the Islamic equivalent of a Christian God, replete with his bizarre gesture reminscent of a Nazi salute.
This small glimpse of Virgil Goode, of and by himself, is an illuminative lesson aiding in understanding the intelligence failures which were at the heart of fault for September 11, 2001.
November 1, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are claiming that fetuses at conception should be a 'person' as understood in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, as Paul is, then you are doing one hell of a lot more than leaning.
I haven't changed my viewpoint.
it would be murder, as would be the termination of a twelve year old girl's pregnancy, even if the conception was the result of a forced incestuous rape...
indeed, it's murder. two wrongs don't make a right. I hope that incest is a VERY, VERY rare thing.
To boldly go...
November 1, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is also what Ron Paul is proposing, but its even more reprehensible in his case, because of his intention to continue to cut public health funding...
if doctors and pharmeceticals downsize their bills, then public funding would be adequate. moral hazzard is created when there is a lack of desire to hold the line.
while he shields MDs from from the free-market costs of potential liability...
even the best doctor will probably make a mistake and should that doctor "go out of business" for that mistake? society wants perfection that doesn't exist. your implication that a regulated market produces less mistakes seems silly. My friend and her daughter both had medical complications-- one of them had problems with a hyernia operation and the other with a knee operation. Money won't help either of them and they'll have to live with the mishaps for life.
even as he willfully exposes women to greater health risks, and its concomitant higher health costs.
Ron Paul has quite a bit more empathy than you seem to have. He not only worries about women's health care but everybody's health care.
Countries that are much poorer than the US have the same life expectancies but pay a fraction of our bill "per capita."
Like Target says: "expect more, pay less." If medical care keeps spirialing out of control w/o a push back, it will become uncontrollable.
To boldly go...
November 2, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You add insults to your inane responses, accusing me of a lack of empathy in comparison with another who you also know nothing about excepting his own projected myth. Additionally, the other is a long-term politician, who even by his own claims regarding his specialty practise indicates a less than full dedication to his field. Yet it is a given that politicians have lied, politicians do lie, and politicians will lie.
Have I suddenly taken on a secondary role in a production of Gullible's Travel's?
First, Paul's oft spoken statements regarding the number of deliveries he has performed, 4000, strike me as being on the light-side, given the length of time he has been a practising Obstetrician, along with his claim of being an individualist. Just what has he been up too that has cut into this number?
Secondly, why should society's individuals, in an inequitable fashion, shoulder the burden for physicians' mistakes by having to cover the shortfall generated from their being given an even across the board tax break to cover the costs of their insurance? By not using actuarial equations when factoring in individual physicians' tax-breaks, Paul in essence would be rewarding incompetence. It would be the removal of a free-market liability that is a behavioural force that rewards the careful medical practitioner, or to state it another way, punishes the the careful practitioner less than the careless ones.
Let's see now, that's redistribution of individual wealth based not on causal reality, predicated by a perceived need throughout all of The Nation. What kind of creeping pinko socialism is he up to anyway? Maybe not socialism exactly, but since the collectives Paul's proposals aid materially are ones to which he is a member of, or that significant contributors of his are, it is blatant anti-libertarian cronyism that is a long long way from free-market purity.
It would be cheaper for the government to put the insurance companies under strict supervision, assuring they do not cover their losses from bad decisions in all markets they operate in by going after the deep pockets of the medical industries. Better yet, at least in true conservative and libertarian theory, would be to allow innovative instruments for covering potential malpractise liabilities which conferred a freedom of association on physicians, resulting in financially rewarding competent practitioners by allowing them to sever any relationship they have with ones who are not.
Physicians' racketeering habits of guild member protectionism needs to be ended. If it's good enough for the unions to stop protecting their derelict members, why isn't it good enough for the AMA?
November 2, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You add insults to your inane responses, accusing me of a lack of empathy in comparison with another who you also know nothing about excepting his own projected myth.
well, look at all your accusations. my grandmother started seeing a new doctor and, because she has good insurance, she's going through a ton of tests. one could say that some doctors do low risk work and collect big bucks.
I think paul makes a convincing argument that direct service and payment would be helpful for everyone.
To boldly go...
November 3, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink