Fish In A Barrel

Kagro asks:

Maybe I'm just not sufficiently wonky on the health care subject [. . .] [b]ut I don't get how you can possibly hand me a health care bill with an individual mandate and no public option. . . . Paying an insurance company whose product I don't want? That makes no goddamn sense to me whatsoever, and I want nothing to do with it.

Now, it should come as no surprise that the dingbats at Third Way are pushing this nonsense as a "compromise." . . . [W]hile Third Way may get warm in the shorts over a "compromise" that keeps the mandates and chucks the public option, I note that it's once again the DLC and their allies that come up with the plan that has me ready to turn my back on the Democratic Party's Big Plan of the Day.

(Emphasis supplied.) Maybe I am not sufficiently wonky enough on health care, but perhaps someone can explain to me how the Third Way is suggesting anything different from what Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Paul Starr, Mike Tomasky, Mark Schmitt and Kevin Drum are selling? (BTW, that dirty DLCer Terry McAuliffe is on the other side of this fight.) But shooting the the Third Way/DLC fish in a barrel is easy. But the rest of the names I mention? Nope. That would violate the logrolling ethic that dominates today's "progressive" blogosphere.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Dick Cheney Defends CIA Torture, Insults and Criticizes Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    they will go to any length (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kmblue on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    to defend Obama.  Wow.

    I applaud Kagro (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    I thought it was a very strong piece.  Who cares that he decided to pinpoint the blame on an easy target? He got his point across.  Very well.   Sometimes the easy way is the best way.  

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    The third Way is not the "Left of the Left."

    Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Kevin Drum, Mike Tomasky, Paul Starr, etc. are perceived as "progressives."

    Shooting the Third Way fish in a barrel means next to nothing as long as Ezra Klein and Co. are out there saying the exact same thing.

    Believe me, when Obama and his supporters try to rally progressive support for this, they will not be pointing to the Third Way, they will be pointing to Ezra Klein and Co.

    I found Kagro's post cowardly and in a way, counterproductive. The boogie man is The Third Way? No. That just ain't so.


    It is a very strong piece (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    Did you ever stop to think that using the DLC as the bogey man might get Ezra to take a second look at the issue.   Where attacking him personally might not?

    Have you stopped to think that attacking an organization that progressives don't like in the first place may get them to focus more closely on the SUBSTANTIVE issue but that attacks on Ezra might simply distract them into defending Ezra because they like Ezra.  As far as I'm concerned blog pieces should be directed at MOVING progressives.  Not moving Obama.  Obama pays no attention to bloggers.  

    Frontal assault isn't the only tactic in the world.

    I like this tactic.  I think it's effective.  Yes.  We disagree.


    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:44:42 PM EST
    Here is a BETTER way to get Ezra to take a second look at the issue- do not be afraid to criticize EZRA by name in your post criticizing positions taken by EZRA.

    To invoke the Third Way/DLC boogie man is to drain all meaning to the post. It is the equivalent of railing against Lieberman.

    This is classic logrolling in our time.

    It is endemic in the "progressive" blogosphere and always has been.

    What Kagro wrote was another leftie blog post attacking Third Way and the DLC.

    Another dog bit a man. Yawn.


    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:52:03 PM EST
    and also oculus ("He Who Shall Not Be Named.")  The aggravation Ezra causes me is not exactly a secret.

    Kagro's point is correct, but it's also not exactly rocket science.  You have to be insane to think a health plan that mandates buying private insurance will somehow be popular.  Kagro points his criticism at the DLC and at Congressional Dems.  That is the easiest game in the world.  John Cole level criticisms.  

    What about Obama?  What about the compromise enabling "progressives"?

    I think it would be wise to say that if insurance companies want the mandates so badly, and Congresscritters want insurance company love so badly, that they MUST accept the public option.  Or at least say that behind closed doors.  That approach won't play well, but I think it will play better than health reform w/mandates and no public option.


    I disagree. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    Tactic? (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:53:09 PM EST
    Is he hoping Ezra et al will now see the DLC when they look in the mirror?  Good luck with that.

    I agree with your ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    basic point, but the Third Way includes actual Senators and House members who have a vote.

    Aren't they more important than anyone in the pajama brigade?

    I agree that the the Third Way is a false bogeyman. (Insurance companies, big pharma and their lobbyists are the ones killing real reform.) But I think you grant a bunch of bloggers too much power in this debate.

    Saying bloggers offer silly arguments is like saying rain is wet.

    And if all the bloggers you mentioned disappeared tomorrow this debate wouldn't change one iota.


    No it doesn't (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    Terry as leader of the 4th way? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    Good thing Hil and Bill are sidelined for this discussion.

