Some people misconstrued my last post as suggesting that Mavericks are unprincipled and/or make poor leaders. That was not my point.
Mavericks often make excellent leaders. They seldom, however, make excellent executive leaders.
Executive leaders lead permanent organizations. People are dependent upon the organization for their livelihood, even their lives sometimes. If the organization fails, people get hurt. As Cary Grant said in Operation Petticoat, “the responsibilities [of executive leadership] far outweigh the privileges”. Organizations grant power to their executives for the good of the organization, not the leader. If the interests of the organization are not the interests of the leader, there is a problem.
Mavericks work best as ad hoc leaders. They identify a cause. They organize to realize the cause. They move heaven and earth to fulfill the cause. The cause is fulfilled. Any organization created to accomplish the task is then disbanded. They move on to the next cause.
This fits with their strong independent streaks. Mavericks tend to have little loyalty to any permanent organization — quite the opposite in fact. They are often contemptuous towards them. They see them as binding and restrictive. They want to be free to pursue the causes they believe in using tactics as they see fit.
This describes John McCain to a tee. His career in the Senate has been one ad hoc cause after another. Often he was the chief driving force behind them. A good many of these efforts were successful. To say that John McCain was a poor leader is absurd.
His Primary Campaign was such an ad hoc cause. If it failed, it would disappear and people would move on. McCain, being a good leader, led it to victory.
Once he became the nominee, however, things changed. He was no longer the leader of his own little temporary group. He was the leader of the Republican Party, a very large diverse permanent organization. He could no longer do as he pleased, making decisions on his whim. He was now responsible to the group. That was brought home very forcibly to him with his unsuccessful attempt at making Joe Lieberman his VP pick. John no longer had the luxury of spitting in the eye of the party. The party depended upon him to make the decisions best for the party
Like it or not, McCain was now the executive leader of the party. The novelty eventually wore off. By October it was obvious to just about everyone (and since confirmed by John himself and his senior lieutenants ) that they weren’t having much fun anymore. They were just going through the motions.
I suspect McCain has learned his lesson. He is now happily back to being an ad hoc leader in the Senate. He will not be repeating a run for the Presidency. He won’t be in any hurry to stick his foot into that beartrap again.
That is why I suspect Sarah Palin is done running for President — as least for a while. She is a Maverick, too. That was one of the big reasons McCain chose her in the first place, remember? She has come to realize that it’s not a lot of fun being an executive leader with all the limitations, responsibilities, and other headaches that come with it. Resigning as Governor allows her to do what she does best, to serve as an ad hoc leader for causes she believes in while being free from the restraints of executive leadership of the State of Alaska AND the Republican Party. She is smart enough to have realized it. Her fans need to respect that and not try to force her into fulfilling their fantasies about her. As it is, she is going to be one mean mamma of a leader for the causes dear to her heart.
Let Sarah be Sarah.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“Her fans need to respect that and not try to force her into fulfilling their fantasies about her.” Haha, to cbe clear, as good looking as Mrs. Palin is, I for one do not have the sexual fantasies about her that I do about my wife, but I admit that my political fantacies about Mrs. Palin are much greater than my wife. First I only agree with my wife politically about 91% of the time and she has made it clear to me that as involved as she is in the Republican party, she won’t even run for dog catcher. More to the point, while I do not agree entirely with your post MarK, I believe that at the end of the day Mrs. Palin needs to decide herself what to do, I can be there to support her in her political endevors, but I am not going to force her to run anymore than I would want anyone to force me to run. I much as I am a Palinite, I part company with my fellow camp members who feel personally betrayed by Mrs. Palin. We cannot force our political fantasies on anybody any more than we can force our sexual fantasies on people. We can support our favorite politicians, but if we truly support them, we cannot force them to run. The decision has to be theirs.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
We need sarah to run. Someone’s got to keep Huck fighting for his votes.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
#2:
You mean to divide the anti-Romney vote. Romney should be praying desperately that both Huckabee and Palin run. Having the two of them run makes it that much easier for Romney to move in.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
And let Mitt be Mitt. You want an executive leader? There is no one better at fulfilling that post.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I, as a business person, have made huge blunders by taking a go getter, efficient, lead worker and made them a manager…Guess what happens…you ruin that wonderful worker…Some are great at firing up, cheer leading and others having been in the private sector business world, putting their money and hours of hard work into a venture only to either fail or be a huge success. It is one thing to lead and another to manage and lead a team..You are always answering to someone and you best have developed a thick skin…Never quitting, pressing on until you have reached your goals. Doing what others will not do. I tell you one thing, after Obama’s four years, we best have the most qualified individual the Republican’s have to offer.. Not pretend, the real deal…and I know that man is Mitt Romney 2012…..
July 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
1 – No one was even talking about that. Shows where your mind is when it comes to Palin.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
With respect Jason, while I realize that the number of candidates in the race effect the dynamics of the race, Mr. Huckabee, Mr. Romney and Mr. Pawlenty are going to have to fight for vote whether or not Mrs. Palin is a candidate. Although I am starting give it some serious thought because of the reality of my political fanasies, I have not chosen my second choice yet and I suspect all 3 of you are going to have to fight for the Palinite vote as well as the Gingrichite vote.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Haha Alex, I know what the word fantasy means. You do not like the analogy?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
#1.
Yes, OHIO, you are one of the sane Palin loyalists. “[F]orcing her into fulfilling their fantasies” also extends to twisting her words and actions into meaning and implying what they are not. And you have not done that. Far too many have.
As Elizabeth Bennet said in Pride and Prejudice:
July 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“Her fans need to respect that and not try to force her into fulfilling their fantasies about her.”
How on EARTH is that sexual, OHIO Joe?
Rape fantasies about Da Guv?
Er, ex-Guv. Well, not yet.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I don’t think that’s true. I think Romney or some other skillful politician can run circles around her rhetorically. I just don’t think the woman is presidential material. She fails in every non-scripted setting. The only time she really was able to shine was at the GOP convention.
Think about it.
Couric interview – bombed
Gibson interview – bombed
Debate with Joe Biden – bombed, but she only appeared merely outmatched because of such low expectations
Announcement of resignation – all over the place and generally bad.
She is not presidential material. Just because she is generally conservative, pro-life and has great legs doesn’t mean she ought to be president. And just because Obama got nominated with a thin resume by a bunch of bleeding heart idealistic idiots on the Democrat side doesn’t mean that Palin is any more qualified to be the Republican candidate.
She’s done. Elle est fini. Over.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
#9,
That was to Mr. Collins, a persistent suitor that wouldn’t take no for an answer, who kept insisting that she was just playing hard-to-get. He had convinced himself that she would readily agree to his proposals, and he couldn’t accept what she was saying.
Sound familiar?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
marK, I have enjoyed your well thought out essays. Keep them coming.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
And aside from that, I am just not convinced that Huck can win any more real estate outside of the South. The South isn’t enough to clinch the nomination.
I just don’t see Huck as much of a force to fear as some others do.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The people on this website are pathetic. All they do is indulge in fantasizing about scenarios of the Evil Witch vanishing. Sarah’s sites don’t fantasize about Mitt vanishing away and not running. Grow a pair. Why are you so afraid of Sarah?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
14 Adam, I hope that you are right. But wouldn’t it tragic if you were wrong and Huck won the nomination?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Why is it that every time someone criticizes Sarah Palin, her fans come out of the woodwork accusing you of being “scared” of her?
You can’t have a coherent debate when one side just wants to accuse the other of being “scared.”
July 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Alex, I am sorry if my analogy was offensive, I was not trying to make this about rape, rather I was just agreeing that we cannot force people to do what we want (under most circumstances,) but I guess it came out wrong.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
18 – I know. I just found it, er, very strange — okay, not really (we all know that’s part of her appeal) — that you brought up sexual fantasies about Sarah Palin when absolutely no one was talking about that.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
15, afraid of the QUITTER? Hahahahahahahahaha. A month or so ago I said that I thought she could be a real threat to Romney in a one on one race. But not now. I want her to run because the only threat she poses is undermining Huck’s primary campaign.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
#15.wisetrog,
Well, my inclination is to take people at their word. What’s yours?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Blame Society for Michael and Sarah
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tomh1/2009/07/blame-society-for-michael-and.php?ref=reccafe
Letterman on Palin: “Something I Said?”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/08/letterman_on_palin_something_i.html?wprss=44
July 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Ah, no we certainly do not always talk about fear Alex, but at times it applies. Furthermore, other camps have among other things played the fear card to use that term so it can be just as difficult to reason with an anti-Palinite.
MarK, thanks for the term ’sane loyalist,’ but I do not think many of my fellow camp members are insane, but a few may have their loyalties misplaced.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
#20, apparently the QUITTER even after QUITTING can beat Romney in favoribility and tie with him in her chances for 2012. What’s wrong with your guy? Why is he tied with a QUITTER? Why can’t he capitalize on the QUITTING even though he and his minions launched a high-profile internet n MSM attack to demean Sarah; the same guy who doesn’t have the cojones to attack Barack Obama and fill the vacant leadership role in GOP but has enough time n resources to launch guerrilla attacks on a woman three years from the primaries? And Sarah still stands strong and ties with him in polls. She maybe a QUITTER, but he’s a LOSER.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Some “intelligent” analysis on the polling data released since Palin’s announcement:
Palin: First Reactions
By Mark Blumenthal
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/palin_first_reactions.php
Gallup’s report notes, for example that they asked the same “likely to support” question Hillary Clinton in May 2005 and found 52% of registered voters at least somewhat to vote for her, including 28% very likely. Palin’s numbers are lower — 43% at least somewhat likely, including 18% very likely. However, as the chart below shows, Gallup had asked the same question about Clinton twice before (in 2000 and 2003), with varying results. The percentage that said they were “not likely at all” to support Clinton hovered at roughly the same level on all three of those surveys as the percentage that says the same about Palin now…..
Again, we should treat these results as preliminary and hold off on firm conclusions until we have better, more comparable data based on more than few days’ reflection, but on first blush, it looks as those Palin’s resignation announcement made less of an impression on Americans than the punditry of the last few days might lead you to believe. Palin’s abrupt resignation probably confirmed or deepened existing impressions, but it does not appear to have changed many minds.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/romney_leads_among_gop_voters_with_fiscal_concerns
“Those who say economic and fiscal issues are their biggest concerns make up the majority of Republican voters, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney runs best among those voters if the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary in their state was held today.
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is the top choice for those Republicans who put national security first and ties Romney for first among voters who list economic issues alone as the priority. She runs second in nearly every other case with voters from all camps…..
Thirty-three percent (33%) of GOP voters list economic issues such as jobs and economic growth as most important, followed by 27% who rate fiscal issues such as taxes and government spending that way. For 15%, national security issues are the priority, while 10% list domestic issues such as Social Security and health care as most important. Five percent (5%) say cultural issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion are number one.
Among those Republicans who put economic issues first, Romney and Palin are tied with 24% support if the state primaries were held today. Huckabee is backed by 20%, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gets 15% of their vote.
But Romney at 34% is far and away the favorite among those who say fiscal issues are most important, followed by Palin (24%), Huckabee (17%) and Gingrich (14%).
Palin is first with 29% support among voters for whom national security is most important. Romney runs a close second at 26%, with Huckabee at 19% and Gingrich at 16%.”
July 8th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
#24:”Why can’t he capitalize on the QUITTING even though he and his minions launched a high-profile internet n MSM attack to demean Sarah;”
Oh, is that like the “fact that everyone knew” that the attacks on her character from within McCain’s campaign were all orchestrated by Mitt? Even though they were all traced to long-time McCain loyalists with no connection whatsoever to Romney?
Yes, Romney does make a great boogy man, doesn’t he? Anything and everything thing that goes wrong with Palin just HAS to come from he and his “minions”, right?. Sorta like how Karl Rove engineered every bad thing that went wrong with the Democrats.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
24 “Trog”,
You need to chill out, man. No one person can fill the vacant GOP leadership role. Romney is doing as much for the party as can be expected. Some of it is self-serving, sure. But the argument can be made that Palin’s incessant whining and playing the victim card for sympathy is no better. Whatever.
Accept the fact that your girl is done in electoral politics. She’ll raise money east of the Rockies and west of the Appalachians for GOP candidates. But that is all she is going to do.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Wisetrog, although you make good points, it serves little value to either of our camps to pick fights with the Romneyites. Let them pick the fight and it will be on them, we need to try to take the high road even though that is particularly difficult at this very moment.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Why did Murkowski back off her initial tough statement?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24672.html
“Even Palin’s Alaska colleague, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, agreed — and Murkowski initially said she was “stunned” by Palin’s decision.
On Tuesday, Murkowski said Palin “absolutely” could be a viable 2012 candidate, could effectively stump for 2010 GOP candidates and has an “incredible ability to galvanize people, to motivate people, to inspire people.” Murkowski said an “awful lot of people” think Palin could do more to raise her national profile by leaving Alaska — and Murkowski said her initial sour reaction was based on how Palin’s resignation could affect the state and on the fact that she was speaking from a satellite phone and could not go into detail.”
July 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Tommy Boy, to give you a heads up, I have sent word through another Palinite asking for your e-mail address.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
OHIO,
You were saying in #23?
Don’t let it get you down. We have our trogs, as well.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Allen-Webb Redux?
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/07/allen-webb-redux.html
Yesterday Ben Smith reported that George Allen has a book out next year and wondered if it’s the start of a political comeback.
If he wanted to get his old Senate seat back from Jim Webb I think it would be a pretty competitive race. Last summer we tested an Allen-Webb rematch and found it basically a tie, with Webb leading 45-43. Webb’s approval rating at that point was 44%, and the poll we put out this morning found it in basically the same place, 46%.
