I dunno if you all noticed but all these people have been on JRE except for McRaven… And Dan Crenshaw can’t even keep up with Joe… I can understand people can have Dan’s political views and can back their stances up with reason. When you take a stance on an issue and are unable to back yourself up, someone is most likely paying you to take that position… or worst, you take that position because you know someone will pay you to do so…
I don’t agree with the title on this post. To conflate Dan Crenshaw’s long winded answers to Joe’s questions as outright lies seems very unfair. It trivializes the heath care debate as a simple issue. I think that Dan Crenshaw is concerned about economic forces on the medical industry that could stifle innovation and lead to shortages. I hear a thoughtfulness in Crenshaw’s response that shows his mind could be changed in the face of reliable data.
I’m not sure how you came up with that conclusion. Dan’s answer seems not only logical, he’s exactly right historically. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to find care for those who fall threw the cracks, as well as work to reduce costs. But I don’t think anything he’s saying is even remotely controversial when looking at the big picture. With healthcare, history has proven you have to pick 2 of these 3 things:
Pick 2…you can’t sustain all 3. At least we haven’t found a system yet that can. In America, we have quality and accessibility. The cost is outrageous. That said, even Sanders admits if we reduce cost, the accessibility and quality will suffer. There’s no easy answer to this very complicated topic.
Your response is total talking point. You never research that, you just say it because you heard it somewhere. That is absolutely not true. The only industrialized nation not to have socialized healthcare is… America. Go to Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Germany, nordic countries, by all measures all these countries are better than the US and you say socialized medicine has drawbacks? The studies are publicly available, google the subject
This and especially the title of this post are unnecessarily divisive and just not true. There could be many reasons for not being able to adequately explain your beliefs that have nothing to do with money or power: like being too ideological, or being too dumb to explain things, or having a bad day, or being dyslexic. Not to mention any possibility of the listener having any of the same problems.
I have noticed. His podcast, and others, are most likely why so many people entered their names as potential candidates in the first place—exposure. But I wouldn’t say Crenshaw is for sale. He seemed pretty bipartisan on the issue of health care when he spoke with Brett.
Joe seems to think price controls will help people have more access to health care. But the prices medicare controls are cost for drugs and payments for services. Fewer doctors accept medicare patients anymore due to low medicare payments and US residents pay more for drugs due to higher prices charged by big pharma. Dan is trying to explain the big picture but Joe wants the quick and short answer.
Listening to Crenshaw talk about Al Qaeda and 9/11 it’s unclear whether he is ignorant, intellectually lazy or for some other reason uses dumbed down (Fox News style) talking points. If he were just a grunt I’d say no big deal. But as a congressman and leader in special operations I expect better and so should you. I’ve found him mostly likable but disappointing as a thinker and inadequately trustworthy as a leader. If we are looking for a less partisan candidate he ain’t it.
This is not a talking point, and actually very personal to me. Having family currently living under socialized medicine as well as my wife who lived under it for 2 years in the U.K, I can tell you, without question, socialized medicine doesn’t hold a candle to the U.S.
Yes it’s cheaper and perhaps better if you’re talking about routine care or simple injuries like a broken arm. But for anything serious requiring a specialist, America is the gold standard in care and accessibility. Again, this is personal for me. Until you’ve had a relative needlessly die while on a year long wait list to see a specialist, I wouldn’t expect you to understand. We take for granted how easy it is to see a specialist in America. We take for granted the ability to choose from multiple specialists in a particular field. We take for granted the ability to get a fast second opinion. We take so much for granted here in the states.
America has an imperfect system which we do need to reform. But let’s not make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Let’s not be blind to the limitations of socialized medicine. We can try to address the cost of care in America while still acknowledging our quality and accessibility is second to none in almost every speciality area.
There is also a wait for people who can’t afford insurance in the US. People also die because they can’t access healthcare in the US. I’m not sure people die waiting for healthcare in the UK. Without giving patient specifics, can you provide more info of the circumstances? Surveys of UK healthcare satisfaction is publicly available. Surveys of Canadian healthcare have the father of their system hailed as a hero just this year or last.