    And why isn't Howard Dean making any headway with progressives?


    These little naps are really refreshing...

    4th way (none / 0) (#49)
    by moderateman on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    Instead of watering it down a lot, why don't you give the blue dogs something that they can get behind?

    Public option + Tort Reform.

    At least that's reform where everybody gets something.  Better than the piece of crap out there now where nobody gets anything.


    Tort 'reform' is a smokescreen... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    and it's baloney any way you slice it.  It's impact on healthcare costs would be negligable.  It's my understanding that most torts are businesses suing one another...not your average poor and abused citizens trying to get some justice from the healthcare system.  If everyone who could sue, did, you might have a point.

    Any trial lawyers want to weight in here?


    " If everyone who could sue" (none / 0) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    Wouldn't that be "tort reform?"

    Caps non-economic monetary damages in (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    med-mal cases in CA and other states.  Causing med mal plaintiffs' lawyers to seek other work--med mal, for example, in Nevada, or become a highly compensated mediator.  No discernible effect on health care costs in CA though.

    Everybody gets something except (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    people whose lives are ruined forever and can't get compensation.

    What a silly statement.


    The silence is deafening re (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    "He who Shall Not Be Named."

    In general (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    The Cheeto is just Kos-ox News.

    They distort, you deride.

    But it's just so easy to flog the (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    DLC/Third Way; it's the next best thing to ragging on Hillary, isn't it?  Oh, the disdain...

    I agree with BTD that whatever it is the DLC and its allies are doing, that sparkling collection of writers BTD mentions (Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Paul Starr, Mike Tomasky, Mark Schmitt and Kevin Drum) are talking the same talk.  Walking the same walk.

    And it seems to me that the biggest and most obvious thing they are all avoiding, is putting the responsibility for this execrable health plan proposal where it belongs: on Congress, which is writing it, and on Obama, who can't make up his mind what he's always been for and, despite his professed distaste for lobbyists and important-people-with-gobs-of-money, just can't seem to shake the habit.  

    The League of Very Ordinary Gentlemen is just enabling all of it, finding ways to cheerlead for it, instead of fighting for the best policy that will produce the best legislation.

    "Hey - it's better than nothing!" is not a catchphrase I would want to be associated with, but is, apparently, the standard to which these media-types aspire.

    The DLC itself (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    while disagreeing with economic populism seems to me to be split since you have people like Clinton and McCauliffe that support a public option.

    With that being the case it seems being as specific as possible when calling out the DLC on health care would make the most sense rather than just blanketly accusing all of them of the same views.

    Likewise, I see no problem with calling out anyone that would facilitate a "deal" that would not fix our actual health care problems. Then again, I'm not much for kicking the can down the proverbial road and patting myself or others on the back for doing so.

    Too bad, because I think his point (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    is otherwise well taken.

    Your point is more meta.

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    To pretend that it is only the Third Way that is doing this is too lose the battle.

    It is dishonest.

    It is BS.

    I disagree woth your assessment of the situation.

    The Third Way is already not viewed as "progressive." The rest of them are.

    Taking on the Third Way is shooting fish in a barrel.

    Letting Ezra and Co. off the hook is missing the point.


    this is an interesting argument (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    It has some merit.

    the problem with it is Obama himself has not actually said a lot specifically that can be criticized.

    He has been non committal on the public option while voicing support.

    I am not sure that shooting at Obama is the way to go here.

    Criticizing Baucus and the Blue Dogs makes some sense.

    I have focused on folks trying to pressure the Progressive Block to capitulate because I think getting the Progressive Block to hold the line is the best chance we have.

    In that sense, person largely known as Progressives urging capitulation on the Public Option have been my main target because I believe they do the most damage.

    By the same token, I praise those working hard to hold the line for the Progressive Block because I think they are doing the most effective work.

    Of course, I could be wrong in my calculus. But that does not change or effect my assessment of Kagro's post.


    I don't disagree with any of that (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    I just mean that supporting a mandate without a public option is lunacy at this stage.

    I'd even qualify that (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    with the statement that the public option should be open to anyone.

    A public option that only applies to a small fraction of the people but a mandate that covers everyone is unacceptable.


    public option (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    available to everyone without insurance would cover the mandate problem.  People who are already covered don't really have to worry about a mandate.

    It depends on how the implement it (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:22:45 PM EST
    Punishing people for scraping by with crappy insurance just doesn't seem fair.

    Everything depends (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    on how they impelement it.  

    But by "people who are covered" I meant "people who are covered within the spectrum of the mandate".  If someone's employer offers insurance that does not satisfy the mandate, they should qualify for the public option.