Given that Webb’s fortunes haven’t changed one way or the other in the last year I have to imagine Allen would still poll pretty competitively with him- I think we’ll take a look at it on our next Virginia poll.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
#29 teach the Romneybots that lesson too. Why are they always trashing fellow Republicans? Can’t they train their fire on Obama and his fascist agenda? No. They think it’s easy to hit a woman who is the only one with courage n spunk to hit Obama where it hurts. And if anyone complains, it’s whining. When they follow the eleventh commandment, we will too. If not, no.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
#33:
Webb’s win was a fluke. True, Virginia has gotten distinctly bluer in the last few years, Webb won because 1.) It was a Dem year and 2.) Allen made his stupid “maccaca” remark which was broadcast to everyone in Virginia by the MSM. If McDonnell wins the Governorship this fall againts Craig Deeds, than Webb will be in trouble.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Palin: A Nixon-esque retirement, or is she really done?
Palin can’t stand the heat, takes refuge in kitchen
by Katherine Mangu-Ward
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-manguward-reynolds8-2009jul08,0,3516143,print.story
July 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
#20 Adam:
Accept the fact that your girl is done in electoral politics. She’ll raise money east of the Rockies and west of the Appalachians for GOP candidates. But that is all she is going to do.
Yeah? Can I say you’re fantasizing?Did you miss hearing about her Auburn visit when she pulled 20,000 people to a non-political rally? Do you know where Auburn, NY is? I am pretty sure it’s not east of the Rockies and west of the Appalachians. We’ll see when she pulls thousands to the rallies of GOP contenders in 2010 to take back the house and your boy Mitt Romney pulls 50 people. After offering free pizza.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I have to agree with Wisetrog. The majority of Romney supporters, on this site, take every opportunity to belittle Palin and every other candidate that could stand in the way of Romney. This is why I stopped coming coming to this site. I do not believe Romney will be our nominee and I don’t care too much for Romney either but the incessant stabs at every other candidate does get old and obviously shows they are afraid of him not winning the nomination yet again. As if it’s Palin’s or Huckabee’s fault that Romney is uncharismatic and kind of a bore.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Hurrah for Sarah Palin, America’s best quitter
By Reg Henry
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09189/982416-154.stm#ixzz0KhCmAGE0&D
July 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
37,
Auburn is actually kinda pretty. Except for all the crows. Anyway Palin had crowds swell to tens of thousands in Pennsylvania last year too. Except Obama won the Keystone State by double digits. You do know where Pennsylvania is, right?
The crux of the point still stands. She’ll rev up the base. Hey – that’s all to the good. After all, you and I are on the same team. But she quit midway through her first term. She’s not going to recover from that.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
For an interesting read,
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00003&segmentID=7
July 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Palin’s Peculiar Family Values
by Sally Quinn
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sally_quinn/2009/07/palins_peculiar_family_values.html
July 8th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I don’t understand these articles? They will try every little spin to make her look weak and/or stupid. What if she was calculating the best possible course for to take for her and her family’s future? What if by doing that she is actually helping the Alaskan people by not standing in the way of progress for their state? What if in the process she helps the nation by helping conservatives get elected? What if, in the process, she shows the electorate just how capable she is and how much better our nation could be with proper leadership? It could be very dangerous to underestimate Sarah Palin. Beauty Queens and the popular kids usually come out ahead in life. SOme of them even surprise us!
July 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Palin numbers send mixed messages
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/07/palin-numbers-send-mixed-messages.html
“Our newest national poll finds that Sarah Palin has actually gained in popularity but hurt her prospects for some day being elected President since announcing she will resign early as Governor of Alaska last week.
46% of Americans view Palin favorably, with 45% holding a negative opinion of her. In monthly surveys conducted between April and June her favorable rating was in the range of 42-43%.
The slight increase in popularity is fueled by the number of Republicans with a positive view of her increasing from 75 to 79%. She is static with independents and slightly down with Democrats.
When it comes to whether she’s fit to be President though, 55% of voters in the country say no with just 37% in the affirmative. And asked specifically how her early resignation affects their inclination to some day support her for the White House, 57% of respondents say it makes them less likely to do so compared to 30% who say it makes them more likely to vote for her.”
