The left -- Obama's base -- is, as Joel suggests, starting to defect on healthcare. It was bad enough that single payer was dismissed as ridiculous. Now even the compromise -- public option -- is being compromised. Once Republicans and Blue Dogs water down the plan enough, progressives will say just say No. They won't buy the idea that the bi-partisan plan is better than nothing. The real better-than-nothing strategy for Obama's base will no longer be comprehensive health care reform, but rather to regroup, try to get relatively little things, and fight again another day with another president less inclined to please his adversaries. For example, progressives could simply insist on expanding government coverage to the poor and near-poor and on banning insurance companies from refusing to cover "pre-existing" conditions. We could have -- and pass -- up or down votes on those issues. That would be a big win for progressives and still leave real comprehensive reform on the table down the road.

Good post Wonderment. If we can't at least get the government option I'd rather we just did not pass anything comprehensive. We can continue to try to make things better incrementally but there is no reason to believe this half assed crap they are thowing out there to appease the insurance lobby and the AMA will make anything better without a public option.
It also could turn into a teachabel moment for Obama himself. Perhaps those classified by the media as being on the "left" do hold some things as absolutes. Other than the belief that everyone should have access to health care we should also insist on a real ban on torture, a return to the Bill of Rights for every human being, and the right to privacy. These are not things we should compromise away just to be able to say a couple of moderate Republicans supported us.

Quoting Wonderment: The left -- Obama's base -- is, as Joel suggests, starting to defect on healthcare. It was bad enough that single payer was dismissed as ridiculous. Now even the compromise -- public option -- is being compromised.

Once Republicans and Blue Dogs water down the plan enough, progressives will say just say No. They won't buy the idea that the bi-partisan plan is better than nothing.

The real better-than-nothing strategy for Obama's base will no longer be comprehensive health care reform, but rather to regroup, try to get relatively little things, and fight again another day with another president less inclined to please his adversaries.

For example, progressives could simply insist on expanding government coverage to the poor and near-poor and on banning insurance companies from refusing to cover "pre-existing" conditions.

We could have -- and pass -- up or down votes on those issues. That would be a big win for progressives and still leave real comprehensive reform on the table down the road.

It seems to me that the progressive left ought to get behind what has been largely branded as a "conservative" initiative: Tort reform. "Defensive medicine" and the enormous cost of fending off

I forgot to add that the reason Bob goes all "spooky" at the end of his book is obviously brilliant marketing. The book may be a great in its scholarship on religious history. It may be beautifully written and well constructed. In fact, the reviews I've seen all praise these aspects of the book... But what is everyone talking about? He goes all spooky at the end.

But the Cistine Chapel? You gotta be kiddin. Over-rated! Over-rated I say! But when I was last there, over on a dark wall of the Vatican I did take a drink from an ordinary drinking fountain that seemed rather lovely. A nearby plaque said it was by Cellini. And over in another corner, almost hidden away, ignored by the crowds, was Michaelangelo's Pieta. That was something beautiful to remember. But most beautiful of all, especially in the evenings in the big public squares (and here I know Achenbach secretly agrees with me) were . . . the women. Unfortunately that last kind of beauty, even in Rome, isn't eternal. Which raises the not unrelated question of why it is that so many middle-aged Italian women are, if not exactly fat, a little on the dumpy side? Is it the pasta maybe? But no matter. Rome is most definitely "the real thing."

Quoting Wonderment: For example, progressives could simply insist on expanding government coverage to the poor and near-poor and on banning insurance companies from refusing to cover "pre-existing" conditions.

I think all but the most strident Randians would be okay with expanding coverage for the poor, but I've always wondered about the villification of pre-existing condition exclusions in health insurance. The whole point of insurance is to minimize risk. Everybody in the plan pays a little for the privilege of avoiding an enormous unexpected cost later. Refusing to insure a diabetic against diabetes doesn't strike me as any worse than refusing to sell flood insurance to somebody whose home is already underwater. Decades of employment-based insurance tax subsidies has led us to wrong-headed thinking of insurance: We perceive it as the main means of paying for our health care, not simply a way to amortize risks. I'm a diabetic myself. I'd gladly pay the cost of my generic glucose-control pills out-of-pocket if it meant I could buy my own catastrophic-only insurance at a reasonable rate (slightly higher than my neighbor's, as I am a slightly higher risk for liver

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/215...3:53&out=44:14

Quoting Tara Davis: I think all but the most strident Randians would be okay with expanding coverage for the poor, but I've always wondered about the villification of pre-existing condition exclusions in health insurance.

The whole point of insurance is to m....

Have you heard the This American Life episode about rescission? It's harrowing stuff. And that's the problem of private health insurance can't solve. As a society we want to people to be insured against risks that started before they were even before. This is why the old egalitarian mutual benefit societies died out. Sophisticed actuarial methods let private insurers outcompete them, cherry-picking the least risky people. That's why we've had Medicare for 40 years, because old folks couldn't get insurance at any price. That's how most countries wound up with socialized medicine, after repeated private insurance industry adverse selection death spirals. That's why famed libertarian Milton Friedman advocated socialized catastrophic insurance (government picks up everything after $25,000 [Kerry had that too, not that anyone noticed]). The Health Insurance Exchange (part of the Obama/House plan) would allow people to comparison shop between different plans. It'd make it easy to compare and switch plans. No one could be dropped. There's a community

"Healthcare" provided by the state is shocking. I won't reel off the NHS horror stories, but take it from someone who has actually had healthcare as provided by government: don't bother. I'd rather perform operations on myself with a bottle of laudanum and a blunt spoon than have NHS doctors have a crack at it.

It seems to me that the progressive left ought to get behind what has been largely branded as a "conservative" initiative: Tort reform.

"Defensive medicine" and the enormous cost of fending off frivolous lawsuits have added a not-insignificant amount to the cost of health care in America, largely to the detriment of the poor and uninsured (or under-insured).

Could be. I'm willing to look at that. Lawyers should not be gaming the system. But that goes for Republican corporate lawyers too.

Quoting Toryentalist: "Healthcare" provided by the state is shocking. I won't reel off the NHS horror stories, but take it from someone who has actually had healthcare as provided by government: don't bother. I'd rather perform operations on myself with a bottle of laudanum and a blunt spoon than have NHS doctors have a crack at it.

Give it up. You're not going to win that game.

Quoting claymisher: Give it up. You're not going to win that game.

True...But I can try - can't I, damn it!

It also could turn into a teachable moment for Obama himself. Perhaps those classified by the media as being on the "left" do hold some things as absolutes. Other than the belief that everyone should have access to health care we should also insist on a real ban on torture, a return to the Bill of Rights for every human being, and the right to privacy. These are not things we should compromise away just to be able to say a couple of moderate Republicans supported us.

My first fear about Obama was that he would turn into LBJ -- ambitious on the domestic front, serious about poverty and social programs, but sucked into a bad war (Afghanistan). Now I'm more worried that he becomes Jimmy Carter -- ineffectual, unpopular, a one-termer, and destined to do his great things for humanity only after he leaves public office. Maybe Obama should have stayed in the Senate where he could have become a legendary liberal, like Ted Kennedy. Or maybe he should have aspired to the Supreme Court, where he also would have been a spectacularly brilliant justice. I love Obama, am thrilled that we

Quoting Wonderment: My first fear about Obama was that he would turn into LBJ -- ambitious on the domestic front, serious about poverty and social programs, but sucked into a bad war (Afghanistan).

