I'm only halfway through this diavlog, but had to pop in to say how refreshing it is to hear two conservatives talk about health care reform in this way.

The return of the Rockefeller Republicans? It is good to know that some Republicans are still sane, and do not think that paying for government services by higher rates of taxation is the equivalent of communism. I was reminded while listening to this dialogue of the remark of a former French Minister of Finance (Raymond Barre, I believe) who said that he had no pity for a country whose budgetary woes could easily be eliminated by a value added tax (19% in most of Europe).

It's great to hear actual numbers being used here. It doesn't make any sense to talk about the game but never look up at the scoreboard:

Actually, before concluding from Frum, Bartlett and the overwhelming facts on the ground that the fiscal future of the US is hopeless, I would like to see a country wide up or down vote on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. My guess is that if the people got to vote directly, with a majority in 2/3rds of the states needed to enact the amendment, that such an amendment would pass. That said, the US is obviously on the road to financial ruin. What if all the dollars abroad are used to pay for massive purchases of real estate in the US? Leaving future generations in the country as renters on their own land. That is just one doomsday scenario. The problem is the federal system. Have the states collect the taxes of its residents and have it send those taxes to the feds. Allow states to opt out of federal programs like medicare, social security and health insurance for all. Allow states to choose their level of government involvement in society. Most of all, allow people to protect themselves from the the fiscal recklessness of the federal government.

40% have no tax liability? I don't understand how that is possible. Last year I made around $18,000, and had a federal income withholding of around $2,000, of which only around half was refunded. Granted, I have no dependents and am claimed by my parents, but it is fairly hard to imagine someone paying less taxes them myself (Other then the poor single mom with 4 kids), as I live rather spartan. P.S.
Though I did upgrade my cuisine to cup ramen, I fell so bourgeois.

Bruce Bartlett pwns DenvilleSteve

Quoting Stapler Malone: Bruce Bartlett pwns DenvilleSteve

what does that mean? Bartlett makes good points there esp regarding the theoretical electability of a fiscally focused technocrat. But the intractable problem is exhibited by what is happening now. Where the governming party can mortgage everyone's future without any short term fiscal detrimental effects. You have to break up the center. There is no way around it.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: 40% have no tax liability?

I don't understand how that is possible. Last year I made around $18,000, and had a federal income withholding of around $2,000, of which only around half was refunded.

Granted, I have no dependents and am claimed by my parents, but it is fairly hard to imagine someone paying less taxes them myself (Other then the poor single mom with 4 kids), as I live rather spartan.

P.S.
Though I did upgrade my cuisine to cup ramen, I fell so bourgeois.

What's worse than ramen? Pancake batter?

Alright, these guys are saying Obama's made big mistakes by 1) not going for single-payer and 2) not going for a carbon tax. For #1 the problem is that you have to buy off the insurance companies (insurance mandate) to get anything passed. For #2 the problem is that you have to buy off the polluters (cap and trade) to get anything passed. Of course, if the Republicans weren't much, much worse on these issues all this buying off wouldn't be necessary. Obama's underlying mistake is having a shitty opposition party.

We are headed inexorably towards a racially-stratified class society, as both Frum and Bartlett gingerly admit. Has there ever been such a thing in history? What are the implications?

Quoting claymisher: Alright, these guys are saying Obama's made big mistakes by 1) not going for single-payer and 2) not going for a carbon tax. For #1 the problem is that you have to buy off the insurance companies (insurance mandate) to get anything passed. For #2 the problem is that you have to buy off the polluters (cap and trade) to get anything passed. Of course, if the Republicans weren't much, much worse on these issues all this buying off wouldn't be necessary. Obama's underlying mistake is having a shitty opposition party.

Bartlett thinks that if the Republicans take the House they'll be less corrupt and come up with a better global warming policy (carbon tax versus corporate welfare cap and trade)? Really? What makes him think that's possible? I think it's more likely that America would replace the Republicans with a Swedish conservative party than have the Republicans move to the left of the Democrats on climate.

I think we are already at a class stratified society based on income. There are the 25% to 30% that are ahead economically and the 70% that are falling behind. How that shakes out demographically on a national level I am not up to date. I remember reading sometime time ago that Jewish and Japanese American families have the highest income. Of course, they are small in numbers and are generally clustered in certain geographical areas of the country. I have noticed that in certain high income incorporated cities of Los Angeles County the preponderance of the populations are white: La Canada, Malibu, Palos Verdes, and Redondo Beach. This also applies to towns that are part of the city: Brentwood, Encino, Pacific Palisades, and Woodland Hills. Exacerbating this two tiered economic situation is the figure that only 24% of L.A. is considered middle class. A startling percentage indeed. The challenge for all politicians is to figure out a way to create middle income jobs that don't entail spending the first 40% of your life in school. It doesn't appear to be possible but I can't give up hope. John

Quoting claymisher: Obama's underlying mistake is having a shitty opposition party.

