Support NeoGAF

[MightyHedgehog]

I understand trying to be fair about whether or not she's guilty of wrongdoing in the firing scandal, but given that so many things she's said since we've gotten to know her over the last two and a half weeks or so have been factually debunked (by a long list of independent sources) or, at least, stripped back to reality from clearly misleading embellishments, and looking at the timeline of events (that were presided over by a bi-partisan, Republican majority group that voted overwhelmingly) that preceded her VP acceptance, why is anyone really arguing in her defense?

Her actions as well as those of her (appointed) subordinates run contrary to her own statements on public record regarding the situation and fly in the face of any sort of reformer/full transparency/maverick banner she and the McCain campaign has stitched together for her to fly. It looks dirty to the core.

 

[sc0la]

Small town police forces are notoriously corrupt and I don't doubt that he was guilty of something.

I have similarly anecdotal evidence that politicians such as mayors and governors are corrupt, so would she also no doubt be guilty of something, regardless of the officers guilt in some other matter?

Unless you want to provide some data showing a rate of corruption higher in so called local police forces that is of a significant magnitude greater than any other police force.

I am not saying the guy wasn't a douchebag, everything I have read about him points to that fact. But he can be a douchebag and she could still have done something wrong. The two are clearly not mutually exclusive.

 

[mckmas8808]

The problem here is that, by his own admission, the instant Krowley saw Palin, he decided he liked her, and every time some new dirt comes up on her, or another one of her claims turns out to be a lie, or she insults the intelligence of the American people (she has foreign policy experience because Russia is close to Alaska!) he is willing to jump through the mental hoops to justify it away.

It doesn't matter that she is woefully unqualified for the job or that she is a proven pathological liar, he just likes her, dammit!

But see the thing is he seems like a nice person. You can tell that he's understanding the situation the more he learns. Like he said he listens to Hannity all the time. :|

 

[Cloudy]

Wow, Jon Stewart really made Tony Blair squirm. What a great interview though..

 

[mckmas8808]

I understand trying to be fair about whether or not she's guilty of wrongdoing in the firing scandal, but given that so many things she's said since we've gotten to know her over the last two and a half weeks or so have been factually debunked (by a long list of independent sources) or, at least, stripped back to reality from clearly misleading embellishments, and looking at the timeline of events (that were presided over by a bi-partisan, Republican majority group that voted overwhelmingly) that preceded her VP acceptance, why is anyone really arguing in her defense?

Her actions as well as those of her (appointed) subordinates run contrary to her own statements on public record regarding the situation and fly in the face of any sort of reformer/full transparency/maverick banner she and the McCain campaign has stitched together for her to fly. It looks dirty to the core.

Yet REPs laugh and say Obama voters think he is Jesus or Moses. It's crazy because this lady is obviously lying to people knowingly and some will still protect her over this investigation.

 

[NewLib]

I'm not going to defend her too vigorously.

They are all a bunch of fucking crooks. I have my favorite set of crooks and they have theirs.

Or you could, you know, not get emotionally invested in politicians.

By the way, I had to deal with three or four girls who were blitzed out of their mind and I can easily say what you just posted hurt my brain more than anything they said.

Bravo.

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Panic Time over?

Wow, Obama got a huge chunk of EC all of sudden.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Or you could, you know, not get emotionally invested in politicians.

By the way, I had to deal with three or four girls who were blitzed out of their mind and I can easily say what you just posted hurt my brain more than anything they said.

Bravo.

? Like, drunk?

 

[StoOgE]

I actually think this whole scandal shows a lack of good judgement by the McCain campaign.

Look, even *if* she did something horribly wrong.. people are going to say "Oh, well she shouldnt have done that, but I understand wanting to protect your sister". I mean, people in this country dont give a shit about FISA, the justice department firing or any of the other cronyism that goes on in Washington, they certainly wouldnt have cared about this.

So, they take something that would have been a page 2 story, and decide instead of just letting it play out and fizzle... to refuse to cooperate and lawyer up and make a mountain out of a molehill themselves.

There is an old, and very apt political addage "Its not the scandal, its the coverup".