Now I'm more worried that he becomes Jimmy Carter -- ineffectual, unpopular, a one-termer, and destined to do his great things for humanity only after he leaves public office.

Maybe Obama should have stayed in the Senate where he could have become a legendary liberal, like Ted Kennedy. Or maybe he should have aspired to the Supreme Court, where he also would have been a spectacularly brilliant justice.

I love Obama, am thrilled that we have a African American president, and am ecstatic that the Republicans are disgraced and in utter disarray. But I'm not sure Obama can deliver on his promises. Guantanamo is still open, gays are still getting kicked out of the military, universal health care is on life support, there's no plan for getting out of Afghanistan, no Bush torturer has been charged, etc., etc.

Six months and nine days.

Quoting Tara Davis: It seems to me that the progressive left ought to get behind what has been largely branded as a "conservative" initiative: Tort reform.

"Defensive medicine" and the enormous cost of fending off frivolous lawsuits have added a not-insignificant amount to the cost of health care in America, largely to the detriment of the poor and uninsured (or under-insured).

Just because the ambulance-chasing lawyers who profit off this system have a firm lock on the Democratic Party doesn't mean that the left-wing base of the party should have to put up with it, any more than small-government conservatives should feel any obligation to support anti-gay marriage laws or anti-abortion initiatives just because the party they usually find themselves allied with is likewise captivated.

A limited left-wing/libertarian/Republican alliance on tort reform could completely change the game, making health care more affordable for everybody while rendering so-called "third way" Democrats irrelevant.

Next, divorce health plan tax benefits from employment, let people opt for catastrophic-only coverage if they want, and allow interstate bidding by insurance companies, and the vast majority of problems which Obama has been saying we need to

Excellent diavlog..... But nikkibong wants to know: why does Leon Wieseltier have it in for Bob? This was the clear implication!

Tory, what about all the people I know in the military (currently and formerly) who rave about the quality of their healthcare? My impression has always been that the occasional Walter Reed's aside that the government does a great job providing healthcare to service families.

Quoting Unit: Why would libertarians want to support tort reform?

Why wouldn't they?

Six months and nine days.

El tiempo vuela.

Quoting Wonderment: El tiempo vuela.

Solo cuando uno se divierte.

I think that biting it off a chunk at a time is a more rational solution. The first bite I would like to see them take is tort reform. I don't particularly mean damage award limitation, as it is often thought and portrayed. I would like to see greater discretionary authority for the judge to impose, upon the losing party lawyers, the cost of the litigation; up to and including the winning parties fees. Right now there is great incentive to bringing suit and little if any disincentive to bringing suit. How does that old adage go 'it is better to settle for $100,000 than spend a million on a successful defense. Change the incentive structure change the behavior. The second bite should be eliminating the state barriers to having policies being written nation wide. This would likely lead to some decrease in rates due to the increased availability of possible insured. It is in this bite that preexisting conditions and other access related issues can be at least partially addressed as the likely savings will allow for some compromise.

Quoting rcocean: Why wouldn't they?

That's a different question. But whenever someone advocates govt intervention I might want to ask: 1. What's the actual failure
2. Why would the new law fix it
3. Will the new law create undesired effects...
etc...

Quoting nikkibong: Excellent diavlog.....

But nikkibong wants to know: why does Leon Wieseltier have it in for Bob? This was the clear implication!

Oh, that's obvious. Bob's an antisemite!

Notice the President leading and the bigot helping the old professor.
And then there is real Presidential leadership Forgot to attribute Don Suber

GW had a thing about holding hands.

Joel has the same criticism of Bob's book that Jerry Coyne had in TNR. One that I agree with. Coyne wrote much more extensively than Joel - and is an expert on evolutionary biology, a field in which Bob is at best a dilettante. Bob said he would reply to Coyne, point by point no less. I don't think his weird article in today's New York Times was his response. Coyne already took that apart. John Horgan had a great critique of Bob's book. Will Bob respond to that? While Wieseltier may not like Bob, the NY Times obviously does and let his buddy Paul Bloom give Bob a big wet kiss that passes for a review.

Quoting piscivorous: Notice the President leading and the bigot helping the old professor.

And then there is real Presidential leadership

"Here" is an idiot.

That's a wonderful picture of Prof. Gates and the police officer. I hope it wasn't staged. The story is one of genuine reconciliation. I hope, however, that the Obama story is not one of conciliation. Big difference.

Quoting Ocean: Six months and nine days.

And how. It occurred to me recently that I have no idea how progressive change happens in Congress, because it's been about 40 years since we've had much. So I can hardly complain about the strategy when I have no idea how winning teams play. Mark Schmitt does though. Here's what he posted this week:

... Some have suggested using reconciliation to install the rough skeleton of reform, and then fixing it later, but the act of using reconciliation in the first place is such a nuclear option that it is likely to poison the waters not just with the four semi-reasonable Republicans but also with the Democrats who are left out of the deal, and will be needed on subsequent legislation.

But what if Congress did it in reverse? Use the 60-vote Senate to pass whatever they can pass now -- we liberals will grumble but live with it -- and then use reconciliation next year to fix it. With the exchange structure and subsidies established, it wouldn't be hard to add an employer mandate, which would save money. With the rudiments of even a weak public

I cringe with your characterization that "Republicans and Blue Dogs water down the plan". It smacks of a romantic notion of sausage-grinding combined with technocratic arrogance. It's like there's a form of the health care plan awaiting a Democratic Socrates who can instruct an American Meno with only stick figures in the sand. Admittedly, I want my multipayer [hehehe, thanks claymisher] South Korean health care to carry over to Florida, but I don't want the HHS' Socrates to guide Congress to it. All of Achenbach's reporting just convinces me an American version of the Dutch or Swiss health care system is in our stars. The Dutch model might be reachable.

There was no final deal ready as The Economist went to press, but one could well come very soon. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the committee and a member of this powerful Gang of Six, reports that his group is “making progress by inches”. He defends this painstaking process as a “more careful and less partisan” approach than the one taken by the House or the Senate’s health committee. That is a big boast, but he is right.

The working group has courageously

Yglesias:

I made this point at a few seemingly key junctures during the Presidential campaign, so to return to the theme whatever questions there may be about what actions will or will not help produce comprehensive health care reform we can be fairly certain that a lot of meta-commentary from the country’s most articulate progressive voices is not going to help. Nor will Monday-morning quarterbacking. If there’s an argument about health care reform that you think more people need to hear, then make the argument don’t argue about how other people should be making the argument.

It’s difficult, of course, to critique the impulse to “go meta” without falling prey to accusations of going double meta. But I don’t think people should start criticizing communications strategy until they’ve actually exhausted the ways in which they can personally make a valuable contribution. Have you told people about the eightfold path of consumer protection included in all the draft bills on the Hill? Contacted your congressman and senators? Urged your friends and family to do so? Written letters to the editor of your local paper complaining about bad

Quoting Baltimoron: I want my multiplayer South Korean health care to carry over to Florida

Is that like Dungeons & Dragons?

I think 40 years is a sufficient period of time to stop clawing at the nail of progressive health care reform firmly embedded in its coffin.

I would agree. You are always in your comments so an idiot is always there.

It's that Brokeback Mountain cowboy thing I guess.

Quoting claymisher: And how.

It occurred to me recently that I have no idea how progressive change happens in Congress, because it's been about 40 years since we've had much. So I can hardly complain about the strategy when I have no idea how winning teams play. Mark Schmitt does though. Here's what he posted this week:

Obama has promised so much stimulus money that hasn't taken flight yet. He can always threaten key blue dogs that the money will not be delivered and voila'.