True, there is an elemnt of concern trolling going on here: "Tsk tsk, it's such a shame Obama did Plan X [in an attempt to appease my fellow conservatives], it would have been so much better for him to have done Plan Y [which my fellow conservatives would have made utterly impossible]. What a foolish choice."

Quoting claymisher: For #1 the problem is that you have to buy off the insurance companies (insurance mandate) to get anything passed.

I don't follow the buy off part. Promise them more profits if they don't release studies that inform the public about adverse effects of the plan? Pay the insurance companies money on the side to exchange for staying in the individual insurance business? If the democrat plan is sound and HI companies are able to make a profit, why does it matter what the current industry members have to say?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I don't follow the buy off part. Promise them more profits if they don't release studies that inform the public about adverse effects of the plan? Pay the insurance companies money on the side to exchange for staying in the individual insurance business? If the democrat plan is sound and HI companies are able to make a profit, why does it matter what the current industry members have to say?

Personally, I don't consider the mandate a buyoff, but an essential element if health care is to be predominantly paid for by private insurance (which I'm against, but it is the current plan). However, your comment seems to assume that the insurance companies would support any plan that allows for them to make a profit, which is obviously not the case. They have a rational incentive to lobby for a plan which would allow them to make more profits, rather than less, and to lobby against any which might cut into their profits

Quoting claymisher: Bartlett thinks that if the Republicans take the House they'll be less corrupt and come up with a better global warming policy (carbon tax versus corporate welfare cap and trade)? Really? What makes him think that's possible?

Yep, recent evidence from when the Republicans controlled congress and the White House makes that claim pretty absurd. Of course Democrats now have that control and it remains to be seen how much better they actually do.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: We are headed inexorably towards a racially-stratified class society, as both Frum and Bartlett gingerly admit. Has there ever been such a thing in history? What are the implications?

Yes. Yes; there has been such a thing in history. The period of...all of human history. The implications are the race- and class-based injustices present throughout all of human history.

Quoting bkjazfan:
The challenge for all politicians is to figure out a way to create middle income jobs that don't entail spending the first 40% of your life in school. It doesn't appear to be possible but I can't give up hope.

John

Ummmm...politicians don't create jobs....unless of course you are talking about government jobs. They do know how to create those. And those jobs create nothing.

Quoting Ray: Yes. Yes; there has been such a thing in history. The period of...all of human history.

The implications are the race- and class-based injustices present throughout all of human history.

So shall we assume it will be forever thus? It would make sense to do so. However, I do think that incrementally things get better. No stats on that one, just a sense that we're doing better generally than say 10,000 years ago.

Spam! Fina Food!

Quoting badhatharry: Ummmm...politicians don't create jobs....unless of course you are talking about government jobs. They do know how to create those. And those jobs create nothing.

The post office and transportation infrastructure, to name two, are government projects which have paved the way for the explosion of commerce from coast to coast. You have no idea how simplistic and wrong your dismissal of "government" is. Inventing the internet was a government job too, ya know. Do you suppose that created anything? You are on the brink of a breakthrough, because in the face of this simple evidence you should be ready to completely dispose of your longstanding conviction that "government jobs" "create nothing."

Not to mention the jobs created by government contracts. I would guess that the payroll of GE, Boeing, etc., would have been significantly smaller without that evil government paying their bills.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Not to mention the jobs created by government contracts. I would guess that the payroll of GE, Boeing, etc., would have been significantly smaller without that evil government paying their bills.

And why does badhat hate teachers, cops, firefighters, and The Troops?

Quoting badhatharry: Ummmm...politicians don't create jobs....unless of course you are talking about government jobs. They do know how to create those. And those jobs create nothing.

Government workers do create some actual products. Roads are a good example, but let's try thinking about something a little more fundamental: Federal Reserve Notes. You may want to consider the importance of this product for economic activity in the United States.
Edit: P.S. If money isn't fundamental enough for you, how about edible food, potable water, and breathable air? Money doesn't grow on trees, and, once you get markets involved, neither does food, air, or water.

Quoting badhatharry: So shall we assume it will be forever thus? It would make sense to do so.

However, I do think that incrementally things get better. No stats on that one, just a sense that we're doing better generally than say 10,000 years ago.

What? I have no idea what conversation you think you're having.

And what about animators?

Hard for me to follow this discussion. Too many absurd premises: Republicans want to slash the govt at all cost? Really!? Keynesianism helped during the Great Depression? Really?! Value added tax the cure-all? Really!? No really!?

Concern trolling doesn't begin to cover it. The section discussing the carbon tax was rife with my biggest pet peeve of hetero conservative thought: comparing bills working through congress to theoretical policy positions, then using that comparison to criticize the proponents of the bill and ignore or even applaud its opponents, when the opponents refusal to even admit that there is a problem to be solved is what makes it so impossible to produce a clean bill without massive special interest handouts. Do Frum and Bartlett think that the anti-Global Warming folks actually want the bill to hand out huge amounts of money to polluting companies? Do they think that Obama woke up one morning and said to himself "Gee, I'd really like to pass a bill to deal with Global Warming, but only if I can first devise a way to make it less effective by handing out huge amounts of money to polluters. Therefore, i should push for Cap and Trade instead of a carbon tax. That tax is far too conceptually elegant for me."For how much Frum criticizes talk

Quoting Stapler Malone: I'm only halfway through this diavlog, but had to pop in to say how refreshing it is to hear two conservatives talk about health care reform in this way.

