If This Is Advocacy...

If this is advocacy for Hillary's health care mandates, what would an attack look like?  Here is Ezra Klein:

Here's the thing: The Obama plan does not make health insurance affordable. It does not arrest its growth. It does not even come close. Nor, it should be said, does Clinton's plan. But Clinton's plan, by establishing a universal health system, creates the pressures and incentives to retain and improve a universal health system -- otherwise, you have hordes of angry citizens caught between a mandate they can't evade and a plan they can't afford... So the difference between the plans is that in Clinton's case, we know the spur that will force her to continue reforming, improving, and pressuring the system: It's the mandate.

Let's see - people will hate the mandates, which will make Hillary's plan unpopular; hence, in an attempt to salvage her plan (and her Administration) Hillary will figure out how to control costs.  Hmm, will her revised cost-controlling plan also be unpopular (and will that also be a feature, not a bug)?  Or, if controlling costs is doable and popular, why doesn't she spare us some pain and herself some embarrassment and go directly to the popular Plan B? 

Hands up if you seriously think that, following her health care debacle of 1993/94 and the Congressional flip to the Republicans, Hillary has any intention at all of delivering a health care plan that will be unpopular... I don't see any hands.

A reader also revolts in Ezra's comments:       

It's hard to make sense of this argument.

1.  Insurance is not affordable.

2. Insurance will not become affordable until there's a mandate for people to buy it.

3.  Therefore, people must be mandated to buy unaffordable insurance in order to make insurance affordable.

Huh?      

I second that "Huh", but as a righty I am resigned to not understanding every nuance of lefty thought.  However, a bit of enlightenment can be found in this Dec 1 post by Richard Eskow, who chatted with Obama's adviser about mandates; Mr. Eskow has more here.

And looking slightly down the road - imagine President Hillary (take a moment to shudder with me) abandoning her precious mandates as laughably unpopular outside of her own base and politically undoable; further imagine her embracing the new reality in Iraq and trying to turn the tactical success of the surge into a satisfactory outcome for America.

In that scenario, how DOA is her Administration?  OK, not DOA enough, but you see my point - lefties may be leaping from tall buildings six months into her regime.  Hope the sidewalks have been cleared of the righties.

Comments

[Bill in AZ]

further imagine her embracing the new reality in Iraq and trying to turn the tactical success of the surge into a satisfactory outcome for America

Because it's President Hillary (or President Hussein) doing it, it will be lauded and applauded far and wide. The sheer genius of it will be the subject of books and movies - like Charlie Wilsons War, in which Reagan seems to have played no part.

[MayBee]

Ezra's argument makes no sense to me. However...

If I had to guess about Hillary's mandates, I would say she only throws them in her plan so she can say she is for "Universal Health Care". In fact, she can repeat it over and over loudly and say Obama isn't for it.
People that aren't wonky hear that and think they are about to get FREE! Healthcare from a President Hillary Clinton.

Universal sounds like Free.
And free sounds like the ClariceCare Plan from another thread.

[Other Tom]

As Peter Arnett would say, "we had to destroy health care in order to save it."

[cathyf]

Let's see - people will hate the mandates, which will make Hillary's plan unpopular; hence, in an attempt to salvage her plan (and her Administration) Hillary will figure out how to control costs.

Yeah -- just like medicare back in 1967, right?

[windansea]

lets see...we've got the option of Bama or Billary vs McAmnesty

I'll vote for McCain just to support our troops and WOT but it will take a Military Class 15 with Nato filter gasmask to do so

good thing I took spanish in 6th grade

[Sue]

Bwahahaha...MSNBC has suspended David Shuster for his pimped out dig. Drudge has the link.

[clarice]

Well when David returns to the air I expect he'll be waving the unsealed Rove indictments he promised us so long ago.

[centralcal]

Too funny, Clarice! Hit isn't our only comedian (comedienne)!

[Ann]

The suspension is only temporary until Hillary accepts their invitation for a Feb. 26th debate. If they were serious, they would suspend Keith Olbermann for the hatred he spews nightly.

