Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nah. Not in the grave, just in [baby-boomer] senescence. And in the superminority. That's what marks the resolution of the 4T era, after all, is the Boomers 'fading from the scene'...

Does collective generational membership transcend personal integrity and ideology? I mean, must we place George Washington and Adolph Hitler in the same egg, marked for turning-yearning destruction? Doesn't that make said generational member's lasting legacy meaningless and mere dust in the wind? This smacks of a collective generational bigotry, foisted by one upon the prior (or next?) generation, to me.

Strauss and Howe say Generations Create History and History Creates Generations.

Sadly, they do not say which came first, the chicken or the egg, er, generations or history.

Even more sad, their theory of history has become merely a convenient means of one generation to blame another for the world's ills. You know, much like the Jews were blamed in the last 4T.

Not very

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You don't get it (big surprise, for a Boomer ). It doesn't matter what you support or whether or not you support any particular thing. You're on the edge of irrelevance already, and once we get down to the actual fixing of stuff, you'll be all the way there. Or at least close enough as to make no difference. Your peers have already had your time to hold the reins; it got us here, remember? The fix comes after you're gone -- or at least removed from being able to have any kind of significant effect.

So enjoy your corporatist wage-serfdom paradigm. I appreciate the fact that you believe you have worked hard to put it in place, and that you think it is a good thing. Your views are absolutely irrelevant to whether we keep it or not.

It's always interesting to watch someone fulll of hatred become a foaming at the mouth idiot. I hope your lunacy is just a passing thing; you're usually pretty calm and collective, and fairly bright. Did a Boomer cut you off on the road today or something?

Let's try some rational thinking here for a while. First of all, the youngest Boomer is around 48. We are healthier, longer lifespans, and more politically active than any generation before us, and so far, any trailing us. We are likely to get even more politically active as we age.

And if you're thinking that the Millies are gonna rise up and do their Boomer parents in, well, I think that's more a projection of the feelings an Xer has for their Silent parents than any thing more than a snowball's chance in hell.

So basically your excuse for hanging around the Glibertarin train station, watching the Progressives' trains keep rolling by with Indy and some bewildered far Lefties whining that they will only accept a ride if it's perfect, is it will all get better in about 25-30 years when those big bad old Boomers, sniff, sniff, are finally gone.

I know a lot of people in my business that are just gonna wait until their particular bastards are out of the way and then, by golly, they really are going to be THE next thing - win a Tony, Emmy or maybe even an Oscar. In the meantime, nobody can recall their names or what they do - a lot of missed opportunities. Oh, and when there paricular bastards are finally gone, they realize how old and tired they've become and how many young whipper-snappers there are trying to push them the hell out of the way so that they too can finally get something real important done.

And so the cycle continues - carry on!

Hey, what ever happen to that guy who had the world by the balls in St. Pete???

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's always interesting to watch someone fulll of hatred become a foaming at the mouth idiot.

It is indeed. But what does that have to do with anything? I'm just sharing my recent realization that the guys who are arguing the hardest for the continuation of our failed paradigm are the very ones who will be soonest to step off the scene. It's sort of a big part of the whole thesis of Generation Theory, innit?

Let's try some rational thinking here for a while.

Yes... let's.
link

It sort of implies that in 2008 there were in the neighborhood of 77 million Baby Boomers (1946-1965 birth years). At the same time, there were in the neighborhood of 103 million over-20 non-Boomers. Since then, and going forward from then, no more Boomers are being added. But in, for ex, another three years, according to that link above, the adult non-Boomer population will have added another 21 mil.

So yeah; a rational assessment of the numbers tends to back up pretty well the fact of Boomers' opinions' irrelevance in the coming decades of resolving the Crisis. You all already are a minority. A noisy one, to be sure, and riding on still a fair head of momentum. But that's what keeps the 4T spiraling down for its first half or so.

As it goes, there's no need to 'do [Boomers] in'. They simply don't matter to the resolving of the problems they've left us with. I'm sure you guys will be adequately cared-for (at least as much as we can manage), but in another ten years' time, you're gonna find that your car keys have been quietly taken away and that the adults will be handling things for you. My grandparents enjoyed gardening. For you, I might recommend (ahem.. hint, hint... I could even recommend a great place for you to get your supplies) quilting .