July 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Adam, I am afraid you better get into the 21st Century and understand that politics are no longer the same as they were even 10 years ago. Borat could probably become President today if he was marketed properly.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
How will Sarah Palin’s resignation affect book sales?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24650.html#ixzz0KhG5UcIl&D
Letterman on Palin: “Something I Said?”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/08/letterman_on_palin_something_i.html?wprss=44
July 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Look wisetrog, I am not sure if I should say all what I am about to say, but I let it out anyways. Let’s just say if these events had unfolded a few weeks ago, I might have already joined the Pawlenty camp in part out of spite. Depending on how the cookie crumbles, I may yet become a quazi-Pawlentyite, but I at least want to be sure that such a move would not be hurtful to the country. I’ve had my share of run-ins with Romneyites over the past few years and it is no secret that I resent some elements of their camp. To be honest some parts of the country (not all) that one might say are Romney states are let’s say not my favorite parts of the country. I guess just like some Romneyites look down on my state. I am not going to mention were I went on vactation, but arguaeble, Romneyites claim this corner of the country their territory. Even one my Palinite friends said “my condolences, I bet it was your wife’s idea to go their for vacation.” Well, my mini-vacation was somewhat of a life changing experience in many different small ways. To be honest, I did not talk a whole of politics to the locals, but I certainly met a few people. I was thankful for my little vacation and I was thankful for the blessing back home in Ohio. After talking to a few local people, I learned that they too had hopes and fears and dreams like the rest of us and so forth. While I still cannot ever see myself as a Romneyite (I still resent some elements of their camp) I am open to at least voting for him in the primary if that happens to be the best option of the remaining choices come primary voting time.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
First of all, the real value of a maverick is grossly overstated. John McCain would have been the WORST president ever. He has shown his incompetence to lead repeatedly. The only advantage is that DC would be in such a cluster right now that they’d be doing nothing, a much preferred alternative to the socialist coup that is going on there now.
If, on the other hand, you mean by “maverick” that a person is highly principled and follows their own compass, regardless of the prevailing wind, then that is a different thing, maybe. True, one can sail against the wind. But it only becomes leadership if you can convince the other sloops to sail with you.
I admire Mrs. Palin. I think she has great talent and potential. She did not choose to thrust into the spotlight at that inopportune time, though she did consent. She may yet become a great national leader. I wish her much good luck as she plots a course that may help her accumulate experience, understanding, and wisdom. And, if she presents herself again to us, with the obvious accumulation of those treasured personal assets, I should be happy to support her.
But the willingness, nay commitment and conviction, to do it your own way usually ends in you doing it alone.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Pawlenty and presidential run: A top-five candidate
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2009/07/08/10098/pawlenty_and_presidential_run_a_top-five_candidate
July 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
#48 – eloquently put! I do not know Sarah Palin personally but, from what I do know of her, she doesn’t seem to be the type of person who quits and gives up. This is why I believe this is the strategic, beginning of the next chapter of her life and the beginning of a successful Presidential run. I really do not believe she will let herself go down as a quitter or a laughing stock, as other’s have put it, in the public’s eye…she just doesn’t seem like the type!
July 8th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
jersetrepiblican: “I have to agree with Wisetrog. The majority of Romney supporters, on this site, take every opportunity to belittle Palin and every other candidate that could stand in the way of Romney.”
It’s good to see that facts still don’t find a home in your brain. I have defended Palin in the past, and as recent as a month ago she was my #2 consideration. I have spoken favorably of Jindal, Sanford, Barbour, Gingrich, Giuliani, Thompson, Pawlenty. Most of us Romney supporters have spoken well of other candidates.
I have spoken out strongly against Sanford since his affair. I have lost tons of respect for Palin since she outted herself as a quitter.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
#37, Pennsylvania is a state that no Republican has won in some time but she did bring out the crowds in Montana and Missouri and both voted for Mccain/Palin you know. Missouri’s own lt.governor admitted that.
All you Romneybots, what are you laughing at? Palin lost to Obama, Romney lost to Mccain. Oh, I know, only if that evil Huckabee had not tag-teamed with Mccain, Romney would have won everything. Bunch of whiners. And when you call Palin is whining when she took a shot at letterman, it looks like projection to me.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
wisetrog, I really, really, really want Palin to run. She is the new Howard Dean. Her self destruction will be immensely entertaining. The only problem is that she may hurt the party in the process by making the rest of us look bad by party ID.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Don’t mimic the Massachusetts Way on health care reform
By: IRWIN M. STELZER
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/IrwinStelzer/Don_t-mimic-the-Massachusetts-Way-on-health-care-reform-7917580-49727752.html
In 2006, Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was hailed as a visionary for signing one of the most expansive health reform bills in the country. “MassCare” aimed to expand health insurance, achieve universal coverage, and bring down costs through a complicated set of government controls and subsidies.
Just over three years later, many lawmakers are pointing to the Bay State as a model of success — and pushing for similar policies at the national level.
