Howard Dean is a very interesting figure. As a Presidential candidate, he seemed better at convincing his supporters that they were changing the world than like, actually winning any delegates. But as DNC Chairman, as zonk says, he was very influential and effective. I associate him with the "50-State Strategy," which would seem to make eminent sense to a party that's trying to be truly national, but was considered naïve and profligate by some of the Democratic brain trust early on. Yet without that strategy, would Obama win Virginia twice and North Carolina in 2008?

It is a legitimate question whether the people with insurance will see a negative tradeoff after Obamacare. And I don't agree that the focus should be on the needs of the people who WEREN'T paying rather than the people who WERE. The people who weren't paying were getting a floor of services anyway. They were getting more than what they put in.

Well it's part of the trade off.

Not that it need be. For instance, look at the stats on elective surgery wait time in Taiwan or Switzerland before and after the changes to their health care structures.

Canada's one of the low performers on the socialized medicine front both in terms of cost containment and wait times for non-critical services. Anybody contemplating a change in service type should absolutely not use it as the desired model. It's surely worth noting though that the US is doing worse than Canada.

And for all that, Canadians are generally quite happy with the health care system. And that's typical. As a group, countries with some form of universal health care are a lot more likely to be satisfied with the availability and quality of health care and have significantly higher confidence in their national health care system.

I realize that's what you're talking about, since to you people without insurance might as well not even exist, and you're perfectly willing to let such people go hobbling around on their damaged hips for the rest of their lives if they can't find a way to pay for it themselves.

Yes -- I don't understand the focus on Canada. Almost every other industrialized nation has some sort of national health care system, and IIRC the US isn't substantially better than any of them in terms of outcomes or $/patient.

Do you have the same level of sympathy for the rich people who make bad investments and end up poor?

And for all that, Canadians are generally quite happy with the health care system. And that's typical.

Virtually every other nation on the planet has gone through this.

What are the numbers, exactly?

It's not like earning enough money to pay for an insurance plan is as difficult as playing LF for the Red Sox.

Rarely do massive groups of people all have the same state of mind about something.

What are the numbers, exactly?

Do you have the same level of sympathy for the rich people who make bad investments and end up poor?

Yes, and we see how the socialism that the left in this country is moving us towards (which is broader than just health care) has worked out for other countries. 30 years ago someone might have reasonably claimed that the model works. But now, the jury is in. We see what has happened to the economies in these other countries. And so we see what is in store for the US.

If you look at data (via surveys), the US lags... it's only the anecdotes where the story is different.

Yes, and we see how the socialism that the left in this country is moving us towards (which is broader than just health care) has worked out for other countries. 30 years ago someone might have reasonably claimed that the model works. But now, the jury is in. We see what has happened to the economies in these other countries.

Woah there doggie. What exactly are you talking about here, Ray?

I don't know a single person on the right who believed 2010 was the new normal. If they did, they would have been predicting a Romney win long before Oct. 25, plus a takeover of the Senate.

I assume he's talking about the Euro crisis (Greece/Italy/Spain/Portugal).

Basically 2012 is mirror ringer of 2004- but for the Republuican gerrymandering advantage

Yes, and we see how the socialism that the left in this country is moving us towards (which is broader than just health care) has worked out for other countries. 30 years ago someone might have reasonably claimed that the model works. But now, the jury is in. We see what has happened to the economies in these other countries. And so we see what is in store for the US.

If you have a busted hip do you really think you're going to find any insurance plan on the open market that will take you?

Why are people pretending that insurance is something to be gotten _after_ a medical crisis befalls you?

The whole freaking point for any sane person is that you plan ahead and try to get it ahead of time.

Yes, and we see how the socialism that the left in this country is moving us towards

And 2012 lacks the threats of the losing side to move to Canada.

There once was a time, just last year, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta thought the U.S. was thisclose to wiping al-Qaida off the face of the earth, once and for all. That appears to have gone up in the flames of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Now, a more dour Panetta believes that it’s not enough to continue the drone strikes and commando raids in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; they’ve got to expand “outside declared combat zones” to places like Nigeria, Mali and even Libya.

That was Panetta’s message at Tuesday evening address to the Center for American Security, an influential Washington defense think tank. Panetta, a former director of the CIA, gave a strong defense of counterterrorism drone strikes and commando raids, calling them “the most precise campaign in the history of warfare,” and indicated strongly that they’re only going to intensify in the coming years.

“This campaign against al Qaeda will largely take place outside declared combat zones,” Panetta said in his prepared remarks, “using a small-footprint approach that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign Special Operations Forces, and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective in combating terrorism on their own.” He referenced “expanding our fleet of Predator and Reaper” drones and beefing up Special Operations Forces by another 8,000 commandos in the next five years. Even if combat is ending for most conventional units, those forces — already frequently deployed — aren’t in for any respite.