-----

-edit-

I was sorely tempted to join you in the name-calling and personal crap. It is truly deserved. But I paused and during the pause got to thinking -- what would be the point?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hey, what ever happen to that guy who had the world by the balls in St. Pete???

See, he's hanging back right now, keeping his eye out for the next opportunity. Unlike some, he's got the luxury of taking one in the ass and then picking himself back up again. He's gonna be around lo-o-ong after you are worm-food. He doesn't have to worry about whether he's actually accomplished anything worthwhile in his mis-spent life, since most of his life is still in front of him.

What a lucky guy that is.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Nope sorry, the two most recent polls before this one, AP and Gallup, also showed a majority favoring Health Reform. With the usual exception of Rasmussen, they all our trending toward favorable.

Oh, regarding how much HCR was really about lining the pockets of big business at the expense of the common man - well, as was said in Chinatown - "follow the money."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40387.html

I don't find it surprizing but I'm always amazed how a few million dollars of advertising can lead Glibertarians and Far Lett gotta-have-it-all-right-now types so easily around by the nose.

Wow, you really do live in a bubble of good news, don't you?

The AP poll asked if people support Obama's handling of healthcare - not the bill itself. When asked in that specific manner, he gets 3 points of favorability: 49 to 46.

The USA Today/Gallup poll that I've heard referenced a dozen times was one of TWO polls USA/Gallup put out on that day. One poll says healthcare is favorable by 3%, the other poll shows 50% of likely voters want the next Congress to repeal it immediately against 45% who don't want it repealed.

Together with the Kaiser poll, these are the three outliers that disagree with the dozens of other recent polls showing double-digit opposition.

Meanwhile, the relative support of insurance money is better for Democrats than it has been since the Republicans were the ones to first introduce InsuranceAid in the early 90s.

But I guess I'm also always amazed how a few million dollars of advertising & a few articles in the right papers can convince Democrats to support Republican policy goals in a way that still lets them feel self-righteously liberal.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nah. Not in the grave, just in their senescence. And in the superminority. That's what marks the resolution of the 4T era, after all, is the Boomers 'fading from the scene'.

In theory, yes. But look at how Silents are still hanging on now. I think we're having a very elongated transition from 3T to 4T precisely for that reason.

Perhaps the lack of action is due to Artists failing to "fade from the scene."

Too true. And they are very important to the Crisis we're going into. But they're well-nigh irrelevant to its resolution. And that's what we're talking about. Suck will continue for as long as people are around; that's all too true. But the Boomers' opportunity to have a major say in the suck is drawing to a close. It's worth the rest of us keeping in mind, even if the members of that particular gen don't want to...

Only if the younger gens stop pining for the Boomers' demise and actually pick up their roles for the 4T.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

In theory, yes. But look at how Silents are still hanging on now. I think we're having a very elongated transition from 3T to 4T precisely for that reason.

Perhaps the lack of action is due to Artists failing to "fade from the scene."



Only if the younger gens stop pining for the Boomers' demise and actually pick up their roles for the 4T.

I refuse to put a period to my existence merely to gratify my juniors. But as soon as the young folks get a handle on the problems of the 4T and actually handle them, I'll retire peacefully.

Meanwhile - Boomers, please stop playing Peter Pan and admit you're edging into elderhood - NOT, as the latest issue of "Boomer" magazine (Sunday paper insert) would have it, middle age. The ones edging into middle age are Xers. And Xers, you've done a great job settling down and taking up your roles in the family, the workplace, and public life locally. Focus on that and not on Boomer-bashing and you - and the world - will be in fine shape.

Pat, headed for the donut shoppe to join the Olde Pharts in diagnosing and prescribing for all the ills of the world, though not, one hopes, at their usual volume.

Originally Posted by playwrite

ar Left gotta-have-it-all-right-now types so easily around by the nose.

What's next, claimining that us on the "Far Left" are begging for ponies and pink unicorns?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Again with trying to put Boomers into the grave already.

They are going to be around for at least another 25 years, and there are still a lot of them out there.

Once more, I suggest burying the hatchet. A lot of things sucked before Boomers came along, and a lot of things will still suck after they're gone.

Sometimes I wish I'd never heard of S&H, generational archetypes and turnings. Do we gin stuff up around here that has no real-life equivalent? Are we too quick to point fingers at other generations when we really just need to shut up and get stuff fixed?

