Quoting rcocean: I guess Dean Wormer was wrong - it *is* the way the way to go through life - as long as you're a Kennedy.

Roger Kimball has a good comment on the death of Fat Ted.

The unqualified praise for Ted Kennedy - the man - from liberals is amazing. I can understand, "well, he was on the right side of the issues, BUT...." However, from watching the MSM there is no "BUT" - its all "wow, the great Lion, the last of the Kennedy's, etc."

Face it, the man was a x@#!. Even if you think he fought for the right policies he was still a x@#!.

Speaking ill of the dead, rc? You are, I think, expressing a minority view.

Quoting AemJeff: Speaking ill of the dead, rc?...

I'd don't have a good word for Hitler, Stalin, or Mao either.
Some dead people should be criticized. Note: Not implying that Fat Ted was the equal of Hitler, Stalin. Mama Cass maybe.

Quoting rcocean: I'd don't have a good word for Hitler, Stalin, or Mao either.
Some dead people should be criticized.

Note: Not implying that Fat Ted was the equal of Hitler, Stalin. Mama Cass maybe.

Your trying to have your cake and eat it, too, dude. Either you were making the comparison or you weren't. And if you weren't, it was a pretty hollow thing to have said.

Jeff, Do you honestly believe in "De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est"? I've never understood the concept when applied to public figures. So, I've never been upset when Liberals/Lefties criticized Reagan when he died. Death is an event not an accomplishment.

Quoting rcocean: Jeff,

Do you honestly believe in "De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est"? I've never understood the concept when applied to public figures. So, I've never been upset when Liberals/Lefties criticized Reagan when he died.

Death is an event not an accomplishment.

I believe in certain norms, and I understand there's sometimes a need to violate them. I started a pretty tough thread here on the occasion of the death of Jesse Helms. I don't think it's possible to even roughly equate the two men, and I certainly think that Kennedy deserves a degree of respect.

History is full of surprises: "How Ted Kennedy helped create Bangladesh"

In 1971, the government of Pakistan, with the support of the Nixon administration, sent troops into what was then called East Pakistan, in order to contain a secessionist movement. This created a massive refugee crisis as millions streamed across the border to India. ...

"All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered and implemented under martial law from Islamabad. America's heavy support of Islamabad is nothing short of complicity in the human and political tragedy of East Bengal."

The Nixon administration maintained its stance. But Kennedy's focus on the mass killings came as everyday Americans began to share in the outrage. For instance, Beatle George Harrison's Concert for Bangladesh, the first benefit event of its kind, was staged to further highlight the plight of Bangladeshi refugees.

Besieged, the U.S. Congress pushed through a bill to ban arms sales to Pakistan.

Kennedy received a hero's welcome in Dhaka in 1972, just after Bangladesh gained independence. Yesterday, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina recalled Kennedy's role, saying, "The people of Bangladesh will remember his contribution forever."

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/..._in_bangladesh

Here's Richard Thaler, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Obama adviser, on the public option: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/bu...0thaler&st=cse It suggests (gently) that supporters are either trying to back-door the public into an NHS or are confused about economics: we have one of each here. I would be grateful for any reference to the contrary.

Just started watching, and I thought I'd note this (to self?): I had long believed that William Safire, not Frank Manciewicz, coined the term retronym. Wikipedia says:

The term retronym was coined by Frank Mankiewicz in 1980[1] and popularized by William Safire in The New York Times.[1][2]

Learn something new every day. Thanks for the heads-up, Tim. By the way, from source [1], a column by Safire:

The Merriam lexies, always strong on etymology, cite the earliest usage they can find of retronym in this column in 1980, which credited Frank Mankiewicz, then president of National Public Radio, as the coiner. He was especially intrigued by the usage hardcover book, which was originally a plain book until softcover books came along, which were originally called paperback and now have spawned a version the size of a hardcover but with a soft cover trade-named with the retronym trade paperback. I’m glad Frank is getting mintage recognition on his word to illuminate social and fashion change because his father, Herman, never got the fame he deserved for co-writing the screenplay of “Citizen Kane.”

Sorry, I'm not a close follower of Tom Delay's career, but did he kill or rape anyone? http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/221...3:30&out=13:40

Quoting rcocean: I guess Dean Wormer was wrong - it *is* the way the way to go through life - as long as you're a Kennedy.

Or a Limbaugh, amirite? (Change "drunk" to "dope-addled.")

Quoting rcocean: The unqualified praise for Ted Kennedy - the man - from liberals is amazing. I can understand, "well, he was on the right side of the issues, BUT...." However, from watching the MSM there is no "BUT" - its all "wow, the great Lion, the last of the Kennedy's, etc."

I imagine two things were at play here. First, most mainstream news organizations still have the instinct not to lead by speaking ill of the newly dead, especially when the person in question lived a life that was on balance good, and especially when the more recent decades of life showed a clear cleaning up of his act. Do not even get me started on the week-long hagiography -- from the so-called liberal media -- that we had to suffer through when Ronald Reagan died. Second, I imagine that any news editor who's at least half-aware would be sure that the death of Ted Kennedy would immediately provoke a torrent of howling from the conservative media that talked only about his flaws. So, why bother? I'd also

Quoting Namazu: Here's Richard Thaler, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Obama adviser, on the public option:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/bu...0thaler&st=cse

It suggests (gently) that supporters are either trying to back-door the public into an NHS or are confused about economics: we have one of each here. I would be grateful for any reference to the contrary.

Some takes: http://stevereads.com/weblog/2009/08...the-discourse/ http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...20a552fc35970c http://WWW.samefacts.com/archives/he...lic_option.php Thaler's a good guy. I think on this he's wrong. I think the public option has a good chance at being the most efficient. I'd like to see it given a shot.

Quoting kidneystones: [...]

Protesting overmuch, don't you think?

Why the health care debate is going South? Easy: the least trusted branch of government, led by one of the most disliked figures in government, writes a thousand-page bill which lacks clarity of purpose and leaves important questions unanswered. The President is sent out to retail this train wreck, quickly exhausting the limits of his knowledge of the subject, and revealing the design flaws of the legislation. Doesn't anyone know how to play this game? They're going to have to get better, because they're going to be hearing a lot more of this: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/221...7:26&out=27:32

Quoting claymisher: Some takes:
[snip]

Thanks for the links. I didn't find the arguments persuasive, though. A couple of common threads: - small opportunity from tort reform: actually, a KPMG study claims $210B/yr in defensive medicine costs
- advantages to scale: not really obvious in healthcare delivery, and at some point we're talking about a public non-option, and the monopsony problem has huge consequences for innovation
- government competency: key question is whose government? We're not Sweden, and we're probably not even the UK--which, by the way, has a system Americans would find totally unacceptable What seems to work well here are tightly-integrated payer/provider networks, and there are good examples of both profit and not-for-profit. Perhaps in combination with government-provided catastrophic reinsurance or risk-weighted reimbursement to avoid denial-of-coverage/adverse selection problems. And figuring out how to have more Kaiser Permanentes. Incidentally, by state, the lowest satisfaction correlates with the least competition (as you might expect), but the worst states tend to be the ones dominated by the Baby Blues.

Quoting kidneystones: My evil takes many forms.