The reform packages put forward by both the President and Democrats in Congress contain many of the essential elements of MassCare, including an individual mandate requiring most residents to purchase insurance; a “pay or play” rule forcing businesses to contribute to employee health insurance or pay a tax penalty; expansions of the public insurance system; and new
restrictions on the insurance underwriting process.
But implementing the MassCare model nationally would be a mistake. While the percentage of uninsured Bay Staters has dropped to 2.6 percent (from about 6 percent), the state has never adequately addressed what causes people to go without insurance in the first place: the cost of health care.
In fact, a substantial portion of Massachusetts’ newly insured still can’t afford to purchase even basic medical services, and are effectively no better off than before the law’s passage. Meanwhile, government health spending is spiraling out of control, adding to the state’s already massive public debt.
The numbers are staggering. In seven of the last eight years, per-capita health spending in Massachusetts has increased faster than the national average, according to Alan Sager, a professor of health policy at Boston University.
Overall health insurance costs in Massachusetts are almost a third higher than the national average, with a basic plan costing almost $17,000 for a typical family of four. Nearly 30 percent of Massachusetts residents report that their medical costs have increased since MassCare’s implementation.
It’s a similar story for government healthcare spending. Public health insurance expenditures are expected to be up 42 percent, to roughly $595 million, this year compared to 2006.
The centerpiece of Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform bill is Commonwealth Care, a government program that provides free and subsidized insurance plans to low- and moderate-income patients. It’s spending has doubled in the last two years, jumping from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009.
Last year, rising costs lead Commonwealth Care officials to approve a 12 percent rate increase, meaning that basic insurance costs will cut even deeper into the incomes of most participating patients.
The national recession has brought added financial stress to MassCare. As State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill recently put it, the system “was expensive, even in good times. In tough times.it just doesn’t seem doable. We’re all still waiting for the savings.”
And employers, now required to contribute to employee coverage or pay a tax penalty, are drowning under ballooning healthcare costs. Indeed, businesses that sponsor high-quality insurance plans have seen annual rate increases of 10 to 15 percent since MassCare’s inception. This has made it harder and harder for businesses to stay in the state. And it’s made the state less
attractive for entrepreneurs and investors.
So what are Massachusetts residents getting for all that money? About 432,000 people previously without insurance are now covered, dropping the state uninsured rate to just 2.6 percent — the lowest in the nation.
But many of the newly “insured” still can’t access medical care. In fact, over the last 12 months, about 10 percent of state residents failed to fill a prescription, missed a payment on a medical bill, or skipped essential medical care.
The reason? As Harvard Medical School professor Dr. David Himmelstein explained, “Many of the policies out there have such huge copayments and deductibles that people can’t afford care.” In other words, many patients are nominally “insured,” but they’re spending so much on coverage that they can’t afford the most basic medical services.
Indeed, the least expensive policy for a young family of four costs about $9,500 annually. But that family will have to pay a $3,500 deductible before many of their benefits kick in.
Because of these costs, 23 percent of the patient population still relies on emergency room (ER) care for basic medical treatments, the same percentage as before MassCare was implemented in April 2006.
Between 2005 and 2007, the number of ER visits increased seven percent, and total ER costs have gone up 17 percent over the last two years. Most disturbingly, patients on
state-subsidized insurance use ER care 14 percent more than the average Bay Stater. Hospital officials have calculated that half of patients visiting the ER could have had their ailments addressed by a regular primary care doctor.
The bottom line is that expanding the Massachusetts model nationwide would be a disaster. It might reduce the number of Americans without insurance. But healthcare costs would become an even bigger problem, making medical care unaffordable for millions and resulting in denied care for many Americans.
Democrats eager to emulate the Bay State experiment on the national stage should think again. New government controls and spending won’t do the trick. If we’re serious about bringing down costs, we need to focus on patient-centered solutions to play a bigger role in our healthcare system.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
DanL – I’m not sure I was including you as one of those Romney supporters but if the shoe fits… “It’s good to see that facts still don’t find a home in your brain,” I’m assuming you meant that it is a shame that facts still haven’t found a home in your brain. It’s statements like that which shows the intellectual heft that you represent. Good luck with your candidate of choice, I do not feel he will win but for you sake and for the dozens of egg’s, that will be all over your face, sake…I wish you luck!
July 8th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Oh, please DanL, this is rather entertainer in and of itself to compare Mrs. Palin to Mr. Dean. Whatever float your boat.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Yes, Wisetrog, the healthcare situation in MA is surely troubling. Let’s just hope the other 49 of us do not get it even worse.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
#52.wisetrog,
Yes, unfortunately a few Romney supporters have taken to whining and complaining about unfair tactics. However, at least we can say our candidate has never indulged in “woe-is-me”. That’s something.