 

[mckmas8808]

I actually think this whole scandal shows a lack of good judgement by the McCain campaign.

Look, even *if* she did something horribly wrong.. people are going to say "Oh, well she shouldnt have done that, but I understand wanting to protect your sister". I mean, people in this country dont give a shit about FISA, the justice department firing or any of the other cronyism that goes on in Washington, they certainly wouldnt have cared about this.

So, they take something that would have been a page 2 story, and decide instead of just letting it play out and fizzle... to refuse to cooperate and lawyer up and make a mountain out of a molehill themselves.

There is an old, and very apt political addage "Its not the scandal, its the coverup".

And the funny part is Palin has said publically plenty of times that she didn't fire the guy based on that situation that happened with her sister. She didn't say it because she knows it's not lawful.

 

[Krowley]

I have similarly anecdotal evidence that politicians such as mayors and governors are corrupt, so would she also no doubt be guilty of something, regardless of the officers guilt in some other matter?

Unless you want to provide some data showing a rate of corruption higher in so called local police forces that is of a significant magnitude greater than any other police force.

I am not saying the guy wasn't a douchebag, everything I have read about him points to that fact. But he can be a douchebag and she could still have done something wrong. The two are clearly not mutually exclusive.

I can live with that assessment. Maybe she did something wrong, but it's a question of how big a deal it is. Right here in the middle of this presidential campaign it may seem like a big deal, but I'm betting that it's not. In fact, I think the mccain campaign is probably overreacting to the situation because they just don't want it to be in the news. They want it to go away, but that doesn't nessecarily mean there is anything there. Whether she's guilty or innocent, the existence of the investigation alone has the potential to damage the campaign.

And about small town cops....

I can't pop out with stats but I can explain my opinion. I have lived most of my life in small towns and every reasonable person I know dislikes the police.

You know the kids you went to school with who were assholes, rednecks or bullies? An unduly large percentage of those people eventually become cops. They join the force because they want to push people around. They have dreamed their whole life of having authority over people. There are plenty of cops that aren't that way, but there are WAY too many that are. This probably isn't true in big cities where being a cop is actually dangerous, but it is certainly true in small town america.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It's crazy because this lady is obviously lying to people knowingly and some will still protect her over this investigation.

Certainly looks that way. I mean, she said it herself: "Hold me accountable." Well, can we or was that a(nother) lie?

 

[Krowley]

I actually think this whole scandal shows a lack of good judgement by the McCain campaign.

Look, even *if* she did something horribly wrong.. people are going to say "Oh, well she shouldnt have done that, but I understand wanting to protect your sister". I mean, people in this country dont give a shit about FISA, the justice department firing or any of the other cronyism that goes on in Washington, they certainly wouldnt have cared about this.

So, they take something that would have been a page 2 story, and decide instead of just letting it play out and fizzle... to refuse to cooperate and lawyer up and make a mountain out of a molehill themselves.

There is an old, and very apt political addage "Its not the scandal, its the coverup".

I agree with this. The McCain campaign has probably screwed up by taking such a defensive posture.

 

[Tamanon]

Can I get some updates for today please?

Palin is now officially the top of the ticket. Biden's being Bideny, Tony Blair is still carrying Bush's water, but it was still good that at least he sat for the interview, McCain hasn't yet decided if we should go to war with Spain, he doesn't want to tie his hands on it.

 

[Krowley]

Or you could, you know, not get emotionally invested in politicians.

By the way, I had to deal with three or four girls who were blitzed out of their mind and I can easily say what you just posted hurt my brain more than anything they said.

Bravo.

My MBTI type is INTP, and I'm not nessecarily good at communicating with people so I appologize if I ramble or make odd statements.

I'm not drunk but I am sleepy, and generaly speaking, i'm only occasionaly coherent anyway.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Palin is now officially the top of the ticket. Biden's being Bideny, Tony Blair is still carrying Bush's water, but it was still good that at least he sat for the interview, McCain hasn't yet decided if we should go to war with Spain, he doesn't want to tie his hands on it.