Quoting Baltimoron: I think 40 years is a sufficient period of time to stop clawing at the nail of progressive health care reform firmly embedded in its coffin.

Is that a vampire metaphor? Or also D&D? I keed!

Kudos to Joel Achenbach for keeping the dream alive (and kudos for the bhTV segment). BUT, Joel is so Apollo-minded. Strategically, the US needs to take a swipe at international agreements, like the Outer Space Treaty and proposed Moon Treaty, to allow commercial exploration and exploitation. Earthers have to get used to the lake near us before NASA can really justify pushing out farther even for scientific purposes. Give NASA and its other national competitors in the world enough rope, to run up deficits, but first let the private sector make space exploration and manned travel cheaper and safer. Tactically, there's a pearl of a quote from an NSC Planning Board paper in 1956: "a more effective and complete program " would at least partially offset the advantage of the opposition's being first. Conversely, if the United States went to orbit first, "but the USSR put on a stronger scientific program , the United States could lose its initial advantage." (This New Ocean, pp. 171-2) It's that plucky clutch, counter-punching spirit that makes me proud not to be Russian, where screw-ups and disasters turn into neuroses, and then religious denominations.

Yea it's about time to turn NASA int a version of the FAA. If the purse were set high enough there would be companies and individuals competing to get to the moon and collect it.

Quoting Baltimoron: I think 40 years is a sufficient period of time to stop clawing at the nail of progressive health care reform firmly embedded in its coffin.

What? Is this English? I have read this sentence four times now, and still have no idea what you are trying to say. How can you teach ESL when you are so obviously in need of some ESL education, yourself?

Quoting graz: Joel on Bob's God:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ach..._god.html#more

Thanks for that. Other parts of the post are more kind. It's well worth reading the whole thing in any case, which will surprise no one who already reads Achenblog.

Quoting Baltimoron: I think 40 years is a sufficient period of time to stop clawing at the nail of progressive health care reform firmly embedded in its coffin.

Never give up. Never surrender. (Even though this is stolen from a comedy, I'm serious.)

Quoting ohcomeon: Good post Wonderment. If we can't at least get the government option I'd rather we just did not pass anything comprehensive. We can continue to try to make things better incrementally but there is no reason to believe this half assed crap they are thowing out there to appease the insurance lobby and the AMA will make anything better without a public option.
It also could turn into a teachabel moment for Obama himself. Perhaps those classified by the media as being on the "left" do hold some things as absolutes. Other than the belief that everyone should have access to health care we should also insist on a real ban on torture, a return to the Bill of Rights for every human being, and the right to privacy. These are not things we should compromise away just to be able to say a couple of moderate Republicans supported us.

Awesome. I want that last sentence emblazoned everywhere.

Quoting Tara Davis: It seems to me that the progressive left ought to get behind what has been largely branded as a "conservative" initiative: Tort reform.

"Defensive medicine" and the enormous cost of fending off frivolous lawsuits have added a not-insignificant amount to the cost of health care in America, largely to the detriment of the poor and uninsured (or under-insured).

Just because the ambulance-chasing lawyers who profit off this system have a firm lock on the Democratic Party doesn't mean that the left-wing base of the party should have to put up with it, any more than small-government conservatives should feel any obligation to support anti-gay marriage laws or anti-abortion initiatives just because the party they usually find themselves allied with is likewise captivated.

A limited left-wing/libertarian/Republican alliance on tort reform could completely change the game, making health care more affordable for everybody while rendering so-called "third way" Democrats irrelevant.

Next, [...]

I agree with much of that. I'll just concentrate on the tort reform aspect for this post, and I'll also ignore the argument about how much savings this would actually generate (stipulate it to be non-trivial for

Quoting claymisher: Have you heard the This American Life episode about rescission? It's harrowing stuff. [...]

Wait. I thought the rescission was almost over. j/k Actually, that was a really solid answer -- humbling to read.

Quoting piscivorous: I think that biting it off a chunk at a time is a more rational solution. The first bite I would like to see them take is tort reform. I don't particularly mean damage award limitation, as it is often thought and portrayed. I would like to see greater discretionary authority for the judge to impose, upon the losing party lawyers, the cost of the litigation; up to and including the winning parties fees. Right now there is great incentive to bringing suit and little if any disincentive to bringing suit. How does that old adage go 'it is better to settle for $100,000 than spend a million on a successful defense. Change the incentive structure change the behavior.

The second bite should be eliminating the state barriers to having policies being written nation wide. This would likely lead to some decrease in rates due to the increased availability of possible insured. It is in this bite that preexisting conditions and other access related issues can be at least partially addressed as the likely savings will allow for some compromise.

You're the second one to mention this state barriers

Quoting piscivorous: It's that Brokeback Mountain cowboy thing I guess.

LOL! Actually, I was just about to say is that all you've proven with your photographic evidence is: Bush is gay. NTTAWWT. [Added] And to tell you the truth, that looks like a come-along hold that the cop has on Prof. Gates. ;^)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Tory, what about all the people I know in the military (currently and formerly) who rave about the quality of their healthcare? My impression has always been that the occasional Walter Reed's aside that the government does a great job providing healthcare to service families.

You're right. Anything to do with weapons/soldiers/machines designed for mass killing, and big government works! I'm sure the government takes care of the military, and so it should. But the quality of healthcare will never be matched for plebs like us. What I favour is a means tested system so that the poor can - yes a conservative acknowledged poverty! - get the best help available for free. What we have now are champagne socialists clogging up a system so that they can be 'egalitarian' - in the same way they buy houses in catchment areas so that they can get their kids into selective state schools, but I digress...

Quoting Toryentalist: You're right. Anything to do with weapons/soldiers/machines designed for mass killing, and big government works! I'm sure the government takes care of the military, and so it should. But the quality of healthcare will never be matched for plebs like us.

What I favour is a means tested system so that the poor can - yes a conservative acknowledged poverty! - get the best help available for free. What we have now are champagne socialists clogging up a system so that they can be 'egalitarian' - in the same way they buy houses in catchment areas so that they can get their kids into selective state schools, but I digress...

What of portability and keeping people with chronic illnesses in the system? A big part of the problem with multi-payer is that the need for health care makes your ability to keep your health care coverage that much more tenuous.

With your permission, sir!

Quoting piscivorous: I think that biting it off a chunk at a time is a more rational solution. The first bite I would like to see them take is tort reform.
...
The second bite should be eliminating the state barriers to having policies being written nation wide. .

I would add a third bite being eliminating state mandates that shape policies. They make it like purchasing cable TV. Why pay for 300 stations when you only utilize 20? Why force males to buy insurance that covers mamograms?? Unfortunately the current House bill does not decrease mandates but increases them. Which is only one of the reasons it needs to be stopped. Here is one way to do your part. 950,000 and counting.
(Yes...another 50K signatures since yesterday...people are waking up.)

Gee I seem to recall something about drugs and seniors being passed recently. Agree with the way it is structured or not; don't deny it got passed. Each state has separate requirements as to what are the required services to be covered by what type of policy. If the government was to come in and set a standard the all 50 states were required to recognize companies would not have to administer 20, 30,... 50 policies. This would be the defacto state of affairs if the "government plan" option is implemented. The difference being no taxpayer subsidy so free-market competition is still viable. They also need to establish one level (not the right word) of reporting. Right now the various forms used to report to the various state agencies is nearly bewildering. One of my friends is an independent insurance dealer. I do his tech stuff and once taken a fairly serious look at trying to automate some of the reporting stuff for him. While the insurance companies are all moving to online reporting, primarily browser based form fill out stuff, they each have different forms and different reporting requirements for

Quoting nikkibong: My, you really are an ignorant asshole, aren't you?