Couldn't agree more.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: And what about animators?

LOL! What an awesome commercial. I love how he goes all the way to earth for just two jars of Tang. Of course since the trip only takes 2 seconds, no need to stock up! :-D

Quoting bjkeefe: And why does badhat hate teachers, cops, firefighters, and The Troops?

Yeah, clearly an educated citizenry "creates nothing." Badhat said so -- and he was serious! Clearly the cops who create the peaceful social order necessary for the flourishing of business and an open society also "create nothing." The amount of "nothing" that has been created by military spending can't be measured. What about something as simple as a government investment in a sport stadium which becomes the foundation for massive commerce? We could go on coming up with examples all day long.

Quoting claymisher: What's worse than ramen? Pancake batter?

edible Styrofoam

This diavlog should be called, Bruce Barlett: A Conservative for Regressive Taxes. I applaud Bartlett's realism regarding the need for defecit reduction, but doing so by imposing a VAT and payroll tax would only hurt the poor. Higher payroll taxes will discourage hiring and encourage layoffs; the VAT is a consumption tax that will hit those of modest means disportionately. Much better to raise capital gains taxes or restore, say, Reagan-era levels of income taxes.

Quoting TwinSwords: The post office and transportation infrastructure, to name two, are government projects which have paved the way for the explosion of commerce from coast to coast.

why does the post office have to be run by government? UPS and FedEx are private. If you want home delivery of your mail, pay for it. Otherwise, go to the local post office to get your mail from your mail box ( every resident in town would have one ) I think it is possible to get the government out of the road business also. Sell off all the roads of a town or county. Then monitor the number of miles driven by vehicles on those roads. Reimburse the private owners of the roads from gas taxes based on the percentage of total miles driven on their roads. The incentive to keep a road maintained and able to handle more traffic is that more cars would travel on well maintaned roads, increasing the reimbursement percentage to the owner.

Quoting TwinSwords: Inventing the internet was a government job too, ya know. Do you suppose that created anything?

You are listening to too many Al Gore speeches. Until a

Quoting bkjazfan: I think we are already at a class stratified society based on income. There are the 25% to 30% that are ahead economically and the 70% that are falling behind. How that shakes out demographically on a national level I am not up to date.

I remember reading sometime time ago that Jewish and Japanese American families have the highest income. Of course, they are small in numbers and are generally clustered in certain geographical areas of the country.

I have noticed that in certain high income incorporated cities of Los Angeles County the preponderance of the populations are white: La Canada, Malibu, Palos Verdes, and Redondo Beach. This also applies to towns that are part of the city: Brentwood, Encono, Pacific Palisades, and Woodland Hills.

Exacerbating this two tiered economic situation is the figure that only 24% of L.A. is considered middle class. A startling percentage indeed.

The challenge for all politicians is to figure out a way to create middle income jobs that don't entail spending the first 40% of your life in school. It doesn't appear to be possible but I can't give up hope.

John

I am not sure how it can be done. I think Frum alluded to the fact that

Quoting Ray: how about edible food, potable water, and breathable air? Money doesn't grow on trees, and, once you get markets involved, neither does food, air, or water.

would you call a condo association goverment? I would to a slight degree. A condo or development association can achieve the economy of scale needed to monitor the quality of the water and other utilities. On the subject of food, I have my doubts that the imported produce sold in the supermarket is monitored by the feds as well as it should be. An alternative is a private monitoring and certification enterprise. It charges a fee to producers to place its seal of approval on their packaging. The consumer only buys products certified by certifiers they trust and are aware of. The certifier then make known to the public the extent of their certification requirements and monitoring practice.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: A condo or development association can achieve the economy of scale needed to monitor the quality of the water and other utilities.

No; it cannot. Time for you to learn about water tables.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: On the subject of food, I have my doubts that the imported produce sold in the supermarket is monitored by the feds as well as it should be. An alternative is a private monitoring and certification enterprise.

Have you heard the term 'ratings agency'?

Quoting nikkibong: This diavlog should be called, Bruce Barlett: A Conservative for Regressive Taxes.

I applaud Bartlett's realism regarding the need for defecit reduction, but doing so by imposing a VAT and payroll tax would only hurt the poor. Higher payroll taxes will discourage hiring and encourage layoffs; the VAT is a consumption tax that will hit those of modest means disportionately.

Much better to raise capital gains taxes or restore, say, Reagan-era levels of income taxes.

ok, but higher taxes on the earning class will also reduce their investment capital, no? Which cuts their earnings over the long term. What degree of alarm or awareness of the deficit exists on the left? What Bartlett said about the public allowing deficit spending to spiral ever higher because of the abscence of short term detrimental effects was pretty chilling. Are democrats aware of the harm their deficits will cause in the future?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: You are listening to too many Al Gore speeches. Until a recent announcement, ICAAN has been non governmental.

