The war on drugs is doing a great job.

WAKE UP! The Lounge had a story writing contest this winter. Here are some entries.

Time had an article on how ###### up medical billing is. Basically, hospitals are ######## with their billing practices and aren't called out on it nearly enough.

252

Is it still open? What are the rules?

Time had an article on how ###### up medical billing is. Basically, hospitals are ######## with their billing practices and aren't called out on it nearly enough.

3 years ago, my mother died from a slip and fall in her home. Long story short, a few months later I got an itemized bill from the hospital: $36,000 total, of which medicare paid $3,000, $32,000 was written off, and my father on the hook for $1,000. We paid it. 6 months later we got a bill for the outstanding $32,000. I called medicare and they said we weren't responsible, and I told the hospital. They apologized and claimed a clerical error. 6 months later we got a bill for $32,000. Same deal, but this time they blamed a new billing management company. 6 months later we got a bill for $32,000. I told them I don't care what the excuse is, but if I get another one, they will be hearing from my lawyer. Never got another one.

There's a reason for divorcing care and billing. The administrative side to billing can be flagrantly outrageous. If you get too uppity, then they try to make you feel as if you are obstructing an eleemosynary enterprise. They're so overworked helping people, and what with lawyers and government they have to dot every i and cross every t, boo hoo hoo.

People go in for tests and procedures and they outsource to third party labs and specialist not covered on your insurance and then expect you to pay--you, somehow, are supposed to know they were going to do that and taken preventive action. The medical provision has no shame, yet wants you to think to them as a secular religion.

People go in for tests and procedures and they outsource to third party labs and specialist not covered on your insurance and then expect you to pay--you, somehow, are supposed to know they were going to do that and taken preventive action.

Another personal story. I had to have a tooth pulled and get a bone graft before getting an implant. I checked the insurance disclaimers, and there was no mention of the extraction and bone graft requiting pre-approval, but the implant did. So I had the procedure, knowing it would be 6 months before I could get the implant. My claim for the bone graft was denied, because they said bone grafts are only covered as part of a pre-approved implant procedure, like that was common knowledge. It took 6 months to get that straightened out.

Just noticed I've got a lot of "6 months" in the last 2 posts. Consider it rounding up or down.

So, earlier this week there was a huge environmental protest at the White House: tens of thousands of people turned out.
The President didn't just miss it.
He didn't just miss it because he was off playing golf.
He missed it because he was off playing golf with oil and gas executives (plus Tiger Woods).

Isn't this the kind of thing that used to be a big joke to Democrats, when George W. Bush did it?

A bill introduced by Montana state Rep. Steve Lavin would give corporations the right to vote in municipal elections:

Provision for vote by corporate property owner. (1) Subject to subsection (2), if a firm, partnership, company, or corporation owns real property within the municipality, the president, vice president, secretary, or other designee of the entity is eligible to vote in a municipal election as provided in [section 1].

(2) The individual who is designated to vote by the entity is subject to the provisions of [section 1] and shall also provide to the election administrator documentation of the entity’s registration with the secretary of state under 35-1-217 and proof of the individual’s designation to vote on behalf of the entity.

Corporations *are* people, my friend ...

So, earlier this week there was a huge environmental protest at the White House: tens of thousands of people turned out.
The President didn't just miss it.
He didn't just miss it because he was off playing golf.
He missed it because he was off playing golf with oil and gas executives (plus Tiger Woods).

Isn't this the kind of thing that used to be a big joke to Democrats, when George W. Bush did it?

Agreed (and I'm a liberal Democrat). But the Wall Street-Ivy League power structure knows Obama can get away with it because he has a "progressive" aura about him, not to mention that he's black (and who wants to look like a racist?) It's why they are committed to shoving Hillary down our throats in 2016; she's as much a phony progressive as Obama is, and is as much a corporate tool as her husband was (but you don't dare criticize the first woman president, even if she probably wouldn't have stood a chance to get where she is had it not been for whom she married).

Personally, I'd rather see Biden get into the White House in 2017 -- for all his so-called "gaffes," he seems to have more empathy for the powerless in his little finger than Obama or Hillary have in their entire bodies. And that scares the hell out of a lot of people who run things.

I only work about 5 blocks or so from the White House and the bus I take goes right by the White House. I don't recall tens of thousands of people protesting around the White House last Sunday.

Personally, I'd rather see Biden get into the White House in 2017 -- for all his so-called "gaffes," he seems to have more empathy for the powerless in his little finger than Obama or Hillary have in their entire bodies. And that scares the hell out of a lot of people who run things.

You know Biden has been in Washington for 40 years, right, and has been your standard Democrat, not some sort of progressive champion, right? Biden's empathy extends to the limits of other people's wallets.

Again, Nate Silver is triumphant after many had again scoffed.

You know Biden has been in Washington for 40 years, right, and has been your standard Democrat, not some sort of progressive champion, right? Biden's empathy extends to the limits of other people's wallets.

You're not one of the people who disagrees when someone calls lawyers scumbags just because they are lawyers, I hope.

You know Biden has been in Washington for 40 years, right, and has been your standard Democrat, not some sort of progressive champion, right? Biden's empathy extends to the limits of other people's wallets.

Biden is arguably our last link to the Hubert Humphrey tradition; I apologize if he's not a cool technocrat.

Biden is arguably our last link to the Hubert Humphrey tradition; I apologize if he's not a cool technocrat.

I like Biden a fair amount, but I am less confident he would win, as compared to HRC who would coast. A less good D is better than an R every day for progressives. I guess that makes me a sell out or something.

I like Biden a fair amount, but I am less confident he would win, as compared to HRC who would coast. A less good D is better than an R every day for progressives. I guess that makes me a sell out or something.

No, it just makes you a realist. As long as the corporate POV controls the Supreme Court and Congress, there's only so much a president can do.

Time had an article on how ###### up medical billing is. Basically, hospitals are ######## with their billing practices and aren't called out on it nearly enough.

I wouldn't call it wholly a hospital ####-up...

It really goes back to our nation's PPS model... and the blame - quite frankly - can be pretty evenly divided between the private for-profit system and our public care (at least on the reimbursement side) systems. Donald Berwick - former/recess appointment to head the CMS is a really good source to read on why this doesn't work. Another guy who's had a lot of thoughtful input on why PPS is a bad model is actually Howard Dean.

Ultimately - PPS is entirely based on payment for individual services delivered. Hence, it's less about wellness and 'treatment' -- and more about maximizing billing. This is where the for-profit care providers are at fault -- you wouldn't believe the financial modeling that goes into hospital group planning and how deeply it permeates everything from physician recruitment and hiring to actually providing guidance for care decisions.

As much as I'm a supporter of Medicare and public insurance models -- they actually tend to make the problem worse... In order to forestall fraud - Medicare has a truly byzantine web of groupings, modifiers, coding requirements, etc. These all exist - in theory - to ensure that providers are actually rendering appropriate care and services. But in reality - what it does it put a huge burden on public care providers, who have enough trouble just keeping up... while playing right into the wheelhouse of private/for-profit providers who are extremely good at modeling which services are going to yield the best returns.

Berwick drew a lot of criticism (and it's generally why he never got a confirmation vote) because he had supposedly said nice things about the UK's NHS.... but if you strip away the partisan angle, what he was actually talking about was the manner in which an NHS-style system is wellness-based rather than service-based.

Howard Dean has written and spoken about the same -- I was at a discussion where he talked about a time near the end of his residency when the chief of cardiology was struck with a heart attack... they stabilized, but while this guy was just 12 hours out of near death - another patient in the cardiac unit codes, and this stricken doctor is wheeling himself down the hall, IV still attached, to get into the room where the other patient is being attended. The point being - even for the experts - medical decisions are not something people make logically. A fee-for-service model just doesn't work because patients - even well-studied experts like this chief of cardiology - don't make good decisions when it comes to care. When you have a heart attack, you're simply not in a position and good frame of mind to logically and reasonably examine different courses of treatment and choose the most effective and efficient one.

Personally, I'd rather see Biden get into the White House in 2017 -- for all his so-called "gaffes," he seems to have more empathy for the powerless in his little finger than Obama or Hillary have in their entire bodies. And that scares the hell out of a lot of people who run things.

You know Biden has been in Washington for 40 years, right, and has been your standard Democrat, not some sort of progressive champion, right? Biden's empathy extends to the limits of other people's wallets.

He's been in office for 40 years - but up until getting the veep's residency, he was commuting from DE to DC... I'm not saying that makes him a progressive champion, but I do think it gives him a bit of insight that someone... sequestered... in DC wouldn't necessarily have.

The tricky thing is that it's actually possible to see how Biden and Hillary match up and it's more complicated than that:

110th Congress, Hillary 13th most liberal, Biden 28th
109th--Hillary 12th, Biden 25th
108th--Hillary 12th, Biden 24th
107th--Clinton 13th, Biden 24th

(These are all from the voteview DW-Nominate scores)

Now there are lots of ways of defining liberal and conservative, and it's possible that there are measures where Biden comes across as more progressive and possible that some of those may speak to income inequality issues, though I doubt it.

