Brian Howey has a very interesting column on the demise of the Nunn-Lugar program for decommissioning weapons in Russia in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. That program is coming to an end. Howey points out that the end of the program probably has more to do with the ascendancy of Putin than the fall of Lugar, but Lugar’s ouster from the Senate by Richard Mourdock’s primary victory plays a role.
Russia is no longer interested in the Nunn-Lugar program which dates back to the early 1990’s and helped decommission scores of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Without Lugar in the picture there is no one obviously in place with the influence to advocate for the continuance in the program. Indeed, Lugar took crap from Mourdock for Lugar’s desire to implement the New START treaty.
Under terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism.
The treaty passed 71 to 26; so the content of the thing was never very objectionable. It appears that what Mourdock (and his primary supporters) really disliked was that President Obama wanted the treaty passed; and working with him on any thing — even agreeable things — was tantamount to treason against the party. That’s where the frustration over partisanship comes from — not principled stands on legitimate issues of contention, but rather reflexive opposition based on the identity of the advocate rather than on the substance of the proposal. In simpler terms, it’s like when one kid grabs a toy only because another kid wants to play with it.
So, with Lugar out and, if Mourdock wins, Nunn-Lugar dies on the vine, you’ll have a Senate less receptive to generally palatable treaties like New START, and long term global stability takes more of a back seat to political orthodoxy.
From the Howey column:
The Nunn-Lugar scorecard now totals 7,527 strategic nuclear warheads deactivated and hundreds of submarine missiles, silos and launchers destroyed, as well as providing 24 nuclear weapons storage sites, and 20 biological monitoring stations built and equipped.
There is still more to be accomplished in Russia by 2017, which would have been a year after what would have been Lugar’s final term in the Senate. Only 82 percent of Russia’s 13,300 warheads have been deactivated and only 63 percent of biological monitoring stations have been built and equipped.
It’s a shame — and I’m as guilty of this as anyone — that informed geopolitical realities don’t play more of a role in a citizen’s votes for Congress. But our public debate on foreign affairs usually consists of demagoguing the Hitler of the Day and whatever negative foreign incident is freshest. Beyond that, most citizens don’t have enough information about the rest of the world to be able to think more deeply about our relationship to it. Someone suggested that war is the way Americans learn geography.
I doubt many voters will make their Donnelly/Mourdock choice based on New START or Nunn-Lugar or on their philosophy about compromise solutions negotiated with other countries generally. I don’t actually know Donnelly’s position on such things. I suppose it’s possible that he, like Mourdock, takes a my way or the highway, cut off your nose to spite your face approach.
Richard Mourdock is a disgrace to the state of Indiana.
And what pisses me off the most is I am paying for his govt run health insurance and he wants to deny me access to any health insurance. And I don’t want it free. I just want to buy the same policy for my family that I am buying for his.(I have a a family member with a pre existing condition)
Richard Mourdock as State Treasurer does not have “govt run health insurance”. There is no Indiana equivalent to Medicare that he buys into. What he has is access to any number of health insurance plans through Anthem, offered by his employer, the state of Indiana (http://www.in.gov/spd/2337.htm).
Richard Mourdock as State Treasurer does not have “govt run health insurance”
And neither is ObamaCare. I was mocking you right wingers. But he does have govt paid for insurance. And I like to buy the same insurance for my family that I am paying for for his..
“What he has is access to any number of health insurance plans through Anthem, offered by his employer, the state of Indiana.”
You mean like ObamaCare is going to do for families like mine? Offering me a myriad of choices for private insurance and guaranteed acceptance.
Why does Mr. Mourdock want to deny my family the same opportunity for access to health insurance that I pay for for him?
Answer me that.
If you want to talk to “you right wingers” or a spokesperson of Mourdock, go talk to someone else. My beliefs are my own and nowhere in my post did I say, hint, or imply any of the beliefs that you assigned to me.
“My beliefs are my own and nowhere in my post did I say, hint, or imply any of the beliefs that you assigned to me.”
You just conveniently left out that ObamaCare is exactly the same. Access to any number of health insurance plans through private insurance.
So why not address my question? Why does Mr. Mourdock want to deny me access to buy the same private health insurance that I am buying for him. And again, I don’t want it for free. I will gladly pay for it.
I also “conveniently” didn’t mention Obamacare at all. That’s all on you, buddy. Anyone familiar with me or who has read my writings over the past four years would find it quite funny that you called me “you right wingers”.
It seem you’ve mistaken me as someone who is here to explain Mourdock’s position on health care, or someone who has a believe that is typical of a Republican in Indiana. Considering I have neither nor am I a Republican, I suggest you address your concerns to someone who is.
“You mean like ObamaCare is going to do for families like mine? Offering me a myriad of choices for private insurance and guaranteed acceptance.
Why does Mr. Mourdock want to deny my family the same opportunity for access to health insurance that I pay for for him?
Answer me that.”
Because Mr. Mourdock, as well as many others, know that prices will go up. Imagine a million people with costly preexisting conditions now having to be covered, what then? There are only two ways for prices to stay at the same level that Mourdock and the state pays:
#1: Doctors, nurses, hospital admins, etc. take massive (20-40%) pay cuts.
