Pangloss

Got it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32420049/ns/meet_the_press/

Sure, this is normal (and bad, I agree). Why are there no more peace rallies over Iraq? Same deal. Some people are just partisan.

No, the baby boomers (at least in the US) are a WW2 thing. They're retiring right now. I don't recall the specifics, but I think it's an early option at 63 and a better (bigger payment) if you wait until you are 65 to apply. I think that's Social Security, with Medicare not kicking in until 65, but I'm not certain about these details. At any rate the graph shows the curve sweeping upward around 2015.

Rage is always more focused on the current than the past. I do agree that there is a lot of inaccurately-fed anger towards Obama. Not that I disagree with your post, but I was curious about this. If you're talking about the tax break in the stimulus plan, I don't believe that has hit paychecks yet. The Wikipedia article on ARRA has it hitting wallets in the second half of this year. (Or are you talking about something else?) I did not miss that point; bascule didn't even raise it. Just can't resist another subtle dig, eh?

You could be right. The article's doing a bit of tea-leaf reading there, but reporters usually have a reason (i.e. inside source) for stuff like this. We'll just have to wait and see. I think that's very interesting what you're saying about the talk shows -- I've been taking a break from the Sunday shows but as you say they can be a very good indicator of what's going on. If there's a compromise it's interesting to speculate on whether it can be as effective as the "Obamacare" plan. These quotes from the story are helpful: That example comes from a Democrat, but I guess the reporter is saying that it represents what the Republicans are looking for in a compromise. But it also feels like pandering to the insurance industry (as if this plan wasn't already pandering). Orin Hatch is the top Republican recipient of campaign contributions from the insurance industry (though he pales in comparison with the Democrat's top recipient, who also sits on the Senate committee that will decide which health care plan goes to the floor!). (about halfway through this video story) Story on Bloomberg study cited in ABC piece on lobbyists.

Mkay. Then Mr. Bartlett is committing an obvious logical fallacy. Anger at Obama doesn't mean lack of anger towards Bush. And most of the conservatives I talk to these days have plenty of animosity for the most recent former president, as you should know if you followed his poll numbers during the last two years of his administration. I believe it to be one of the driving factors pushing them towards the conservative-libertarian camp.

Sure, I'd support removing that piece of legislation. But just because I'm opposed to a massive new entitlement program doesn't mean I'm going to support you misleading people about its effect. You said you want to talk about what's wrong with Medicare, and then you told us that what's wrong with it is the prescription drug program. Okay. Why do you feel that the prescription drug benefit program has a bigger impact on Medicare than the dawn of retiring baby boomers?

We need to direct rage at someone? Why?

Thanks. I checked on the Prius specifically and apparently it's manufactured in Japan, but I think those decisions are made based on sales, so if they sell more of them they'll eventually build them here. The Camry is made in Georgetown, Kentucky, according to the Wikipedia. Actually Navigator's article appears to answer my question, if I just widen his quote a bit: Which is not as good a statistic as I was hoping to hear, but it's certainly more relevant than the namebadge question. Who cares what it says on the name badge? Let's fix the economy first, and worry about how to pronounce "Hyundai" later.

A very thoughtful and detailed post. It's also consistent with some of the more logical objections I've seen coming from thoughtful and reasonable conservatives on other sites. I guess the only real problem I have with it is that it's ultimately based on two very subjective opinions: 1) It's not fundamentally different from what we do now (regulation on private insurers). We already regulate private insurers -- the concern you're expressing, as I read it, is that the addition of things like this "exchange" would put too much authority on the regulatory side (tipping the scales a bit too far in the wrong direction). 2) The objection assumes that things will move farther in that direction over time (hence the "slippery slope" reply you usually see to this objection). I actually agree that it's important to be concerned about the direction of government regulation and where it may lead. But I'm not sure I can ultimately agree that this is the only logical outcome of this legislation. In short, I respect these concerns (unlike many other concerns being raised by fools and crackpots) but remain frustratingly undecided on HR 3200/"Obamacare". Look at it this way: It may be the best approach that we are actually capable of implementing in this country, given ALL factors in play, including politics. And since the concerns above are actually based on things that might happen, we can actually pass this bill and then work to prevent them from happening. Make sense? And is it even really very likely that we, as a nation, could come up with a health care plan that did not have any logical and reasonable objections to it, and concerns that would have to be addressed after it was passed?

The system Hawking supports is not currently under debate in the US, so most of the current debate furor is not actually aimed at an NHS-type system. There are poorly-based arguments against single-payer systems, though, and it's accurate to say that. I also agree with iNow that some of the lunacy underlying objections to what HAS been proposed ("Obamacare"/HR3200) is also pretty ridiculous. Other objections are well-founded and significant, to both Obamacare and to single-payer health care systems.

Hey, awesome, good to see the P-man back in action. No.

Aren't most Toyotas sold in the US also made in the US, with something like 95% of the money involved in the transaction staying within the border? Just something I've heard. I'm not sure how accurate it is.

I'm afraid I've lost track of this WHO and abortion business, or why it is important. It sounds like something you guys need to move on from. It looked to me like navigator acknowledged a source but expressed doubt about its veracity. He can do that if it's just an opinion, and several people have suggested that he may be passing that judgment in error, so let's move on.