Caveats: Biden presents as more working-class friendly, so may run better among Dem white working-class voters than Clinton even if his record is somewhere between indistinguishable or worse. And it's possible Biden has been restrained by representing Delaware, which is very Democratic but less liberal than New York. Or other factors.

The idea that Biden represents the last gasp of the Humphrey tradition is wrong on a couple of levels: Biden has been consistently dead-center in the middle of the Democratic cohort in the Senate for most of his career, and it seems California and Maryland (and Minnesota when a Dem wins) have been producing the most consistently liberal senators in the Humphrey tradition. So the tradition still exists, which is the good news. Biden's never really staked out a position on that wing, for better or worse.

Biden is arguably our last link to the Hubert Humphrey tradition; I apologize if he's not a cool technocrat.

I like Biden, but he is a Delaware politician, i.e. he has been in the pocket of corporations, credit card companies, MBNA, etc. etc.

You know, if calling a nine year old a #### is wrong, I don't want to live in world that's right. #PCgonemad

Biden presents as more working-class friendly, so may run better among Dem white working-class voters than Clinton even if his record is somewhere between indistinguishable or worse.

Well, last time Hillary was the beer-track candidate and Obama was the wine-track candidate. Hillary was kicking Obama's butt in Appalachia and other "working class areas". Now, of course some of that could be racism, but 1) we could assume those areas are sexist as easily as we could assume they're racist, if we're going to be like that, and 2) some of the margins were so large in an otherwise 50/50 race that I find it hard to believe race accounted for most of it.

If Hillary wants to run, Biden will bow out. If Hillary doesn't want to run, Biden will run, barring personal preferences to call it a career. At that point, if both Hillary and Joe decide to opt out, it becomes anyone's ball game.

Well, last time Hillary was the beer-track candidate and Obama was the wine-track candidate. Hillary was kicking Obama's butt in Appalachia and other "working class areas". Now, of course some of that could be racism, but 1) we could assume those areas are sexist as easily as we could assume they're racist, if we're going to be like that, and 2) some of the margins were so large in an otherwise 50/50 race that I find it hard to believe race accounted for most of it.

I don't disagree with you. In responding to an argument that Biden had a better record on the issues, I said he didn't but maybe--maybe--presents as better. How he fares against Hillary, and who would be prepared to vote for him over her, I don't know. I have my doubts we will find out. If she runs, the people who will take her on will be governors from the outlands positioning themselves for future runs or Veep spots, would be my guess.

A fee-for-service model just doesn't work because patients - even well-studied experts like this chief of cardiology - don't make good decisions when it comes to care. When you have a heart attack, you're simply not in a position and good frame of mind to logically and reasonably examine different courses of treatment and choose the most effective and efficient one.

People always use that example. But most medical bills are not incurred as the result of heart attacks. Emergency care (and by that I mean care during a medical emergency, not care provided in an emergency room) often¹ does not allow for shopping around, no. But only a small portion of medical treatment requires decisions to be made on the spot.



¹You can't shop around at the time, but you can sometimes shop around in advance.

The idea that Biden represents the last gasp of the Humphrey tradition is wrong on a couple of levels: Biden has been consistently dead-center in the middle of the Democratic cohort in the Senate for most of his career, and it seems California and Maryland (and Minnesota when a Dem wins) have been producing the most consistently liberal senators in the Humphrey tradition. So the tradition still exists, which is the good news. Biden's never really staked out a position on that wing, for better or worse.

Right; Biden was a member of the DLC when the DLC was a going concern, before Al Gore took it out back and shot it in 2000.

But only a small portion of medical treatment requires decisions to be made on the spot.

Does that help matters? A doctor says I need a blood test. I ask how much will it cost? He won't be able to give me an answer. The hospital itself generally won't be able to give an answer.

Does that help matters? A doctor says I need a blood test. I ask how much will it cost? He won't be able to give me an answer. The hospital itself generally won't be able to give an answer.

I'm not particularly well educated on this topic but I do have an example that has always perplexed me. I'm a type 1 diabetic. Visits to my diabetes specialist ALWAYS require a blood glucose test that is billed at $30, of which I am usually charged $25. That is, my insurance will pay $5 for the test.

However, the test is exactly the same as any test I can run, myself, using a monitor I'm required to bring with me to the appointment (so they can download my results). A few years ago I put my foot down and refused the test. It took a lot of argument with the doc and, really, her staff, but they went for it.

The cost of the test if I do it myself? Approximately 85 cents. Of which, insurance usually covers about 75 cents.


I have no idea why anyone is having diabetics, who test their own blood, pay 30 bucks for a test they run several times a day on their own, but I suspect it speaks to much of the "problem" of health care costs. Simple, cheap tests are charged at very high rates while complex, expensive tests aren't billed high enough to cover the actual costs.

People always use that example. But most medical bills are not incurred as the result of heart attacks. Emergency care (and by that I mean care during a medical emergency, not care provided in an emergency room) often¹ does not allow for shopping around, no. But only a small portion of medical treatment requires decisions to be made on the spot.



¹You can't shop around at the time, but you can sometimes shop around in advance.

But it's emergency care -- or rather, inpatient care generally -- that drives the overwhelming majority of cost within our system.

You can shop around for drugs, you can shop around for band-aids, for vitamins, etc.... but the single biggest driver - to an enormous, huge, overwhelming extent - does not work with a PPS model.

Even some outpatient options - i.e., anything surgical - don't really work.

For example, the big brouhaha last summer around what eventually became a big Medicare fraud scandal...

A surgeon with an MD provider (heavily recruited and showered with goodies from Abbott Labs to push the devices) had managed to bill more than 1.2 million in stent insertion work in a single day... He was clearly running a stent mill - and the hospital was profiting handsomely.

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that he was providing unnecessary services - but no one denies that he didn't actually perform the service and from a medical perspective, it becomes a lot hazier to determine which stents were a good idea and which were medically questionable.

Forget heart attack - if you or I go to see a doctor tomorrow and s/he says "I think you've got a blockage/blockage forming and we really ought to implant a stent to work around it" -- how do you comparison shop that? Google? Consult another physician? You could do all those things - but even within the medical community, the chances are excellent (beyond cases on the edge) that there wouldn't necessarily be a perfect answer.

So - under a PPS model, what happens? You inevitably get a 'service' sold to you.... A health care system based on wellness isn't pushing any specific services and there's also not a layer of financial modelers constructing a system to maximize revenue/profit underlying those services. Rather - the issue is looked at from a pure wellness perspective... What are the chances the blockage advances to needing emergency care? Should a regimen of drugs and diet be attempted first... with appropriate monitoring and follow-up... etc.

But it's emergency care -- or rather, inpatient care generally -- that drives the overwhelming majority of cost within our system.

There was a massive bait-and-switch in that sentence. Emergency care and inpatient care are not remotely the same thing. It's only the former that makes it impossible to shop around.

Forget heart attack - if you or I go to see a doctor tomorrow and s/he says "I think you've got a blockage/blockage forming and we really ought to implant a stent to work around it" -- how do you comparison shop that? Google? Consult another physician?

Uh, yeah? I didn't realize the idea of a second opinion was so foreign nowadays.

There are well run, efficient and effective health provision models in the world that control costs and don't have these massive levels of over billing. They're not hard to find.

There was a massive bait-and-switch in that sentence. Emergency care and inpatient care are not remotely the same thing. It's only the former that makes it impossible to shop around.

No, it's really not... at least, not if we're talking about costs.

Uh, yeah? I didn't realize the idea of a second opinion was so foreign nowadays.

Second opinions aren't free - and what's more, you're still ultimately deciding between two (or more) highly trained professionals who are going to be talking in terms that the average patient isn't going to remotely be able to make a qualified decision about.

If doc 1 says "we should put a stint in", doc 2 says "We should put you on this new drug", and doc 3 says "let's give it 6 months - but I want you to change your diet and exercise more".... Who are you gonna believe?

All three might be perfectly valid courses of treatment. All three might be dead-ends... All three might also have pressures beyond the care of the patient (doc 1 in particular).

In the end, a PPS model inevitably means the fulcrum of the decision and the information the ultimate decision maker has available will be centered around services... not wellness. Everybody involved - excepting the patient, I guess - certainly has a secondary interest in the wellness of the patient... but the primary course of debate is about which services to sell, which services to cover, etc.

In the first case study mentioned in the Time article, the "first opinion", before any treatment had started, cost $48,900. Are you really going to pay that money again for a second opinion?

In the first case study mentioned in the Time article, the "first opinion", before any treatment had started, cost $48,900. Are you really going to pay that money again for a second opinion?

Well that's because the market has been corrupted by the pernicious grasp of Big Gummint. As usual the artificial barriers to market participation have only served to increase costs and enrich the connected. Instead of a free market which allows patients to shop around properly, unfortunates looking for medical advice are limited to a pool of "licensed" doctors with special "training" and "certificates", plying their flimflam in "registered" facilities operating under the crushing thumb of government authorization.

I have a fluoroscope in my lab and have placed numerous stents in both pigs and dogs without issue, but I am precluded, AT GUNPOINT, from offering my services to informed consumers. Indeed, even hanging out a shingle advertising my expertise in any of a number of minor medical procedures, such as suturing up wounds or performing neuters, would immediately draw the ire of the "legitimate" medical cartel and bring the wrath of their government thugs upon my head.

And who benefits from these shameful impositions on the market? Corporate hospitals with their billion-dollar profits, sneering egghead physicians with their white coats and condescending airs, Big Pharma able to exploit the system by bribing both of the above to get their snake oil into unsuspecting physiologies - where is the benefit to the common man? Given a free and open market, a consumer would finally be able to make their own determinations about their futures. Perhaps a well-equipped veterinary clinic would be perfectly adequate for their needs - a physician, after all, is merely a veterinarian who specializes in one species. Perhaps your dentist could parlay his surgical training and well-equipped office into a proper side-business in cosmetic surgery. Perhaps traditional healers and shamans could best serve a specific population for specific concerns. Even a self-educated man exhibiting the sort of gumption and self-reliance that made this country great could offer quality service at affordable prices if only granted access to medicines and technologies currently denied him by the heavy jackboot of the government.

But oh no, all you hippies want to do is talk about how to best prop up the current abomination designed to stuff pockets more than heal. We can't have our fancy lad doctors forced to justify their exorbitant prices and labyrinthine payment scams. Shameful. Those who support the current system of rationed access to medical expertise have blood on their hands.

If Hillary wants to run, Biden will bow out. If Hillary doesn't want to run, Biden will run, barring personal preferences to call it a career. At that point, if both Hillary and Joe decide to opt out, it becomes anyone's ball game.

I agree with this, sort of. If HRC runs, HRC wins the nomination (and likely becomes President). Biden is not beating her, and likely no one else is either. However "the field" could beat Biden (If HRC does not run). I think Biden would be a favorite over any individual, but I might take the field against him.

I agree with this, sort of. If HRC runs, HRC wins the nomination (and likely becomes President). Biden is not beating her, and likely no one else is either. However "the field" could beat Biden (If HRC does not run). I think Biden would be a favorite over any individual, but I might take the field against him.

I agree that Hillary would be the frontrunner based on what we know today, but she's starting to look OLD, and she's already had some moderately serious health issues. Four years is a long time; leaving aside an ennervated GOP that appears to have misplaced its business plan, I'm starting to think Hillary and Biden are both at risk for being displaced by a younger, more dynamic dark horse.

Health issues are the wild card I agree. I think Biden is much more vulnerable to an insurgant outsider campaign.

Well that's because the market has been corrupted by the pernicious grasp of Big Gummint. As usual the artificial barriers to market participation have only served to increase costs and enrich the connected. Instead of a free market which allows patients to shop around properly, unfortunates looking for medical advice are limited to a pool of "licensed" doctors with special "training" and "certificates", plying their flimflam in "registered" facilities operating under the crushing thumb of government authorization.

I have a fluoroscope in my lab and have placed numerous stents in both pigs and dogs without issue, but I am precluded, AT GUNPOINT, from offering my services to informed consumers. Indeed, even hanging out a shingle advertising my expertise in any of a number of minor medical procedures, such as suturing up wounds or performing neuters, would immediately draw the ire of the "legitimate" medical cartel and bring the wrath of their government thugs upon my head.

You wrote this in jest, but there are real life clinics running in the L.A. barrios that are doing this. They're usually unlicensed doctors from another country, willing to offer medicine or treatment frown in country or nurses who are taking on more than what their current training would allow. But the advantage they have is that they list their prices ON THEIR WINDOWS for minor stuff, so even people without insurance can get some level of care without needing the Government.

It's working well enough that the L.A. health board is trying to figure out how to help implement in its reform talks of the system and see if they can include it in some way.

I agree that Hillary would be the frontrunner based on what we know today, but she's starting to look OLD, and she's already had some moderately serious health issues. Four years is a long time; leaving aside an ennervated GOP that appears to have misplaced its business plan, I'm starting to think Hillary and Biden are both at risk for being displaced by a younger, more dynamic dark horse.