Can you say the same?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Ok. But you mentioned the crowd in Auburn to demonstrate how it might translate into electoral support. My contention is that the crowds mean not all that much. Now it seems that you agree with me.
I have no idea whether or not Romney would have “won everything”. But your girl never even had to debate her GOP peers in a primary contest. Let’s just say it’s far from clear that she wouldn’t have “lost to McCain” just like Romney.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Jersey and wisetrog – you must be kidding me. I’ve seen Romney people try to say something even a little bit positive toward Mitt on C4P, and they get massacred…same way with freerepublic….go whine somewhere else!!
July 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
#53. Whatever. I am just shaking my head wondering how bad must a candidate be to lose to Mccain after spending millions of silver-spoon trust fund money?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Of course Mrs. Palin would have lost to Mr. McCain, but of course Mr. Romney would also have lost to Mr. Obama. It was TARP after all that essentially cost us the election one way or the other.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Ohio,
My e-mail address is: aycc98@u.washington.edu
What is it that your friend wants to discuss?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Thanks Tommy Boy, I will e-mail you tonight off line so to speak.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
#59, I mentioned her bringing crowds in the context of 2010 elections. I am pretty sure lots of contenders want Sarah to campaign for them and she can bring back the house to GOP on her own. Not that the party deserves it.
The same applies to Romney too. He never debated with a Democrat and he never went to the finals as our gal did because you know, he lost to Mccain and even to Huckabee.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
#44 “When it comes to whether she’s fit to be President though, 55% of voters in the country say no with just 37% in the affirmative. And asked specifically how her early resignation affects their inclination to some day support her for the White House, 57% of respondents say it makes them less likely to do so compared to 30% who say it makes them more likely to vote for her.””
This is only one poll, and things can change, but for right now, this paragraph says it all.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
A word of advice to Romney supporters. I know it’s futile but I am trying. If you can, maybe you and your guy should train your fire on Obama and save the country and the world from disaster. That way, you will earn the goodwill of the base. Sarah is going to do that, regardless of her electoral fortunes, she has and she will take on Obama. What’s Mitt’s excuse? What’s your excuse? Instead, all you do is bash other Republicans in the most vicious way possible.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
“The same applies to Romney too. He never debated with a Democrat and he never went to the finals as our gal did because you know, he lost to Mccain and even to Huckabee.” Well, it is a moot point to bring Mr. Huckabee into it because he did not win the nomination either, but I suppose if the Romney camp wants to continue the quitting arguement in a way, Mr. Romney was also a quitter after supper Dupper Tuesday. Yes there may have been circumstances that lead Mr. Romney to quit, but there were also circumstances that led Mrs. Palin to quit. Yes it may be apples to oranges, but they are both fruit; are they not?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
What has Romney ever said about poor persecuted Sarah?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Whenever a C4P person comes on here, the name calling starts. Its usually pretty mild and we treat each other with respect, even while we point out differences in our candidates.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Wisetrog, perhaps some Romneyites are not as focused against Mr. Obama as they should be, but I assure you that at least some elements in the Romney camp are more than able to focus their energy against Mr. Obama. I have seen them in action.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
#66 A friend of mine posted this and it says it all:
I’d like to go over some of the numbers with you:
1)FAV/UNFAV: A 7 POINT UPTICK IN 3 WKS AND THAT IS WITH THE RESIGNATION
2)A 9 POINT UPTICK AMONG CONSERVATIVES
3)A 7 PTS OVERALL LOSS AMONG MODERATES BUT 34 POINT UPTICK OVERALL AMONG LIBERAL VOTERS (WOW)
4)A 7 POINT OVERALL GAIN WITH WOMEN AND A 6 POINT GAIN WITH MEN
5)A 8 POINT UPTICK AMONG REPUBLICANS
6)NO CHANGE AMONG DEMOCRATS
7)A 5 POINT GAIN IN OTHER (INDEPENDENTS)
For 3 weeks I think these changes are significant.
I suggest you stop your premature glee for there’s still a lot of time to go.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
wisetrog, perhaps if you would have paid just a little bit of attention, Mitt Romney has written more OpEds, done tons of interviews, made great speeches, and called Obama on the carpet more times than anyone else. Get your head out of C4P occasionally, and read and listen to what Mitt ROmney has been doing. Your head is deep in sand over there.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
It’s interesting that those who cast stones here on Sarah for “quitting” have no problems with Romney essentially using last two years of his governorship to run for office. I mean, there’s no problem at all. Public money is not sacrosanct, you know. We can keep cashing the pay check but never need to serve the people. Ambition is everything, honesty nothing.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
68 – Romney suspended his campaign because it was clear McCain had already won. He didn’t quit a job he already had in the middle of it. Apples and oranges, as you like to say.