Two things:

1) We already did earlier this summer and they got handled.

2) Don't you mean Mexico?

 

[woeds]

Graphed the 538 numbers, because they look so goood

 

[Rur0ni]

Can I get some updates for today please?

Massive blowback on economy. Obamaton swing. New Mexico coming back into the Democratic fold. Colorado now making some moves toward Obama. The Kerry + IA + NM + CO path to victory is strengthening.

Ad war suggests Obama is giving up Georgia. Putting ton of resources into Florida. Infact, the bulk of it. McCain matching his investment in Florida.

McCain is trying to contest Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (ad war evidence and polling). The bulk of McCain's resources going into Pennsylvania, Obama not matching it. Probably feels Pennsylvania won't flip (considering the voter registration). Interesting to note McCain is outspending Obama in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada... trying to eliminate that path of victory.

I say again it really seems Obama is trying for Florida. It's not getting much talk, but according to polling it's a lean McCain, but GOTV and money may do wonders. Obama's Chief Strategist as you know put a video online detailing the Florida plan. McCain is now playing defense there, where as before he didn't spend a dime, forcing him to divert funds from a state like PA/MI/OH to FL.

Numbers in thousands.

               Last Week          June-July

             McCain  Obama     McCain   Obama
Alaska                           None      88
Colorado        553    522      1,104     802
Florida       1,040  1,327       None   5,028
Georgia                          None   1,824
Indiana        None    263       None   1,268
Iowa            352    148        946     700
Michigan        761    954      2,655   2,240
Minnesota       472     18        575      70
Missouri        353    504      1,600   1,246
Montana        None     37       None     136
North Carolina  245    300       None   1,620
North Dakota      1     22         71     157
New Hampshire   225    172        342     391
New Mexico      214    155        440     260
Nevada          365    297      1,134     633
Ohio            812    801      2,568   2,486
Pennsylvania  1,612    948      4,602   3,937
Virginia        312    868      1,509   2,660
Wisconsin       487    432      1,426   1,198

 

[Gaborn]

Palin is now officially the top of the ticket. Biden's being Bideny, Tony Blair is still carrying Bush's water, but it was still good that at least he sat for the interview, McCain hasn't yet decided if we should go to war with Spain, he doesn't want to tie his hands on it.

You forgot my favorite thing. Krugman pwned himself.

 

[Xeke]

Graphed the 538 numbers, because they look so goood

Why in gods name did you make Obama the red line and McCain the blue line? I was so confused.

 

[Mandark]

You forgot my favorite thing. Krugman pwned himself.

Matt Welch says he'd rather have his family treated in France than the US.

Ooooooooh.

 

[Gaborn]

Matt Welch says he'd rather have his family treated in France than the US.

Ooooooooh.

:lol :lol :lol somehow I doubt that, but either way he's entitled to his opinion. France, like just about any country certainly has some fine doctors.

 

[woeds]

Why in gods name did you make Obama the red line and McCain the blue line? I was so confused.

Whoops :lol standard Excel colors. Fixed

 

[Mandark]

http://web.archive.org/web/20050414020844/http://mattwelch.com/archives/week_2005_04_03.html#003088

What I still can't understand, is how anyone -- seriously, anyone -- can think a system where it is extremely difficult for a perfectly healthy young person untethered to an insurance-providing job to obtain health insurance without lying, or without giving up the possibility of having childbirth covered, is a good system. Sure, it can be one helluva system for the folks who can afford it, or who have jobs where these kinds of problems don't come up, or who think that lying is a normal part of everyday life ... but there are reasons other than laziness and lack of imagination that at any given time 10 percent or more of the U.S. population is uninsured.

What I understand even less is how some of these same people will tell you with a straight face how terrible French health care is. Last Thursday-thru-Saturday, we spent a really wonderful time at "Reason Weekend," which is what my employer does in lieu of a celebrity booze cruise. It's a great event, filled with smart donors to the Reason Foundation, various trustees, and a few people from the magazine. Great speakers, panels, walks on the beach, etc. Anyway, we had some small discussion group about De Tocqueville, and someone (naturally) brought up France's high taxes and thick welfare state. "Well, the thing is," Emmanuelle said (quotes are inexact), "some of the things the French state provides are pretty good. For instance health care."