[centralcal]

My apoligies if this has been mentioned on another thread - been away and am behind - but, did you see that Ace won the Conservative Blogger award at CPAC? Good for Ace. BTW, there is a photo of him over at Weekly Standard's blog and he DOES kinda look like Mark Steyn! Who knew. I always thought he was a dark haired biker type with tatoos.

[Ann]

Are you guys experiencing a very slow internet connection?

Are they cutting cables over here? :)

[centralcal]

Ann, I was super slow this morning. Slower than dial-up. I turned everything off on Norton, and that didn't help. It has speeded up tonite. We had a power outage last night, so I'm blaming that.

You are not in my neck of the woods in California, so we can't be having shared experiences!

[centralcal]

windansea: Boy, I am trying so hard to convince myself that I really "should" vote for McCain come November. But, truthfully, I am not there yet.

I keep feeling that he may flame out in some manner before then. He is not a nice man and he is not a leader, except maybe off a cliff. Time will tell. Till then I am keeping all options open.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Tom, I think the short answer is that when it becomes universal, it might be more affordable (I have my doubts but for the sake of argument) but it stops being insurance and becomes a health care tax that disproportionately charges the healthy to support the sick. I hope to write more on this over at Explorations tonight.

[Semanticleo]

I suspect part of the reason Edwards has not endorsed 'O' is the absence of mandates in his plan.

The dual impediments to change in this arena;
NIMBY and obsessive self-interest require mandates. If you think mandates are a bad thing, remember how the auto industry has stepped up to the plate on MPG. C.A.F.E.
efficiency has been met largely through reductions in weight, rather than technological innovation, because it's cheaper, that's all.

"HOW CAFE INCREASES RISKS TO MOTORISTS

The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths. A 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that, in the years since CAFE standards were mandated under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. 5 This translates into 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained by the standards."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm

Some might say that 46,000 deaths pro-rated over 33 years makes it a bargain, based upon the relief for the marketplace and the dollar benefit to the stakeholder. Then again, some might call it irresponsible,
bean-counter psycho-pathology.

Where do you stand?

[Karl]

The reason Klein does not make sense in this case is because he cannot bring himself to clearly state what he means.

What he means is that the mandate is essential because: (1) it reduces the costs to the older and less healthy by forcing the young and healthy to pay for insurance; and (2) universal health care can cut costs by using monopoly power to gut the heathcare and pharmaceutical industries and by rationing services.

I might take issue with some of the above, but you can see why Klein would be inclined to be oblique in discussing it.

[Cecil Turner]

Where do you stand?

I think this says it all: "A 1999 USA TODAY analysis . . ." The day I need USA Today for analysis, well, it is not this day. And of course lighter cars use less gas. It's directly related, in the only reliable use of the term "conservation of energy." The data suggesting lighter cars are less safe is largely, in my opinion, a result of collisions with heavier cars; which has obvious ramifications. And if I'm reading you right, you're both for and against CAFE, which is hard to credit.

As for health care mandates, it ought to be little surprise (at least to any that can spell "incentive") that driving competition out of the market raises costs. The argument that health care is too expensive so we must make it more so is less than compelling, as Tom notes.

[Semanticleo]

"forcing the young and healthy to pay for insurance;"

If you have ANY knowledge about insurance, you acknowledge that morbidity tables determine not only premiums, but the very coverage itself. It is wise to obtain life and health insurance while you are young and healthy, because you CANNOT OBTAIN IT, when health fails.

[Ann]

Centralcal,

Our depression might be alleviated if McCain picked Romney as his running mate. Several people have suggested it, like VDH at the corner. He makes a good case.

We have gotten our hopes up so many times this election that I even hate to mention it, but theres HOPE in the air I hear.

I am still voting for Romney in Ohio in the primaries, just to make myself feel better. TAKE THAT MCCAIN!!! **THWACK**

[Semanticleo]

"you're both for and against CAFE, which is hard to credit."

What I am saying is, even WITH mandates, private industry behaves irresponsibly.

They are PROFIT ORIENTED, and that's OK.
But to leave the PROFIT ORIENTED without
the controls of civilized behavior, is, well.
irresponsible.