Primary doctor referred him to urologist. 8 month wait list to see urologist. Once seen, urologist recommends prostate biopsy based on test results. 3 month wait to get the biopsy. Once the biopsy was complete, he was diagnosed prostate cancer. 6 month wait for surgery. During that wait, he ended up in the hospital due to an inability to function. Hospital said he’s too weak for surgery at this point and they should just keep him comfortable. He passed a week later. The good news? Our family had no medical costs…just the cost of his life.
We heard so many stories like this from Canada as well. These aren’t talking points. These are realities. Simply look at the wait list to see a specialist in almost any country with socialized medicine. Then realize you can see a specialist the same week in nearly every medium size to large city in the U.S.
Again, I’m not saying America’s healthcare system isn’t broken. It needs reform. We need to find a way to get healthcare to those who truly can’t afford it. But let’s not turn it over to government bureaucrats who can barley run the DMV and have zero vested interest providing quality care. Remember, health INSURANCE/COVERAGE does not always equal health CARE.
Crenshaw’s comments don’t necessarily suggest that he’s corrupted by moneyed interests (though he might be), but they do suggest that he is corrupted or at least compromised by blind adherence to ideology.
Crenshaw’s answer to Rogan’s question, Why is Medicare for All different as a human right from other public services, such as the police and fire dept.? is irrational in that it fails to differentiate between them in a meaningful, factually valid way. Somehow, according to Crenshaw, Medicare for All would “force” doctors to perform services for the public in ways that other public services do not.
When Rogan questions Crenshaw’s logic by aptly pointing out that Medicare for All does not appear to be different in the stated regard from other public services, Crenshaw tries to justify his previous answer by introducing academic terminology that does not address Rogan’s point but rather obfuscates the issue. This is clearly an effort by Crenshaw to disingenuously divert the discussion away from Rogan’s question.
The most troubling aspect of this exchange is not that Crenshaw is opposed to Medicare for All. There are rational, fact-based reasons by which one can be opposed to Medicare for All, and Crenshaw does go on to discuss some of them. The most troubling aspects of the exchange are that Crenshaw’s rationale regarding the “human right” issue appears to reduce to mere ideological adherence—Medicare for All is big government oppression of doctors—while, for some reason that Crenshaw actively avoids explaining, he does not see other public services, such as the police and fire dept., in the same light.
And, worse still, Crenshaw’s rhetorical tactics in this discussion appear to be in bad faith. Simply put, Crenshaw tries to trick Rogan into believing that his (Crenshaw’s) irrational answer is too complicated for the under-educated Rogan to understand. Obviously Crenshaw’s tactic doesn’t work, as Rogan simply returns to the point, refusing to be scared off of it. Crenshaw’s discussion with Bill Maher earlier this year was likewise disappointing, as the congressman came across like little more than a Republican shill and certainly not the anti-polarizing, unifying leader that Unity 2020 proposes to nominate.
Being that the purpose of Unity 2020 is to nominate candidates who are not corrupt and who will negotiate public policy issues in good faith, I do not understand the proposed nomination of Dan Crenshaw. While I find Dan Crenshaw’s personality appealing, and I respect his military service, the congressman appears to be corrupted or at least compromised to some degree by blind adherence to libertarian ideological principles—i.e. “government oppressive, free market good.” And I am not able to see a meaningful difference between putting loyalty to moneyed interests before the public interest vs. putting loyalty to ideology before the public interest. Either way, the public interest is neglected, which is the very problem that Unity 2020 was created to solve.
I found your analysis to be right on, Cygnus!
What is most alarming to me about Crenshaw isn’t his stance on healthcare (though I do have many concerns about that), but how quickly the illusion of his “open-mindedness” is shattered when he gets any pushback. He is married to either his or his party’s ideas. It doesn’t take much effort to see that he is blatantly towing the republican-line, but he has a shiny, though thin, veneer covering it up which few politicians bother with. Dan is better at playing the game. I’ve observed similar behavior with Candace Owens, and it is effective in generating popularity. I’m not implying that towing the Republican-line is a bad thing, but, as Cygnus said in much better words, I think the purpose of Unity is defeated when we draft a candidate who is a puppet of his party.