"Wait a minute wait a minute," one guy said. "If you were sick -- I mean, really sick -- where would you rather be? France or the U.S.?"

"Um, France," we both said.

Various sputtering ensued. What about the terrible waiting lists? (There really aren't any.) The shoddy quality? (It's actually quite good.) Finally, to deflect the conversation away, I said "Look, if we made twice as much money, we'd probably prefer American health care for a severe crisis. But we don't, so we don't."

Not to be too much of a classist here, but it struck me then that part of the failure to communicate is a logical consequence of the expectation of wealth. Which is to say, of course the health care is better for people of means, so therefore of course it's better. Expanding beyond health care, this is actually a theme you can see every day, if you look for it -- rich or at least well-off people telling the po' folk how they should behave, and/or how they should interpret the difficult choices they make.

O snap.

 

[devilhawk]

:lol :lol :lol somehow I doubt that, but either way he's entitled to his opinion. France, like just about any country certainly has some fine doctors.

There is definitely nothing wrong with the doctors in the US. The system is what is fucked.

 

[Gaborn]

There is definitely nothing wrong with the doctors in the US. The system is what is fucked.

Every system has it's advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I simply found it amusing that Krugman assumed his position was popular enough he could take an extremely limited sample size and make the point that Canada's overburdened system was popular with those people. Obviously it doesn't address that our system as currently regulated (and god knows the FDA has a huge number of flaws and issues) is badly mishandled.

Mandark - as I said, very interesting. Also interesting, from a very liberal source, Welch doesn't support adopting the French system outright. Instead, as near as I can figure (since he declines to source exactly what Welch provides minus his heavy sarcasm) Welch's solution is much more libertarian. Gutting the FDA is an absolute MUST to fix the system, as is decoupling insurance and employment. I'd even go along with catastrophic health care for the indigent, that is, if you have a heart attack and you're broke? sure, we can deal with that much.

 

[Stinkles]

:lol :lol :lol somehow I doubt that, but either way he's entitled to his opinion. France, like just about any country certainly has some fine doctors.

Much of the negative US opinion about Universal health Care in Europe is utter nonsense, possibly encouraged by corporate interests. It's free and it's good, with some beaureaucracy. Which we have here in the US too. I have lived under both systems, and frankly, I never had to fill out three forms for a simple doctor visit in the UK. And I was never charged 187 dollars for two Tylenol there either. This system is hopelessly broken in many significant ways.


However, the very fine medical practitioners here just delivered my beautiful baby girl, Isla. So bam! She and mom are sleeping the sleep of the blessed. Goodnight gaf.

 

[Mandark]

OuterWorldVoice: Congratulations! May she live to see a saner future than our present.

3) Make health insurance mandatory, like car insurance.

I suppose that qualifies as more libertarian than the French system but it's sure as hell more interventionist than the current one.

Mandates (which are a big part of the plan in Massachusetts and featured in Hillary and Edwards' plans) only work with a lot of additional government involvement.

First you need to set minimum levels of coverage. Otherwise people pay a dollar a year to a fake insurance company for a billion dollar deductible "plan".

Secondly you need an agency that can check on citizens' enrollment status. It's going to need a lot of manpower, funding, and authority to access people's data.

Of course if they find someone who's not signed up, they need the authority to punish them for noncompliance. At the minimum the ability to forcibly sign people up and garnish their wages. At the other end, fines and maybe jail time.

Now not everyone will be able to afford to buy into a plan. Specifically poor people, sick people, and old people. So you've got a couple options.

You can give them exceptions, so they don't have to sign up. Which means the people most likely to need medical care are going to be the ones not covered and you're not helping the adverse selection problem.

Or you can subsidize their care which is code for GUMMINT TAX AND SPEND. Which might not be worse than the other option where you'd still have people using the ER who can't pay for it and passing those costs on in a stealth tax anyway.