Don't give yourself that much credit. This is really only another example of your inflated ego. Don't mistake your misanthropic personality and your twisted sense of gratification that is rewarded only by being disagreeable from behind the safety of an online pseudonym with anything as magnificent as "evil." [Added] I should say, in fairness, that your shtick of being the perpetual irritant used to have merit, a few years back, before you let your insane hatred for Obama dominate your every comment. It's a pity you've deleted so much of your past writing, because I am often asked by new arrivals to this forum "Was kidneystones always like this?" and though I say "no," I have no evidence available anymore to back that answer up.

Quoting kidneystones: You cannot cast me out for I am too strong!

Again, don't flatter yourself. No one here thinks it's worth the effort to "cast you out." By and large, you are ignored when you're not pitied or laughed at.

... I took a wife from one of the lower peoples ...

Always nice to have further confirmation of your racism. (Well, "nice" is probably not the right word.)

You're a dull fuck.

What does that say about you for continuing to read -- and hysterically react to -- my posts, then?

I confess that part of the reason I stick around here is just to wind you and the rest of the bots up.

I guess you expect thanks for telling the truth for once, but this has been as obvious as a cockroach on a fried egg since at least early 2008. Tell us something we don't already know.

Thanks for this, Mark. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has been chafing at this latest Republican lie. [Added] And thanks for this, Tim. Happy to have my nomination seconded. I really would like Bh.tv to have T. R. Reid as a guest. [Added2] Thanks also to Tim for speaking so plainly about the evil Betsy McCaughey. [Added3] I'd add that it is a really troublesome thing that despite the (better(?)-late-than-never) debunking of McCaughey's TNR-published smear of the Clinton HCR plan, it really ought to be said that our MSM has failed miserably in continuing to give her a platform without making clear her history. As others have said in a slightly different context, why is it always "the disgraced John Edwards," but never "the disgraced Newt Gingrich?" [Side note: Mickey's old piece on her, mentioned in the sidebar, is worth a read.] [Side note 2: As mentioned in the diavlog, one of the places where McCaughey continues to enjoy a platform is the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page. To that end, see this.] [Added4] Note to recent arrivals to this site: Some discussion of McCaughey's appearance on The Daily Show (with links to the video) is available in another thread. More thanks next post.

The audience wholeheartedly agrees. ========== [Added] Overall, I found this a helpful discussion about the politics of health care reform. At times I found myself thinking, "Damn, too bad this diavlog wasn't recorded six months ago, and made required viewing for every Democratic official and spokesperson." We should all have been smarter about the power of loss aversion on the average human mind, and more generally, how easily fear sells, not to mention how willing the Republicans are to go this route. Good on Mark for calling out the Dems/libs for falling into their same old circular firing squad on this. While it's good to have criticism of details of proposed policies, there has not been nearly enough appreciation of the enormity of the effort that would/will be required to push HCR through the Congress, and not nearly enough unity and support for Obama in taking this bold step. Could he be doing a better job selling this? Is he maybe a little too unrealistic in his hopes for getting some bipartisan support? Yes and probably yes. But we should all stop making the perfect the enemy of the good here, and stick together

Quoting bjkeefe: ... and more generally, how easily fear sells, not to mention how willing the Republicans are to go this route.

For your consideration (via): Question 4 on the health care reform "survey" being mailed out by your Republican National Committee: Other "questions" are just about as shameless.

ROcean: The unqualified praise for Ted Kennedy - the man - from liberals is amazing. Yeah, they're even writing songs praising him...liberals make me sick. (He was fat...)
Oh wait a minute...that's by Orrin Hatch. "Here is a stirring tribute song to my good friend, Senator Ted Kennedy called 'Headed Home.' I wrote this song with the great Phil Springer. Take a moment to listen to the words. You don't have to agree with everyone's politics...none of us agree 100% of the time. But you have to admire a lifetime dedicated to public service and improving the lives of others -- and that is just one of the many things that made Ted great. I think this song captures a small part of Ted's legacy of service. "

Quoting kidneystones:
A bill not worth passing? Co-ops?

Does that mean Russ is a racist, too?

I've always kinda liked Feingold. It's interesting that he would be co-authoring a proposal with Graham. He and McCain also co-wrote a campaign reform bill. Talk about real bi-partisanship. So I read the article from the Lakeland Times and it also said this: "During the discussion, Feingold said he could not declare whether he would support a health reform bill until he has actually seen one." So from reading this, I surmise that Feingold doesn't consider what's out there a bill. What is out there are just proposals? But one of them has got a name, HR3200. So since HR3200 hasn't made it to the Senate it's not a bill? Or is it just that Feingold hasn't seen it? Geez! maybe he should try and get a copy.

I think it's pretty clear he means "until there is a bill before the Senate."

OK, I admit it I screwed up! That article was dated 2005. You all have permission to pile on.

But wait....there's this recent comment from Feingold which indicates to me that he is not firmly on the side of single payer/public option.
So confusing! "Lindsay Graham and I sponsored legislation to have pilot programs in five states," Feingold told the audience. "Maybe we should try some different things. There might be a single-payer state. There might be a co-op state. Let's get some evidence on the ground. This thing right now is not going in the right direction. We might be in a situation where there won't be a bill worth passing."

In 2007, Feingold and Graham, a South Carolina Republican, introduced the State-Based Health Care Reform Act, which would have allowed states to decide how to achieve insurance coverage.

The legislation would have established five-year pilot programs that would have mandated only minimum baseline requirements. States could have used health savings accounts, single payer systems, expansion of current programs, or could have adopted new ideas in their efforts to cover the uninsured.

The senator said again last week he did not think a "one-size-fits-all" approach would work as well as giving states program flexibility."

Quoting badhatharry: But wait....there's this recent comment from Feingold which indicates to me that he is not firmly on the side of single payer/public option.
So confusing!

"Lindsay Graham and I sponsored legislation to have pilot programs in five states," Feingold told the audience. "Maybe we should try some different things. There might be a single-payer state. There might be a co-op state. Let's get some evidence on the ground. This thing right now is not going in the right direction. We might be in a situation where there won't be a bill worth passing."

In 2007, Feingold and Graham, a South Carolina Republican, introduced the State-Based Health Care Reform Act, which would have allowed states to decide how to achieve insurance coverage.

The legislation would have established five-year pilot programs that would have mandated only minimum baseline requirements. States could have used health savings accounts, single payer systems, expansion of current programs, or could have adopted new ideas in their efforts to cover the uninsured.

The senator said again last week he did not think a "one-size-fits-all" approach would work as well as giving states program flexibility."

Harry, in how many cases do you think

Timothy Noah correctly identifies the problem whereby mandatory community rating and no denial of coverage because of PEC does not work unless everyone to forced to purchase health insurance. And not only must everyone purchase HI, they also can't be allowed to purchase a high deductible plan. High deductible plans would only be chosen by the healthy and would be considerably lower priced than the community rating plans. End result being those with few HC needs exit the CR plans, which causes them to raise the premiums for HI ( which the government is forcing everyone to carry. ) The 2nd problem with community rating -> mandatory coverage is the cost of the subsidy to those who cant afford to pay the premiums. Noah starts to address this, but then he drops the subject. Presumably because he would have to concede that Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin and others raising the alarm over death panels and rationed care have valid objections. In order to prevent HIR from adversely affecting those who have and like their HI plan the government has to pay for the subsidy to the poor by

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Timothy Noah does not have the guts to say it, but the democrat health care reform plan is dead.

With public support seeming fairly high for reform in general, and a vote advantage in the legislature -- this seems like more wishful thinking than an actual bet.

