Or be browbeaten into it. My father is opposed to “socialized” medicine;* but my sister is uninsurable due to a history of cancer and thyroid problems. Since that happened, she’s had a back injury and dental problems which she can’t afford to even begin to have treated because she’s unemployed. She vigorously points this out to him whenever he mentions how wonderful he thinks the US medical system is. At length. With gestures. I think he might be starting to get a clue that it’s not all roses.

*Except for himself, I guess; he’s on Medicare.

But they will, eventually.

And then, when their “self-insured” employer goes bust, or they end up self-employed, or they lose their job, or when their kids take jobs without health insurance, they will have an “ah hah!” moment and finally see the truth.

Most assuredly. Just as Paglia predicts. The only flaw in her argument is the implication that such features will be new.

Sorry if this seem silly, it just irritates me when people make errors concerning the foundations of the system.

Have you seen the town halls?

We slowed down, gave the other side a chance to make their presentations, and tried to respond. The other side made stuff up, literally provoked fights; and now it’s possible the whole deal is done.

One reason we’ve had trouble presenting the plan in a detailed informational way is that Obama actually reads the constitution. Article I is the Legislature. The President is in Article II. “Legislature” is derived from the Latin lex, legis “law.” In the past Presidents have gotten around this by writing whatever they want and then persuading a friendly Congressman to sponsor it. This happened with HillaryCare, and Clinton was widely lambasted for trying to force a plan on Congress.

So Obama did the opposite. There are two houses with different bills. In those houses the two bills have gone through mark-up in five committees, and the Senate finance version is still in mark-up. Which of these six should we present?

The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations.

Geographical that’s true. In terms of population it’s deceptive. Poland and Spain are bigger than any US State. Romania is smaller than CA, but nobody else.

The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

Why do people think this is true?

In Michigan alone our health care bureaucracy is more byzantine and cumbersome than that of any European state. It’s also clear overkill — MI Blue Cross is fond of pointing out that they could manage health insurance for every Michigan resident if we’d just let them.Our hospitals have entire floors devoted entirely to paperwork. “Medical Billing Specialist” is a hot career field. Doctors constantly complain of Byzantine procedures to get treatment approved, etc.

Then you go to the other side of the lakes. Ontario (population: pretty much the same as MI, area way bigger than any US state save Alaska) hospitals go crazy if they have to hire a second guy to do billing, and the “Medical Billing Specialist” at your local Doctor’s office spends most of her time treating patients. And once every few months a Doctor has to fight the bureaucracy to get a patient’s appointment moved up.

It’s pretty clear that we got a “vampiric bureaucracy” already. Worst-case scenario a year from now we have a new vampiric bureaucracy and we know a little more about having to fix it.

Unless the pause to explain the specific details of our plans killed health care reform. Then we’;ll have a vampiric bureaucracy for the foreseeable future.

Oddly though, I didn’t think the title was snarky at all. My comments within the post – certainly, but not the title. In fact, I thought it might make a good regular feature… Comment of the day prompting an Alternate Comment of the day. Problem being – I often agree with the COD sentiment.

A bit snarky, mw, don’t you think? I don’t have a problem with the post, but you’re title is clearly a snide jab. I like your posts better when you simply state a point and support it (like you do on your own site) rather than engage in undercutting another blogger.

Honestly I don’t see that there is a need to refute her: rushing the bill through, too much bureaucracy, taking away choice, impossible to compete against the public option, “totalitarian” fact-checking… etc. These are memes that have been hanging around for weeks. I’m not seeing anything new in her arguments beyond that they’re being made by a “liberal.” (Personally I’m not familiar with her. I understand she writes on sex, etc. but she sure doesn’t come across as an economic liberal.)

Unlike potential healthcare bills, I find this comment timeless. Particularly, “here in the US of A we only do half-baked”.

Poor, baby insurance companies. They’ll be crushed like the defenseless little bunnies they are. Good grief. They have an army of lobbyists and millions in PAC donations: they’ll do fine.

Had Obama built his own plan and presented it to Congress, what would have happened? People like Paglia, would have screeched about a top-down, take-it-or-leave-it, un-Democratic, partisan, Hillary redux.

Obama put the onus where it belongs: on Congress. (Many people don’t remember, but they are actually in the business of writing laws.) Yes, of course Congress is a clown college, but it’s also a sounding board. Ideas get floated and shot down. Ideas compete. Everyone screams and yells. Eventually, when they’re all worn out they’ll extrude some half-baked plan.

But we were always going to get a half-baked plan. I don’t know what country Paglia lives in at the moment, but here in the US of A we only do half-baked. We have a completely uninformed electorate with tiny little heads stuffed full of slogans and drivel, and they elect pandering idiots so what did Paglia think we were going to get? A timeless masterpiece?

It’ll be a botch. But the system we have now is a botch. Our new government botch however will be worked on for many decades to come. Some things will be un-botched, some will be more thoroughly botched.

And unlike the current system — where insurance companies respond to customer complaints with derisive laughter and policy cancellation — we’ll be able to whine directly to our political representatives who can at least be induced to pay some attention so long as you send $500 to their campaign.

The idea is to create a new mess to compete with the current mess in the giddy hope that competing messes will result in a slightly more functional mess.

We’ll get portability. We’ll get an end to pre-existing conditions exclusions. We’ll get slightly less criminal insurance companies, or at least companies that will be forced to invent new methods of fraud.

And every year from now until the end of time we’ll have the pleasure of yelling at Congressmen about the need to have the government pay for botox or coffee enemas or whatever the latest health paranoia turns out to be.

Eventually we’ll be broke but hey, we were going broke anyway. And since I had the good sense to adopt a Chinese daughter, I am prepared to welcome our new Asian overlords.

If Paglia puts it out there, critics have a right to debate her. Quit trying to shut down debate by positioning it as if any criticism of her is some unjust attack because she was somehow brave enough to speak out.

What’s more, when have you known Paglia to NOT be a provocateur? I mean, come on…