Wait a second, why aren't these guys talking about determinism, quantum mechanics, and entropy? What site is this???!!1!!

Before categorically declaring that private health insurers are among the most hated institutions in America (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/203...2:39&out=22:48), Mr. Klein ought to reckon with the data suggesting that American health care rates higher than Canadian and British in patient satisfaction, in significant aspects of treatment, and in innovation (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649). And he might also consider Congress's approval ratings and ask whether that's the institution Americans should entrust their health care to.

Quoting jeffpeterson: Before categorically declaring that private health insurers are among the most hated institutions in America (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/203...2:39&out=22:48), Mr. Klein ought to reckon with the data suggesting that American health care rates higher than Canadian and British in patient satisfaction, in significant aspects of treatment, and in innovation (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649). And he might also consider Congress's approval ratings and ask whether that's the institution Americans should entrust their health care to.

Good luck trying to convince people that they actually like their insurer!

Possibly the failure of the PPIP - whose demise I believe is not as final as this diavlog assumes - was related to the decision not to allow banks to bid on their own or similar assets. With the strong leverage provided by the non-recourse loans coming from the FDIC, banks may have been strongly interested in overpaying heavily for them, to come closer to book value as Ezra mentions, and then write off their 7% (I believe) and come out with the assets marked down to fair market with someone else paying for 93% of the ride down from book value. But if you need more "honest" investors, all they see at close to current book values is a great chance of losing 100% of their 7% investment. You have great leverage, but if the program absolutely needs people to pay above market prices for the banks to be interested in selling it is never going to get going.

Quoting claymisher: Good luck trying to convince people that they actually like their insurer!

I don't enjoy paying the premiums -- or the cable bill or the mortgage. But it pays to consider the alternatives before junking what we have.

In the last topic of this diavlog, I can't help but be reminded of a great Ezra/Will discussion from the archives, in a diavlog which includes probably BhTV's Greatest Conversational Coincidence of All Time (porcelain painting??) (edited to get the urls right)

Quoting Joel_Cairo: In the last topic of this diavlog, I can't help but be reminded of a great Ezra/Will discussion from the archives, which includes one of BhTV's Greatest Conversational Coincidences of All Time (pottery??)

Yikes, Wilkinson's 2007 free-market triumphalism hasn't aged well.

Quoting claymisher: Yikes, Wilkinson's 2007 free-market triumphalism hasn't aged well.

I miss the haircut though.

bhtv ringtone, liberal edition bhtv ringtone, libertarian edition bhtv ringtone... ummmm... Cato edition?

Quoting mmacklem: bhtv ringtone, liberal edition

bhtv ringtone, libertarian edition

bhtv ringtone... ummmm... Cato edition?

That last one reminds me: Will -- whether people still say "blows chunks" anymore or not, you're misusing it. I'm fairly certain your expression has never been used as a way to add emphasis to "that blows;" i.e., "that is bad." To blow chunks means to vomit. So, you could plausibly (if unfashionably) say "our system makes me blow chucks," but not "our system blows chunks."

Quoting jeffpeterson: Before categorically declaring that private health insurers are among the most hated institutions in America (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/203...2:39&out=22:48), Mr. Klein ought to reckon with the data suggesting that American health care rates higher than Canadian and British in patient satisfaction, in significant aspects of treatment, and in innovation (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649). And he might also consider Congress's approval ratings and ask whether that's the institution Americans should entrust their health care to.

That's an interesting angle, but for the comparison I think you should use comparable programs like Medicaid or SS. That may still turn out positively for private insurance, I don't know the numbers off-hand.

Quoting Joel_Cairo: I miss the haircut though.

Will Wilkinson: "People need to take more risk" Right before the unemployment rate doubles and the stock market is cut in half! How on earth a libertarian thinks that the market is mispricing risk, I don't know. I guess it's the free-market blinders. As for Ezra's point about social insurance allowing people to take more risk, I've seen that plenty of times up close. It's tough to get people to work at your startup if they have kids. Your company is small enough that insurance companies will deny coverage to anybody for anything. Only big companies have enough buying power to get treated decently. And since you're more likely to go out of business your prospective employees are more likely to find themselves laid off (and possibly without insurance). This is a case were getting specific helps. We want people to take risks that have high positive private and public benefits. Start that company! Get that engineering degree! On the other hand, exposing individuals to negative risk (lose your insurance! massive unpayable college debt!) doesn't help anybody, unless you're David Frum, in which case you think the risk of starvation

Quoting claymisher: (I didn't catch the pottery reference)

See my updated original post... the moment in question is actually later in the diavlog, not encompassed within that dingalink. Also, it turns out it's not pottery but porcelain painting. My capacity for obscure BhTVrivia recall is slipping...