Quoting DoctorMoney: With public support seeming fairly high for reform in general, and a vote advantage in the legislature -- this seems like more wishful thinking than an actual bet.

I favor reform in general in that out of pocket health care expenditures should be just as tax deductible as HI premiums ( both are either deductible or they are not ). Also allow buyers and sellers to negotiate the degree to which the seller ( the doctor ) is liable for negligence and errors in the providing of the care. ( my version of tort reform. ) The point is, "reform in general" covers a lot of ground. The democrat plan does not work unless taxes are raised to pay for the HI premiums of the poor. None of what has been presented to the public in the August town hall meetings had a tax increase component. The democrat plans have to ration care of all to pay for the subsidy of the poor. The majority of voters dont want that.

Not according to the polling. That's all I'm saying. Declaring it dead is awfully premature.

The Page
Politics up to the Minuteby Mark Halperin | Friday, August 28, 2009
Feingold Statement on Public Option Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Support of a Public Health Insurance Option
“A public option is a fundamental part of ensuring health care reform brings about real change. Opposing the public plan is an endorsement of the status quo in this country that has left tens of millions of Americans uninsured or underinsured and put massive burdens on employers. I have heard too many horror stories from my constituents about how the so-called competitive marketplace has denied them coverage from the outset, offered a benefit plan that covers everything but what they need or failed them some other way. A strong public option would ensure competition in the industry to provide the best, most affordable insurance for Americans and bring down the skyrocketing health care costs that are the biggest contributor to our long-term budget deficits. I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don't see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a privilege for those who can afford it.”

Quoting brucds: The Page
Politics up to the Minuteby Mark Halperin | Friday, August 28, 2009
Feingold Statement on Public Option

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Support of a Public Health Insurance Option
“A public option is a fundamental part of ensuring health care reform brings about real change. Opposing the public plan is an endorsement of the status quo in this country that has left tens of millions of Americans uninsured or underinsured and put massive burdens on employers. I have heard too many horror stories from my constituents about how the so-called competitive marketplace has denied them coverage from the outset, offered a benefit plan that covers everything but what they need or failed them some other way. A strong public option would ensure competition in the industry to provide the best, most affordable insurance for Americans and bring down the skyrocketing health care costs that are the biggest contributor to our long-term budget deficits. I am not interested in passing health care reform in name only. Without a public option, I don't see how we will bring real change to a system that has made good health care a

Denville- if you were keeping abreast, the statement was made earlier that Feingold was waffling on a public option. That's what his statement was about. Thaty's why I posted it. It had nothing to do with your BS rant or wishful thinking about the bill being dead...(it's not and will get passed very close to the House version.) Feingold will go for mandates if there's a public option and he's firmly in support of subsidization.

Quoting brucds: Feingold will go for mandates if there's a public option and he's firmly in support of subsidization.

my point is the requirement that everyone carry HI is not being presented to the public in the town halls. How can such an expensive program be voted on by the congress without first opening the debate on the specifics to the public?

Quoting Namazu: - small opportunity from tort reform: actually, a KPMG study claims $210B/yr in defensive medicine costs

Yes, everything I've seen indicates that any argument that there are significant costs based on lawsuits or the threat thereof have to be tied to defensive medicine and not actual malpractice damages, settlement, and malpractice insurance. So that being the case, and assuming arguendo that it's true, how would reform tort law so as to fix the problem? Do you think that people will be comfortable and happy knowing that they will probably get less defensive medicine and put up with a higher risk of missed diagnoses, however cost-effective that change would be? Do you not see that as somewhat inconsistent with the current rightwing line that the gov't might not pay for as many tests and other care for granny (otherwise known as "death panels")?

key question is whose government? We're not Sweden, and we're probably not even the UK--which, by the way, has a system Americans would find totally unacceptable

I actually think that if the UK system had been the system in the US, people would be arguing it was the best in the

via Drudge, Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma says "we are almost reaching a revolution in this country". http://www.chickashanews.com/local/l...39102559.html/ The deficit spending of the federal government has to be stopped. The fact that democrats are pushing HCR in a way that increases deficit spending shows how out of touch they are. The only way to stop this freight train is to remove the tracks. Dismantle the federal system.

Denville - the mandates are a well-known feature of the bill. If you want to bitch about the "debates" in the town halls, you're picking at nits. Frankly, I don't give a shit what GOPers think anymore. The fumes are toxic. The only thing I care about after the vile horseshit I've seen from the opposition - nearly acrosss the board is to kick their despicable asses and get a strong bill passed.

You post that crap, inflammatory statement from the idiot Inhofe who stated at the same time that he hadn't read the bill, didn't have to and DIDN"T HAVE TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT but would vote against it anyway and you do it with no sense of shame or embarrassment ? Amazing. You're not a serious person. More like the guys who keep sending my brother-in-law emails that are fact-free, hysterical and/or hoaxes in their alleged provenance. Too bad the discussion here gets dragged so far down into the gutter - but when you have Senators as stupid and irresponsible as Inhofe, I guess one shouldn't be surprised at the shit one reads here.

Quoting brucds: You post that crap, inflammatory statement from the idiot Inhofe who stated at the same time that he hadn't read the bill, didn't have to and DIDN"T HAVE TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT but would vote against it anyway and you do it with no sense of shame or embarrassment ?

Amazing. [...]

Exactly. Especially given that I posted a reference to that same stunt of Inhofe's just a few hours ago to illustrate how irresponsible the GOP Congressional leadership was behaving. I think this tells you something about DenvilleSteve, though. Either he's just here to yank chains, or he's so far gone on Palin/Bachmann/Beck/Limbaugh Kool-Aid that he's beyond hope. In either case, there's no point in paying attention to him.

Quoting stephanie: Yes, everything I've seen indicates that any argument that there are significant costs based on lawsuits or the threat thereof have to be tied to defensive medicine and not actual malpractice damages, settlement, and malpractice insurance.

the problem with the tort reform is that courts dont directly address the fitness ratings of doctors and health care facilities. I dont care about punishing doctors who do a bad job. I want to be confident that the doctor I see has a record of providing good care.

Incidentally, since universal health care has been proposed by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Inhofe's notion that it's "completely foreign to this country" shows exactly how...uh..."foreign" to his country Inhofe himself is. Crowds of crazy people, LaRouchistas, racists, militia-types and the hopelessly and deliberately ill-informed - driven to hysteria by Limbaugh, nutty emails and FOX News and ranting at "town meetings" - don't represent the citizenry and they won't stop comprehensive, effective health care reform.

Quoting brucds: You post that crap, inflammatory statement from the idiot Inhofe who stated at the same time that he hadn't read the bill, didn't have to and DIDN"T HAVE TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT but would vote against it anyway and you do it with no sense of shame or embarrassment ?

Amazing. You're not a serious person. More like the guys who keep sending my brother-in-law emails that are fact-free, hysterical and/or hoaxes in their alleged provenance. Too bad the discussion here gets dragged so far down into the gutter - but when you have Senators as stupid and irresponsible as Inhofe, I guess one shouldn't be surprised at the shit one reads here.

Democrats are pushing a federal system that forces everyone in the country to be liable for the mega deficit spending of the majority. Which alarms a lot of people. If you are so confident that a high tax, large government socieity works best, then you should be willing to allow those who disagree to opt out or secede from the system. The people of Oklahoma are peaceful people, respectful of others. What is the harm of allowing that state to withdraw from the union?