Lately I find myself drifting away from this place because the fights are just getting plain dull. Boomer on Xer, Xer on Millie, Xer on Silent, Boomer on Silent....arghhh....

I hear you! This is why I have stayed away for so many months. I keep returning because this forum lends itself as an opportunity to have intelligent discussions about very important issues. But, at times, the conversations are ambushed by some who have a mistaken need to scapegoat another generation. It seems as if some use it as an opportunity to make themselves "feel" superior. They kidnap the theory out of context in an attempt to appear as the chosen ones. Scapegoating and blame is often used to prop up the fragil ego.

It's a very telling sign of dysfunction when one takes information and turns it into a crusade to demoralize other human beings.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nah. Not in the grave, just in their senescence. And in the superminority. That's what marks the resolution of the 4T era, after all, is the Boomers 'fading from the scene'.

Ah, but that's as much an accident of timing as anything else. Every 4T to date has featured, in the years before the Idealists fade from the scene, massive changes to the civic order to correct for problems that arose over the course of the saeculum, in each case previsioned by the activism of those same Idealists when young. This one will be no exception. Since we all have to die some day, that's not a bad legacy to leave, especially when combined with a new Civic generation that will prevent the Wild West/Mad Max/cyberpunk perverse dreams of the Reactives in between from ever becoming real and ensure the survival of civilization.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I have no issue with what he or you believe needs to be done from here.

I see HCR has helped move the ball down the field. And rather than spend my time bitchin that it only tooks us so far, I'll spend my limited time and energy trying to pick up more yards.

That's a player's prespective. Spectators are the ones that spend their time bitchin about what their team didn't do - they even tend to miss observing the next play.

Exactly what I've been saying all along.

I'm not sure exactly where the complaints about the new HCR law are coming from. I can certainly see some valid complaints (no public option, let alone single payer, no effective controls on the cost of health care -- it's far from a finished product), but what exactly are the people who raise these complaints saying? If they're saying there's more work to be done, I'm there. If they're saying that the new law was a bad thing and should have been voted down, they're full of it. To call the law a giveaway to the insurance companies is pure crap. The insurance companies were in the position of the railroads at the time the ICC was passed: persuaded that reform was probably inevitable and lobbying, as a fallback position (their front-line position was to stop the bill altogether -- exactly what people like Deb and Indy are now saying should have been done), for reform that wouldn't hurt them too badly.

They succeeded in getting their fallback goal, and because of that you're lamenting that they didn't succeed completely? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Exactly what I've been saying all along.

I'm not sure exactly where the complaints about the new HCR law are coming from. I can certainly see some valid complaints (no public option, let alone single payer, no effective controls on the cost of health care -- it's far from a finished product), but what exactly are the people who raise these complaints saying? If they're saying there's more work to be done, I'm there. If they're saying that the new law was a bad thing and should have been voted down, they're full of it. To call the law a giveaway to the insurance companies is pure crap. The insurance companies were in the position of the railroads at the time the ICC was passed: persuaded that reform was probably inevitable and lobbying, as a fallback position (their front-line position was to stop the bill altogether -- exactly what people like Deb and Indy are now saying should have been done), for reform that wouldn't hurt them too badly.

They succeeded in getting their fallback goal, and because of that you're lamenting that they didn't succeed completely? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess we women should have settled for a law that at least would let us get "near" the voting booth?

The subject seems to be avoided that we are the only industrialized nation that lets the fox guard the hen house when it comes to health care.

Health care has been on the agenda for many years, yet when we have another chance at getting what we need, we are sold out in favor of corporate interests. Are we supposed to jump for glee when the insurance industry gets away with murder? Because that's what has happened in this country, they have gotten away with murder by the very nature of their profits. That's how they have become the multi-billion dollar giants that they are, the cunning way of denying claims and finding loop holes in coverage so they don't have to pay for care.

I think I have already expressed here my distrust for the Obama health care bill because of the lies that he told during his campaign. His promise of transparency in the negotiations and bringing everyone to the table, was basically a lie. Yet, the insurance industry was at all of the negotiations and many meetings were behind closed doors. Voice was given to the for profit corporation but not to the people for whom the bill was supposed to help avoid bankrupties and get the health care they deserve.