In listening to Dan’s campfire discussion with Bret, any hopes that I had of Dan being an open-minded, critical thinker were put to rest. He was either ignorant to or unwilling to admit any criticism or corruption of the Republican Party. I believe he did say that they’re not always great communicators which could be why Republicans are sometimes criticized or misunderstood as being corrupt.
I don’t think these things indicate Dan is necessarily for sale, corrupt, or even a bad person/politician. It is, however, crystal clear to me that he is entirely wrong for the Unity movement. As long as he’s associated with it, I don’t think have any credibility.
I disagree that Crenshaw fails to answer the question. Watching this, the big hitch is not that Crenshaw fails to make a meaningful distinction between fire and medicine, but that he did not explain it in a way that Rogan could understand.
Crenshaws does use a technical term (I forget what it is) but he spells out the point pretty clearly (in my opinion) when he tells Rogan that if you add 100,000 people to your city, you only add a marginal amount of work… but that doctors have a closer to 1:1 relationship. Joe never responded to that, and I don’t know if he just didn’t process it in the moment or was so focused on his idea that he wasn’t really listening. But let’s actually walk through that example.
You add 100,000 people to a city. How many more fires do you have that the fire department will have to respond to? Well, not every single person is going to have a fire each year, so there won’t be 100,000. In fact, I don’t see firefighters in my neighborhood every year. Let’s say that I have 100 people in my neighborhood and average a fire every 10 years that the fire department has to respond to. That’s about 1 fire per 100 x 10 (or 1,000) people / year. So add 100,000 people and you add 100 more fires.
Go through the same exercise with doctors. Add 100,000 people. How many more doctor visits are there in a year? Well, everyone’s supposed to go once for a checkup, and some people with health issues are going to go lots of times. People will often go extra during flu season or with some other ailment, so lets just say that 100,000 people adds on average 2 vists per person, or 200,000 more doctor visits each year.
That’s the difference between the fire department as a public good: it scales (100 fires / 100,000 people). Medicine does not call in the same way (200,000 visits / 100,000 people). Given these are rough estimates, but there is a 2,000x difference in how easy it is to scale to meet fire needs vs medical needs. Crenshaw also mentions the military, but other public goods are similar. Roads are a public good, but you don’t need 1 road for every new person you add to a city. The government is really good at providing services that scale well to large groups. However, with highly-individualized care, scale becomes a handicap instead of a benefit.
So my take away from this video was simply the fire department analogy that Rogan was using was a fundamentally flawed model. Either Rogan was unable (in the moment) to grasp the scaling factor, or he’s uninterested in it because he’s attached to his own ideology. And I’d side with Crenshaw on this issue. Talking about “rights” sounds nice, but when you actually want to make health care affordable for everyone (which Crenshaw is on board with) you need someone who actually can grasp the difference between a doctor and a fireman.
Being able to see that complexity, far from being corrupt, I’d see as a pre-requisite to getting past sloganeering and making meaningful change. The weak spot here is just that Crenshaw is unable to bring the concept down to Joe’s level, and that is a handicap in a politician.
The ideal politician is some who can:
- grasp the complexities of the situation so they can actually do something about them
- simplify those complexities so they can be easily understood and
- be honest in presenting those simplified narratives
I think you’re accusing him of not living up to #3, not being honest, when I’d call it a #2, inability to boil down a complex problem. And in this case, although I like Rogan quite a bit, I’d accuse him of failing #1. He really likes his fire analogy, possibly because he’s unable to grasp the ways in which medicine, is different than infrastructure, fire, police, military, etc. He was repeating the question, not because Crenshaw was dodging it but because he was focused on his “rights” idea and not really understanding the implications of scale above.
Your analysis seems spot on. I have found that even though many people have had basic Economics courses the law of supply and demand when applied, as you did in your explanation seems to escape most. The Law Of Karma does not respond only quantitatively, but qualitatively as well. Be well. My Best Regards, Akabosan
Good point about credibility.
The Unity 2020 brand is supposed to be, as you said, open-minded, critical-thinking pragmatism that is devoted to doing what’s in the best interests of the American people, regardless of ideological or partisan interests. And that ain’t Crenshaw. There are already other parties whose candidate’s primary devotion is either to ideology, to a political party or to moneyed interests. If Unity 2020 simply offers another candidate like that, it has no unique or practical value as a nominating process.