Quoting brucds: Incidentally, since universal health care has been proposed by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Inhofe's notion that it's "completely foreign to this country" shows exactly how...uh..."foreign" to his country Inhofe himself is.

Universal health care is not the same as universal health insurance. You could sell the country on the establishment of as many publicly funded health care clinics as there are post offices in the country. Where people get rationed care at a price they can afford.

Denville - you're full of crap. You're proposing health clinics run like the post office ? The truth is that universal social insurance, whether single payer or mixed system with mandates/public option is more in keeping with our existing system than what you're proposing, which is much closer to socializing a major segment pf the system - and because of cost increases it would ultimately the dominant segment which private doctors couldn't compete with. These arguments are just weird.

Reading your secessionist nonsense, I realize that I should just pass on any further comments.

Quoting brucds: Incidentally, since universal health care has been proposed by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Inhofe's notion that it's "completely foreign to this country" shows exactly how...uh..."foreign" to his country Inhofe himself is.

I wouldn't, as a general matter, count on a politician from Oklahoma to have his finger on the pulse of mainstream America. I mean, there might be some exceptions, but it's hardly just an average state. It's about as red and nutty as it gets, with the possible exception of a few areas of the deep South.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: the problem with the tort reform is that courts dont directly address the fitness ratings of doctors and health care facilities.

This is incoherent.

Quoting brucds: Reading your secessionist nonsense, I realize that I should just pass on any further comments.

Quite right. D'Steve is for majority rule, when the Republicans are in the majority. Otherwise, the government is illegitimate.

Quoting brucds: You're proposing health clinics run like the post office ? The truth is that universal social insurance, whether single payer or mixed system with mandates/public option is more in keeping with our existing system than what you're proposing, which is much closer to socializing a major segment pf the system - and because of cost increases it would ultimately the dominant segment which private doctors couldn't compete with.

These arguments are just weird.

That's what I've been saying to him, that his alleged plan is FAR more radical than anything currently on the table and completely politically impossible (and much more like "socialized medicine"). Not to mention that if he's really so worried about the deficit* it makes no sense at all. However, I only say this when I'm bored, since I've concluded he's either playing some sort of game or really, as in too far gone to communicate with, off the wall. *I don't believe the deficit is really the driving force behind any of the political opposition to anything. People justify any expenditures they find important or just favor (see Iraq War and Bush tax cuts), and pretty

Quoting brucds: Reading your secessionist nonsense, I realize that I should just pass on any further comments.

why not? It is an interesting and important topic. Why do the "progressives" who govern NY and CA want to have to compromise with the people of Oklahoma? You all are confident that your governing principals are sound, no? Tax the rich, spread the wealth around, open borders, no missile defense, health insurance for all. By allowing states to opt out of the union, those remaining would inact all the the policies the progressives think best. -Steve

Quoting stephanie: That's what I've been saying to him, that his alleged plan is FAR more radical than anything currently on the table and completely politically impossible (and much more like "socialized medicine").

Publicly funded health clinics must be cheaper than giving people money to pay a doctor. The number of visits to the doctor would be fewer simply because the wait is longer and the clinic might be a 15 minute drive from home. And publicly funded care could be rationed without affecting the care of those who pay. Just as the president says things will be. Everyone who shows up at a local hospital for care who cant pay could be sent to the nearby publicly funded hospital. That would dramatically reduce to cost of doing business for private hospitals, which would be reflected in the prices they charge.

Quoting bjkeefe: Quite right. D'Steve is for majority rule, when the Republicans are in the majority. Otherwise, the government is illegitimate.

my views have changed based on the reality of the size of the deficit. The politicial system in the US cannot deal with the crisis at hand. Since the crisis ( the growing deficit and strangling of the private economy ) will get worse if it is not addressed, the political system has to be dismantled and replaced with one that can eliminate the problems.

It will never be the case that people who show up to private hospitals for emergency care will be turned away, because private hospitals are still part of a public infrastructure, and are given all kinds of zoning and tax exemptions to reflect that. Private hospitals in America aren't *actually* private in the way that, say, a GP's office is. They're more like football stadiums and convention centers -- they get preferential treatment over less-vital business along with the expectation that they can build value for the community.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: my views have changed based on the reality of the size of the deficit.

Bullshit. You, like every other teabagger, have reached for Teh Deficit!!!1! as a convenient rationalization for your perennial core view that when Democrats win elections, the results cannot be valid. It's exactly the same as Birthers using birf cirtifikit!!!1! talk to cloak their racism. If you were serious about worrying about the deficit, you would have said something when Reagan and Bush 43 were setting records practically every year during their sixteen years of fiscal mismanagement. I don't expect you point to something you wrote between 1981 and 1988, but I do expect you to be have gone on the record sometime during the previous administration, if you were serious about this. But you never did. Back then, you posted little else except paens to "brave red state Americans."

Quoting DoctorMoney: It will never be the case that people who show up to private hospitals for emergency care will be turned away, because private hospitals are still part of a public infrastructure, and are given all kinds of zoning and tax exemptions to reflect that.

I don't see why a for profit hospital has to get a zoning or tax exemption. Almost be definition, hospital care means a person is staying overnight. Better to transport people who can't pay for their care to the nearest public facility to start the treatment they need. That way they dont have to be moved after care has started. -Steve

Quoting bjkeefe: Bullshit. You, like every other teabagger, have reached for Teh Deficit!!!1! as a convenient rationalization for your perennial core view that when Democrats win elections, the results cannot be valid. It's exactly the same as Birthers using birf cirtifikit!!!1! talk to cloak their racism.

And this has relevance to any policy discussion in what way? What do democrats plan to do about their government's supersized deficit? Tim Geithner says health care reform ( as in rationing ) is crucial to reducing the deficit. Now that it is clear the democrat majority will not vote for the reforms needed to get the cost to government of health care under control, what is plan B? The country could easily be facing another year of gridlock in Wash in anticipation of the congressional elections. In the meantime the defict grows another $1.xx trillion. Oh yeah! free at last, free at last.

Quoting bjkeefe: Bullshit. You, like every other teabagger, have reached for Teh Deficit!!!1! as a convenient rationalization for your perennial core view that when Democrats win elections, the results cannot be valid. It's exactly the same as Birthers using birf cirtifikit!!!1! talk to cloak their racism.

If you were serious about worrying about the deficit, you would have said something when Reagan and Bush 43 were setting records practically every year during their sixteen years of fiscal mismanagement. I don't expect you point to something you wrote between 1981 and 1988, but I do expect you to be have gone on the record sometime during the previous administration, if you were serious about this. But you never did. Back then, you posted little else except paens to "brave red state Americans."

Let me repeat the three questions: What's the federal budget as a % of gdp?
What's the budget deficit as a % of gdp?
What's the debt as a % of gdp? The average ten-year-old knows more about sports than 99% of the people you hear ranting about deficits know about the budget. Any kid knows there's nine innings to a baseball game and three points for kicking a field

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Now that it is clear the democrat majority will not vote for the reforms needed to get the cost to government of health care under control, what is plan B?

To put it politely, that Limbaugh talking point is very far from something I'm prepared to stipulate. This wingnut urge to declare victory prematurely is probably comfort food in the echo chambers, but these bare assertions aren't worth spit. I'm not treating the rest of your teabagger-level raving with any respect. You haven't earned any with your history of posting, your sudden "concern" about government spending (now that it's not Republicans doing it) notwithstanding.