Take your stupid slanders elsewhere.

Nikkibong, as some would say, you misconstrued American culture.
Nikkibong, Russians are not one of the groups protected by Political Correctness and we are, um, happy that way.
Go away and protect someone else. Beat it, nikkibong! Created in struggle by unhappy race.

Ahem:

Health reform made simple
Kudos to the Times for a story that, for once, emphasizes the remarkable unity of vision health reformers are showing, rather than the squabbles that are an inevitable part of passing major legislation.

The essence is really quite simple: regulation of insurers, so that they can’t cherry-pick only the healthy, and subsidies, so that all Americans can afford insurance.

Everything else is about making that core work. Individual mandates are a way to prevent gaming of the system by people who don’t sign up until they’re sick; employer mandates a way to hold down the on-budget costs by preventing a rush by employers to drop insurance; the public option a way to create effective competition and hold costs down further.

But what it means for the individual will be that insurers can’t reject you, and if your income is relatively low, the government will help pay your premiums.

That’s it. Any commentator who whines that he just doesn’t understand it is basically saying that he doesn’t want to understand it.

-- http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...m-made-simple/

Quoting piscivorous: Gee I seem to recall something about drugs and seniors being passed recently. Agree with the way it is structured or not; don't deny it got passed.

Calm yourself. I said "we haven't been able to get very much done," not "we haven't gotten anything done." I won't comment on how much this is a good program or was really just a way for Bush to help his Big Pharma cronies make more money, but I will note that this did nothing for everyone under 65 or whatever the cutoff is -- no way for young people to get cheap coverage against catastrophes, no way for 18-65 year-olds to be able to quit a job without worry, etc. So, "not much."

Each state ...

Thanks for the details in this section.

Quoting claymisher: Ahem:

-- http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...m-made-simple/

Krugman has turned into a cheerleader for something that not only has no legs but has no guts. Reading the article he is extolling sounds like he is volunteering to be the lipstick. "Look at me, Look at me, Nobel prize winning economist...no reason to look at the details of the PIG" Here's a few clues: "ultimately lead to coverage for about 95 percent of Americans and create a new government-run insurance program. " 85% of Americans are covered right now so the added 10% probably has us paying for illegals and forcing those who choose not to get it, to get it.
Ya get it??

"Five Democrats joined all 23 Republicans on the panel in voting no." Cool!! a bi-partisan consensus!!! OK...maybe not so much. “The glory days are coming to an end for the health insurance industry,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday. Yeah we certainly do not want American companies experiencing any glory. I can go on if you wish. Every paragraph in the article PK is pointing to is fraught with either aggrandizment of horrible ideas, innuendo, and/or just plain bullshit. Preying on the ignorant. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Actually not that

Quoting Whatfur: 85% of Americans are covered right now ...

(*snickers*) Love the Wingnut Big Lie Approach. Love it. Up is down! Blacks are the real racists! Bush is great! We never liked Bush! Obama is Hitler and Chamberlain AT THE SAME TIME! Global warming is a hoax! Saddam actually did have WMDs! Kerry never served in Vietnam! Reagan won the Cold War! US healthcare is the best in the world!

Saddam actually did have WMDs!

And he was behind 9/11. Iraq: Bush's gift that keeps on giving.

Quoting bjkeefe: [i](*snickers*)[/]!

Using Congressional Democrats figure of 47 million for the number of uninsured. A conservative figure for the U.S. population at this point is about 305 million. 305-47/305= 84.5% Do the math, and then try responding without sounding like both an idiot and an 8 year old. Just for fun, lets reduce that by 12 million of illegals in that number, the 9 million who can afford insurance and choose not to, the 8 million children who are mistakenly not being included on their parents employment-based insurance, and the 3.5 million who are already eligible for government healthcare but have not signed up and we get the figure I could have used of: 305-(47-31)/305= 94.7%. How did a prick like you ever become a moderator here?

Quoting Whatfur: How did a prick like you ever become a moderator here?

Thanks for letting us know that (*snickers*) also gets to you.

Quoting Whatfur: 94.7%.

ROFL! Double down on the Big Lie!

In my boundless hubris, I have an outline for health care reform. I put it forth so that everyone can tear it to shreds. Should be interesting: 1. Make health insurance legally mandatory. The only way to guarantee health coverage for the people who don't have it is to deal with the "adverse selection" problem: in this instance the incentive for young, relatively healthy people to boost their take-home pay by not buying insurance. We require drivers to have liability insurance; there's no good reason why users of the health care system (i.e., everyone) shouldn't be required to purchase health cover. 2. Prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies should be allowed to charge higher premiums for people who are going to cost them more money, but health care is enough of a public good (healthier workforce=richer happier society, etc.) to require that they cover everyone. 3. End the tax break for corporations to provide health insurance. This is hugely distortionary. It drives up health care costs by removing any incentive for consumers of health care to hold costs down. It makes the labor force less mobile--people feel tied to their

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks for letting us know that (*snickers*) also gets to you.
ROFL! Double down on the Big Lie!

Silly, silly Perez. Nothing to add. Unable to disprove. Throw feathers and flail around as your dress billows in your face. Number of uninsured. Population Data. Math lesson for Perez.

Your modest proposal is not so modest actually: the reason being that 1. and 2. for instance cannot stand alone. You cannot make insurance mandatory without allowing insurance companies to charge different rates according to risk. In the political process people will start shooting at some of the legs of your proposal and then it all crumbles. [Edited crucial typo]

Quoting rfrobison: In my boundless hubris, I have an outline for health care reform. I put it forth so that everyone can tear it to shreds. Should be interesting:

1. Make health insurance legally mandatory.

The only way to guarantee health coverage for the people who don't have it is to deal with the "adverse selection" problem: in this instance the incentive for young, relatively healthy people to boost their take-home pay by not buying insurance. We require drivers to have liability insurance; there's no good reason why users of the health care system (i.e., everyone) shouldn't be required to purchase health cover.

2. Prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions.

Insurance companies should be allowed to charge higher premiums for people who are going to cost them more money, but health care is enough of a

Quoting rfrobison: In my boundless hubris, I have an outline for health care reform. I put it forth so that everyone can tear it to shreds. Should be interesting ...

These proposals aren't new or earth-shattering, but they would, in my opinion, go some way to addressing the weaknesses of the U.S. health care system without requiring that the current system be torn down an rebuilt from scratch at astronomical, job-destroying cost.

Now, tell me where my "modest proposal" comes up short.

Good job! You invented the Wyden plan! Great minds think alike. Here's a great little article that gives some global context. I think we're gonna wind up with something pretty similar to the House/Obama plan, and the only big difference between your plan and that is the employer deduction. Messing with the employer connection freaks the shit outta people so politically it's not worth the cost in the short run (although there is talk of a cap on the employer deduction). But once the dam on reform is broken I'm hopeful we'll see more improvements in the years to come. I'm also with you on the state-level monopolies. I didn't even know about that until a

Quoting Whatfur: ... Perez ... your dress ...

Thanks for letting us know I scored on you again.