[Other Tom]

I take it as indisputable that goods or services priced below market must be rationed--period. Is this incorrect?

I am getting more and more fascinated with the "train wreck" Dem scenario, and can't really see any way for them to avoid it. I believe Hillary will end up as the nominee, but that Obama's supporters will have a very strong sense of having been screwed by the machine. This could happen either by the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations against Obama's wishes, or by a huge deal among a large majority of superdelegates, or both.

In any case, I would love to see them having AlGore-type lawsuits against one another well into October.

[Semanticleo]

"I think this says it all: "A 1999 USA TODAY analysis ."

BTW; If you had bothered to check the link......Heritage Foundation is quoting USA Today, for their own purposes of course.

[Cecil Turner]

What I am saying is, even WITH mandates, private industry behaves irresponsibly.

So, if the government provides a mandate, and business complies, and the result isn't what was desired, the fault lies with private industry? Sorry, but that's even harder to credit. And if that was your point in the above, I'd rather you weren't in charge of setting mandates of any sort.

......Heritage Foundation is quoting USA Today

I don't care if the Pope is quoting 'em. I'd sooner go to an electrician for a plumbing problem.

[Semanticleo]

"the fault lies with private industry?"

Are you baiting me with that idiocy?

Just ignore my posts and retreat to your meth lab.

[bgates]

Some might say that 46,000 deaths pro-rated over 33 years makes it a bargain
and the same people would say 4,000 deaths pro-rated over 5 years makes the Iraq war a uniquely awful cataclysm unparalleled in human history. Of course it's not really a fair comparison, because the CAFE mandates are sacrificing blood to save....

besessenes Eigeninteresse erfordert Vollmacht - I'm sorry, that was
obsessive self-interest requires mandates - seemed more natural to express that sentiment in German for some reason. I think "the progressive hunger for totalitarianism requires mandates" is closer to the truth, though.

[Rick Ballard]

Does anyone else see vast vortices of anti-intelligence swirling around a black hole of stupidity as they read through this thread?

Very odd.

[Semanticleo]

"Does anyone else see vast vortices of anti-intelligence swirling around a black hole of stupidity as they read through this thread?"

Now that you mention it.................

[Cecil Turner]

Are you baiting me with that idiocy?

If that's your case for mandates, it's just as compelling as the rest of the nonsense above.

Just ignore my posts and retreat to your meth lab.

Heh. "Baiting"? Look, it ain't my fault you're incoherent. Single-payers raise costs, heavier cars use more gas. Trying to change either of the above is doomed to failure . . . seeing some deep dark conspiracy behind the obvious is delusional. Cheers.

[Semanticleo]

delusional. Cheers.

'Nuff said.........

[Rick Ballard]

Cecil,

Perhaps the question was meant to be: Do you believe that the compounded cost of stupidity involved in rationing health care will exceed the 46,000 deaths directly caused by the government in its imposition of CAFE standards?

I'd say definitely yes - by several orders of magnitude.

[Cecil Turner]

Looked to me like it was: "we need mandates, because look how poorly they performed in the auto industry." But I'll allow yours makes more sense.

[Semanticleo]

"rationing health care"

Unenlightened self-interest.

[qrstuv]

"Unenlightened self-interest."

As opposed to a select, enlightened few looking out for the common good.

* Deciding what speech should be lawful.
* Deciding how much everything is worth.
* Deciding what "society" collectively should reward.
* Deciding which people need a little more help than others.
* Deciding what people should be permitted to do with their own property.
* Deciding how much of their earnings people should be permitted to keep.
* Deciding which laws the citizens are permitted to vote upon.

It's totalitarian, sister. Ain't no two ways about it.

[PeterUK]

Universal Health Care does not reduce costs.Insurance becomes a tax.Taxes fall within the purview of politicians and bureaucrats who lose their trousers to the suppliers. whilst building vast money burning bureaucracies.
Universal Health Care means rationing,denying treatment to those who do not look after their bodies,smokers,the obese the elderly,forget it.The utilitarian principle comes in,a limit to the amount of effort is spent on keeping patients alive.
Oh yes,every one and their relatives hop over your borders for treatment.