Unity 2020 is supposed to be above party, above ideology and above moneyed interests. A good test for a proposed Unity 2020 candidate might be whether they are able to recognize serious problems in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Not this, well, their biggest flaw is that they don’t know how to communicate how great they are benign, self-serving sort of criticism that Crenshaw offers in his campfire with Bret, but rather the ability to really see where both parties part ways with the sensibilities and best interests of the American people.
Considering Dan seems ignorant to any problems in his party, I can’t imagine he comprehends the need/purpose for or value in the Unity movement. Considering that, I do think it’s unlikely that he could be drafted, especially when taking into account how devoted he seems to his party.
In the meantime, we have a prospective candidate who clearly appears to contradict the intent of Unity. This is a crippling problem for Unity. I think Dan has a following who would want him elected regardless of which party banner he was running under, so I think the enthusiasm for Dan caused many to overlook how inappropriate he is for Unity. I’m hoping people will come to this realization so we can cut him loose and draft someone who aligns with our values. This will reestablish our integrity as a movement without which we can’t possibly succeed or get the momentum we need. A huge part of our mission is restoring integrity, so why would people support us if we don’t have any?
Firstly, your hypothetical is total conjecture that ignores an enormous swath of economic, fiscal and policy variables. As such, it is not really helpful.
Secondly, we don’t need to guess blindly about how universal health care systems similar to some form of Medicare for All work, because we have numerous real-life examples around the globe to draw from. The central issue that we’re discussing is very simple: doctor-to-patient ratio. And we don’t need mysterious, academic terminology to discuss it. Your claim (and Crenshaw’s) is that Medicare for All would drastically increase the doctor-to-patient ratio, which would “force” doctors to treat more patients, thereby oppressing them. It took me five minutes of Googling to find out that this assertion is largely contradicted by evidence.
Nearly every nation with a single-payer universal health care system has a higher doctor-to-patient ratio than the US doctor-to-patient ratio. Further, a majority of American doctors support the US moving to a single-payer system, because their real oppression comes from mountains of red tape and administrative work required by the current system. So, being that some form of Medicare for All most likely would not entail a decrease in the doctor-to-patient ratio, and being that doctors in single payer systems around the globe do not complain of feeling oppressed, and being that a majority of American doctors do support the US moving to a single-payer system, I’d say that Crenshaw’s oppression argument has little or no basis in fact. And that’s why he introduced the mysterious, highbrow academic terminology — to throw Rogan off the scent of the bullshit that he was smelling.
Again, there are rational, fact-based arguments that can be made against Medicare for All — economic, fiscal, and quality-of-care arguments, specifically. And what I would expect from a Unity 2020 nominee in response to being asked how s/he feels about about Medicare for All is something along the lines of, I have concerns about xyz, but I’m willing to give it an honest look and consider the costs and benefits, and if there are problems with it, maybe it could be modified and we could arrive at something that works for everyone. Not some pseudo-intellectual BS meant to trick and confuse the interviewer and that rejects the very concept of single-payer out of hand based on ideological dogma.
You’re switching questions. The question posted in the video was Rogan asking “Why isn’t medicare for all like the fire department?” That’s the question that Crenshaw answered, and I explained because you attacked Crenshaw for not answering the question. I think the problem is that he wasn’t answering the question you wish Rogan had asked.
‘Firstly, your hypothetical is total conjecture that ignores an enormous swath of economic, fiscal and policy variables. As such, it is not really helpful.’ The data you were googling has nothing to do with the question in the video to be answered. And as such, it is not helpful to the question being raised here.
If you want to ask a different question, ask it. If you find Rogan’s question not particularly insightful, then don’t post it as an expose on Crenshaws crookedness. Post a question about the US medical system when compared to other socialized systems. But don’t get upset when you ask the question “Why is providing medicine in the US different than providing fire departments?” and you don’t get an answer to “How will doctor-patient ratios be affected by a single-payer system over the current system?”
Or do get upset. If what you want is outrage, asking one question and expecting the response to another is a great way to get it.
We have plenty of money for schools, health care, build up inner cities etc…etc…etc…
The amount we have to spend on those types of things have been down played so as not to cause a panic.