Part One...
Hubris it is then. Now that Perez is off hangin with Bert and Ernie; I actually would like to go back to the picture I painted earlier because after I threw the numbers together it actually was rather surprising and also looking at a couple other articles concerning not only Obamacare in its current form as the House bill but also the relative makeup of the demographics of the uninsured it became more so. I am not putting these thoughts together in an effort to win the Nobel Prize in economics but I have to admit that after reading Mr. Krugman religiously for some time I have come to the conclusion that their critieria for awarding said prize cannot be all that inspiring. He proves to be a rather lazy man who although can sometimes put a couple sentences together, seems to write much of the time knowing he is the emperor and that as far as many of his most avid fans go; it does not really matter whether he is clothed or not. The conscience of a liberal indeed. With that said, lets

Quoting bjkeefe: You're the second one to mention this state barriers problem (Tara was the other, I think). I don't know about this, so I'm asking for my own edification: Why do we have these restrictions? Is it actual law that prevents companies from writing policies in different states? Or is it companies not wanting to write policies in states where they don't like the local requirements or something like that? (Thanks in advance.)

Companies can't sell policies across state lines. Basically, the concern is about cherry-picking and about regulations. The regulations vary a lot by state, so one issue is that in getting rid of the barriers you both encourage a race to the bottom (or the development of insurance-company favorable laws) by some states, in order to attract the companies there. You also end up with the insurance companies in states with fewer regulations being able to get the good risk customers with cheaper prices, making it much tougher or impossible for the states to maintain the stronger restrictions. Thus, one reason why lots of conservatives love the idea of getting rid of these barriers, even though one could argue that

Quoting stephanie: Companies can't sell policies across state lines. Basically, the concern is about cherry-picking and about regulations. [...]

Thanks much, Stephanie. That helped.

Here are some reasons not to change what we have... 1.Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2.Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3.Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4.Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5.Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6.Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.
7.People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
8.Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9.Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
10.Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. Details...

How about that Canadian Healthcare?

I understand that there are arguments to be made against the health care bills currently in Congress. And that some of the arguments are actually, maybe, just a little bit legitimate. But let me ask you a question, whatfur: late at night, in those dark hours of the soul, do you ever ask yourself why you are expending so much energy on opposition to a health care expansion to the neediest in our society? Or, to put it differently: How do you live with yourself?

Oops...reply all! Bureau of rationing.

Quoting nikkibong: I understand that there are arguments to be made against the health care bills currently in Congress. And that some of the arguments are actually, maybe, just a little bit legitimate.

But let me ask you a question, whatfur: late at night, in those dark hours of the soul, do you ever ask yourself why you are expending so much energy on opposition to a health care expansion to the neediest in our society?

Or, to put it differently:

How do you live with yourself?

How do you live being so ignorant? You obviously know nothing about it.
Ask someone on the street there in China about their healthcare. Educate yourself. Dumb ass. The neediest in our society are being taken care of and we don't need to gut everybody elses if we wish to do more.

Quoting nikkibong: I understand that there are arguments to be made against the health care bills currently in Congress. And that some of the arguments are actually, maybe, just a little bit legitimate.

But let me ask you a question, whatfur: late at night, in those dark hours of the soul, do you ever ask yourself why you are expending so much energy on opposition to a health care expansion to the neediest in our society?

Or, to put it differently:

How do you live with yourself?

Quoting Whatfur: How do you live being so ignorant? You obviously know nothing about it. [...] Educate yourself. Dumb ass. [...]

Yeah, nikkibong. Why aren't you getting all of your information from the Hoover Institution, the Washington "Moonie" Times, and the former Assistant to George W. Bush for Economic Policy?

Quoting rfrobison: In my boundless hubris, I have an outline for health care reform. I put it forth so that everyone can tear it to shreds. Should be interesting:

I agree with most of this but have sopme questions/comments however you wish to take them

Quoting rfrobison: 1. Make health insurance legally mandatory.

The only way to guarantee health coverage for the people who don't have it is to deal with the "adverse selection" problem: in this instance the incentive for young, relatively healthy people to boost their take-home pay by not buying insurance. We require drivers to have liability insurance; there's no good reason why users of the health care system (i.e., everyone) shouldn't be required to purchase health cover.

There are plenty of non-insured drivers on the road. How do you get to those that live in the cash economy that make use health services.

Quoting rfrobison: 2. Prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions.

Insurance companies should be allowed to charge higher premiums for people who are going to cost them more money, but health care is enough of a public good (healthier workforce=richer happier society, etc.) to require that they cover everyone.

What reasonable rate

Quoting Whatfur:
How about that Canadian Healthcare?

Yes, how about that Canadian health care?

Also, You Are More Likely To Be Killed By A Sasquatch There

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, how about that Canadian health care?

And what's this? Not another wingnut getting his facts utterly wrong about Canadian health care! No one could have predicted ...

That's almost as good as the English NICE deciding that they are spending too much on hormonal treatment for pain for seniors. Instead they will probably be reverted to much less expensive NSAIDs. For a couple of weeks my father had been taken Celebrex (NSAIDs)to counter extreme swelling and pain in his hands. Not only did it not help, his conditions deteriorated markedly. Finally got him to the rheumatologist and a prescription for some steroids and two days latter swelling was markedly reduced and pain was mostly gone; less than two weeks and he played golf Friday. All systems ration, the real question is about who decides the rationing isn't it?

I think Joel has got to have THE most back handed compliments of all time. Just wave after wave of iron gauntleted fingers to the face. And yet he does not seem to be malevolent, just his way. Anyway, it makes for amusing interactions with Bob.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah, nikkibong. Why aren't you getting all of your information from the Hoover Institution, the Washington "Moonie" Times, and the former Assistant to George W. Bush for Economic Policy?

Yes, instead let Brendan "ad hominem" Keefe point you to an ultra-left web sites that cherry pick stats from others.

I think some of these are good ideas. The problem you run into (as did the McCain plan and any alternative Republican-style reform plan) is that the proposals are no less likely to worry or threaten people who are okay with the current situation for themselves, without as good a mechanism for at least making sure that some kind of affordable insurance/care will be available as the current Dem proposals have. But perhaps you can convince me that I'm wrong about this.

Quoting rfrobison: In my boundless hubris, I have an outline for health care reform. I put it forth so that everyone can tear it to shreds. Should be interesting:

1. Make health insurance legally mandatory.

As someone else said, the problem with this is that some people just won't comply. Then what? Refuse them emergency care (however that is defined)? Their kids? Give them the care and then force them to pay the gov't back (which seems non-feasible in most cases)? What?

The only way to guarantee health coverage for the people who don't have it is to deal with the "adverse selection" problem: in this instance the incentive for young, relatively healthy people

shorter pisc and tara: I'd rather ignore the health care issue entirely except as a segue into my pre-existing plan to screwing the powerless even more!!! fuck tort reform.

Quoting Whatfur: Yes, instead let Brendan "ad hominem" Keefe point you to an ultra-left web sites that cherry pick stats from others.

Care to give some examples? If you're talking about this one, I would say that rather than "cherry picking stats," what is offered are numerous examples that contradict assertions you have made that Canadian health is in all ways inferior to current US health care, and your insistence that mortality and/or illness rates (IIRC) could be used to support this assertion.