[Semanticleo]

Irrational fear of 'rationing'

I suppose it's to be expected that many are fearful that if others get a piece of the health care pie, those who had more, will now have less. Worse still, they will have to deal with lowered healthcare costs because preventative medicine and wellness counseling will provide a healthier public body, decreasing the costs of extended care and hospitalization. That, in turn, will lead to greater work productivity and extended work careers. God forbid, the government should work toward that end. It might mean a few less Cubans and Louis VIII
cognac for those disposed to having it all.
They will have to scrape by. Pity.

[Elliott]

Other Tom:

In any case, I would love to see them having AlGore-type lawsuits against one another well into October.

Maybe the Dems should try to convince the courts to postpone resolution until after the election. For them, John McCain vs. a Democrat to be named later could have the virtue of not disenchanting any of the groups in their coalition.

[clarice]

Very good, elliott.

[Rick Ballard]

But Peter, St. Hillary and the Obamasturmabteilungsmann are promising that this time it will be different.

They really, really, really do care so very much and they promise to do the right thing always, cross the place where their hearts would be if they were human and hope to die.

Just remember their slogan: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fu Happy Days Are Here Again!!!

[SteveMG]

I think it was Friedman (Milton, not Tom) who said that when government is asked to address or solve a problem (real or imagined, large or small), eventually it will end up regulating the problem.

Causing, of course, more problems that require greater intervention. Et cetera...

[Tom Maguire]

From Charlie CO:

I hope to write more on this over at Explorations tonight.

Please leave a link; shameless self-promotion is de rigeur here.

[Rick Ballard]

Charlie CO's Explorations

[SteveMG]

Very odd reading people who are outraged by the possibility of the government listening to phone calls between al-Qaeda terrorists without judicial approval and yet are gleeful about letting the government take over about 20% of our GDP and have total access to all of our private medical records.

I say odd when I really mean stupid.

[SteveMG]

take over about 20% of our GDP

Scratch that. It was 16% in 2006.

[Cecil Turner]

Worse still, they will have to deal with lowered healthcare costs . . .

Talk about delusional. Looks to me like we're full circle, and back to TM's point that if Hillary could actually reduce costs we ought to start there. But I ain't gonna hold my breath.

[Sue]

Cecil,

But it's free.

[Rick Ballard]

The '16%' graphic that Syeve linked has a nice pie chart graphic splitting up health care costs. It's an intresting exercise to try and imagine how mandated insurance could possibly cause a decrease in costs, given that people already overuse health care due to a perception that once you're covered there are no additional costs beyond co-pay once the deductible is paid.

It's a reasonable bet that costs would jump unless HSA's and rather high deductibles were also mandated.

[PeterUK]

"Irrational fear of 'rationing",
It isn't irrational where you have rationing.
Then there are the targets,after all how does a politician know if the plan is being fulfilled.On and on the carnival rolls,more and more expensive procedures enter service.

[Navig8r]

Government health care (or private insurance for that matter) can be any 2 of the following 3 things: Good, Cheap, Fast. Our present system is undeniably good and fast, but it is not cheap. The Dems offer you a plan that is cheap, and you won't settle for less than good, so get comfortable because it won't be fast. What's that, you say you want fast and cheap? OK, but it won't be good. Take your pick, any 2 out of 3.

[Cecil Turner]

Thanks, Sue. Best chuckle I've had since Red State apologized to Fred:

People who don't like Fred Thompson don't get no sausage!

[Sue]

Cecil,

You're welcome. I can't top the sausage comment, but I aim to try.

[Bill in AZ]

Semanticleo, This will sound very counterintuitive to you. Unfortunately, it describes why liberal politics always “sounds” good, but is the opposite of what we should be doing. Your argument sounds very persuasive, sounds “good”, people love it, people flock to the logic of it – it is why the Obamas of the world are unbeatable should he become the nominee.

Allow me to present the other side, the “conservative” side, the reason we rant and rave against the feel good stuff that is part and parcel of MSM and liberal thought (redundancy alert).