And no, the insurance industry did not really fight this bill. Why would they? They are assured millions of customers who will add to their already bulging coffers. And if the people can't pay for the mandated insurance, that is actually an under-insured instrument, the taxpayers will pay that bill, plus, for their own over priced insurance.

The insurance industry is already backpedaling on the bill when it comes to children.
Example:

Although the insurers can no longer reject a child with preexisting disorders, they can close the plan to new enrollees. As a business decision, that is what many are doing. A social good is not part of their business model.

Although White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scored this as “Kids 1, Insurance 0,” it’s really “Insurance 1, Kids disqualified.”

That the insurers placed business first should come as no surprise to anyone. AHIP’s lobbyist Karen Ignagni continued with the “await and comply” position on the regulations that former WellPoint vice president Liz Fowler is helping to write. Compliance is easy for them when the rules are written to support the insurers’ business model.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/07/27/priv...ing-disorders/

And, as for my position, I thought I had made it clear in previous posts. I am in complete agreement with Helen Redmond on this betrayal of a bill. She writes:

When Democrats in power sell out to corporate interests, pass legislation that falls far short of campaign promises and their populist rhetoric resonates less and less with an angry electorate, “progressives” in the Democratic Party set themselves two tasks: scare and spin. They create panic and fear of the Republican Party regaining congressional seats, the presidency and exaggerate, lie (or lies of omission) about the effects of reform legislation.

The passage of the ACA is a classic example. In the end, desperate for a victory no matter how hollow, establishment liberals were willing to concede anything in order to pass anything.

Norsigian and Shaffer assert the insurance industry is “predatory, dishonest and parasitic” and admit “we would be better off without it.” They’re right, but they don’t believe it’s possible to put them out of business. Instead, we must always and everywhere be vigilant, forever engaged in thousands of battles against every insurer, in every state, as well as ready to fight with employers who eliminate benefits, increase cost sharing, discriminate against women or drop coverage.

When Democrats in power sell out to corporate interests, pass legislation that falls far short of campaign promises and their populist rhetoric resonates less and less with an angry electorate, “progressives” in the Democratic Party set themselves two tasks: scare and spin. They create panic and fear of the Republican Party regaining congressional seats, the presidency and exaggerate, lie (or lies of omission) about the effects of reform legislation.

The passage of the ACA is a classic example. In the end, desperate for a victory no matter how hollow, establishment liberals were willing to concede anything in order to pass anything.

Norsigian and Shaffer assert the insurance industry is “predatory, dishonest and parasitic” and admit “we would be better off without it.” They’re right, but they don’t believe it’s possible to put them out of business. Instead, we must always and everywhere be vigilant, forever engaged in thousands of battles against every insurer, in every state, as well as ready to fight with employers who eliminate benefits, increase cost sharing, discriminate against women or drop coverage.

Ultimately for liberals like Shaffer, Norsigian and Nichols the reelection of Democrats trumps the needs of Americans literally dying for fundamental health care reform. Years from now when the ACA is completely discredited and understood as yet another failed attempt to reform the health care system, liberals that engaged in scare and spin tactics and provided cover for a very bad bill that betrays the majority of people will have much to answer for.

Helen Redmond is a single-payer activist with the Chicago Single-Payer Action Network.

http://www.counterpunch.org/redmond06292010.html

Originally Posted by Deb C

I guess we women should have settled for a law that at least would let us get "near" the voting booth?

Well, let's put it this way. When the 19th amendment was passed extending the franchise for women, did it include equal pay for equal work? Abortion rights, or right to reproductive health care generally? Protection against abusive husbands? The right to own property in their own name? An end to sexual segregation in education? No, it granted nothing at all except the right to vote.

On that basis, would you have seen the amendment defeated?

That's exactly the logic you're presenting w/r/t health-care reform.

EDIT: It's not true that the insurance industry did not fight the bill. What is true, though, is that they did not primarily do so through the Democratic Party. We do have two major parties in this country, though.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I guess we women should have settled for a law that at least would let us get "near" the voting booth?

What if suffragists and other early feminists in the Progressive era were insisting on total equality in every way, including the same right to vote as men?

If someone offered you the right to vote and nothing else, would you have rejected the right to vote because it didn't give you everything else you wanted? It's not like taking a partial victory now precludes you from going after the rest later, a chunk at a time if need be.