Stephanie, good ideas. Now, consider: tax the pharmaceutical companies. I'd like to see the purpose of business changed as well. Now it generally legally is to maximize profits for investors. There isn't any reason it must be that way. We can make it a percentage of income, tax the rest and use the funds for the uninsured. The latest research does clearly shows that managing "things" is not the path to happiness. Yes we have to manage energy costs, military costs, food costs and general government costs and that is all possible. The environmental concerns are less certain, more challenging. Americans are specialists in such situations once we address them. On the global business scale we can move within the UN system to share more of the costs which will keep more of the world safe as the military blends across cultures and countries. We can examine all our assumptions in light of the global health risks, remedies, travel speed and this thing we're writing on, the internet. Identifying and confronting paranoia, challenging hate and shaping new economic markets could well be our work in the 21st century. Why "modest" for any proposal--effective is a better word

Quoting SherrieN: Stephanie, good ideas.

Just to be clear, they aren't mine, they are rfrobison's.

tax the pharmaceutical companies.

Beyond the rate at which we tax other businesses?

Why "modest" for any proposal--effective is a better word choice. When human life is involved modesty is seriously misplaced.

Obligatory Swift reference? Joke? rfrobison will have to answer.

Quoting bjkeefe: And what's this? Not another wingnut getting his facts utterly wrong about Canadian health care! No one could have predicted ...

And here's one getting his facts wrong about American health care. Course, we know what his name is, so this shouldn't be too much of a surprise ...

Just when they thought it was safe to go back in the water... and as a bonus... You could be number 1,000,000!!!!

I'm grateful to Joel, among many others, for calling Bob to account for his afterword. If we are in a position where the promise for greater cooperation and freedom appears possible, this is due to the human struggles of women and men, across time and across cultures, some of whom can be found in prisons this day. To suggest that these hard-won victories can be attributed to some inevitable external force is, to say the least, bloody insulting.

You missed your chance to be number 1,000,000!!!!! But you still can join the 1008917+!!!

One Minor Quibble About EOG!

For those who want crib notes to the HC bill.

Quoting stephanie: Companies can't sell policies across state lines. Basically, the concern is about cherry-picking and about regulations. The regulations vary a lot by state, so one issue is that in getting rid of the barriers you both encourage a race to the bottom (or the development of insurance-company favorable laws) by some states, in order to attract the companies there. You also end up with the insurance companies in states with fewer regulations being able to get the good risk customers with cheaper prices, making it much tougher or impossible for the states to maintain the stronger restrictions. Thus, one reason why lots of conservatives love the idea of getting rid of these barriers, even though one could argue that keeping the barriers and the state-specific regulations allows for the kind of state differences and experimentation which is usually part of the conservative argument for federalism.

There's also a concern, because the current protections in place are quite state-specific, and entities exist to protect consumers within the state from insurance companies licensed there. If the insurance company wasn't licensed there and not subject to state laws, the

Quoting Unit: But it's exactly because these barriers reduce the cherry-picking that there are lots of healthy uninsured who don't get the sweet deals that would induced them to get coverage.

Yeah, it's a trade-off. Insurance companies would probably rather not sell to bad risks or cover certain things, but would sell cheaper policies to good risks or which covered only catastrophic events, no question. Problem is, that doesn't solve the problem, but only one small portion of it (and you still get lots of people in those categories who would probably choose to risk it, but who we feel compelled as a society to pay for certain care for). As far as what the best way is to handle the trade off, states so far have made different decisions and it makes some sense to let them experiment with what works best. Without barriers, though, you force everyone into a model that various states currently do not prefer.

Also what are state-specific protections for consumers worth if at the same time states protect their insurance companies from competition?

Competition does not substitute for consumer protection laws or

Quoting stephanie: Yeah, it's a trade-off. Insurance companies would probably rather not sell to bad risks or cover certain things, but would sell cheaper policies to good risks or which covered only catastrophic events, no question. Problem is, that doesn't solve the problem, but only one small portion of it (and you still get lots of people in those categories who would probably choose to risk it, but who we feel compelled as a society to pay for certain care for).

As far as what the best way is to handle the trade off, states so far have made different decisions and it makes some sense to let them experiment with what works best. Without barriers, though, you force everyone into a model that various states currently do not prefer.

I never understood the concept that "without barriers you force...". Without barriers consumers rule, it's my understanding. Car insurance is higher for young healthy males (understandably so), but health insurance is not allowed to be cheaper for that same group. Adverse selection is a law-induced problem.

Competition does not substitute for consumer protection laws or regulations. I'm not saying that I think all of the

Quoting Unit: I never understood the concept that "without barriers you force...". Without barriers consumers rule, it's my understanding.

Do you not understand the mechanism that results in differences between the various regulation schemes selected by the states being lost? Or are you simply saying that you don't care, because you oppose any regulations or most of them? As a pragmatic matter, I'm not convinced that it's at all clear that you end up with net fewer regulations if you get rid of barriers, although that's the pressure initially, if nothing else is done to address the situation. Mostly, I think what would be certain is that we'd lose most of diversity between the states. However, enough people think the various regulations are important (or don't understand the costs) that most likely what ends up happening is that federal regulations replace a lot of those that exist in some states and some mechanism is created to replace the state insurance commissions. We end up having to decide as a country what the insurance companies are required to do and who is included within the various pools and so on, rather

"The gentleman at the Hoyer townhall produced the zinger of the day by challenging Hoyer on how Congress could try to force the takeover of the American health-care industry in roughly a fifth of the time it took Barack Obama to pick out a dog for his kids." Funny and sad but true.

Quoting Whatfur:
"The gentleman at the Hoyer townhall ...

First, you're plagiarizing. Here's the original, written by someone else you couldn't be bothered to credit. Second, as to the "gentleman" part, clearly, we're talking about a unique individual. The rest of the mouth-breathers at the Hoyer event were anything but. And here's a report on the Astroturfed disruption at a Lloyd Doggett townhall. Excerpt:

Here’s some footage of birfer types (via) at a Lloyd Doggett townhall, chanting “Just say no” and waving pictures of Doggett with devil’s horns on them:

[see embedded video at orig. post]

A few points here:

* I’m not sure “just say no” is a great slogan for Republicans.
* The crowd has the same trailer park vibe I got from some of the crazier Palin rallies in the ‘08 election.

I’ll have to see a bit more of this, but at this point, I think the Republican strategy of sending birfer bridages to shout at the devil is a dangerous one. Even in a conservative-friendly media environment, it’s going to be hard for the tea-ruptions to portrayed as anything other than fringe lunacy.

Good to know the House Minority Leader, John Boehner praises corporate-organized mobs disrupting meetings instead of preferring to allow any actual adult discussion, though. The

Quoting Whatfur: For those who want crib notes to the HC bill.

For those who think a collection of Twitter messages counts as something substantive, please wait for Sarah Palin's memoirs.

Quoting bjkeefe: For those who think a collection of Twitter messages counts as something substantive, please wait for Sarah Palin's memoirs.

Nice to see someone actually read it. Maybe you have an example from someone on the left who has done something similar. You know...read the bill and itemized all the things good about it. ????

How about you wait for Obama's memoirs...oh wait he has already written two. Although, from what I understand Bill Ayers wrote one of them. Hahahahaha.

Nice to see you are educating yourself at HotAir now. Maybe there is hope for you. ...oh and if I meant to plagerize, fagboy, I probably would not have put quotes around it...Duuuhhh! Actually meant to link back from it...but I see you have done that for me, Thanks!!!

And who was it who instructed his followers to "get in the face" of dissenters again?? Still looking for that leg to stand on I see.