Quoting jeffpeterson: Before categorically declaring that private health insurers are among the most hated institutions in America (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/203...2:39&out=22:48), Mr. Klein ought to reckon with the data suggesting that American health care rates higher than Canadian and British in patient satisfaction, in significant aspects of treatment, and in innovation (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649). And he might also consider Congress's approval ratings and ask whether that's the institution Americans should entrust their health care to.

Your National Center for Policy Analysis is biased. "The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector." These people worship markets and are willing to accept a certain amount of collateral damage for the sake of capitalist ideological purity in the health care context. They're not interested in social or political innovation. They're interested in whatever increases corporate profits. I want all 'entrepreneurs' to keep their fucking hands off my health care.

Will and others want an open market for insurance, and the government should buy insurance for people who can't afford it. The government should funnel taxpayer money into private insurance policies for poor people. I have to say it twice, rephrase it, for it to sink in my little brain. That is utter and abject worship of the private sector. That is real imagination.

how would you say the 50 million uninsured people rank their insurance? maybe like a 3/5 stars or so? sometimes it's useful to take a glance at what the entire rest of the industrialized world has been doing for decades before bothering to cherry-pick

Ezra, you are awesome! keep fighting the health insurance fight and eventually we'll get somewhere. Moyers had a fantastic show on this a couple of weeks ago in case anyone cares to watch:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
they say the only way to solve it is to get rid of the health insurance industry. wouldn't that be sweet as hell?
as far as the geitner plan goes the NYT had a good piece explaining why it didn't work but i didn't even bother to read it because it's so boring and i'm so bored of talking about the economy.

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: ...they say the only way to solve it is to get rid of the health insurance industry. wouldn't that be sweet as hell?...

While I agree that there are many problems with the insurance industry, I would also note that Medicare, Medicade has considerably problems as well, but I'm not sure that I would wish for the problems that eliminating the industry might cause. I would also ask where is the empathy here as eliminating it will cause a lot of harm and dislocation to the roughly 3 million or so people that work in that industry not to mention the industries that serve them. But I'm just a hard harted conservative.

meh.....just more of the same from the right. the side you're taking is on the wrong side of history.

Quoting pampl: That's an interesting angle, but for the comparison I think you should use comparable programs like Medicaid or SS. That may still turn out positively for private insurance, I don't know the numbers off-hand.

But those programs are massively subsidized by younger Americans. The real test is how satisfied seniors would be if they were getting no more than they had paid for.

Quoting Usernumberone: But those programs are massively subsidized by younger Americans. The real test is how satisfied seniors would be if they were getting no more than they had paid for.

What, are you against the concept of finance? Or time-traveling old people gaming the system? I mean, eight-year-olds aren't paying shit for their education either.

Quoting claymisher: ...I mean, eight-year-olds aren't paying shit for their education either.

And in many instances they aren't getting shit for an education. (Sorry it was just to tempting.)

Quoting jeffpeterson: patient satisfaction, in significant aspects of treatment, and in innovation

These are all reflections (biased or not, it doesn't matter) on health care people get. The biggest problem with private insurers is the health care people don't get.

Quoting jeffpeterson: Mr. Klein ought to reckon with the data suggesting that American health care rates higher than Canadian and British in patient satisfaction, in significant aspects of treatment, and in innovation (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649).

I don't think that link says what you say it does. Might want to be more careful if you want to be taken for an honest actor here. The real issue is why we pay so very much more than Canadians for a modest 10% bump among those who are 'very satisfied' and virtually no difference among those who are unsatisfied. Beyond that, it doesn't really pass the smell test that the number of Americans who are uninsured (15%) is larger than the number of people who claim to be unsatisfied with their health care (6.8% in your link). Jeff, are the other 8% rating their utter lack of insurance as something better than unsatisfying? Then again, I'm biased: I'm uninsured, have a chronic disease, and can't get private insurance for less than a thousand a month. Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more

This is a great diavlog matchup. I had really missed Will's insight as of late. (and Ezra seems much more reasonable than some public health care advocates, if still misguided ) I vote to have these two matchup again.