You're spelling DARPA wrong.

Quoting Ray: No; it cannot. Time for you to learn about water tables.

I am not saying you dont need government at all. We don't need anywhere as much as we have now. And it should not be allowed to prevent people from associating privately.
[/quote]

Quoting Ray: Have you heard the term 'ratings agency'?

Allow private rating agencies to compete with public versions. I would prefer medicines to be rated by something other than the FDA. People should be allowed to get a prescription for drugs not yet approved by the feds.

Quoting Ray: You're spelling DARPA wrong.

yeah, Intel, Microsoft and Cisco would not exist without Grace Hopper overseeing their work. It is fascist Google that wants the government controlling the internet.

Quoting badhatharry: Ummmm...politicians don't create jobs....unless of course you are talking about government jobs. They do know how to create those. And those jobs create nothing.

I was a company mail clerk in the army and that job created a lot of happiness for those who were far from home near the DMZ in South Korea. John

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I am not saying you dont need government at all. We don't need anywhere as much as we have now. And it should not be allowed to prevent people from associating privately.

Nothing prevents people from associating privately. You can privately apply standards to water that are higher than the government's. But the implication of your statement was that a condo association can take over, rather than supplement, the role of the government in monitoring water quality. This is ridiculous on its face.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Allow private rating agencies to compete with public versions. I would prefer medicines to be rated by something other than the FDA. People should be allowed to get a prescription for drugs not yet approved by the feds.

We do (organic, cage-free, etc.). They are (consumer reporting publications). We can (herbalists, naturopaths, etc.). I think the problem here is that you're spoiled: on the one hand, you want the security of a system that exists and can only exist because of government regulation; on the other, you want that system to subvert itself, in order to satisfy your every whim. You're a libertarian, right?

[quote=Ray;133476
I think the problem here is that you're spoiled: on the one hand, you want the security of a system that exists and can only exist because of government regulation; on the other, you want that system to subvert itself, in order to satisfy your every whim.
[/QUOTE] I think it is contracts which keep society safe and functioning. The problem I see is there are so many democrats with a seemingly irrational attachment to goverment. The bigger the better in their view. They appear to welcome the fact that postal workers are less efficient than their UPS counterparts. You people are running the country into the ground. You are bankrupting it. Let us hope the system that follows will be an improvment.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: You people are running the country into the ground. You are bankrupting it. Let us hope the system that follows will be an improvment.

I am not a registered Democrat, nor have I ever voted for a Democrat in a Presidential election. The country is not being run into the ground. The country is experiencing major economic difficulties. These difficulties are due entirely to the undermining of regulatory practices that make a market economy possible. What's weird about you is how childish your thinking is: you have no idea where anything comes from. Contracts do not exist without government. I mean: look at your example with drugs:

Quoting DenvilleSteve: People should be allowed to get a prescription for drugs not yet approved by the feds.

There's no such thing as prescription drugs without the Feds. Where do you think prescriptions come from? Or doctors? Or pharmacies? Without government regulation, you'd have snake oil and quacks dominating health care. The market would collapse instantly. Even weirder than your innocence of the origin of the most basic elements of society, is your un-Americanism. You advocate for the kind of market found in Red China.

Quoting Ray: The country is not being run into the ground. The country is experiencing major economic difficulties.

These difficulties are due entirely to the undermining of regulatory practices that make a market economy possible.

I think it is more the government undermined the markets by, amoung other things, subsidizing and encouraging home loans which caused the investment bubble. There is also the still ongoing easy money policy of the Fed. A recession is not going to abnormally harm the country. It is the $1.4 trillion annual deficit. There are seemingly no plans to reduce the excessive spending.

Quoting Ray: Contracts do not exist without government. I mean: look at your example with drugs: There's no such thing as prescription drugs without the Feds. Where do you think prescriptions come from? Or doctors? Or pharmacies?

Without government regulation, you'd have snake oil and quacks dominating health care. The market would collapse instantly.

are you sure you mean to say this? Possibly you are trying to say there is no enforcement of contracts w/o government, and w/o enforcement the contract is pointless. Well, there are arbitrators, which are non governmental. Individuals can band together to exert leverage to enforce the contracts of all. Where the whole

The world is sufficiently complex, so as to force people that adopt a rigid philosophy to make bad arguments from time to time to defend their ideology. DenvilleSteve, this is one of those times.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think it is more the government undermined the markets by, amoung other things, subsidizing and encouraging home loans which caused the investment bubble

Home loans didn't cause the bubble. Securitization of home loans caused the bubble. Or, rather, the unregulated mortgage-backed securities market caused the bubble.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: It is the $1.4 trillion annual deficit. There are seemingly no plans to reduce the excessive spending.

Nor can there be. The U.S. dollar is the global reserve currency. This leads necessarily to a trade deficit, which leads necessarily to a deficit on either the government's or the private sector's accounts. If you don't like this situation, then don't use dollars.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Possibly you are trying to say there is no enforcement of contracts w/o government

No enforcement and no legal status for any party.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Individuals can band together to exert leverage to enforce the contracts of all.