Quoting bjkeefe: To put it politely, that Limbaugh talking point is very far from something I'm prepared to stipulate. This wingnut urge to declare victory prematurely is probably comfort food in the echo chambers, but these bare assertions aren't worth spit.

I'm not treating the rest of your teabagger-level raving with any respect. You haven't earned any with your history of posting, your sudden "concern" about government spending (now that it's not Republicans doing it) notwithstanding.

After health care passes it might be worth revisiting who was right and who was wrong about its certain demise.

Actually it is a matter of law as to which patience an emergency room can reject or send to another institution for treatment. To say it doesn't occur is to ignore the facts. Here is one recent example Michelle Obama's Patient-Dumping Scheme otherwise known as the Urban Health Initiative But don't worry under Obamacare all these various dumping schemes will be superfluous.

Quoting claymisher: After health care passes it might be worth revisiting who was right and who was wrong about its certain demise.

I'd say so, but on the other hand, since when has a history of being wrong ever convinced a conservative pundit or politician to think before bloviating on the next topic to come down the pike? You, who pointed out (I think) Ambinder's recent nonsense about the right's and the press's failings -- and the leftosphere's correct assessments -- about Bush-era intelligence malarky and warmongering, should know this better than most.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd say so, but on the other hand, since when has a history of being wrong ever convinced a conservative pundit or politician to think before bloviating on the next topic to come down the pike?

You, who called Ambinder's recent nonsense about the right's and the press's failings -- and the leftosphere's correct assessments -- about Bush-era intelligence malarky and warmongering, should know this better than most.

Since all agree that the views of the right are the polar opposite to the left, what is the point of governing the country under its current unified system? The resulting zigzaging of policy is very inefficient. The endless political debate is most distracting.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Since all agree that the views of the right are the polar opposite to the left ...

I reject this premise of yours, too. Just because you can find an individual on the left who will oppose everything an individual on the right says, and vice versa, I don't at all accept that "the left" and "the right" are at polar opposites. For the nine hundred forty-seventh time, I encourage you to get some of your information from someone other than Rush Limbaugh. Things are not really as simple as that loudmouth preaching to the mouthbreathers likes to pretend they are.

The endless political debate is most distracting.

I can sure think of a way you could make a contribution to reducing the distraction.

Impossible to know how doctors will actually behave with respect to actual tests, so I don't want to go out on a limb in estimating actual realized savings. I think you're stretching with the granny stuff, though. Whether the UK system would fly here is again impossible to know, but my opinion on this is strongly held, being based on direct experience. As for my pessimism relative to outcomes in other countries, we're second to none in many important things, including government-supported science and technology, but with healthcare we need to be realistic in view of our size, diversity, and relative inexperience with large civilian bureaucracies, as well as the gravitational pull of talent to the private sector. One can argue that distrust of government--a legacy of the country's founding, and greatly in evidence today--is smack in the middle of a reinforcing cycle, but I don't see how you change that either, except by setting more modest goals and achieving them first.

Quoting stephanie: Yes, everything I've seen indicates that any argument that there are significant costs based on lawsuits or the threat thereof have to be tied to defensive medicine and not actual malpractice

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Since all agree that the views of the right are the polar opposite to the left

No they don't. (And, speaking for myself, I don't. Plus, most people in this country are moderates, so what do you do with them?)

what is the point of governing the country under its current unified system?

Most people want to. In particular, no one in the mainstream and no meaningful number of people want to leave the US or even withdraw from the federal government, ridiculous as that concept is. Plead with the posters on bloggingheads all you want, your problem isn't that we won't let you go, but that no one wants to go with you other than a few people too out there to fit in with the birthers. That's because most US citizens like the US. We're biased that way.

The resulting zigzaging of policy is very inefficient.

Lots of people like this too.

The endless political debate is most distracting.

And this. Plus, whatever you've been told, it's not like the US is unusual in its degree of political polarization. Our rightwing has gone around the bend, currently, but for the most part there's probably less political diversity and certainly

Quoting stephanie: I do find your idea of spliting the country and letting all the rightwingers move to the red states intriguing, not in a "I want it to happen" kind of way, but as a potential scenario for an alt-history novel. It's kind of fun to speculate about, though entirely silly.

My prediction for that scenario: it would devolve into two camps, one isolationist, the other neocon/theocon. The latter would perpetually campaign on the "threat" posed by the Blue USA and would perennially argue for preemptive war. Education, health, safety, civil rights, and environmental standards would all plummet, and eventually, it would become a failed state, requiring massive foreign aid from the Blue USA to keep it from completely imploding.

Quoting Namazu: Impossible to know how doctors will actually behave with respect to actual tests, so I don't want to go out on a limb in estimating actual realized savings.

I'm not even asking you to go there yet, I'm asking what kind of tort reform scheme you imagine that would make a difference and how you expect it to work. For example, the usual types of proposals (capping damages, making punitives payable to people other than the plaintiffs, British system for attorneys' fees) all have drawbacks and likely unintended consequences, but more to the point here, they don't have any likely effect on the defensive medicine problem. You'd need to approach the issue differently (and in a way I find hard to imagine going over well) in order for it to do that. That being the case, this desire to connect tort reform and health care reform seems not well-founded. But I'm open-minded on the question, so am interested in the proposal you would make.

I think you're stretching with the granny stuff, though.

Not sure what you mean by this.

I don't see how you change that either, except by setting more modest goals and achieving

Quoting stephanie: No they don't. (And, speaking for myself, I don't. Plus, most people in this country are moderates, so what do you do with them?)

where are the moderates when it comes time to vote? In the Congress there is close to zero republican support for Obama's agenda.

Quoting stephanie: In particular, no one in the mainstream and no meaningful number of people want to leave the US or even withdraw from the federal government, ridiculous as that concept is.

I have not seen the question polled. I would like to see a question such as the following asked. Would you vote yes to allow residents of your state to send their federal taxes to your state government and empower your state to require the federal budget be balanced before forwarding those federal taxes to Washington?

Quoting stephanie: That's because most US citizens like the US. We're biased that way.

the federal government is not the United States of America. Ronald Reagan put it very well. Government is the problem, not the solution.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd say so, but on the other hand, since when has a history of being wrong ever convinced a conservative pundit or politician to think before bloviating on the next topic to come down the pike?

You, who pointed out (I think) Ambinder's recent nonsense about the right's and the press's failings -- and the leftosphere's correct assessments -- about Bush-era intelligence malarky and warmongering, should know this better than most.

I think the leftosphere does a pretty good job of keeping track.

Quoting claymisher: I think the leftosphere does a pretty good job of keeping track.

You sure got that right. I love posts like this.

I knew him slightly. I briefed him several times in the eighties. I would go over to his office in the forenoon. He was usually so hung over that it was difficult to know how much he actually heard or comprehended. He would occasionally ask questions, good questions. I liked the man. I liked his humanity. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "what's the good of being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart?" I always felt that the world had broken Ted Kennedy's heart and that he drank to dull the pain. He was not a puritan. I liked that too. You could sense that he cared about ordinary people. He did not much like men like me, but I understood that. I never reminded him in the course of those briefing meetings that he had met me once before, in Vietnam under terribly difficult conditions. This had been during a trip he made out there to see the war for himself.