Quoting Whatfur: How about you wait for Obama's memoirs...oh wait he has already written two. Although, from what I understand Bill Ayers wrote one of them.

Wingnut delusion has no bottom. Of course, this is something else 'fur has plagiarized. This time, from Jack Cashill.

Quoting bjkeefe: And here's a report on the Astroturfed disruption at a Lloyd Doggett townhall.

And here's a telling observation about one of the bused-in "protesters" at another townhall meeting.

Quoting bjkeefe: And here's a telling observation about one of the bused-in "protesters" at another townhall meeting.

And speaking of lies, here's KO on Republican Senator Thune.

PS:

Quoting Whatfur: ... I meant to plagerize, fagboy ...

Thanks for admitting it (misspelling notwithstanding), and thanks, once again, for letting us know I scored on you.

Quoting Whatfur: ... the takeover of the American health-care industry ...

Bob Cesca:

Healthcare Reform Seized By Wingnuts

Okay, I'll admit that I'm a little concerned about this tea party town hall anti-reform loud noises movement.

Between the $1.4 million per day being spent to lobby and advertise against healthcare reform, we now have a largely self-defeating crowd of middle-aged, middle class American wingnuts who are disrupting town hall meetings and manufacturing an artificial perception that normal Americans of all stripes are against healthcare reform -- not just the public option -- but healthcare reform in general. In other words, if enough of these town hall meetings are seized by loud noises, I worry that it might be enough to swing some moderate lawmakers away from any sort of decent legislation.

Elsewhere, there's a conventional wisdom being formed right now. A vibe is beginning to take shape: healthcare reform is losing steam, they say. You hear it on cable news, you hear it on the radio and it's floating around in certain circles online. These protests only serve to enhance and feed that vibe -- however fake it all might be.

The tea party people know this and

I see my constant besting of you has you feeling a little blue. ...but don't go a way mad...just go away

Quoting Whatfur: [IMG]http://kehuntley.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/perez-hilton.jpg[/IMG]

...just go away

[IMG]http://antzinpantz.com/kns/images/apr09/16290034sh6.jpg[/IMG]

Thanks for letting us know I scored on you again. I gotta say, though, even for someone as unimaginative as you, it's hard to believe you can't think of anything better as a comeback than an endless succession of these pictures. You sure do seem to have a lot of them, though. I wonder what that says about you. Having trouble being honest, even with yourself?

More from HotAir!!! Dueling ads. Mad Scientist? Then something from the calm, rational ones. Oh and in case you were wondering what the "mob rule looks like".

Quoting stephanie: Do you not understand the mechanism that results in differences between the various regulation schemes selected by the states being lost? Or are you simply saying that you don't care, because you oppose any regulations or most of them?

I'm saying that you can't "force" by removing barriers. You are making a lot of predictions on what would happen once the barriers are removed, so I can't really follow you there. But what is clear is that the changes that would ensue would be driven by the feedback from consumers making choices and switching coverage (I'm simplifying here).

As a pragmatic matter, I'm not convinced that it's at all clear that you end up with net fewer regulations if you get rid of barriers, although that's the pressure initially, if nothing else is done to address the situation. Mostly, I think what would be certain is that we'd lose most of diversity between the states. However, enough people think the various regulations are important (or don't understand the costs) that most likely what ends up happening is that federal regulations replace a lot of those that exist in

Quoting Whatfur: Oh and in case you were wondering what the "mob rule looks like" ...

... wonder no more. ... wonder no more. ... wonder no more.

It's a numbers game. Make yourself count: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/commitaugust

Take it from the man with the righteous beard:

Don Briggs of the Democratic Alliance of Northwest Indiana explains how it's done. Get your folks there early; have people sign in; start the meeting by pointing out that there are organized efforts at disruption; and have the cops present. By saying "There are people here to disrupt the meeting" you put the disrupters in a tough spot; every time they act out, they confirm your accusation.

Oh, yes: and have a Congressman smart enough to say "Medicare" the first time someone says "government-run health insurance."

If the Teabaggers get enough progressives riled up to come out to the town halls, they will have done us a favor.

Sign up today! I did it! I'll meet you there! http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/commitaugust

Quoting claymisher: It's a numbers game. Make yourself count:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/commitaugust

Thanks for posting. On a related note, here's an email I got a short while ago from DemocracyForAmerica:

Brendan -

You may have seen it: An angry mob in Texas carrying fake tombstones with Rep. Lloyd Doggett's name on it. Signs with an "SS" symbol on it calling Obama a Nazi. A cardboard version of Rep. Frank Kratovil hanged in effigy outside his district office by "Teabaggers" in Maryland.

The Right-Wing Scream Machine is back.

Who are they? So-called "Birthers" who think President Obama's birth certificate is a fake. "Teabaggers" who don't want to pay taxes for schools, police, or roads. And they're backed up by insurance industry and right-wing funded front groups who are encouraging Republicans to disrupt healthcare townhalls anyway they can throughout August.

Their goal isn't to debate or get their voices heard. Their goal is to stop any kind of civil dialogue.

That's not how we enact thoughtful reform. It's important that we aren't drawn into their divisive tactics and discredit our broad-based bipartisan support for real reform. And it's up to us to make sure they don't drown out America's support for the choice of a public

Quoting bjkeefe: And speaking of lies, here's KO on Republican Senator Thune.

And speaking of lying Republican Senators, here's WaPo Business Columnist Steven Pearlstein:

You'll pardon me if I say that Jim DeMint's idea of health reform is thin gruel. It will do little toward moving toward universal coverage, little to bend the cost curve on health care expenditures and little to improve the quality of care and the efficiency of the system. It will also be regressive in its effect. As a health reformer, Jim DeMint is a fraud, and for the last 10 years he and his party have done exactly zero about this huge problem for the economy and for the American people. Nothing. Nada. His ideas also are not supported by a majority of the elected people in Congress, so in addition to being inadequate in a policy sense, they have no political viability. Other than that, though, they're swell.

(h/t: Attaturk)

Quoting Unit: I'm saying that you can't "force" by removing barriers.

Okay, I actually forget how I phrased it initially, but I'm not especially wedded to the word "force." The point is that it removes barriers which currently allow the states to set up their own diverse set of regulations. It's one of those areas where the libertarian principles kind of conflict with traditional conservativism (as with lots of other barrier-type and community choice type issues, such as zoning laws).

You are making a lot of predictions on what would happen once the barriers are removed, so I can't really follow you there. But what is clear is that the changes that would ensue would be driven by the feedback from consumers making choices and switching coverage (I'm simplifying here).

Not entirely or even predominantly. It would be driven by companies choosing what laws they want governing them. Kind of like how cities and states get into bidding wars over the perks they can give some corporation for locating there.

"we" is not well defined and "society" has no feelings. I'm not sure what your point is here.

My point is that we

Nice. I think this (from their marching orders) speaks volumes:

Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate

Quoting stephanie: Okay, I actually forget how I phrased it initially, but I'm not especially wedded to the word "force." The point is that it removes barriers which currently allow the states to set up their own diverse set of regulations. It's one of those areas where the libertarian principles kind of conflict with traditional conservativism (as with lots of other barrier-type and community choice type issues, such as zoning laws).

Right, so I'm all for removing barriers.

Not entirely or even predominantly. It would be driven by companies choosing what laws they want governing them. Kind of like how cities and states get into bidding wars over the perks they can give some corporation for locating there.

Yes companies will decide how to behave and the successful will go on surviving, the unsuccessful will fail, depending on how well consumers are treated.