This is what Rocky Balboa used to do.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: If the drug is certified as safe and effective by a trustworthy 3rd party rating agency, government should [not]object to its sale.

You are free to spend your U.S. dollars in the creation of just such a 3rd-party agency. Once it is up and running, you

Props! I've been reading Andrew J. Bacevich's The New American Militarism.

Make that three! I'm only a third done, but thanks for this book recommendation.

Quoting TwinSwords: Yeah, clearly an educated citizenry "creates nothing." Badhat said so -- and he was serious!

Clearly the cops who create the peaceful social order necessary for the flourishing of business and an open society also "create nothing."

The amount of "nothing" that has been created by military spending can't be measured.

What about something as simple as a government investment in a sport stadium which becomes the foundation for massive commerce?

We could go on coming up with examples all day long.

The original plea was that politicians should create more middle class jobs that begin earning decently before forty years of eductaion. My knee-jerk reply is that it is ridiculous to expect politicians to create jobs. As far as all those jobs you and everyone else mentioned, teachers, cops, military....well, yes they do create something so I was incorrect in saying they create nothing. What I would like to say instead is that they create no wealth. And in order to pay them there has to be some enormous pool of wealth creation. It seems as we go along in this discussion of government intervention in all things, that idea

Quoting Ray: What?

I have no idea what conversation you think you're having.

Sorry you didn't follow my drift. You said that "Yes. Yes; there has been such a thing in history. The period of...all of human history.
The implications are the race- and class-based injustices present throughout all of human history." So my reply was that since "race- and class-based injustices" have existed throughout history, it would be rational to think that they always will. But then, always on the lookout for a silver lining, I observed that things have gotten better in, say, the past 10,000 years, and appreciably so. I guess underlying all of this is the idea that things do get better. Perhaps not at the rate our modern minds would wish, but in the big picture, over history, they are. From the way many talk you would think that injustice could be eliminated entirely. I think we'll always be able to point to injustice of some kind. It's kinda the human condition. It was just a random comment to something you said.

Quoting Ray: Home loans didn't cause the bubble. Securitization of home loans caused the bubble. Or, rather, the unregulated mortgage-backed securities market caused the bubble.

So just a little clarification, please. To my knowledge, a bubble is created when the prices of houses rise precipitously because of some kind of manipulation such as low interest rates or demand. I think what Steve was saying is that the government was encouraging banks to lower their lending qualifications so that lower income folks could apply for and get loans. I'm not sure how this affected house prices, but it did lead to the building of houses which might not other wise have been built.
(which, come to think of it would lead to lower house prices, and eventually did) Bottom line is that because the government influenced lending prices, that led to the most recent bubble or in this case, collapse. While you might be able to add to that, I think you'd have to agree, that was a big part of it.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: We are headed inexorably towards a racially-stratified class society, as both Frum and Bartlett gingerly admit. Has there ever been such a thing in history? What are the implications?

I thought this was one of the odder arguments or not fleshed out or something. They jumped to Sweden so quickly that it seemed unclear what they were saying about the US, but it seems to me that the US is likely to get less racially stratified based on class (that we are, to some degree, has long been an issue) and that if they are asserting that we are facing some new threat now due to immigration they need to argue for that, not just assert it as a given. I did find the comments interesting in that you hear all the time that our lack of homogeneity is supposedly why we are less willing to pay for social programs then most Europeans. Maybe the argument has more force re health care then I had been appreciately, although it's one of those arguments where I will do a Michelle Goldberg and say that I really don't get people feeling

Harry Reid scoffing at $54 billion a year in tort reform savings.

I was a fan of Bartlett back when he was calling out Bush (and Frum was working for him and/or bashing righties who opposed the neocons). I think he's making a good point here that the GOP needs to get back from starve-the-beast (a theory of political behavior rather than traditional supply side economics) and towards balanced budgets. But now I've come to think less of Bruce now that he's moved toward the respectable center and more of Frum now that he's not working for any establishment Republicans but pointing out how much they've screwed up. Unfortunately he never mentions the main reason the GOP crashed-and-burned, because he wants to preserve the insane foreign policy. Bartlett says we could have a health care system just as good as France. France is not the United States, a very different political culture and structure. That's why they have so much nuclear power. There is little reason to think that a healthcare system coming out of the U.S Congress will be as good. Path dependence may mean we can't get there from here. I'm persuaded by Robin Hanson that health

Quoting stephanie: I did find the comments interesting in that you hear all the time that our lack of homogeneity is supposedly why we are less willing to pay for social programs then most Europeans. Maybe the argument has more force re health care then I had been appreciately, although it's one of those arguments where I will do a Michelle Goldberg and say that I really don't get people feeling strongly against universal health care based on the view that they are paying for undeserving people to get it. I find that emotional appeal more understandable when it's about various other issues, so I've been seeing the health care argument as, at base, about the role of the government and efficiency and so on. Quite possibly that was wrong.