Absolutely. What is the difference between a health insurer telling you you can't have a heart transplant because you checked the wrong box on the third copy of an unrelated form, and a government telling you you can't have a heart transplant because you're a smoker over the age of 59? Either way you die. It almost seems like sometimes we're holding up both Obamacare/HR3200 and single-payer proposals against an ideal of "capitalist health care" that doesn't actually exist. At least not for the vast, overwhelming majority of this country. This is one of the reasons I continue to struggle so hard with this pressing issue personally. As annoyed as I am about lobbyists and the lack of addressing the cost issue in HR3200, I ultimately will have to support it anyway because it may simply be the best that we're capable of at the moment. Cost is the only clear advantage of the single-payer model that everyone more or less agrees on. It does have to be paid for, e.g. income taxes, but as you say when you look at the cost of health care per capita the increased taxation is actually a savings. But we're being told that 1.8 million UK citizens are waiting for treatment and (if I remember the article I read last week correctly -- sorry, I can look it up if you want) 400,000 Canadians likewise. Whether that's good or bad, or what the numbers mean, are the subject of much disagreement and debate. The single-payer model is not presently being debated for implmenetation in the United States, though that may happen this fall. The current debate over "Obamacare" is a different approach. Whether or not that approach is more expensive is the subject of great disagreement. The initial cost is about a trillion dollars spread over 10 years. The president says it will ultimately lead to great savings due to decreased costs in Medicare spending and in improved industry efficiency. Opponents say that it will not decrease costs. Neither side really knows anything, but this approach does maintaining the advantages of immediacy and potentially high quality of care available under the current system, which addresses the weaknesses of the UK/Canadian systems.

That was really well put, Padren.

Yes, but there's a very good reason not to call it "rationing", even if it's just a perception point. It's apparently more a matter of helping people make informed choices about end-of-life care, which according to recent stories I've seen can have a profound impact on lowering costs per capita. I'm not actually disagreeing with your word choice, Skye -- rationing is exactly what it is, and it's not necessarily inhumane. For example, it might make sense to make 15 heart transplants available to people over the age of 75 per year, but no more, and then applicants will be weighed on the merits. Or there may be a different number of a different mechanical process involved that amounts to the same thing. But it's not automatically bad to do it that way. But perception is a funny beast, and we need not only the support of older Americans on this, but also their wisdom and perspective. (Perhaps that's what my Canadian colleague saw.)

This is different from what I was talking about. I spoke with one Canadian colleague and asked her specifically what happens if the ambulance brings you in from a car crash, and she completely agreed with what you say above -- you get attention right away. This seems to be more or less universal in Canada. I was glad to hear this. What I'm talking about is long-term treatment for serious illnesses such as cancer (e.g. chemotherapy). This was the example specifically stated by my colleague, saying she lost two family members who were waiting for therapy and didn't get it in time, and has another old friend back in Canada now who is on a waiting list (but could very well get it in time -- I'm trying to be objective here). Also in the interest of objectivity, it's certainly possible that my colleagues family members who died might have died anyway, etc. I do understand that. Thanks for the reply.

Apparently Dick Cheney is writing his memoirs and plans to blame everything on Bush. By everything I mean all the mistakes that were made. By mistakes I mean not pardoning Scooter and not being tougher on Iraq and more secretive and stubborn towards the American people. Doh! I guess there is some value in having him talking, at least. What do you all think? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/cheney-unloads-on-bush-.html

I agree with both of the above. Maybe we should just stop calling them "death panels". It feels like we're feeding some nameless, faceless trolls somewhere. There are legitimate concerns about cost-reflective oversight in any health care system, but they shouldn't be trumped up for ideological gain. Thanks for passing that along (the Hawking story). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThough it's completely off-subject (sorry), I thought it worth mentioning that Hawking received the presidential medal of freedom today from President Obama.

I saw a recent story about meteoric strikes on Jupiter as well, but I don't know if it's atypical or just due to improved technology and more time spent watching Jupiter and Saturn up close. Either way it's interesting, and that's when learning happens so it's exciting to follow. Thanks for the post.

I agree, and I will ultimately support the House bill if it passes, even though I think that one of the few things you can definitively state about it is that it gives the insurance industry exactly what it wants. But it could ultimately affect cost in a positive fashion. Maybe. Hopefully. If we're lucky. I don't think we experiment enough in this country. We run around insisting that we know two diametrically opposed things -- what conservatives "know", and what liberals "know". We do this on virtually every single issue before this country. Almost never do we Americans stand up and say "we don't know what the best thing is to do on this issue". Just do something and let's see what happens. It almost doesn't even matter what the "something" is.

This is not a valid explanation of why the costs in the US are higher than everywhere else. It is an opinion backed by some interesting and promising evidence. He can question the WHO's political motivations and discuss them if he wants to. DJBruce and Bascule had more appropriate (and interesting) responses on this point. In the end this is also a matter of opinion, and all of you are going to have to take a deep breath on this issue and recognize the fact that there are very few certainties in this world when it comes to health care. No, it isn't. Your opinions do not rise to "stand" above those of others. He's not the one poisoning this well. Attempting to make one opinion "stand" over others is an example of poisoning the well, though. Please bear this in mind for future replies. iNow, this is inappropriate and if you continue along these lines I'll remove your posts from this thread and issue a citation. Don't make me close this thread, folks. None of you will get the last word or have your opinions "stand" over others if I do that. If you can't play nice you won't play in my sandbox at all.

I don't see any merit or productive discussion in the above post at all, navigator. Looks like shooting the messenger. If you have something specific to call attention to, do that please. Ridicule is not an argument, whether it comes from you or from someone else. --------- ABC News made an interesting point in tonight's broadcast, saying that supporters of health care are spending twice as much as opponents, which would seem to go to the question of whether these town hall meetings are being unevenly influenced by the right. Unfortunately they haven't posted a source for that or an article saying it on their web site yet.