Just saw this story shortly after watching this diavlog on a possible compromise to the government-sponsored healthcare competing with private insurers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/...ealth_overhaul

Quoting KausFan4Life: Just saw this story shortly after watching this diavlog on a possible compromise to the government-sponsored healthcare competing with private insurers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/...ealth_overhaul

Is there a reason private, non-profit cooperatives can't already form to buy health insurance? Not that I'm a big one for wonking out on health care policy issues, but this strikes me as window dressing -- pretending something new is a "compromise" when it's really just maintaining the status quo. Agree with your previous comment: Will and Ezra go well together.

Quoting bjkeefe: Is there a reason private, non-profit cooperatives can't already form to buy health insurance? Not that I'm a big one for wonking out on health care policy issues, but this strikes me as window dressing -- pretending something new is a "compromise" when it's really just maintaining the status quo.

Couldn't agree more. There's a little magical thinking going on if people imagine that 'seed money for co-ops' is going to put a dent into our access problems. I don't understand how Obama's position, which *was* the compromise, is now being treated like the left wing's opening bet. The man won big -- why is the AP pimping non-profit co-ops like they're game changers?

Couldn't agree more. There's a little magical thinking going on if people imagine that 'seed money for co-ops' is going to put a dent into our access problems.

Well, that's the big question: will the "strong version" Ezra describes (attrition of private insurance) prevail or the "weak version" (the government plan is a lame alternative like the Post Office compared to FedEx). Everyone I know -- including the people Obama is trying to organize on the left to support his plan -- is strongly in favor of single-payer, Medicare-type system. There is big-time resistance to supporting anything short of that. This is going to be a very hard sell for Obama to his left-base. He's really going to need to convince people that this is the best we can do. If Obama's healthcare legislation ends up sucking, his whole administration could go down in flames. There's a lot at stake.

Baucus says that any government plan the Democrats could force into law would be "unsustainable". Not if the Democrats acted in a timely manner and got a skillfully-crafted single-payer system into place, let's say right after Barry is re-elected, which he will be, barring any major SNAFUs. If the system worked, and there is no reason to imagine that it wouldn't, and no reason to imagine it wouldn't be wildly popular, AND if the Republicans regained power, there would be no way the American people would allow their single-payer to be taken away. Any attempt would be politically fatal, just as it would be in any other country in which single-payer has been introduced. NOT "unsustainable".

Baucus says that any government plan the Democrats could force into law would be "unsustainable".

Yes, that was a ridiculous comment. What they ought to be saying is unsustainable and terminally dysfunctional is the private insurer healthcare model. I agree that this is the perfect now-or-never moment: huge Dem. majority, hugely popular president, huge economic crisis and huge numbers of people who once had insurance now living (and dying) without coverage. Obama could deliver real universal healthcare to the American people. He wants to, he knows sí se puede, but perhaps he's just not the kind of guy to ever really rock the boat of the vested interests.

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, that was a ridiculous comment. What they ought to be saying is unsustainable and terminally dysfunctional is the private insurer healthcare model.

I agree that this is the perfect now-or-never moment: huge Dem. majority, hugely popular president, huge economic crisis and huge numbers of people who once had insurance now living (and dying) without coverage.

Obama could deliver real universal healthcare to the American people. He wants to, he knows sí se puede, but perhaps he's just not the kind of guy to ever really rock the boat of the vested interests.

Wonderment, I know you're rocking the Obama-hating pretty hard, but you gotta admit the problem is the Senate. If it was just the House and Obama the picture would be much different. We're pretty much held hostage by a handful of red-state Democratic senators. (Which is we should have let the Republicans get rid of the filibuster back when they wanted to.) This just in ... Pelosi says a bill with no public option won't pass the House:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_214303.html

Wonderment, I know you're rocking the Obama-hating pretty hard, but

Obama hating? I campaigned for Obama in two languages and many states. I can't imagine what sort of mind set would construe my comments as hatred.

you gotta admit the problem is the Senate. If it was just the House and Obama the picture would be much different. We're pretty much held hostage by a handful of red-state Democratic senators. (Which is we should have let the Republicans get rid of the filibuster back when they wanted to.)

Progressives in the House are promoting a single-payer Medicare-type plan. Many others will settle for the "strong version" of the choice plan that Ezra outlined. I went to a meeting last week of 20 OBAMA SUPPORTERS (all got there through announcement on his website). None (that's none with a zero, including the host of the event) wanted anything less than a singlepayer plan. About half refused to support any other plan, including the President's.