Stephanie, I urge you to read this. I heard the audio of this speech given to UC Berkeley students and they applauded on the line 'we're just going to let you die'. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj I have now watched three of my elders die. Two of them died in my home on hospice care. So I do understand the dilemma of keeping people alive past their due date

What attributes do insurance companies have that make you trust them more? Btw, my biggest fear about single payer isn't that there would be death panels, its that possibly there would not be death panels.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: What attributes do insurance companies have that make you trust them more?

Btw, my biggest fear about single payer isn't that there would be death panels, its that possibly there would not be death panels.

Your biggest fear? Really?

I agree with Starwatcher. There are limited resources, so not everyone can have unlimited health care. Either consumers will decide whether they want to spend more money on the dying, or insurance companies will, or the government will. A government agency which sets a limit (whether based on costs, condition, age and so on) beyond which it will not spend more to try to keep someone alive is a death panel. We spend a great amount of money trying to keep people alive, it's expensive and I don't think worth it. If the government is in charge I want them to be responsible and not spend inordinate amounts on the dying. So let's hope for death panels.

Let me just say as progressive Obama supporter that I found this diavlog completely reasonable and comprehensible, and that is very refreshing. This is not to say that I agree with all, or even most, of it; merely that it appears to have a relationship to reality that is sorely lacking in the 'received' conception of conservatism. I suppose I'm trying to say that these guys, from what they said, seem to share the same planet that I do, and I'd like to see more of that; both here on bloggingheads (likely) and in the mainstream media (impossible?).

Quoting T.G.G.P: I agree with Starwatcher. There are limited resources, so not everyone can have unlimited health care. Either consumers will decide whether they want to spend more money on the dying, or insurance companies will, or the government will. A government agency which sets a limit (whether based on costs, condition, age and so on) beyond which it will not spend more to try to keep someone alive is a death panel. We spend a great amount of money trying to keep people alive, it's expensive and I don't think worth it. If the government is in charge I want them to be responsible and not spend inordinate amounts on the dying. So let's hope for death panels.

Kind of an aside, don't you find it a little hypocritically humerous that the left and many here ran around castigating Sarah Palin for pointing out THE FACT that there is wording and allusions to death panels within most all proposed healthcare legislation put forth by the Democrats in Congress...and now we have gone from denying their existance to requesting it? Your biggest problem seemingly is your naivety evidenced by your willingness to trust the

Quoting Whatfur: Kind of an aside, don't you find it a little hypocritically humerous that the left and many here ran around castigating Sarah Palin for pointing out THE FACT that there is wording and allusions to death panels within most all proposed healthcare legislation put forth by the Democrats in Congress...and now we have gone from denying their existance to requesting it?

Your biggest problem seemingly is your naivety evidenced by your willingness to trust the government with making decisions about YOUR healthcare and who gets it and who doesn't...who lives and who dies. At the same time you seem to be willing to hand those decisions over to accountants and not doctors. Also, the artlessness you show in equating government making the decisions with consumers and insurance companies, is rather astounding. I am going to assume you don't need an explanation why.

Personally I think the biggest travestly and the thing we all should most fear most is that instead of 30 million people getting healthcare they didn't previously have, that 270 million people get provided worse healthcare than they NOW have. In reality, this is not about creating

Quoting AemJeff: What's humorous is that the term "death panels" comes up at all; as if decisions about what's appropriate for a given patient - regardless of how old they are - are not a part of any approach to health care financing. The term has been used to cast an unavoidable aspect of the process as something ugly and unique in the case of one particular approach to the problem. It doesn't matter if you're insured by a private company, a government run program, or you're depending on your rich daddy's largesse - eventually a decision will have to be made regarding whether a given treatment makes sense in a a particular context. Sometimes that context includes being very old and very sick. Calling such a decision the result of a "death panel" in one case, but not in another, is either stupid or dishonest. Since Palin's name was mentioned, it seems appropriate to believe it was both.

Bullshit. You also show a lack of understanding. Death Panels run by the government are not going to look at Jeff's particular condition and make a decision on it. You will fall into

Quoting Whatfur: Bullshit. You also show a lack of understanding. Death Panels run by the government are not going to look at Jeff's particular condition and make a decision on it. You will fall into a category pre-determined by a group of government accountants who will enter your criteria into a computer and it will spit out a result say like in the Strum case....No pacemaker (dead in a year,but given plenty of pills, Cost $175) or gets pacemaker(dead in 10 years, able to finish writing his best seller providing security for his wife and children, Cost $10,000). Wonder which the government with a huge deficit will choose??? Obama told us.

As an individual you would choose to spend the $10,000 (if you had it) and if you had the insurance I have today they would be contractually bound to give it to you.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this regard. "Death Panels" is polemic - risible rhetoric signifying nothing real. Your projective assumptions about the nature of the process followed by such an entity are informed by your own personal biases and your political opposition

Quoting AemJeff: You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this regard. "Death Panels" is polemic - risible rhetoric signifying nothing real. Your projective assumptions about the nature of the process followed by such an entity are informed by your own personal biases and your political opposition to a government funded financing model. Screaming "bullshit" and painting scenarios built from your personal nightmares isn't a substitute for analysis.