Change is rarely all or nothing, because if the group that insists on changes that bring them *everything* they want, the most likely outcome is that they get nothing.

I don't agree with some of the farther left-leaning folks here on a number of things, but I absolutely do agree with the ones who believe that you take what you can get when you can get it, and then prepare to come back for more when the times, the sentiment and the political will allow it.

Amazing how the focus was put on the one sentence about women's right to vote, which by the way, was over a period of years, just like the numerous years that we have worked on health care in this country.

What about Obama's lies? What about the insurance giant now backpedaling on the children's pre-existing condition clause? Or the corporate give away? And what about our American empire's inability to provide healthcare for it's people? And then there is that issue about about how some of theese new insurance instruments are merely junk policies that have high deductables and outlandish co-pays? And what about mandated insurance?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Amazing how the focus was put on the one sentence about women's right to vote, which by the way, was over a period of years, just like the numerous years that we have worked on health care in this country.

Because it was a central thesis in the rest of what you wrote, which seems to be that if we can't get all of what we want, we should reject it and accept nothing. And because it was the first sentence in your reply. And because it was the easiest part of your reply to provide an analogy for.

Originally Posted by Deb C

What about Obama's lies? What about the insurance giant now backpedaling on the children's pre-existing condition clause? Or the corporate give away? And what about our American empire's inability to provide healthcare for it's people? And then there is that issue about about how some of theese new insurance instruments are merely junk policies that have high deductables and outlandish co-pays? And what about mandated insurance?

You're not going to find anyone suggesting this reform is perfect or even close to it. And there are aspects of it which, frankly, don't smell too good.

What you will find here are people saying that warts and all (and there *are* warts with this reform), this reform is a step in the right direction. And had the Congressional leadership insisted that the universal single-payer or even just the "public option" be included in this iteration, they probably wind up with nothing and the bill is probably defeated as even a fair number of Democrats break ranks.

A quarter of a loaf (and that's just about what this is) is better than no loaf at all. And if people are change-resistant enough to only accept the granting a quarter of a loaf at a time, it's silly to refuse to accept that quarter-loaf and assume they'll give you the full loaf next time.

Show me a political idealist who demands all or nothing and I'll almost always show you someone who has nothing. Pragmatism doesn't always taste good, but it's more likely to ultimately take you to where you want to go.

Grab whatever progress you can while the getting is good. You can always come back for more later.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Amazing how the focus was put on the one sentence about women's right to vote, which by the way, was over a period of years, just like the numerous years that we have worked on health care in this country.

It's called going to the crux of the argument and showing that it fails.

What about Obama's lies? What about the insurance giant now backpedaling on the children's pre-existing condition clause? Or the corporate give away? And what about our American empire's inability to provide healthcare for it's people? And then there is that issue about about how some of theese new insurance instruments are merely junk policies that have high deductables and outlandish co-pays? And what about mandated insurance?

None of this in any way, shape or form implies that the health-care law now on the books should not have been passed. None of it. It does, of course, imply that we have much more work to do, but nobody is disputing that.

Originally Posted by Deb C

What about Obama's lies? What about the insurance giant now backpedaling on the children's pre-existing condition clause? Or the corporate give away? And what about our American empire's inability to provide healthcare for it's people? And then there is that issue about about how some of theese new insurance instruments are merely junk policies that have high deductables and outlandish co-pays? And what about mandated insurance?

Nobody cares. They're so desperate to have a victory (any victory) to call their own that they are happy to take even this corporatist-giveaway turd and call it a diamond (or at least "a necessary first step towards getting a diamond").

But not to worry. This won't last hardly more than a couple of eyeblinks. 4T eras are times when the rabble ceases to be contented by cosmetic, symbolic gestures. No one that really matters has lost sight of the fact that the entire 'health insurance' paradigm is at fault. These last attempts by the ruling class to life-support the status quo are just as doomed as was the Fugitive Slave Act.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

No one that really matters has lost sight of the fact that the entire [private] 'health insurance' paradigm is at fault.

(Insertion in brackets mine.) That includes those of us who are currently arguing with Deb.