    But if the public option (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by dk on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    is cheaper than the private insurance they get through their employers, why should employees be kept from being able to choose the public option.  Keeping them from the public option is also a giveaway to the insurance industry, isn't it?

    That's how I see it too (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    I don't see why the insurance industry should be allowed to have any captive participants. If people want to keep their private option that's fine, if they don't then they should be allowed to switch to the public option. By limiting this to allow only those without insurance to purchase public option the industry can continue to rig the game.

    As far as I'm concerned the insurance companies should compete, evolve or die. Their choice completely.


    I would prefer it be open to everyone (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    but no, it's not a "giveaway to the insurance company" since that would be giving them something they already have.  It's just not taking anything away.

    We disagree (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    If they have captive audience then nothing would stop them from bleeding that constituency dry to continue to reap a profit.

    I find it unacceptable to allow that.


    Well, I see your point, (none / 0) (#22)
    by dk on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:39:24 PM EST
    but on the other hand it strikes me a bit like the arguments about whether repealing a tax cut is really a tax hike, and all.

    You can always make arguments both ways, but to me it comes down to whether someone is getting overpaid or not.  In this instance, insurance companies are getting overpaid.


    That can and will be spun (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    as forcing people to abandon their private insurance for a government option.

    Forcing (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    would mean I am requiring someone to jettison their private insurance. I'm saying they should have the option to do so if they wish.

    They are two entirely different animals.


    As I see it, employers may choose to (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:53:58 PM EST
    stop providing health insurance plan so employees would necessarily be forced into the public option.  

    I don't know (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    "forcing" because it's cheaper?

    I see it more being attacked as "unfair and will bankrupt the health industry, lowering standards, etc... etc..."

    Then again, they will make anything up these days.


    Mandates (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    strangely enough, are less controversial now than the public option.  But I can't imagine a bill passing with them and not also with a public option - because that bill really does seem suicidal.

    So if you are unwilling to support a public option, then it seems to me all you're supporting is insurance regulation and Medicaid expansion.  Which are good things but I fail to see how that is fundamental reform.  What it is is a totally voluntary p*ssing away of political capital.  Again this is all we talked about during the primaries.

    The time is right to support the public option, since insurance companies no doubt still want the mandates.


    Genius? (none / 0) (#39)
    by BigElephant on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    It is interesting that mandates have flown under the radar.  And the public option was largely under discussed prior to six months ago.  Maybe this is a technique of getting everything you want in the bill, keep the public option as the thing everyone rails against, and then close on a bill that is actually half decent...

    Interesting thought (none / 0) (#57)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    will have to think about this.

    Ah, I see (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    More 11-dimensional chess.  I never see that coming.

    Attacking Third Way/DLC (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:23:07 PM EST
    when Ezra Klein and Co. are the "progressives" doing the same thing is absurd.

    You are wrong n thinking this is a meta point.

    It is a substantive point about actually fighting against what Kagro purports to be against.


    I agree with (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    andgarden on this.  You are being meta.

    No (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    I am not.

    Unless you are arguing that Kagro was being meta when he brought up Third Way.

    Better to leave them unnamed than to pretend it is just Third Way.


    You just don't like Kagro. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    Heck of an argument (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:46:57 PM EST
    How could I possible respond to that?

    Why is it wrong to criticize the DLC (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    if they are jettisoning the public option?  The fact that the others you name are also proposing the same bad idea  in no way exonerates the Third Way/DLC.  Progressives must stand firm on a meaningful public option (Medicare option is my preferred approach)  and oppose those who would  give away the only piece of the bill designed to contain costs and get private insurers to straighten up & fly right.

    The DLC's time has come and gone.  There's no reason to spend resources on figuring out how best to advance progressive causes in an environment defined by the GOP. That's what the DLC appeared to me to be about and all too often their tactic was to "co-opt" GOP initiatives.  Today's GOP is a lunatic asylum that only the hard core wingnuts (and, apparently, Obama, we'll know for certain when the bill passes) look to for any guidance.  

    It's good to see MacAuliffe take a more progressive stand on the public option, perhaps it is a harbinger of things a changing within the Democratic tent.  I'd like to think so.


    Criticizing them (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    without mention the other non-DLC'ers who are on the same side of the issue is a pure distortion.

    A substantive point about how we discuss (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    the issues, but not the issues themselves. I agree that sometimes it's hard to find light between the two.

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    That is like saying that as long as Obama "supports" the public option, all other discussion of what he does on it is "meta."

    Incredibly obtuse of you.


    I think your original point is that (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    Kagro has identified the wrong enemy, not the wrong problem. Apparently you also think that this is an error that undermines his whole post. Could be, but I'm not so sure.

    Leftire Bog attacks Third Way/DLC (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:46:18 PM EST

    I'm tempted to remark (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    that I also get pissy when other don't join my crusade. But then, I actually agree with you that Ezra and friends are not being helpful.

    I do not get pissy (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    I call them pout when I think they are wrong.

    this is a long standing objection I have had to the Left blogs - their utterly complete logrolling apparatus.

    I have always objected to it and will continue to do so. I wrote a piece about it at the guardian in 2007.

    That is independent of what I think about Kagro's piece.


    Fine, but that's also a meta point (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    The logrolling one? Sure (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    The specifics about Kagro's post? Not meta. Specific to the health care reform battle.

    Again, to call my point meta is to call Kagro's invocation of the Third Way meta.

    If he had not mentioned them at all and kept the comment at a more abstract "some say" level, it would have been ok with me.

    But the decision to attack Third Way while leaving untouched everyone saying precisely the same thing Third Way is saying simply made it a joke, and ineffective to boot.

    It became just another Leftie blog rips Third Way/DLC post.

    It severely weakened it.


    I think this is your best articulation so far (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:01:46 PM EST
    I agree.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    I dunno, I thought my best articulation was my title "Fish in a Barrel."

    I think I must have seen advice at some point (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    warning writers not to fall in love with their cute phrases. This really gets to your point:

    If he had not mentioned [Third Way] at all and kept the comment at a more abstract "some say" level, it would have been ok with me.

    But the decision to attack Third Way while leaving untouched everyone saying precisely the same thing Third Way is saying simply made it a joke, and ineffective to boot.

    It became just another Leftie blog rips Third Way/DLC post.

    It severely weakened it.

    Meh (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:15:37 PM EST
    A great title is everything.

    "Fish In A Barrel" said it all imo.


    To you! (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    I actually agree with BTD here (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by otherlisa on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    Being disingenuous about who opposes real health care reform is a huge part of the problem.

    Yup, while we are distracted (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 03:41:19 PM EST
    and not clearly seeing the facts....our healthcare futures are being decided for us all.  A lack of focus will Faucus.  Some of the defocusing has me asking self if the distraction isn't intentional.  Does the White House feed some of the progressive bloggers various storylines that the bloggers are so grateful for getting access to that they lose the REAL outline of the debate as well as their integrity?  Does everything get diaphanous when you have a direct line to mainline the Obama Administration?  On healthcare there is only one path for me, the one that leads to single payer because I'll probably have to settle for public option.

    If you deem andgarden (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:55:49 PM EST
    "incredibly obtuse" the rest of us must already be toast. Please don't reply!

    Mandates + subsidies may be lunacy, but ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:17:56 PM EST
    ... it seems to be working reasonably well in Massachusetts.

    Not my preferred model, but not one you can automatically dismiss either.

    Incidentally, andgarden, I've left you a belated but informative response to an earlier exchange.


    There is considerable debate (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    about whether the MA model is working. What's for sure is that it is not controlling costs.

    And I responded to your belated response.


    MA plan to control costs (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 03:09:43 PM EST
    A state commission recommended yesterday that Massachusetts dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care.
    Instead, the group wants private insurers and the state and federal Medicaid program to pay providers a set payment for each patient that covers all that person's care for an entire year and to make the radical shift within five years. Providers would have to work within a predetermined budget, forcing them to better coordinate patients' care, which could improve quality and reduce costs.
    The plan would require significant restructuring of the healthcare system, and some of its components would need legislative approval. Primary-care doctors, specialists, hospitals, and home healthcare agencies would have to form so-called accountable care organizations. Patients would choose a primary care doctor to coordinate their care, mostly within the organization. Insurers would pay the accountable care organization a flat yearly per-patient fee to be divided among the providers.

    Consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system. Patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget. And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization.

    How will your care be effected once your particular case goes over budget? Also, you will be restricted to physicians within an accountable care organization. You like your GP and find your oncologist doesn't meet your needs. Oh, well. Sounds like you are stuck.


    Capitated HMOs. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:46:32 PM EST
    MA model (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:38:03 PM EST
    one thing to consider regarding costs - they are taking steps to fix this problem.  That being said, that's a lot to take on faith, and frankly, I trust the MA legislature to move on this more than I trust the federal government.  In addition, there may be some criminal investigations into the insurance companies that could illuminate why costs have gotten out of hand, which indicates that it may be preventable.  I did read on CNN that something like 70% of MA residents support the plan and only 10% would vote to repeal it.  So that is something.

    Great title, BTW - says it all. n/t (none / 0) (#70)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:04:00 PM EST