I already read the Economist. And his other stuff is based on what the neighbor says -- I will just start hanging out in known R locations to hear anecdotal crap. Uh I mean anecdotal wisdom.

Hello
 

has anyone seen Chef? I am his biggest fan and rumour has long had it that he is a frequent socker on these greedy politico boards.

First They Came for Broadcast and We Did Nothing
 

it remains to be seen if they can reach a majority, but you think this actually matters to those who get bent out of shape over "indecency?"

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

Juan Cole re the news from Egypt:

• Egyptian President Husni Mubarak is going to allow multiparty competition for the presidency. But note that only offically recognized parties can field candidates. This step excludes the Muslim Brotherhood, probably the only serious competitor with Mubarak's party. Will blog more on this later . . . I'm really sleepy and it is late. But just to say that while it is a step in the right direction, there is less to it than meets the eye and it is too early to get very excited. In a sense, Egypt's step now makes its presidential elections somewhat analogous to those in Iran, where candidates are vetted beforehand.

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

Hey guys: Below is part of an email I received from Assemblyman Keity Richman. He is a Republican State Assemblyman from Los Angeles (somewhere in the Valley) and I have given a lot of money to him from my PAC (he is also a Medical Doctor). He is running for California State Treasurer next year and I am on his "election advisory board" which means I sit on conference calls where half the stuff goes way over my head. The pertinant information is down below.

Comments? Thoughts? Opinions?


Attached is information about the Universal Healthcare Act, the eight-bill bipartisan healthcare reform package Assemblyman Joe Nation and I will introduce this week. We have worked with the RAND Corporation and academic experts throughout California to develop this package that improves access, controls costs and enhances the quality of health care. We held meetings in Los Angeles, Fresno, Berkeley and San Diego where nationally recognized experts and local stakeholders discussed a variety of reform options. The package includes an individual mandate to purchase insurance, purchasing pools to reduce the costs, subsidies for low income workers, greater use of federal matching funds, electronic medical records, increased use of generic drugs, end of life care information and a center for science-based quality medicine. We are confident that our package is a more viable alternative than the single-payer and employer mandate systems which have gained attention in recent years.

The full report can be accessed at: http://republican.assembly.ca.gov/pd...thcare0205.pdf or you can open the attachments below.

Please take a moment to review the material and provide me with any comments and suggestions.


Sincerely,

Keith S. Richman, M.D.
Member of the Assembly

Syria in Lebanon
 

Hey club --

When Syria sent troops into Lebanon in 1976, it did so with U.S. support, and our Secretary of Defense was an up-and-comer named Donald Rumsfeld. Do you think he's had a real change of heart about whether the Lebanese ought to run their own affairs without outside interference?

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

I really don't understand why it makes sense to "mandate" that individuals purchase health care, instead of simply providing a basic level through the government and taxing people to pay for it.

What happens if people don't get it? You have to catch and punish them, and presumably it means a lot of people aren't covered, defeating the purpose of the regime.

You can object that the government shouldn't be in the business of supplying the basic level of healthcare, and I understand the concern. But there are ways that the government could privatize this function to create competition, and -- this is key -- if you "mandate" that people buy something, you're pretty much distorting the market in the same way.

I don't really know policy in this area well, but you should get RT to chime in. As always, she has my proxy.

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

1) People appreciate the value of something more (thereby using it more effectively and efficiently ) if they buy it themselves.
2) cuts down on the government bureacracy which can turn into a huge money hemmorage.


1) You can't really help people if they are unwilling to help themsevles.
2) I see the purpose of the regime is to get more people into the system and reduce inefficiencies. This system seems to do both. In the real world you will never really get universal healthcare.

Yes you are distorting the market. But the market is already heavily distorted by the government. This system does not really distort the market much more and increases inefficiency.

From the point of view that politics is the art of the possible, if you were sitting on the california legislature would you vote for this? Obviously this system is not what you think is the best system, but do you think it is better than the system we have now?

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

Could you elaborate on this? If this is boring people you can send me a personal commincation (if it is not too much trouble).

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

1: People pay for their own health insurance now (at least partly), yet all the ins. cos. are constantly restructuring to make sure people don't "waste" health care (e.g., deductibles, copays, etc.)

2: Yet increases another one to enforce the mandate

3: So what does the mandate do? How many people do you know have the opportunity to buy insurance, yet forgo it? Perhaps a few recent college grads? The issue is access and affordability--some people have no access; others can't afford it (and perhaps those are in the first group I asked about). but a mandate cures neither of those problems.

4: Both salutary goals, but neither accomplished by a mandate. This isn't like mandatory hikers insurance, where a non-purchase can be punished

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

This is what the board is for. Keep it here.

(Please.)

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

Oh sure, but when I want to post my irrefutable evidence of AfghanPipelineGate you're quick to tell me to PM Hank with the charts and articles and stop cluttering the board.

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

By the way, there was a naked picture of your sister in the last attachment file. Not sure if that was to keep my interest, or was for advertisement or was just a mistake.

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

I'm not quite sure what Ty has in mind, but the government expand its current health care plans for federal workers to be available to everyone. Gov't would decide how much to pay. Basically now the gov't has different health ins. cos. offer to provide health care coverage within certain parameters to fed'l workers. Fed'l workers can choose from a menu. Gov't picks up about 75%, but with a cap on the total it will pay for each employee. No reason the gov't couldn't do the same here--it pays for 100% (or a means-tested amount), up to some cap, but one can choose a better plan that costs more and pay the difference.