Specific to your comment, right now, there are only a few pharmaceutical companies still operating in the US. They are huge dollar companies because they are the only ones who can still afford to operate and survive the potential lawsuits, the government regulations, the approval processes, etc (we can thank John Edwards and his ilk for this). There are highly creative people who work for these companies – but there are fewer and fewer of them. The result is that there are fewer and fewer advances made in medicine, pharmaceuticals, cures, etc. The rest has been offshored, if it is being done at all. The direct result of this is that we stagnate in medical care advances.

That may or may not mean anything to you.

Let me toss in a couple of other examples of the exact same thing – but different.

Cars – many, maybe most, of the advances in automobile technology come as a result of racing. Pffft - racing – waste of fossil fuels, time, energy, and a bunch of dumbass coors swilling rednecks, the scourge of progressive thinking, are the only ones who watch it. Yet, year after year, many of the most important safety, reliability, fuel efficient, ideas that go into future Detroit, or Japanese, or Korean, cars come from the inventors and pioneers who make race cars. It’s because they push the limits. It’s because they aren’t artificially constrained by some socialist movement to make everything equal. You can replace “cars” with any number of other technologies – things you use every day. It’s the guys who push the limits who wind up making things better for all of us.

That doesn’t work? Not convincing? Ok, let me try one very close to home. Your son is a Marine (I believe?). God bless him – he has my gratitude and admiration. Automatic weapons. They have been basically outlawed here for normal citizens for many years. Very difficult for the average citizen to get one, play with one, try one, work with one, improve one, DEMAND improvements when it doesn’t work. Yet there are thousands of normal citizens, who, just like race car mechanics, or pharmaceutical scientists, would like to have the ability to simply enjoy having one, push it to its limits, improve it, make it better. Marines died in Vietnam because when the m16 first came out it was a piece of shit. It was a piece of shit because there was non of even the most basic hammering the crap out of it by people who would demand it get fixed, who would demand improvements, who would make improvements. No competition, no need to improve.

The process is called capitalism. It is counterintuitive to your argument – but it works better than anything else. There is nothing the government can do to mandate making things better. It has to happen through competition – live or die – literally in some cases.

Do you want your future healthcare stagnating on todays, or, really, yesterdays advancements? Or would you like it to move forward, and ultimately be cheaper as we go down the road? There is only one way that will happen – and it won’t happen by government mandate. Once you put the government in the middle of this, it will stagnate, it will move offshore – if it does anything at all (where would it go? To another socialist country?). We will be stuck in 1990’s medicine.

Irrational fear of rationing – no, it’s a pretty rational fear.

[Cecil Turner]

The Dems offer you a plan that is cheap . . .

On what planet? At the risk of beating a dead horse, having the government pay for health care invariably drives up costs, as it removes all incentive for recipients either to shop for the cheapest care or to pursue any but the highest-quality health care alternative. Which inexorably leads to rationing, as the costs exceed available resources. The history of the past few years' experience with increasingly socialized health care ought to've proven that beyond any real doubt, even to the most skeptical.

[Other Tom]

The one thing I can predict with the most supreme confidence is that this election season will not feature a sensible discussion of how people obtain medical care. Something that is not remotely "insurance" will be called precisely that (this phenomenon is already imbedded in the language, just as surely as a semi-automatic weapon is now an "assault rifle").

The fact that the cost of medical services is rising will be univerally bemoaned regardless of whether the things that can be purchased at that additional cost are indeed worth more than that cost. (One reason medical care was cheaper in 1950 was that King Farouk himself simply could not purchase a CT scan, any more than he could have purchased a cell phone. So instead he spent his money on Rita Hayworth or whomever.)

The question of whether health "insurance" is "affordable" to Johnny will not permit consideration of whether Johnny elects to have a plasma TV or three automobiles--no one will require that Johnny make sound choices about what to do with his money as a precodition to his getting his medical services at the expense of others.

No one will dispute that if Joey is to have medical insurance, it must provide coverage for podiatry services, as wealth as mental-health counseling, substance-abuse treatment, and whatever else some lobbyists want to hang on the Christmas tree. Neither Joey himself, nor Joey and all the King's men, will be allowed to purchase a policy that excludes podiatry services. That question will be determined by the legislators, after due regard to the input of the podiatrists' professional organization. Consumers who do not want to pay for podiatry coverage will not have any organization to represent them, and they will not be heard.