I do wish people would stop calling Palin a “whiner” and such. Its not helpful. She had plenty to complain about. For all we know, she doesn’t even plan to run for office again. Lets worry about whether or not she’s a “quitter” if she actually decides to run for a higher office and it becomes something that is our business. Right now if she wants to spend time with her family and take a break, she’s certainly earned it.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
74 – very ignorant statement. Romney didn’t even keep his salary as governor. He’s not in it for the money, he’s already made all he’ll ever need. He also worked HARD as governor. It wasn’t like he was off campaigning and got nothing done.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
She’s not done. She will definitely continue to contribute to the conservative cause. She’s sassy, and the type that will crawl out from under the MSM/lib dog pile unnoticed as their crate of explosives intended for her blows up in their fists. (yeah I been watching Wiley Coyote with the kids)
July 8th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Oh yeah and it’s gotta be Romney this time around, I think it’s too critical to get it wrong or even only partly right this time.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
She still quit. She ran for the office. The going got tough. She threw in the towel. Nevermind Romney. She quit. What is going to happen if the pressures of the presidency got to be too much. Would she quit then? Would she whine about how tough it is and how the meanies in congress were treating her unfairly?
She’s not ready for prime time.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
79 – I do wonder, if she couldn’t handle the opposition in a deep red state like Alaska, what would she have done with the Democrat veto-proof super-majority Romney had to deal with in Massachusetts?
July 8th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
And, from the latest poll, Massachusetts voters seem to not have had a problem with him running for President. They wish they had him back by a margin of +19% vs. the joker they have now. Besides that, Mitt’s term was over about the time he started running.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Aron: You write very well, too bad you can’t read or follow TV…then you might know why Palin resigned, because you sure the hell didn’t let us know in your writings. I will not bother to explain it to you because you have a blind eye for Palin.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Boy, haven’t been here in weeks, now I remember why. You Republicans here and Romney supporters are so typical of why I sometimes wonder why I am a Republican.
You like to eat your own. I would never come here or anywhere else and bad mouth Romney or any other Republican.
Your comments show you really know very little about what she did in AK. and you probably don’t care. That is fine. But, please as Republicans let us not judge other potential candidates on issues we no little about.
You here have less idea of why Gov. Palin resigned then most democrats. I would be ashamed. Yet you use the terms “quitter” etc. What does that buy you?? You really haven’t taken the time to understand why she resigned. In fact I am ashamed of you as fellow Republicans.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Badeye,
Personally I come to this site because my ideas and assumptions are challenged by intelligent, smart, and passionate opponents. I like having to defend my positions. I like having to think, to research, to study the issues and the data so I can more fully understand the issues.
I have a great respect for the community of people who have found a home here. We have our hard core Romney supporters, Huckabee supporters, Palin supporters, etc. We even get the occasional Ron Paul supporter show up. We all argue and debate, sometimes rather vehemently, and we come away with a fuller understanding of the issues of the day.
And this is a bad thing? Why?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
marK,
“and we come away with a fuller understanding of the issues of the day.”
I don’t.
I’m just as clueless as the day I stumbled into this briar patch.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Holy crap… the circular firing squad continues out in the fields.
#75 (Get Real) has it right.
Sarah Palin is going to decide what she wants to do. We certainly aren’t going to decide for her. When (if?) she does decide to run for national office again, we can have these arguments.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Aron #49:
As if I need any more reason to love Pawlenty
He’s our man to take down Obama, no doubt about it. No one else is going to be able to muster passionate conservative support and still be a genuine, soft-toned candidate with national appeal to independent voters.
He’s the only candidate in the field that can really be a true principled conservative and, also, a thoughtful pragmatist. That’s something our divided party really needs right now.
MarkB: Thanks for responding, in part to my comments!
On acting as executives, yes I agree, mavericks are not organizational gurus. But, to that end, it bears considering what presidential politics is about, and whether we’re better served having a smart executive or a passionate maverick at the helm.
Executive experience can be imported in the form of talented cabinet officials and staff. But driving leadership, that’s not something you can replace. If it’s not there, the rest of the organization isn’t going to be able to reach its full potential. Romney without a doubt out-organized McCain in the primaries. But McCain far outfought him, and as always with fighting spirit comes support and victory.
Point: we can always get some good organizers in on the game, but if there’s not any fight in our leaders, they can be the smartest there is and their cleverly-drawn organization still won’t be worth a cent.