I remember him getting off an Air America Huey in the midst of something terrible, the aftermath of a VC attack on a Montagnard re-settlement village. He wept after he looked around. I began to

Quoting DenvilleSteve: my views have changed based on the reality of the size of the deficit. The politicial system in the US cannot deal with the crisis at hand. Since the crisis ( the growing deficit and strangling of the private economy ) will get worse if it is not addressed, the political system has to be dismantled and replaced with one that can eliminate the problems.

Something tells me that if your party wins the presidency in 2012, or even retakes Congress in 2010, you will drop your secession talk and be perfectly happy to take on whatever problems, like the deficit, which today you think justify your secession from the union. As for the good people of Oklahoma, you don't speak for them, and as far as I can tell, they aren't interested in secession. It's awfully generous of you to try to arrange their secession from the union, but why don't you worry about yourself, or even your own state, and let the people of Oklahoma decide for themselves if they want to undertake the necessary steps to dissolve their bonds with the United States.

(5) Promise nothing but pleasure -- for now. Make health insurance universal and permanently protected. Tear up the existing bills and write a clean one -- Obamacare 2.0 -- promulgating draconian health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick, and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement.

What's not to like? If you have insurance, you'll never lose it. Nor will your children ever be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The regulated insurance companies will get two things in return. Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies.

And here's what makes it so politically seductive: The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage -- but without overt nationalization. It is all done through private insurance companies. Ostensibly private. They will, in reality, have been turned into government utilities. No longer able to control whom they can enroll, whom they can drop and

Quoting look: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...egy_98071.html

But by then, resistance will be feeble. Why? Because at that point the only remaining option will be to give up the benefits we will have become accustomed to. Once granted, guaranteed universal health care is not relinquished. Look at Canada. Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we.

It's important to note that the obvious problem with this argument is that we already are subject to health care rationing. What exactly does Krauthammer think

(a) denying coverage for pre-existing conditions

and

(b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick,

are?

Quoting look: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...egy_98071.html

I'm curious: Why can every other country in the world manage to provide health care for all of its citizens, but the US cannot? I thought conservatives were the ones who believed in American Exceptionalism. What we are being told by Krauthammer and his advocates is that America is Exceptionally Incompetent, unable to provide even the most basic health services avaialble to citizens of civilized countries around the globe. I don't buy the conservative theory that the United States is uniquely weak, powerless, and incompetent, unable to do something done in every other modestly advanced country on the planet.

Quoting AemJeff: It's important to note that the obvious problem with this argument is that we already are subject to health care rationing. What exactly does Krauthammer think

(a) denying coverage for pre-existing conditions

and

(b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick,

are?

Ultimately, the answer to your question above is more important than the answer to the rhetorical question I lobbed. But instead of asking how Krauthammer would respond to your query, I'd like to hear look's response to it. In other words, why is corporate rationing okay, but government rationing not?

Among other complaints, I'm sure not going to believe this on Krauthammer's say-so:

Isn't there a catch? Of course, there is. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.

The most persuasive argument to me that first got me on the HCR train was that if we didn't overhaul our system, we were going to be crushed by health care cost increases. I noticed how many large companies eventually came to agree with that view, which really helped make me think the concern was real. So, the whole idea is to design a system with cost containment in mind. I think there are a number of contributing factors to this, and all of them should be discussed; e.g., mandated participation by everyone, a public option to provide real competition to the insurance companies, etc. And, as Twin just pointed out, somehow or another, every other advanced nation in the world has managed to figure this out (modulo some coming adjustments, if you want to be picky). Why not the USA! USA! USA!? And yeah, rationing. Let's

Quoting bjkeefe: ... and more generally, how easily fear sells, not to mention how willing the Republicans are to go this route.

The always incisive Betty Cracker:

We may be entering a new phase in the health care reform battle. Phase 1 was all about scaring the shit out of gullible, uninformed jackasses (a potential target audience of approximately 58,343,671) with absurd, implausible, outrageous lies about health care reform. Let’s review the top 10 talking points from Phase 1, shall we?

1. Illegals: An army of alien Octomoms will swim the Rio Grande en masse to deliver countless litters of Spanish-speaking babies on YOUR dime.

2. The elderly: Obama’s Nazi death panels will pull the plug on YOUR grandparents.

3. The disabled: Health care reform will prompt pitiless bureaucrats to throw YOUR Baby Trig in the dumpster. (Just as the vile NHS pushed Stephen Hawking out on an ice floe.)

4. Socialists: Health care reform will put government bureaucrats in charge of YOUR free-market Medicare coverage.

5. Our brave fighting men: If YOUR veteran inquires about benefits, he will receive a package containing a rope, a box of razors and a CD recording of “Suicide Is Painless.”

6. Christians and fetuses: YOUR evangelical doctor will be forced to take over the late Dr. Tiller’s practice and

Quoting bjkeefe: And yeah, rationing. Let's be grown-ups about this.

More on this from Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog.

Quoting bjkeefe: For your consideration (via): Question 4 on the health care reform "survey" being mailed out by your Republican National Committee:

Other "questions" are just about as shameless.

The Republicans' non-apology ("inartfully worded") makes Steve M. warn: "BEWARE -- ZOMBIE LIE ABOUT TO ATTACK." He predicts this one will have legs:

The RNC is making it clear that the Republicans think this is a lie they'll find useful in the near future, the way they found "death panels" useful after we thought it had been laughed off the public stage. It's going to come back. It's going to be yet another unkillable GOP zombie lie.

It may be remanded to e-mail forwards and World Net Daily. Or it msy be spread by Sarah Palin, or Glenn Beck, or Newt Gingrich, or Betsy McCaughey, or a few congressional back-benchers from safe GOP districts, or all of the above. Or, hell, Charles Grassley might pick it up. But somebody's going to keep it alive. This one isn't going to go away.

Quoting TwinSwords: Something tells me that if your party wins the presidency in 2012, or even retakes Congress in 2010, you will drop your secession talk and be perfectly happy to take on whatever problems, like the deficit, which today you think justify your secession from the union.

actually, I don't see much evidence that the republican politicians are committed to slashing government spending to balance the budget. Their emphasis on the impact of the Obama plan on medicare, telling the elderly to vote against HCR because it would cut medicare spending, is the reverse of what I want done. At the least, the government should be reimbursed from the estate of the deceased for the cost of that persons care. The federal system in the modern age is fundamentally flawed. Both in terms of deficit spending and the artificial expansion of the money supply by the Fed.

Quoting TwinSwords: What we are being told by Krauthammer and his advocates is that America is Exceptionally Incompetent, unable to provide even the most basic health services avaialble to citizens of civilized countries around the globe.

I don't buy the conservative theory that the United States is uniquely weak, powerless, and incompetent, unable to do something done in every other modestly advanced country on the planet.

You have the majority. Let's see democrats be exceptional and do it themselves. You could also allow self reliant Americans to go free. That would increase your majority and enable you to enact even more progressive policies. Of course you would have to pay for it. But I am sure you all have that figured out.

I'm curious: Why can every other country in the world manage to provide health care for all of its citizens, but the US cannot?
I thought conservatives were the ones who believed in American Exceptionalism.

Winner of the thread!!!

I'm curious: Why can every other country in the world manage to provide health care for all of its citizens, but the US cannot?