The idea that a man should pay for what he asks his doctor to do, and should insure himself at his own expense against the risk that in some circumstances he will not be able to do so, is very permanently dead.

Next: why on earth should we be required to pay for our own food?

[Sue]

Cecil,

I have had a 5 year ongoing debate with a Kiwi who insists his healthcare is free. Nevermind he is taxed for it. It's free because when he goes to the healthcare provider, he doesn't pay anything. You can't talk sense into someone who thinks it is free. There isn't enough skepticism in the world to overcome that kind of mentality.

[clarice]

OT: The rising cost of medical services is a constant whine at the Washington Post. The other day, they ran a story about a man who shelled out thousands to keep alive the mutt he adopted. The story explained that veterinary science was constantly improving, and using new techniques, egpt, medicine, but at a substantial cost. It was unquestioned that the dog's owner would continue to pay increasingly more--not for mere palliative care--but for ever more complicated surgeries and procedures.
Now--if the mutt had been a kid, we'd have had the obligatory tale of how it was the man's right to have the rest of us share that cost.
As for PUK--the NHS which has now severely limited surgical care to the aged, smokers, and the obese, is however providing IVF procedures for gay couples so they can be parents.Those for universal care must remember the govt in charge will decide who gets what--I'd rather decide for myself, thank you.

[cathyf]

So, if the government provides a mandate, and business complies, and the result isn't what was desired, the fault lies with private industry?

So, if the government provides a mandate, and business complies, and the result isn't what was desired follows the laws of physics, the fault lies with private industry?

There, fixed it for ya.

[clarice]

HEH--PLUS year after year aCongress has lengthy hearings, blathers and bloviates, and instead of actually passing a real energy policy--votes to limit more and more natural resources from being ecploited and then with a flourish passes some energy conservation (for appliances and toilets and bulbs) and CAFE standards--in other words, some expensive and stupid band aids that others are charged with producing.

[clarice]

**eXploied**

[Bill in AZ]

**eXploied**
are there 72 virgins at the end of this?

[Ann]

Clarice,

Love your analogy "if a mutt was a chilren". I have always wondered what it would be like if the republicans came up with something more innocent than chilren to advance their cause.

Something like:

If I have to pay mandatory health insurance, I will not be able to afford for my puppy

If we leave Iraq, all the puppies will be killed

If I have to pay more taxes, I will have to give up my puppy

If the jidadists take over my country, they will eat my puppy

If we let dogs have a choice, there will be no puppies

Ok, the last one was extreme, but you get my gist.

The greenies have already marketed sympathies for the poor polar bear; I think we should try puppies.

[clarice]

Bill-- I saw that. I figured a second correction would be overdoing the privilege.

[clarice]

The point is, a decade or so ago people provided basic care for their pets at an affordable cost and did not consider themselves heartless if they didn't explore chemotherapy for a 14 year old dog. They sought palliative care to ease their pets' suffering and no one expected more. Now, to consider oneself a decent fellow, the owner feels he must bankrupt himself although an honest evaluation probably indicates that the thousands more he's paying adds little to his pet's life in terms of additional longevity.
It's great that vetinary care is getting so good, but, frankly, many of the new developments are unaffordable for most owners.

[Bill in AZ]

clarice - :)

[Bill in AZ]

new developments are unaffordable for most owners

but it's probably the only "safe" place where medical advances are being made right now - wait until John Edwards jumps into this with both feet, now that he has some idle time.

[clarice]

Yes. The point is, Leona Helmsley might find this a something she'd care to invest in, but I recall someone writing on a chat board about a pet who was aged and sick. The poster had a very modest income and four young children . He was struggling with his inability to afford new medication which would not cure the disease but merely lengthen the animal's life .He could afford the palliative care but the other meds were really unaffordable for him. You should have heard the responses---people demanding they'd pay anything. Now, I dearly love my cat, but I do not understand such thinking...it is an extension of the notion that if the King of Saudi Arabia has available some new treatment every single one of us has the right to the same thing or it is un-fa-ir and against some unwritten law.