You call what YOU posted analysis? Sorry dipshit, but my scenerio is based on HR3200 and yours is based on bullshit.

Quoting Whatfur: You call what YOU posted analysis? Sorry dipshit, but my scenerio is based on HR3200 and yours is based on bullshit.

Try to avoid the insults son, you embarrass yourself. I've seen evidence in your prior posts that you've read the legislation. That doesn't make your homespun scenarios any less fantastic.

Quoting AemJeff: Try to avoid the insults son, you embarrass yourself. I've seen evidence in your prior posts that you've read the legislation. That doesn't make your homespun scenarios any less fantastic.

Whatever Daddy-O. You tried to "paint" a scenerio where individual cases come before some government "Star Chamber" and mine painted the only logical application of what is being talked about in the current bills. Thanks though, yes my homespun scenarios ARE fantastic and unlike yours are close to the truth.

Quoting Whatfur: Whatever Daddy-O. You tried to "paint" a scenerio where individual cases come before some government "Star Chamber" and mine painted the only logical application of what is being talked about in the current bills. Thanks though, yes my homepun scenarios ARE fantastic and unlike yours are much closer to the truth.

Really? I'm curious, to which of my scenarios do you refer? Can you link the post?

Quoting AemJeff: Really? I'm curious, to which of my scenarios do you refer? Can you link the post?

The scenario (first response to me here) where you attempt to tell us that regardless of whether a healthcare decision comes from the government, insurance companies, or someone's rich daddy... Unless I am mistaken, you were lumping them all in with as one big "Death Panel" definition and that it didn't matter where the decision came from. In re-reading what you wrote...If your point was the simplistic one of a decision had to come from somewhere and it source could be lumped into a death panel definition...well I would have to say "Ok..whatever...So...Duh!" and then I would go on to apologize for misinterpreting your obvious and meaningless post. I assumed you were taking issue with my statement about the absurdity of equating those 3 possible decision maker's actual decisions.

... of a 'fur-pology:

Quoting Whatfur: ...well I would have to say "Ok..whatever...So...Duh!" and then I would go on to apologize for misinterpreting your obvious and meaningless post.

Also, it's hard to imagine how something could simultaneously be both "obvious" and "meaningless," so hats off to Jeff for word wizardry.

I see that some of the commenters have brought up the point about who would make a decision I would prefer, an insurance company or the government. Some here think that the government will make the better decision. I, you may guess, do not. I am assuming you are all aware of what Reich said. He was not being funny as I think some in his audience thought. He was not being sarcastic, either. He was saying exactly what will happen. He, in fact, said what Palin said so artlessly. He also said that no progressive politician in his right mind would ever spell it out in that way because it is so unpalatable. At least one person here said that some people should die because their treatment is too costly and they are too old. In a macro-economics sense that may be true. But I shudder to think about some guideline made by some bureaucrat based on some study of the budget and projected costs making that decision. Don't any of you see how creepy that is and the kind of abuse and corruption, not to mention neglect that can lead to? Government should

Quoting badhatharry: I see that some of the commenters have brought up the point about who would make a decision I would prefer, an insurance company or the government. Some here think that the government will make the better decision. I, you may guess, do not.

I am assuming you are all aware of what Reich said. He was not being funny as I think some in his audience thought. He was not being sarcastic, either. He was saying exactly what will happen. He, in fact, said what Palin said so artlessly. He also said that no progressive politician in his right mind would ever spell it out in that way because it is so unpalatable.

At least one person here said that some people should die because their treatment is too costly and they are too old. In a macro-economics sense that may be true. But I shudder to think about some guideline made by some bureaucrat based on some study of the budget and projected costs making that decision.

Don't any of you see how creepy that is and the kind of abuse and corruption, not to mention neglect that can lead to? Government should

Quoting Starwatcher162536: What attributes do insurance companies have that make you trust them more?

Btw, my biggest fear about single payer isn't that there would be death panels, its that possibly there would not be death panels.

The best thing about insurance companies is that they are private. If this were a better world they would operate in direct competition with other insurance companies. They would compete for customers. Because I believe in the good things that markets can accomplish, I think that insurance companies will provide better access to health care than the government will. There is the problem of people with pre-existing conditions and I think that needs to be dealt with through some kind of regulation. That would mean larger risk pools which include those folks. That may very well mean bigger cost for the rest of us. But the cost of the government insuring everyone will inevitably be larger. That's just the way the government does things. This is a philosophical debate. I think in the long run private competition is the best route for us to be taking. Only time will tell.

Quoting badhatharry: ...
This is a philosophical debate. I think in the long run private competition is the best route for us to be taking. Only time will tell.

It's a practical debate. We've seen the effect of private competition - time has told.