The health insurance paradigm per se is not at fault. Socializing the cost of health care, which even private insurance does to a degree, is a fine idea. Doing it on a for-profit basis sucks. Doing it on a for-profit basis with inadequate regulation sucks filthy raw sewage. Doing it on a for-profit basis with inadequate regulation while allowing an equally for-profit health-care industry to milk a captive market with obscene price gouging sucks filthy raw sewage further contaminated with industrial waste, which is what we had before the current law. With the current law we have insurance on a for-profit basis (bad) with what looks at first glance like a good start at regulation (not bad) but without a handle on the cost of medical care (very bad). I think we're back to the "sucks raw sewage" point with the new law.

Obviously nobody should be content with that. But I see what you did there, Justin. You're going to argue for complete individualizing of the cost of health-care without any insurance at all, private or public, right?

Faugh.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...You're going to argue for complete individualizing of the cost of health-care without any insurance at all, private or public, right?

Nah. That's one option, to be sure. But not necessarily the only one. I can see the value in having a minimum level (truly minimum, of course... in the sense of "keep a person alive until they are out of immediate danger") of generally-available medical care. Under the "insurance" system, of course, even that isn't there.

Under 'insurance', for ex, a pedestrian run down in a hit-and-run (for example) is going to get fixed up, and then find bill collectors chasing him for the rest of his life; at a minimum ruining his financial standing for a goodly long time. That's the nature of the "everything the responsibility of the patient" insurance paradigm. Even if the pedestrian is insured, he's still going to be out a huge chunk of change for getting fixed up. Which, again, he may not ever have -- for no fault of his own.

The 'Insurance' paradigm, you see, effectively chokes the concept of charity completely out of the realm of the possible. (Charity, that is, in the general sense of doing to help another just for the sake of helping them, without expectation of recompense.) Doctors -- even organizations of medical practitioners -- tend very strongly towards some degree of charity towards the truly needy. But in the insurance paradigm, such charity simply is not their choice. A bureaucracy exists which fights such things at every step (in fact, which completely removes the question from the hands of the only truly involved parties -- the patient and his doctor).

Insurance, of course, has a place in any medical paradigm. But a small place, relative to the overall task of making people well. But what has happened in the USA with this most recent abomination is an elevating of Insurance to the defining feature of the entire system. Given the fact that in a healthy model, insurance is a rarely-used, purely optional supplement for individuals, the direction the US has moved is pretty clearly the wrong one.

The main question facing "health care" in the USA is not how to get everything paid for; it is rather, why does a fundamentally human-scale good find itself being constantly priced outside the means of all but the tiniest majority of its consumers. The answers to that problem are relatively many -- and encompass both the 'libertarian-friendly' low-cost co-op option as well as any number of more 'socialist' systems (I'm thinking of the system with which we interacted in Russia, since that's one I know pretty well). Which one of those people go with is not really something that matters a whole lot; they all do what the insurance paradigm fights -- put medical care on people-scale.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The main question facing "health care" in the USA is not how to get everything paid for; it is rather, why does a fundamentally human-scale good find itself being constantly priced outside the means of all but the tiniest majority of its consumers.

It's actually both. But let's talk about that pricing problem, because I certainly agree that it is one.

The answer to the question -- which as you phrased it is not a problem but a question of fact -- is that health care is a captive market. People who are seriously ill do not have the option of foregoing the purchase of health care. (An option which amounts to suicide or a choice to be permanently disabled is not a genuine option.) Where you have a captive market and not a superabundance of the goods to meet it, the downward pressure on prices imposed by competition does not operate. Health care therefore functions like a monopoly even when it isn't one technically.

The answers to that problem are relatively many -- and encompass both the 'libertarian-friendly' low-cost co-op option as well as any number of more 'socialist' systems (I'm thinking of the system with which we interacted in Russia, since that's one I know pretty well). Which one of those people go with is not really something that matters a whole lot; they all do what the insurance paradigm fights -- put medical care on people-scale.

The insurance paradigm doesn't automatically fight this. Any of those "socialist" systems you refer to, with the possible exception of the British system in which the government actually runs the health-care industry itself, is an insurance system, just not a private one. Or if it is a private one, e.g. Germany's, then it's a very very tightly regulated private insurance system so that the abuses we see in ours have no room to develop. (Even the British system could be considered an insurance system if the same entity owning both the insurance "company" and the hospital does not obviate that.)