My point is that we (i.e., the majority, many voters, whatever) typically have a concern about health care beyond their own private interests (or at least beyond their own private interests right now).

Sure the majority might have concerns of all kinds so why not let them vote with their

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Nice. I think this (from their marching orders) speaks volumes:

This is rather funny Unc., since I have posted actual information about the Obamacare bill for days and I have yet to see anything from any of you...except for maybe Stephanie...debating anything! How about you pick something you like from the bill and we can debate it? Anything!?!

And speaking of Thugs...more of the Chicago way. and I have not seen this mentioned here. Just imagine if the last administration did anything like this. Culture of Corruption indeed!!! How about Malkin on BH?

WSJ
"Because Mr. Obama has incorrectly diagnosed the problems with our health-care system, any reform based on his priorities would worsen the current inefficiencies. Americans would pay even more for lower quality and less access to care. This doesn’t sound like reform we can believe in."

We call them the way we see them and if we don't see them we make them up. Wow, just like Perez!!!

Quoting Whatfur: WSJ

"Because Mr. Obama has incorrectly diagnosed the problems with our health-care system, any reform based on his priorities would worsen the current inefficiencies. Americans would pay even more for lower quality and less access to care. This doesn’t sound like reform we can believe in."

By ARTHUR B. LAFFER

No, U funny.

Been meaning to ask, do you get your name from the Russian Gun...one of the few semi-automatic handguns that are silencer ready.

Quoting graz:

By ARTHUR B. LAFFER

No, U funny.

More from 'fur's source:

DOOF QUOTE OF THE DAY

"If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and health care done by the government." —Arthur Laffer on CNN

More reaction:

Hey, Mister Postman

Art Laffer (why is he, of all people, on my TV?) asks what it will be like when the government runs Medicare and Medicaid.

But I’d raise a further question: he warns that when the government takes over these, um, government programs, they’ll be like the Post Office and the DMV. Why, exactly, are these public functions unquestioned bywords for “something bad”?

Maybe I’m living a sheltered life here in central New Jersey, but I don’t find the Post Office a terrible experience — no worse than Fedex or UPS. (Full disclosure: I worked as a temp mailman when in college.) And nobody likes going to the DMV, but the one on Rt. 1 I go to always seems fairly well managed.

And in general: is dealing with these government agencies any worse than, say, dealing with the cable company?

The prejudice against government seems to have become free-floating, unattached to any actual experience.

On principle I'm against tort reform. Tort suits are a great way to manage society, with less government regulation. If you screw up, you can be sued... so people take measures to not screw up. Doctors are fallible and will make mistakes. Being able to sue them likely translates into fewer mistakes on their part, and that's a good thing, I think. And from what I've read law suits aren't even a major reason why medical costs are what they are.

Quoting bjkeefe: Quoting PK: The prejudice against government seems to have become free-floating, unattached to any actual experience.

Ooooo some more sage advice from Paul Krugman. Probably made about 10k for those couple paragraphs. Once again maybe instead of focusing on being able to drop a letter off and buy a stamp; the Nobel prize winning economist might have wanted to drill down to the fact that the post office has lost almost 5 billion dollars so far this year. Hey Perez, need a stick to dig that shit out of your shoes? I know it is arrogant to quote oneself but I cannot resist...

Quoting GivingWhatfur: He proves to be a rather lazy man who although can sometimes put a couple sentences together, seems to write much of the time knowing he is the emperor and that as far as many of his most avid fans go; it does not really matter whether he is clothed or not.

Sometimes I wish it were not so easy.

Quoting Whatfur: Hey Perez ...

Thanks for letting us know I scored on you again.

One of the most eye-opening experiences of my adult life was when I went from the Hawthorne DMV, which was one of the worst experiences imaginable, to the Santa Monica DMV, (a downright pleasure, took 5 minutes.) In Santa Monica where the relatively affluent live, the DMV was well-staffed with intelligent, courteous people and there were more personnel than probably needed so that the result was fast, efficient service. In Hawthorne the workers were unfortunately of the attitude that permeates stereotypes of "government workers": very slow, not particularly helpful etc. The Hawthorne DMV was obviously serving a much larger population, including 5-10 cities nearby, so it's hard to say whether that was the main difference. But it was noticeable that there was such a tremendous difference in the experience, with the lower-income area (of course) getting the lesser end of the deal.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: One of the most eye-opening experiences of my adult life was when I went from the Hawthorne DMV, which was one of the worst experiences imaginable, to the Santa Monica DMV, (a downright pleasure, took 5 minutes.) In Santa Monica where the relatively affluent live, the DMV was well-staffed with intelligent, courteous people and there were more personnel than probably needed so that the result was fast, efficient service. In Hawthorne the workers were unfortunately of the attitude that permeates stereotypes of "government workers": very slow, not particularly helpful etc. The Hawthorne DMV was obviously serving a much larger population, including 5-10 cities nearby, so it's hard to say whether that was the main difference. But it was noticeable that there was such a tremendous difference in the experience, with the lower-income area (of course) getting the lesser end of the deal.

It seems to be often the case, at least in the European country I know, that even though health-care might be nationalized the affluent parts of the country have far superior service than the poorer ones. Does it have to do with campaign contributions?

Quoting Lyle: On principle I'm against tort reform. Tort suits are a great way to manage society, with less government regulation. If you screw up, you can be sued... so people take measures to not screw up.

So the old adage that it is better to settle for a $1,000,000.00, than spend that much on lawyers and lose a million has no basis in reality from your perspective. One should be specific as to what they mean by tort reform. If one is speaking about capping and limiting punitive damage awards I would agree. To rework the rules and cost structures so that the costs of lost litigation, by the plaintiff, to the lawyers filing the losing claim I think is desirable. Currently there is little if any balance in weighing the pros and cons of filing as it is almost all up side with little risk on the down side except for the fairly rare finding that a suit was really frivolous.

Quoting Lyle: Doctors are fallible and will make mistakes. Being able to sue them likely translates into fewer mistakes on their part, and that's a good thing, I think.

That is argument

Just noticed that Bob commented on the TNR website regarding Coyne's takedown: I don't recognize the book depicted in this review--and I wrote the book! Within a few days I'll have a reply online that documents Jerry Coyne's flagrant misrepresentations of my argument. It will be posted at www.evolutionofgod.net (which, in the meanwhile, I recommend as a place to read excerpts of the book and excerpts from less tendentious reviews). --Bob Wright 7/28/09 Now if only Bob would comment here!

Quoting outlining piscivorous: ...
1. Cap and limit punitive damage awards.
2. Costs of lost litigation, by the plaintiff, to the lawyers filing the losing claim I think is desirable.
3. Make the outcomes of doctors work available online and searchable.
4. There is a difference between mistakes due to incompetence or negligence than just a mistake made by a competent physician and team...

1. Might want to address some difference in awards paid by insurance companies representing Drs. and awards paid by say Medical device mfrs. 2. I understand this is what already happens in the UK. What an easy and logical way to extract frivolity from the system. 3. Can we do this with auto mechanics too? ;o) 4. John Edwards made most his money on non-mistakes argued to look like mistakes.
Similar but different...I remember years ago talking to a programmer friend of mine who worked for an Airline and he was tasked with the job of writing the code to determine "turn back" decisions...as in a plane is flying from NYC to London and starts experiencing trouble of some sort so taking as much data that is available (prevailing wind, miles to go, miles to return, weight, fuel, plane type, etc), coming up