Generally speaking, the nomination race on the Democratic side has almost always been anti-"your turn"ism... Dems tend to like to pick the dark horses (and tend to be more electorally successful with them) - Obama of course, but also Kennedy... Carter (believe it or not)...

I remain unconvinced that HRC actually wants to run... I suppose I'm probably wrong about that, but it honestly would not surprise if she is really and truly done.

The Democratic nomination fight always seems to come down to the question of whether there's a darkhorse that can excite people without imploding. If one exists - the Dems usually go with the darkhorse. If one doesn't, they'll latch onto the next closest thing (Hart against Mondale for example, Dean over the 2002-early2003 favorite Kerry) -- but unexcitedly fall in line behind the favorite, and then lose in the general.

You read it here first - but the 2016 Dem darkhorse will be Brian Schweitzer and I think he's got the chops not to fall apart.

I agree that Hillary would be the frontrunner based on what we know today, but she's starting to look OLD, and she's already had some moderately serious health issues. Four years is a long time; leaving aside an ennervated GOP that appears to have misplaced its business plan, I'm starting to think Hillary and Biden are both at risk for being displaced by a younger, more dynamic dark horse.

--

These are legit points, but I also think that the country's collectively getting older would help HRC and Biden in terms of the age thing. I also believe that HRC will run if she is healthy enough to do so. I see HRC as a far stronger candidate than Biden.

Generally speaking, the nomination race on the Democratic side has almost always been anti-"your turn"ism... Dems tend to like to pick the dark horses (and tend to be more electorally successful with them) - Obama of course, but also Kennedy... Carter (believe it or not)...

I remain unconvinced that HRC actually wants to run... I suppose I'm probably wrong about that, but it honestly would not surprise if she is really and truly done.

The Democratic nomination fight always seems to come down to the question of whether there's a darkhorse that can excite people without imploding. If one exists - the Dems usually go with the darkhorse. If one doesn't, they'll latch onto the next closest thing (Hart against Mondale for example, Dean over the 2002-early2003 favorite Kerry) -- but unexcitedly fall in line behind the favorite, and then lose in the general.

You read it here first - but the 2016 Dem darkhorse will be Brian Schweitzer and I think he's got the chops not to fall apart.

Chelsea Clinton will be 36 in 2016. You talk about a person who will unite the Bill Clinton nostalgia camp, Youths, PUMA, and every other Democratic wing.

Also, it would drive Republicans nuts.

Chelsea Clinton will be 36 in 2016.

W

T

F

"I agree that Hillary would be the frontrunner based on what we know today, but she's starting to look OLD, and she's already had some moderately serious health issues. Four years is a long time; leaving aside an ennervated GOP that appears to have misplaced its business plan, I'm starting to think Hillary and Biden are both at risk for being displaced by a younger, more dynamic dark horse."

Agreed. To the question of 'Will the 2016 Dem nominee be 1) HRC or Biden, or 2) 'other', I bet you could get pretty good value odds on 'other' right now.

Chelsea Clinton will be 36 in 2016.

W

T

F


And Guess Who is going to be 49---four years older than Hillary was in 1992.

Agreed. To the question of 'Will the 2016 Dem nominee be 1) HRC or Biden, or 2) 'other', I bet you could get pretty good value odds on 'other' right now.

Agreed as well. My sense is that HRC is genuinely taking a long rest and going to assess what her health and energy status is before she decides to run. If she does feel healthy enough to run, she will likely win both the nomination and the election. While that would certainly be better for the nation and the world than a Republican winning, I'm not so sure it would be the best outcome, given that the dark horse Dem candidate has tended to be a better choice than the old warhorse. (Of course, this assumes a strong young dark horse will emerge, which isn't a given.)

EDIT: Deleted double post

One thing I'll find interesting, if Hillary does run and win, is whether the Cabinet will then be viewed as more of a plausible stepping stone to the Presidency. It used to be that the Secretary of State was the most direct path to a future Presidential run -- the role that the Vice-Presidency (or even losing a run for the Vice-Presidency) now fills. But that has not been true for, what, a century at least?

It would seem to make sense that a Cabinet member is not viewed as being "political" as a VP, and thus has some ability to rise above partisanship, while still staying in the public eye and building competence cred. There's no doubt in my mind that Hillary is more popular after being Secretary of State than she would be had she either been VP, or not taken any position in Obama's government.

Chelsea Clinton will be 36 in 2016.

W

T

F

You are old.