[Bill in AZ]

It's why we don't understand lib-thought. We understand well enough to understand the "feel-good" attraction, but know too well the consequences. Semtantic hangs out here enough that I know she wants to understand. Maybe someday...

[Bill in AZ]

ps - I think Ann is onto something there...

[Pofarmer]

.22 shells are cheap. Ends those expensive vet bills.

[kim]

Well if McCain picked Romney, then Mitt could run the world while Johny Boy smiles for the camera. McCain, however, owes Huckabee, and will exercise his usual poor judgement and pick him.

I almost want to get through the Obama mess in preference. I would not care to risk four years of Clinton femme, though.
===========================

[Elliott]

What's going to happen with the Dems today? All the attention seems to have been focused on Tuesday's mid-Atlantic states and adjacent federal city, in all of which Barack Obama is supposed to fare well.

I don't know what will happen, but I do have a prediction contingent upon Obama triumphing today. I see Obama is not debating Hillary Clinton on Monday. Instead, Clinton will have the program, airing on network television the evening before the primaries, to herself.

Therefore, I contingently predict that on Wednesday the story will be that Obama won over the weekend and was in position to become the front runner with a strong showing on Tuesday, but, by skipping Monday's debate, gave Clinton the chance to connect with voters on a personal as well as policy level, thus ensuring that her losses were narrower than expected in states where Obama clearly had a substantial edge.

The Virginia polls over at RealClearPolitics suggest that a narrow loss there for Clinton would be 15%, making my predicted spin quite a challenge for the Fox All-Stars. Anyone can suggest that a losing by 10 delegates out of 1600 is a win, but it takes a real pro to argue in earnest that a 15% loss is a performance worthy of praise.

[sylvia]

Well one simple thing that would make everything better quickly is a law that says no one can be refused health insurance coverage for a precondition. Critics might complain about the expense and say no one would sign up for heatlh care until they needed it, but I say the following.

People inclined to game the system won't sign up anyway. So it's a wash there. Also many people lie about their preconditions presently and/or many people pay cash for a precondition so they are not traced and when it gets serious they sign up for health insurance. Also uninsured people with very serious conditions get treatment from hospitals anyway, and get on a payment plan later that most don't repay and gets covered by other's insurance anyway.

So the lying is already happening, and keeping it above the table I doubt will add that much to the insurance cost for other people. And the positive is that it will remove the fear that most people have that they can't switch jobs for fear of losing their coverage. It will make the insurance market more competitive because people can switch more easily. And it will get people covered with better treatment who might be closeted paying cash and getting less than optimal treatment which will have to fixed later at taxpayer or insurance expense.

[kim]

Sure there is hope for Cleo; he liked Biden, the McCain of the Democratic Party.
=========================

[clarice]

Dear Sylvia, I rarely comment on your postings but your latest cannot stand uncommented on. The rates set for insurance are based on the odds for payment, hence the limitation on paying out for preconditions. If the insurance companies are forced to pay out for such conditions, it will (a) raise insurance rates considerably and (b) make it almost impossible to determine what fair rates for coverage should be.
Just saying.
BTW I hope you did notice that Duke used student activity fees to fund a strip show with no complaint by the school's feminists or the Gang of 88 who--like you--had argued that the hiring of strippers by the Lacrosse team was a good indicia of their propensity to engage in gang rape.

[sylvia]

"If the insurance companies are forced to pay out for such conditions, it will (a) raise insurance rates considerably "

Yes but my point is they are already paying out for these conditions. People who are good at gaming the system are lying about their preconditions already and signing up for coverage when they need it, and it is very hard to prove otherwise.

"--had argued that the hiring of strippers by the Lacrosse team was a good indicia of their propensity to engage in gang rape."

Yeah I don't know if I ever said that. If I had to comment on the issue, I would say, hmmm, all things being equal, yes hiring strippers does make a group marginally more likely to commit gang rape at a specific party, as compared to a group who does not hire strippers at a specific party. First of all it shows a mindset, and it provides opportunity, and a social group pressure of rowdy behavior that wouldn't exist otherwise. That said, it's a statistics thing, and most, almost all, guys who hire strippers would not engage in gang rape. However, gang rape has happened throughout history, and to say it never happens is a stretch too.

I think you're a little like my dad Clarice. I don't know if you followed the Natalee Holloway story, but my dad and I had many arguments about it. He saw Joran Van der Sloot and said there was no way such a nice educated kid from a good family like that would commit such a horrible act. He said he knows people pyshcologically from all his life, and watching Van Der Sloot talk, he can just tell the guy is not lying.

Yeah, that was before the hidden camera tape came out, where Joran is bragging about dumping "the bitch" in the ocean. Even IF Van der Sloot is fibbing about the confession, the sting shows his real personaltiy and shows he certainly was not the polite nice kid that so many people around the world who bought the lies took him for. I didn't even discuss that tape with my dad yet because I don't want to rub it in.

So anyway the point is, appearances aren't always everything...

[clarice]

Sylvia:"Yes but my point is they are already paying out for these conditions. People who are good at gaming the system are lying about their preconditions already and signing up for coverage when they need it, and it is very hard to prove otherwise."

I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. My guess is that companies probe deeply to ascertain whether someone is trying to scam them.

[sylvia]

One thing I was wondering about is where is the enterprising journalist who interviews Crystal Mangum and gets her side of the story? After all, it was a pretty big case, people would be interested, and we know who she is, so where are the interviews? I mean we get updates from reporters on everytime Paris Hilton goes shoe shopping, and not one journalist wanted to get this scoop? I find that bizarre.

[sylvia]

"I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. My guess is that companies probe deeply to ascertain whether someone is trying to scam them."

If you pay cash for treatment, say diabetes, and then sign up for insurance and lie on your form and don't mention your previous doctor, and maybe wait a month a month or two after your insurance starts before you go to your new doctor and suddenly ask to tested for, say diabetes, there is nothing the insurance company can do. The trick is not to have a medical record, and you can do that by paying cash previously. It happens all the time. In fact, insurance companies spend a lot of legal bills trying to prove preconditions, but if they don't have the proof, they don't have it.

There are so many doctors, they can't find them all, and they can't ask them even if they did. Now of course, if any of your past payments for that condition were under insurance, you're screwed, because I believe the companies share all their records. (you sign privacy waivers when you sign up)

[sylvia]

You know I just had a thought on Mangum. The fact that we have not heard a peep out of her leads me to believe she was paid off by the families with a confidentiality clause.

The only other theory would be that she knows she is guilty and doesn't want to incriminate herself, but please, how many guilty people LOVE to speak to the press and try to put one over on the people? (case in point - Van der Sloot). She is not a rich woman, and I would think that even if guilty, she would try to cash in and make some money off the press, and there is always some journalist somewhere who would want the story. So I find her silence very unusual and telling.

[Semanticleo]

"he liked Biden, the McCain of the Democratic Party."

Kim;

With great anticipation, I await the day when
you're assessment of me is, in any way, correct.

Maybe that's over the top. Make it sedated
and mild curiosity.

[PeterUK]

"As for PUK--the NHS which has now severely limited surgical care to the aged, smokers, and the obese, is however providing IVF procedures for gay couples so they can be parents."

Interestingly,unsafe sex is not one of the prohibited lifestyle choices,nor it seems is drug addiction.
Ageism,Smokeism and Obeseism are the new permitted racism,whipping boys for the caring classes.

[clarice]

Same here, honey though the caring classes have less power to work their magic.

They still have some of course, but that works largely to kill those they choose to care about.When HIV was first detected we knew that the San Francisco bathhouses were vectors for the disease and yet the gay community working on the local politicians made it impossible to close them down.We know that refusing to allow druggies to live on the streets and requiring them to move into shelter and avail themselves of drug cessation programs will save them but the caring classes in places like Berkeley think that unkind.

[PeterUK]

I suspect the reason is,the caring classes and those they care about overlap to a considerable extent.

[JM Hanes]

Now that's why I'm a PUK fan!

[gary lamont]

any mandate must include more money for http://www.addiction-treatment-help-line.com/California.html?state=California>california addiction treatment centers