For the past four years, drone strikes have battered tribal Pakistan and expanded into Yemen and Somalia. Without referring to the classified program specifically, Panetta credited them with killing al-Qaida’s “most effective leaders.” But notably, Panetta isn’t talking anymore about killing another “10 to 20 key leaders” and declaring victory in the war on terror, as he did in 2011. The “cancer” of the terrorist network has “metastasized to other parts of the global body.” Talk of the Arab Spring demolishing al-Qaida’s “narrative” has given way to fears that al-Qaida is taking advantage of the fall of regional dictators “to gain new sanctuary, incite violence, and sow instability.”

So Panetta is back to describing a sprawling global campaign “in areas beyond the reach of effective security and governance.” The likely next targets are the Boko Haram Islamic militants in Nigeria; the extremists who appear in control of much of northern Mali; and, he said, “we are concerned about Libya,” as the September Benghazi attack crystallized that the country the U.S. thought it liberated from Muammar Gadhafi last year may now be a tinderbox for “violent extremists and affiliates of al-Qaida,” to whom Panetta attributed the Benghazi attacks.

Why are people pretending that insurance is something to be gotten _after_ a medical crisis befalls you?

The whole freaking point for any sane person is that you plan ahead and try to get it ahead of time.

There are many people with a busted hip and who don't have insurance. There are many reasons that can happen, perhaps they are all insane for example, but regardless, they exist. i don't see how it matters much how they got there.

Why are people pretending that insurance is something to be gotten _after_ a medical crisis befalls you?

The whole freaking point for any sane person is that you plan ahead and try to get it ahead of time.



In other words, your opposition to Obamacare doesn't include the prohibitions against rescission? Would that be an accurate statement?

Well, maybe there should be more focus on how they got there, so that the problem can be addressed from that angle as well.

The liberal approach of telling people they're victims who have been getting screwed over by the rich who are stealing from them and that this should be fixed by redistributing wealth in the form of welfare/health care hasn't worked out too well, now has it?

There have been plenty of "Obamacare won, I'm moving to Canada!" outbursts from the nutwings of the right.

This is a fair summary of the liberal approach to health care policy. Public health campaigns and the integration of dietary and health science into policy making have been uniformly scorned by people on the left.

People know that eating poorly is bad for your health

That I haven't heard. There's an obvious racial interpretation to that kind of remark.

That I haven't heard. There's an obvious racial interpretation to that kind of remark.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but what is the obvious racial interpretation? That they're moving to Canada because there's more white people there?

Unfortunately, it has been uniformly pushed by the left - and I know this is your point. But _my_ point is that the high focus on these campaigns is silly.

Yes, especially compared to those lovely folks who design those junk food and SUV ads to the highest common denominator.

Ads. Lol. The horror

Probably more of "Canada's leader isn't black".

Also, the degree to which low-fat, high-carb foods are bad for you is extremely poorly understood.

We'll add biochemistry and psychological motivational techniques to the list of things you don't understand.

In the picture was a statement that the soldiers were not complaining about having to work on Thanksgiving so neither should Walmart employees. I didn't know that someone was trying to make the point that protesting about working on a national holiday without getting the option for health insurance was some sort of anti-American thing?

Whine and complain that somebody who has given you a job actually expects you to work.

Make life difficult for the employer who has given you a job.

Whine and complain that somebody who has given you a job actually expects you to work.

I assumed national holidays in the US actually meant people DIDN'T have to work on those days.

Whine and complain that somebody who has given you a job actually expects you to work.

Ray, think this one through. A job is not a gift. Once you imagine that a job is a gift, you've basically undercut the entire edifice of libertarian ideology as a coherent thing. That's basically moving into post-economic Randianism, where the world functions not because of the interactions of millions of people within the market, but due to the quasi-divine actions of the few elite.

To go over this for you - a job is a contract. You are fully within your rights, as an autonomous individual, to agitate for a better contract and a better deal. That's Freedom!

Well, maybe there should be more focus on how they got there, so that the problem can be addressed from that angle as well.

Honestly, the regard liberals have for the intelligence of the people they are trying to "educate" is stunningly low.

This take down of John Podhertz made me think of Joe.

I know it's a bit gauche to announce plonkings these days, but old habits die hard, and no one would ever accuse me of being terribly concerned with coming off gauche regardless, so, for the record, the last two pages has led me to reconsider my reconsideration and re-plonk Joe. I mean, there's just *zero value* in his posts.

And yet we have a baseline. 1960. There was no significant difference in health care expenditure or life expectancy back then. Since then Canada's been spending less per capita on health care with no observable negative outcomes. You don't get to wave that away.