A single-payer system allows the government to bargain with medical providers from a very strong position and hold down price-gouging. We find American pharmaceutical companies selling their drugs in foreign countries for a fraction of the prices they charge here, because foreign governments acting as insurers have the clout to make them do so. Obviously they are selling those drugs at a profit or they wouldn't sell them at all, but just as obviously they are selling them for a lower profit margin than what they earn here in the U.S. Since not all modern medical procedures can be handled on a "human" scale (pharmaceuticals being a prime example), that's the solution in the end.

Now the current health-care law won't do that. The public option might have gotten there over time, though, as a back door to a single-payer system. Insurance companies howled that they wouldn't be able to compete with a government-run not-for-profit program. Assuming they were right and telling the truth on that point, this would mean that over time the public option would become the insurer of choice for most people, and so morph into a single-payer system in effect. Such a system would be able to drive prices down here the way similar systems do in foreign countries.

Of course, the health-care law as it exists doesn't have the public option, which is a serious flaw indeed. We need to add one. But as has been pointed out repeatedly, no one is suggesting that the current law is a finished work. All that's being claimed is that it's better than the status quo ante, and also that its passage makes further reform easier, not harder.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

TAny of those "socialist" systems you refer to, with the possible exception of the British system in which the government actually runs the health-care industry itself, is an insurance system, just not a private one...

I find talking about things I know nothing about distasteful. That's why I was (I think) pretty specific about which socialistic system I've seen actually successfully avoiding the problem that plagues the American model. I simply don't know whether the British, German, or Nagarno-Karabakhian paradigms work well or not. So I don't really have anything to say about them.

On the other hand, the system I do have experience with is most certainly not an 'insurance' model; nor is it a 'state-run' one. Both elements exist, to be sure, but they are -- as is only proper -- both very limited in scope; add-ons to the actual system itself. Thanks to those two relief-valve-type features, you find that the medical care is much less of a monopoly-system. That result is achieved, however, only by a reduction of the dependency on an insurance paradigm. Again, the current law is a big step in the wrong direction. You could argue that any movement is better than no movement; I would simply have to disagree.

I on the other hand know nothing about the Russian system. I do know that Russia is not as technologically advanced as either the U.S. or the nations of western Europe, so it's entirely possible that medical procedures are offered here and in Europe that aren't offered there. That could change the dynamic of things.

As far as I know, the British system is the only one in which the government actually employs medical providers directly and runs the hospitals and so on. EDIT -- oops, I found at least two more, Italy and Finland. I spoke too soon. This is still the exception, though. In the French system, there are both private and public hospitals and most doctors are in private practice or privately employed. The government provides insurance coverage as part of the French Social Security system that pays 70% of most medical costs and 100% of certain costly or long-term treatments. French citizens are free to supplement this coverage with private insurance. Some do. Germany has a two-tiered system both public and private, heavily regulated as I said. Canada has a single-payer system with most medical services provided by the private sector, not a British-style system. In Japan, the government provides medical insurance on a premium-paid basis with the premiums scaled by household income.

All of these do a terrific job of controlling medical costs. Since the new health-care law moves us a (preposterously small baby-)step towards a system resembling one or another of those, you know, resembling ones that actually work, I disagree that it's a step in the wrong direction. It will improve a lot of things about the American system even as is. I agree that it will not cut to the chase and solve the problems at the core of our system, which all derive from the profit motive applied where it shouldn't be. But all of those saying that it should simply be scrapped are implying that it makes things worse than the way it was before it was passed, and that's just not so.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's called going to the crux of the argument and showing that it fails.

None of this in any way, shape or form implies that the health-care law now on the books should not have been passed. None of it. It does, of course, imply that we have much more work to do, but nobody is disputing that.

Wow, the trance of the Obama is deeper than I thought.

Brian,

Hmmm. I thought this was a discussion. My intention is not to argue. I suppose tone and demeanor are lost in cyberspace.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Brian,

Hmmm. I thought this was a discussion. My intention is not to argue. I suppose tone and demeanor are lost in cyberspace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

"In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or not sound. An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises."

In other words, the word "argument" does not refer to anger, hostility, or any other sort of emotional conflict. It refers to a type of logical construction, of the general form "A is true; if A, then B; therefore B is true." You did present an argument.

This may also help, in a less serious, more amusing, but equally informative mode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM