Stop Me Before I Vote Again

Someone on this site displays an obstinacy in the face of fact that's beginning to remind me the previous President.

As long as capitalism remains intact health care will be at best a public-private amalgam in some fashion. Services will likely be provided by private companies as in Canada and increasingly in the UK, but the elimination of private insurance even if the rest remains private would be a significant improvement and IMO represents a realistic short-term goal.

I do think it would be a bad idea to have the insurance itself be administered privately, however. And in this regard I may disagree with Owen, although his exact position is not altogether clear to me.

"It's an interesting example of the complementarity and (perhaps unconscious) collusiveness of liberalism and so-called conservatism"
indeed a tango
a studio wrestle
but mayhaps the rising tide of price and coverage fears will lead some where this congo session

my read the broad middle of the public
wants coverage protection
and premium and co pay relief

if single payer gets effectively sold
as the only quick way to both
the hmo's and drugees
might crack open
like la nan's ass
over a white house thunder bowl

we may get sp after all this session
or at least a pub op with a fightin' chance

either way it oughta prove interesting
for
us unsentimental side walk 'soupers '

".. almost nobody, trusts a high-minded liberal soul-engineer"

this is a real problem
and as you point out richly deserved
i know i'd push pointy heads
doling out what you deserve ...
ya ya
sp
the health plan
from the folks who gave us
the war on poverty
public radio
bicycle right of ways
gas lines
seat belts
lectures
peer review
endive growing
and diet exercise
spinach eating...etc etc
oh ya
and
prudent pay roll tax increases

the prophet ezra channels the hmo industries "strong "argument:

"a public plan would make your health care coverage worse."

this claim presumeable requires
one to never look at medicare

" It would be outfitted with expensive, unsustainable government subsidies."

that area of attack needs a counter attack
along the lines used to sponsor fdic
and other uncle final resort guarentees

" It would set its prices through legislative fiat rather than open market bargaining and thus shift costs onto private insurers."

this is obviously an attack on single payer
thru its attack on any "unfairly" advantaged pub op beach head
the distinction should remain
lower system wide costs
example
with one payer or even with any payer with a much larger pool there will result
smaller proportional
stand by trusts
of course really trust are a partition a ploy
for uncle a game mechanism
the system could simply rely on its uncle backing and uncle's credit line
to pay deficitts in excess pay out periods

" eventually, it would reduce your choices on the open market,"
again medicare advantage proves the public chooses uncle
cause un aided the hmo's can't compete

"not because you chose to abandon Aetna, but because the government had rejiggered the rules and made it impossible for Aetna to compete."
rejigger here means reach for systemic cost savings

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h41eoIeegH_mchhcZf63fs8q3gBA

seems the industry is counter attacking with a real slight of hand...
delivered by its white housed
shill in chief
today

nice frenchy article btw

"as long as they can choose their doctor, their healthcare package, and their insurance provider."

note the puggy flack has added a generous gratuity

yes folks like to chooose
their doctor, their healthcare package

and the payment system that is
the easiest most widely accepted
and
most reliable and fair
ie
medicare if they are over 65
why not offer same system to everyone

the obvious and perhaps effective
snake oil line here :
we'll innocently choose our way
to de facto uncle single payer
monopoly monopsony
and end up "at the mercy" of uncle's
merit class band of pointy headed mandarins

i do like the snake line

why not just create a level playing field
with regulations ??

if the pub op is just a clone of a well behaving pri plan
why bother ??
only if the pub op can offer a superior system
--which it most obviously can if all uncle's advantages are engaged--
does a pub op make sense

hey we went thru all this with TVA and much else since

recall the public yard stick defense of TVA ???

"Services will likely be provided by private companies as in Canada and increasingly in the UK "
lest we forget eh??

the actual private service providers remain in tact
of course i'd convert the vet system into a national health chain
for anyone and every one
any primary care providers
patients eligable for referal to its
specialized services all insures required to make payments to the nhs
so long as not above private comps

i turn wonk..forgive me

Van M: Yes, you were the one I was talking about/ Now, I admit I can't always follow OP; and sometimes I see him changing shapes, like a tale by Ovid. (In fact, I didnt even read the trail of comments above, fearing they'd confuse the issue more.)

However, several recent comments of OP's appear to explictly support SP, so you're hitting him on this subject again is not only "obstinacy in the face of fact" but fucking tiresome.

Specifically, it's the personal vitriol that's tiresome, suspicious, suggesting an unbalanced mind. Just say, "OP you're being inconsistent", or, "hey, what made you change your mind?" And don't be surprised if he answers with a riddle. It's his style!

I would say this much -- it's a style I associate with people who like a beer or two; but hell, so do I.

Shape shifting boozer
I like that image ear

Indistinct bounfary lines

But what is important here I hope is our collective effort toward greater understanding
Even if its understanding that we don't understand

Not tp wax homolic

I'll persoalize

I try to admit error and every once in a great while I do admit error
But hell its hard enough understanging each other when we're
Actively trying to

I've always felt this site's comment cages operated
Very nicely on that principle
If some one comments here their honest intention to discuss ought always to be assumed
And of course
Anyone is entitled
To a cleaned slate

It occurs to me
Given the no contact nature of this site
Turning the other cheek ought ways to be easy
No matter what has been written

I apologize for my lack ultimately
Of a consistent
cheek turning
Where necessary

I hope I've learned a lesson

Polemic mode tends to trample dialogue

But my snide responese
Only compounded the mayhem and tedium
Early on
In another context
Mh cried boring
Indeed
So I'll stop here

Snide comments are preferable to personal slurs. But it's time to shift the level of discourse.

It occured to me earlier that your particular style (wild and whirling words, I once called it) is a form of dialectic, obscuring your thesis in the process of making it,so that others could spot the inconsistencies and move to a higher plane. An old english prof of mine liked to do this, tossing out banalities to see if any of us were smart enough to spot them.

Maybe I'm overestimating what is essentially just over-educated fun, and if so, I apologize.

op: I think I was commenting on the thread of discussion in general, not your posts in particular. But that's the problemn with drive -by snides, a point which Van Mungo, despite all else, was quite right to call me on. Ah, well, live learn turn and scream as you burn, as said Buk.

hey MJS/OP, wanna comment on this:

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2009/05/he-only-bombs-overseas.html

Thank you for the deletions, Michael.

You're most welcome. I fear the thread may now be a bit confusing.