The *entire point* of the poll-truther/"unskewed polls" movement was built on the assumption that 2010 drastically changed the proper assumptions about voter enthusiasm, voter ID and voter turnout. The *entire argument* in the run-up to 2012 was that the polls were wrong and Romney was in position to win because "it's wishful thinking to assume 2012 will look more like 2008 than like 2010."

The attempt to backtrack on that now is just Joe being Joe.

I mean, seriously, do you realize that you’re basically verbatim quoting Ebenezer Scrooge? If you want to write off Dickens as some kind of communist, fine, but at least know what you’re doing as you’re doing it.

To go over this for you - a job is a contract. You are fully within your rights, as an autonomous individual, to agitate for a better contract and a better deal. That's Freedom!

Engage in all of this nonsense despite a bad economy where 23 million people are unemployed.

To go over this for you - a job is a contract. You are fully within your rights, as an autonomous individual, to agitate for a better contract and a better deal. That's Freedom!

This is completely off base. Likelihood of flipping is correlated with the size of the majority. A House where Democrats have a 100 seat edge and incumbents win 80% of the time is less likely to flip than a House where Democrats have a 1 seat edge and incumbents win 99.5% of the time.

First, in any discussion about statistics where Ron says something and anyone else aside from maybe Szymborski or Nate Silver or Tango says otherwise, go with Ron. If the question is Ron vs Ray, or Ron vs Joe there is no real question at hand.

This is just the most classic head-in-the-sand denialism one could ever hope to see. Sometimes I want to feel bad for Joe, because he's so obviously neck-deep in the pit and incapable of ever getting out. But then I realize he's Joe and pop some popcorn to watch as he slowly disappears beneath the murky surface of the mud.

Engage in all of this nonsense despite a bad economy where 23 million people are unemployed.

I'm sure there would be other people jumping at the chance to work, even if it is on a holiday.

Not the way this is structured it isn't, with unions able by force of law to exert leverage over employers -- said employers being a party who is not... free... to respond as it sees fit.

Workers can walk away from the job if they don't like it, and get a new one.

Not the way this is structured it isn't, with unions able by force of law to exert leverage over employers -- said employers being a party who is not... free... to respond as it sees fit.

Engage in all of this nonsense despite a bad economy where 23 million people are unemployed.

Workers can walk away from the job if they don't like it, and get a new one.

You guys are seriously ###### up

On the other hand, Christmas is a federal holiday, but it's not mandated to all businesses, which is why Chinese restaurants are open to feed the Jews on Baby Jesus's birthday.

There are no true national holidays in the US, of that type. Employers are not mandated to provide employees vacation on federal holidays.

Really?!

You guys are seriously ###### up.

Perhaps. Perhaps not - these aren't particularly appealing jobs, and they pay a wage below the poverty line. If the workers are making a poor decision in fighting for a better contract, then they're making a poor decision. Under libertarian ideology, this is in absolutely no way a moral issue, to the degree that fighting for a better contract makes you worthy of Ray's scorn and derision.

Not the way this is structured it isn't, with unions able by force of law to exert leverage over employers -- said employers being a party who is not... free... to respond as it sees fit.

Wal-mart workers are not unionized.

Oh yeah - we have NEON! and COMMERCIALS! and SHOPPING!

Under libertarian ideology, this is in absolutely no way a moral issue, to the degree that fighting for a better contract makes you worthy of Ray's scorn and derision.

To go over this for you - a job is a contract. You are fully within your rights, as an autonomous individual, to agitate for a better contract and a better deal. That's Freedom!

Not too surprising that this sentiment totally reflects the slug who just got his hat handed to him by the electorate 15 days ago.

Well, we all know Ray is against it because the people agitating for better working conditions don't wear $1000 suits while dancing up and down Wall Street. Or aren't IP lawyers.

I consider myself more Libt. than anything else, but if you're going to judge a Wal-Mart employee for walking off the job, you're a cruel bastard.

artificially constrained by thousands of "Ebenezer Scrooge" employers.

They are being artificially constrained by the fact that American labourers now compete directly with Chinese, Bangladeshi, Malaysian, and other third world labourers. This system could never have arisen without corporate control of government, which is not in any way fundemental to conservatism (Joe) or Libertarianism (Ray).

Walking off the job when there are millions of people ready to replace you is stupid. This is just common sense, and not at all a "cruel" observation.

Workers can walk away from the job if they don't like it, and get a new one.

Walking off the job when there are millions of people ready to replace you is stupid. This is just common sense, and not at all a "cruel" observation.

International trade isn't an "artificial" constraint, nor does international trade conflict in the slightest with libertarian ideology.