Interesting article on how other countries achieve universal coverage in WAPO last week. Probably you all have seen this, but worth reposting just in case you haven't. Full disclosure: I prefer Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter to Charles Krauthammer. Ivy-leaguing up rightwinghood makes it even more repugnant than the raw red meat state version.

Quoting Wonderment: Interesting article on how other countries achieve universal coverage in WAPO last week.

Probably you all have seen this, but worth reposting just in case you haven't.

Full disclosure: I prefer Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter to Charles Krauthammer. Ivy-leaguing up rightwinghood makes it even more repugnant than the raw red meat state version.

Some of you may be interested by the following article on the reasons for the difficulty of healthcare reform in the US. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see things objectively: http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...with-interests

Quoting Francoamerican: Some of you may be interested by the following article on the reasons for the difficulty of healthcare reform in the US. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see things objectively:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...with-interests

The word "objective" doesn't mean "flatters my own prejuidices". That doesn't mean it's a bad article, though it does get the role of advocacy groups wrong; the problem is it's been written a hundred times before and much more accurately and factually.

Quoting pampl: The word "objective" doesn't mean "flatters my own prejuidices". That doesn't mean it's a bad article, though it does get the role of advocacy groups wrong; the problem is it's been written a hundred times before and much more accurately and factually.

I thought it was all right. I see nothing wrong with what it says about advocacy groups---from a British or European perspective. Sorry, if it displeased you. Not that I give a fig what you think.

Quoting Francoamerican: Some of you may be interested by the following article on the reasons for the difficulty of healthcare reform in the US. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see things objectively:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...with-interests

I'll go along with pampl in quibbling with "objectively," since it is an exceedingly rare human who is able to write a political analysis piece independent of his or her own perspective (and really, why would we want them to?). I do, however, like to hear what people from outside the US have to say, so thanks for the link, and keep them coming, on this and any other topic. Here's one thing that shows a lack of understanding of life in these United States, though:

... Republican politicians still caricature healthcare reform as "socialised medicine", even if as yet they have derived little political benefit from this stance.

That is dead wrong. The GOP has derived enormous political benefit from this. The "socialism!!!1!" aspect has been one of their main weapons of mass obstruction, both in rallying their base (fund-raising, especially) and shaping public opinion. And in a larger sense, everything they do that stalls progress on any part of the Obama agenda makes them

Quoting pampl: [...]

Why do you say the article gets "the role of advocacy groups wrong?"

Quoting bjkeefe: I'll go along with pampl in quibbling with "objectively," since it is an exceedingly rare human who is able to write a political analysis piece independent of his or her own perspective (and really, why would we want them to?). I do, however, like to hear what people from outside the US have to say, so thanks for the link, and keep them coming, on this and any other topic..

I should have said "impartial." An English journalist and specialist on American politics has no irons in this fire.... By the way he recently wrote a book on American "exceptionalism" , Yale U. Press.

Quoting bjkeefe: That is dead wrong. The GOP has derived enormous political benefit from this. The "socialism!!!1!" aspect has been one of their main weapons of mass obstruction, both in rallying their base (fund-raising, especially) and shaping public opinion. And in a larger sense, everything they do that stalls progress on any part of the Obama agenda makes them at least less worse off than they were when he was at the height of his popularity. True, approval ratings and party identification for the Republicans remain mired in the 20-30% range, but they have closed the gap between themselves

Quoting Francoamerican: I should have said "impartial." An English journalist and specialist on American politics has no irons in this fire.... By the way he recently wrote a book on American "exceptionalism" , Yale U. Press.

Okay, and thanks.

I wonder. Their main line of attack seems to be slander and lies, and preying on the well-known paranoia of a fairly large sector of the American electorate whenever Washington élites are mentioned.

That's but one of many, but yes, it's a perennial and an effective sore spot for Real Americans™.

I was more interested in Hodgson's typically European view of American political institutions....their tendency to deadlock and built-in resistance to reform.

I wonder about that. When he says, for example, "The weakness of the two parties means that a new coalition has to be negotiated for each major legislation," the first thing I thought about was how parliamentary systems and countries with more than two political parties usually have to spend a lot of time building governing coalitions themselves, often with the consequence that a splinter group can make or break a plurality's goals. Also, I think resistance to reform is not peculiarly American but rather a fundamental characteristic of

Quoting bjkeefe: I wonder about that. When he says, for example, "The weakness of the two parties means that a new coalition has to be negotiated for each major legislation," the first thing I thought about was how parliamentary systems and countries with more than two political parties usually have to spend a lot of time building governing coalitions themselves, often with the consequence that a splinter group can make or break a plurality's goals.

Also, I think resistance to reform is not peculiarly American but rather a fundamental characteristic of human nature, especially once people are assembled into crowds..

The advantage of a parliamentary system is that elections are supposed to forge a new majority, whether out of a coalition of parties or the victory of one dominant party, and thus determine the direction of a newly formed government by the election itself . Because the executive and the legislative branches are separate in the US, this seldom occurs in American politics. It is ironic that the blueprint for the American constitution was laid out by Montesquieu in the De l'Esprit des Lois. Montesquieu based his theory of the

Quoting Francoamerican: The advantage of a parliamentary system is that elections are supposed to forge a new majority, whether out of a coalition of parties or the victory of one dominant party, and thus determine the direction of a newly formed government by the election itself . Because the executive and the legislative branches are separate in the US, this seldom occurs in American politics.

A good point, but still ...

It is ironic that the blueprint for the American constitution was laid out by Montesquieu in the De l'Esprit des Lois. Montesquieu based his theory of the separation of powers on his peculiar interpretation of the English system of the early 18th century, when there was a clear separation between the executive (King) and Parliament. But this system was abandoned by the British in the course of the 19th century.

Perhaps Americans need to catch up with the rest of the world, which has overwhelmingly preferred to adopt the system of English parliamentary democracy...to be sure with many variations.

... I'm not convinced that we haven't been saved from enough bad legislation by our checks and balances

Quoting bjkeefe: The thing is, given how dumb the American electorate can be -- or, more politely, how easy it is for small, rich interest groups to skew public opinion -- it might be for the best that it's hard to get much of anything done. .

That has usually been an argument of American conservatives...but I take your point.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd be awfully hesitant to convert to a system where one election really does make a whole new agenda likely to pass until we've fixed some more fundamental problems with this country first. There's too much money in the game and and not enough education on the part of the voters to make me want to risk it.

There is one other fundamental difference between the US and European parliamentary governments, which counterbalances the flightiness of electorates over here. In European states there is a permanent corps of civil servants, on the whole apolitical, who provide some continuity between governments. In the US every presidential election brings in a whole new crew, with a whole new agenda.

Quoting Francoamerican: That has usually been an argument of American conservatives...but I take your point.

It's an argument of liberals every time the Republicans have power. ;^)

There is one other fundamental difference between the US and European parliamentary governments, which counterbalances the flightiness of electorates over here. In European states there is a permanent corps of civil servants, on the whole apolitical, who provide some continuity between governments. In the US every presidential election brings in a whole new crew, with a whole new agenda.

Well, yes and no. We have a fairly sprawling bureaucracy here, too, at multiple levels of government. Yes, the heads of various departments change, but it is possible -- and has often been complained about by new presidents -- for the US civil servants to gum up the works/prevent catastrophes/provide a moderating influence, too.