Quoting AemJeff: Like 'fur, you're mischaracterizing the nature of the choice. Regardless of what entity is making the decisions, someone - very likely a bureaucrat - is going to have the specific job of deciding such things. Insurance company bureaucrat, government bureaucrat - it doesn't matter they will not have your personal interests at the top of their list of priorities. Ugly decisions have to be made, and the choice of funding model doesn't affect that clear reality.

Of course, decisions have to be made. The difference is that when you purchase a health care policy you know in advance what it will cover. That informs your choice. You make that decision based on how long you want to live and how much care you want to have bestowed upon you. You make that choice based on what you are willing to give up in the short run in case you end up with some big bad disease. Or you may choose to live uninsured and you may end up saving a lot of money if you don't get sick. As it is, there aren't any consequences because there is always

Quoting AemJeff: It's a practical debate. We've seen the effect of private competition - time has told.

Big Brother looms!

Quoting badhatharry: Of course, decisions have to be made. The difference is that when you purchase a health care policy you know in advance what it will cover. That informs your choice. You make that decision based on how long you want to live and how much care you want to have bestowed upon you. You make that choice based on what you are willing to give up in the short run in case you end up with some big bad disease. Or you may choose to live uninsured and you may end up saving a lot of money if you don't get sick.

As it is, there aren't any consequences because there is always the fall-back position of the public hospital or medicaid if you want to give up all your assets.

This is what adults do when they make decisions about insurance and health care. They make choices. When the government takes over, choices go away.

Harry, I think you're expressing an idealized view of the benefits of a purely private system. It's definitely true that "when the government takes over, choices go away" is a caricature of reality - even in the specific realm of health care financing.

Quoting AemJeff: Harry, I think you're expressing an idealized view of the benefits of a purely private system. It's definitely true that "when the government takes over, choices go away" is a caricature of reality - even in the specific realm of health care financing.

Well I guess at this point it's one idealized view vs. another idealized view. As I've said before, you guys have the power, so you're very close to having your idealized view put into effect.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... of a 'fur-pology:

Also, it's hard to imagine how something could simultaneously be both "obvious" and "meaningless," so hats off to Jeff for word wizardry.

Imagine most of your posts and it may become clear. I would draw stick people for the mentally retarded...but I am pretty sure Jeff gets it so you will just have to ask your SE teacher to explain it to you.

Quoting Whatfur: Imagine most of your posts and it may become clear.

I would draw stick people for the mentally retarded...but I am pretty sure Jeff gets it so you will just have to ask your SE teacher to explain it to you.

Explanation FAIL. You can't just repeat the original empty assertion and claim that supports it, no matter how many grade-school insults you throw in. (This isn't wingnut radio, is what I mean to say.)

Harry, I don't get it. Wouldn't a private insurance company, which solely exists to turn a profit, be even less likely to fork over for expensive, life-extending treatments? Government is not besieged by the demands of the shareholder or executive to make a profit no matter what.

Yes but the politicians are always under siege to expand benefits and redistribute wealth. Look at the rather modest SS program, as passed in 35, and contrast it to the program and benefits today. It is ever so when the politicians are buying votes with ever larger promises of generosity with OPM.

Quoting bjkeefe: Explanation FAIL.

You can't just repeat the original empty assertion and claim that supports it, no matter how many grade-school insults you throw in. (This isn't wingnut radio, is what I mean to say.)

Just because Brendan has trouble understanding an assertion does not make it empty. Run along now...nobody asked for your empty opinion. Please do not start again becoming the dog in heat. This site is so much more pleasing when you are away.

This was a very nice post. Thanks for the links.

Quoting badhatharry: Stephanie, I urge you to read this. I heard the audio of this speech given to UC Berkeley students and they applauded on the line 'we're just going to let you die'.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Thanks, I did, and I both found it interesting and get why you found it interesting, although I don't think it has much to do with the current reform (which I'm only marginally in favor of, although I am major in favor of single payer).

So I do understand the dilemma of keeping people alive past their due date and that we simply can't afford to keep people alive by any means neccessary.

This seems to me to be a question that is primarily faced by Medicare, already. It's one where Americans aren't comfortable saying no, which is one reason Medicare costs are insane and people like Unit are probably correct in arguing that imitating their system wouldn't give the US a cost profile like, say, France or Sweden or the Netherlands.

I just don't want Reich or anyone from the government making that decsion for anyone.

Saying that I won't pay for extraordinary care to extend your life doesn't mean that I am making the

Quoting Whatfur: Just because Brendan has trouble understanding an assertion does not make it empty. Run along now...nobody asked for your empty opinion. Please do not start again becoming the dog in heat. This site is so much more pleasing when you are away.

Oh, we're now at "dog in heat?" Courageous! Not! As to the rest, I'll weigh in whenever and wherever I feel like it. If you don't want me laughing at your inanities, don't post them. Plus, I doubt your view about "pleasing" is widely shared.

when is mr. bartlett gonna debate somebody who will actually push back? that's why i love the heather hurlbert-eli lake podcast (and kaus/wright and conn/scher too when they were still around.)

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/23078?in=39:50&out=42:04