#2: All employees at private insurance companies take massive (20-40%) pay cuts.
Since neither will happen, we will end up with national, government run healthcare, which is what I want. That way I could quit my dangerous $45K/year job and take a job that I want to do at half the pay and let others pay higher taxes to provide me healthcare. I want all hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. to be government employees in this system. I believe this is what the UK has.
I’m not sure this is the case. Insurance works through healthy people paying for sick people. Prices come down or can be stabilized by bringing more healthy people into the system to balance the addition of more sick people to the system. That’s what this mandate business is all about.
Previously, you induced healthy people into the system due to their uncertainty about whether they would get sick while uninsured; in other words, contracting a pre-existing condition and having insurance foreclosed to them thereafter. We’ve made a policy choice to eliminate pre-existing conditions as a permissible reason for exclusion. This removes a powerful inducement for healthy people to join the insurance system, so if we want people with pre-existing conditions to receive medical care, we have to create a new inducement for healthy people to pay into the system — the insurance mandate.
Secondly, you contain costs by delivering care more efficiently. If people are insured, they’ll be more likely to get medical care earlier in there disease – making it less expensive to treat. Ideally, we’ll see the delivery of more, less costly medical services that produce better health outcomes.
The problem comes in when you have to spend a million or more on one person. My sister sat on management and employee (over the course of about 10 years) sides of negotiations between the teachers union and the administrative management in the Ohio school system. She cited a teacher that was hit on a motorcycle and it costs more then five million dollars for all the bills. This was more money then the teachers union would have contributed in premiums over five years Throw in preexisting conditions that can cost thousands of dollars a year and these costs destroy (causing the rates to go up) the whole plan. There needs to be a limit where the government takes over and somehow minimizes these cost. Do you force private physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals work so many hours for reduced rates? Limit the amount of money you charge for drugs? Limit the amount of care you give a person? Tough questions for a very broken system.
The situtation you described is taken care of by “stop-loss” insuance or re-insurance treaties. Seld-funded health plans, and underwritten plans agree to insure members up to x-amount, often 100,000. They then contract with stop-loss insurers to reimburse amounts which exceed the plan liability. They pay a very small premium to the stop-loss carriers for this additional coverage. Why should government step in where the private market provides a workable solution
“Why should government step in where the private market provides a workable solution.”
Because the private market does not provide a workable solution.
People are getting kicked off their insurance after maxing out on benefits. And one of the benefits of ObamaCare is insurers are no longer allowed to do so.
Insurance companies produce nothing. It is simply a pooling of risks. Private insurance, thank to ObamaCare, can now only incur administrative costs and profits of 20% of premiums. Medicare, on the other hand, does it for 3%
And it used to be worse pre ObamaCare. Private insurers were taking 40% for profit and administrative costs.
If you reread my post I addressed a situation that the private market does address. Stop-loss and reinsurance protecting self-funded and underwritten plans from outlier medical losses.
This is a situation where the private market provides a workable solution to the cost of high medical loses for an individual.
I have no quarrel with any of your other points.
“Because Mr. Mourdock, as well as many others, know that prices will go up. Imagine a million people with costly preexisting conditions now having to be covered, what then?”
Prices are going up slower under ObamaCare. Didn’t you get your refund check from your health insurer? You know, the one they had to send if they didn’t spend 80% of premiums on actual health care.
And what to do about those with pre existing conditions Mr. Mourdock? Let them go uninsured, go broke, and die?
And for the record Medicare pays out 97% of it’s revenues in health care. And private insurers are whining about having to pay 80%.
Donnelly is endorsed by Citizens for Global Solutions PAC which advocates for “A Responsible and Cooperative U.S. Role in the World.”
From their endorsement:
“Representative Donnelly supports continuous U.S. cooperation with the international community to provide support for victims around the world, Global Solutions is confident that Donnelly is the best choice for this Indiana Senate race… As a global thinker, with an emphasis on international cooperation, we must ensure we keep politicians like Donnelly in the Senate.”
Mourdock is a conservative, which means he hates the two things dearest to all Americans: freedom and America.
And Mike Pence is a dumbass. Sad state of affairs here in Indiana.
Sure, Lugar-Nunn was above partisan politics. But, statesman? I find that awfully generous use of the term.
This ‘statesman’ business fascinates me. It seems that it is applied by those left-of-center observers to Republicans who cross over with some votes, and yet those same observers would not apply the term to Democrats who cross over on some votes. Certainly, I never heard Evan Bayh called a statesman. I’ve heard him called ‘traitor’ by some on the left.
Of course, the reverse is every bit the same, as right-of-center observers called Lugar a ‘traitor’ aplenty during primary season.
In my case, “statesman” has more of a foreign policy, negotiated diplomacy flavor to it. I could be wrong, but my general impression of Bayh is that he was mostly active on foreign policy not to engage in diplomacy but to participate in saber rattling.
But, yeah, it’s easier to appreciate statesmanship from someone coming from outside your circle into it rather than the reverse.