Quoting bjkeefe: I wonder about that. When he says, for example, "The weakness of the two parties means that a new coalition has to be negotiated for each major legislation," the first thing I thought about was how parliamentary systems and countries with more than two political parties usually have to spend a lot of time building governing coalitions themselves, often with the consequence that a splinter group can make or break a plurality's goals.

I have no evidence to confirm this, but I suspect knowing that you may have to form a coalition with another party in the future prevents you from calling them fascists, traitors, etc.

Quoting claymisher: I have no evidence to confirm this, but I suspect knowing that you may have to form a coalition with another party in the future prevents you from calling them fascists, traitors, etc.

Maybe. On the other hand, good politicians are always expedient, and they'll be vicious to each other or get along as it suits their own desires at the moment, and not worry too much about the past. "That was politics," they'll say, "And politics ain't beanbag. C'mon, Joe, you know how the game is played." I'm not saying there are no politicians who hold grudges, but I wouldn't be surprised if, in other countries, Splinter Party X and Major Party Y didn't get on each other at times and get along with each other at other times, just as happens here in the US, say, between different wings of the same party. I think, however, that there's a good chance the political discourse is in general more coarse and hyperbolic in the US, for cultural and legal reasons, than it is in many other countries.

Quoting AemJeff: It's important to note that the obvious problem with this argument is that we already are subject to health care rationing. What exactly does Krauthammer think

and

are?

His point is that the government can use their regulatory power to ensure mandates and guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions and no caps on treatment and the susidizing of the policies of the poor, which will be de facto government healthcare. Naturally, rationing will occur. If this is the happens, I would think that the free market would be better able to control costs and provide competition. A carefully regulated market would be preferable to the waste, fraud, and abuse, for which government systems are notorious.

Quoting TwinSwords: I'm curious: Why can every other country in the world manage to provide health care for all of its citizens, but the US cannot?

I thought conservatives were the ones who believed in American Exceptionalism.

What we are being told by Krauthammer and his advocates is that America is Exceptionally Incompetent, unable to provide even the most basic health services avaialble to citizens of civilized countries around the globe.

I don't buy the conservative theory that the United States is uniquely weak, powerless, and incompetent, unable to do something done in every other modestly advanced country on the planet.

Exceptionalism involves the the pursuit of happiness and individual liberty within the melting pot of America. I don't think having the government involved directly with our bodies is the best way to preserve that liberty. It's not that we can't accomplish government control of healthcare, but do we want to, when free market approaches will probably yield more efficient results.

Quoting look: ...
I would think that the free market would be better able to control costs and provide competition. A carefully regulated market would be preferable to the waste, fraud, and abuse, for which government systems are notorious.

We disagree about that. Universal coverage, and stable coverage for the chronically ill, is worth a lot. Offsetting your postulated additional losses to waste, fraud and abuse with no shareholder profits, and providing stable coverage for everybody strikes me as good deal.

Quoting look: Exceptionalism involves the the pursuit of happiness and individual liberty within the melting pot of America. I don't think having the government involved directly with our bodies is the best way to preserve that liberty. It's not that we can't accomplish government control of healthcare, but do we want to, when free market approaches will probably yield more efficient results.

Okay, but that's not what Krauthammer said. Krauthammer said we could not do what the rest of the world has done without experiencing catastrophic outcomes that the rest of the world has, somehow, managed to avoid.

Quoting TwinSwords: Okay, but that's not what Krauthammer said. Krauthammer said we could not do what the rest of the world has done without experiencing catastrophic outcomes that the rest of the world has, somehow, managed to avoid.

I thought he said this:

Obamacare Version 1.0 is dead. The 1,000-page monstrosity that emerged in various editions from Congress was done in by widespread national revulsion not just at its expense and intrusiveness but at the mendacity with which it is being sold. You don't need a Ph.D. to see that the promise to expand coverage and reduce costs is a crude deception, or that cutting $500 billion from Medicare without affecting care is a fiction.

Quoting look: I thought he said this:

He said this, too:

The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.

However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That's when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling.

But by then, resistance will be feeble. Why? Because at that point the only remaining option will be to give up the benefits we will have become accustomed to.

Quoting AemJeff: We disagree about that. Universal coverage, and stable coverage for the chronically ill, is worth a lot. Offsetting your postulated additional losses to waste, fraud and abuse with no shareholder profits, and providing stable coverage for everybody strikes me as good deal.

From Wonderment's article: Quote:
Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private health insurance plans -- a broader choice than any American has. If a German doesn't like her insurance company, she can switch to another, with no increase in premium. The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance plan in the country. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082101778.html America has a different history from Europe. I don't think it's such a bad idea to keep insurances private. It works elsewhere. Our government already collects taxes, runs our schools, licences our driving, and inspects our cars, and interferes in the bedroom vis-a-vis DOMA. Just what we need are fights over whether the public option will cover sex-change operations or abortions.

Quoting TwinSwords: He said this, too:

He seems to be saying that we'll have to ration like other countries already do.

Quoting look: He seems to be saying that we'll have to ration like other countries already do.

We already ration now. Do you not accept that? [Added] Oops. Just remembered you said you did, and thought the market did a more efficient job. We don't agree at all on that, which may have been why I forgot. But sorry.

I am inclined, as both a card-carrying member of the hate-and-blame-America-first club

And yet, you're still here.

Quoting bjkeefe: Why do you say the article gets "the role of advocacy groups wrong?"

Because advocacy groups don't come up with stuff like "death panels". Lies that shameless come from the grassroots and percolate up through pundits and politicians. Advocacy groups can influence public opinion, but it's done with relatively subtle advertising not crazy jabbering that would risk driving away customers.

Quoting pampl: Because advocacy groups don't come up with stuff like "death panels". Lies that shameless come from the grassroots and percolate up through pundits and politicians. Advocacy groups can influence public opinion, but it's done with relatively subtle advertising not crazy jabbering that would risk driving away customers.

Thanks for the answer. I guess we disagree on the definition of advocacy group -- sounds like you have a narrower meaning in mind than I do. I'd call Betsy McCaughey (the originator of the "death panel" phrase, IIRC) and the people who pay her an advocacy group, and I'd also call FreedomWatch (one of the Astroturf organizations responsible for spreading this phrase) an advocacy group as well. This is of course not to say that there aren't good advocacy groups, which are the ones I suspect you have in mind. ========== [Added] Note also how the term appears in the Hodgson article, as one of a list:

Third, the interests can support a vast network of advocacy-groups, foundations, lobbies and public-relations operations which all strive to frame the debate. This includes the often explicit aim of influencing media reporting. The success here is most blatant in the resulting distortion

Quoting look: He seems to be saying that we'll have to ration like other countries already do.

Here is a really good post on rationing from John Holbo of Crooked Timber. I posted this link elsewhere just because of how much I like the title ...

Rationing again: For all ponies, there is some pony, such that you won’t get that pony

... but the article is actually a serious piece and well worth reading. [Added] Since the piece is written in reaction to another, less than favorite blogger, there is a little bit of sarcasm; e.g.,

The idea, basically, is that the invisible hand of the market is better than the visible hand of government. Because you can always see what the invisible hand is doing, because it’s visible. And you can’t see what the visible hand of government is doing, because it’s invisible.

No, seriously.

Also, via links followed from the John Holbo post mentioned above, here's a good one by Matthew Yglesias: "Rationing Parcel Delivery Services," and here's an earlier post by Holbo: "Rationing By Any Other Name?"