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

hmmm . . .

Mandatory coverage: Just like PIP for auto. I imagine the enforcement comes through denial of governmental subsidies when someone is hospitalized and is found to NOT have purchased the mandatory minumum. Will likely work as well as the PIP provisions do - a boost, but not a huge one. But, a step in the right direction. (Query - one stated aim is to reduce medical bankruptcy. But, given that providers bill full ticket for individuals, but discount up to 70% for plan participants, bankruptcy might well be the most efficient means of controlling costs - turns a $200k individual bill into a $60k write-off.)

Pool purchase: good in theory, but really just a way to bypass underwriting tools. To the extent that we are all put into one big pool, there's no longer incentive to use health care efficiently - we'll only have to worry about the overall societal stats, not the "how healthy is our group - make Johnny quit smoking" concerns.

Spends an inordinate amount of time talking about how a streamlined, easier-to-figure-out system of enrollment will boost insurance enrollment by the uninsured. I'm guessing money - or its lack - is a more determinative factor than "too many forms."

(I like the section that talks about making people much more aware of "end of life directives." But then, I'm morbid. Any system that saves money by encouraging people to sign "pull the plug" forms is a good one, in a horror-movie kind of way.)

Maybe they should do something as simple as mandate one cost level across the board - no 70% discount for treatment bills to some entities - let the individual walk in and pay cash, with no huge penalty for not letting an insurer handle it. I would be more willing to pay directly for med care, and only buy cat coverage, if I wasn't forced to pay hugely inflated rates simply by dint of not being an insurer-paid patient. It should cost me, and Medicare, and Allina, the same for my kid's stitches. There's a lot to be said for going back to a cat-only coverage system - usage would be so much more controlled, health decisions would become a priority - of course, there would be secondary economic effects, such as the collapse of the snowboard and skateboard industries . . .

Republican Universal Healthcare?
 

Truly, that's not a subject-matter issue.

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

I read a blog the other day that predicted that Mubarak would do only as much as he had to, but that it didn't matter because given the disparity in money between the parties, he is sure to win reelection.

Syria in Lebanon
 

I don't think it matters what he thinks.

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

Just a side thought, but, if ad money in an election is enough to buy a win, the electorate can't be TOO dissatisfied with current leadership. I mean, if Stalin gave the kulaks the vote, and then spent billions on cute ads, I suspect he still would have lost big-time.

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

Depends who was running against him and whether the voters knew there was someone running against him

I think you are right if both sides meet a minimum money threshhold to be a viable candidate. I'm not sure on the numbers, but I want to say that Mubarak has a 4 to 1 advantage.

And Mubarak is not Stalin by the way.

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

Yeah, that was partially my point. Democracy remains the goal, but the immediacy of the need is less when the ruler isn't actively using shredders on the Loyal Opposition.

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

I may be illinformed, but in a relative sense Mubarak isn't at the top of my list of worst ME leaders. He has continued to maintain peace (and I think trade) with Israel, and Egypt isn't a top staging ground for terrorist.

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

Did you miss that Mubarak's biggest challenger, the Muslim Brotherhood, is barred from the election because it is not officially recognized?

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

I had not heard that. So this sounds like an Arafat-light election.

Egypt's reforms: less than meets the eye
 

That's what Vlaams Blok thinks about the Belgium elections, too.

(VB, a party, was "banned" by the ruling parties for "racism" - i.e., fighting immigration.)

Interesting Article
 

Potential alliance of the EU, Russia and China:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...4038-2488r.htm

Interesting Article
 

EU and Russia just need another big customer to replace Saddam.

Interesting Article
 

Isn't that what Iran is for?

recipe for failure
 

From the front page of today's WaPo:

• The Senate's top Republican said yesterday that President Bush's bid to restructure Social Security may have to wait until next year and might not involve the individual accounts the White House has been pushing hard.

If they can't get Congressional Republicans on board now -- and it increasingly appears they can't -- it's certainly not going to happen in an election year.

recipe for failure
 

I think it's dead. I'm not sorry. Of all the things to expend capitol on, this ain't at the top of the list.

Now we can move on to the invasion plans.

recipe for failure
 

Let's all hope they don't expend the capitol in an invasion.

(Hi dtb!)

recipe for failure
 

Leev mi spellign aloan, u timmee basturd.

recipe for failure
 

Club?

recipe for failure
 

Arsenal. Yours?

recipe for failure
 

Celtic.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Which current Supreme Court Justice most closely matches your own philosophy?
(n.b. -- this reads like lawyers were not particularly involved in drafting it, which is to say that some of the questions are terrible)

Me:

Ginsburg
O'Connor
Breyer
Souter
Stevens
Kennedy
Rehnquist
Scalia
Thomas

etft -- sorry

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Where's the quiz? That link took me to the DU or something like it.

Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

I feel bad for this judge, but if the activist judges provoke the public, they assume the risk of being impeached, being recalled, having courts' jurisdiction restricted by legislatures, outlandish amendments to state or the federal constitutions, being assassinated &c. Boston Globe article

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

I couldn't find the quiz either.

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Sorry. I fixed it above, or you can find it here.