Either way you solve that problem, you're introducing means testing. You need to figure out who qualifies for subsidies or exceptions. Which means a lot of money and manpower for an agency that can collect and collate data on people's income and wealth. Which means more taxes and more people with the authority to look through your shit.

And even then you won't have solved some of the biggest problems that are inflating medical costs: insurance companies with no incentives for preventive or long-term care, adverse selection spirals and an industry that serves just as a titanic middleman.

Welch is a decent guy and very sane once you adjust for libertarianism. But he's trying to find a solution that provides universal affordable coverage that jibes with his libertarian free market ideals. Unfortunately, due to the economics of insurance and the biology of the human body that's just impossible.

 

[DSWii60]

Just watched Jon Stewart's interview with Tony Blair. I don't understand why he was so squirmy and hesistant when answering questions. He used to get grilled much much harder than that every week in Prime Minister's questions and by the media and yet he couldn't cope with a relatively soft interview with Jon Stewart. He also looks a shell of the man who was elected in 1997; the speaking power has gone, the strength in his voice has gone and even his hair has gone greyer and receded since he gave up being Prime Minister.

 

[Barrett2]

Just watched Jon Stewart's interview with Tony Blair. I don't understand why he was so squirmy and hesistant when answering questions. He used to get grilled much much harder than that every week in Prime Minister's questions and by the media and yet he couldn't cope with a relatively soft interview with Jon Stewart. He also looks a shell of the man who was elected in 1997; the speaking power has gone, the strength in his voice has gone and even his hair has gone greyer and receded since he gave up being Prime Minister.

I think a lot of people are uncomfortable being interviewed on Daily Show / Colbert because of the unpredictability factor. They are probably worried about some out of nowhere question they are unprepared for; that the MSM news outlets would never be man enough to ask them.

 

[jorma]

:lol :lol :lol somehow I doubt that, but either way he's entitled to his opinion. France, like just about any country certainly has some fine doctors.

From what i understand what he said was more in the lines of "well if i was super-wealthy i'd choose US healthcare, but seeing as i am normal middle-class i'd go with the French healthcare".

Don't really see what there is to doubt to be honest.

 

[DSWii60]

I think a lot of people are uncomfortable being interviewed on Daily Show / Colbert because of the unpredictability factor. They are probably worried about some out of nowhere question they are unprepared for; that the MSM news outlets would never be man enough to ask them.

That shouldn't be a factor for Tony Blair. He used to get grilled all the time, e.g.:

Blair getting grilled like he would be every week at Prime Minister's Questions
Blair getting asked random questions

 

[Ghost]

*looks at polls*



Oh thank Christ. Faith in America restored (for now)

 

[Karakand]

What I still can't understand, is how anyone -- seriously, anyone -- can think a system where it is extremely difficult for a perfectly healthy young person untethered to an insurance-providing job to obtain health insurance without lying, or without giving up the possibility of having childbirth covered, is a good system.

I have never really had to worry about health insurance but do you have to punt on maternity coverage to get affordable rates? Really? How can FAMILY VALUES prevail if there are NO FUCKING FAMILIES?

 

[Loudninja]

New Daily Kos poll

Obama 49
McCain 42
http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/09/19

 

[JayDubya]

I enjoy reading Reason and I'll generally check it pretty often. To put it simply, Welch has always been more Speculawyer than JayDubya anyway. Gillespie I can't really peg down as well. Lew Rockwell et. al. are more my thing than Reason anyway, but hey.

Oddly, before Obama's convention speech and Palin's announcement, however, Reason was very hard on McCain and it seemed the general consensus was that Obama was the lesser of evils. After, it's switched. Even Welch, who wrote a whole book condemning McCain. :lol

Maybe it's just as simple as Palin having a record of being friendly and inclusive towards third parties coupled with Obama's speech explicitly wheeling out a straw man of our position and smashing it on stage in front of however many millions.

Beats me. My lesser of evils calculus was done long before that.

* * *

Also, Bill Maher tonight. Ugh. We've got the "Yes We Can" Black Eye Peas dude, fucking Naomi Klein, a Keynesian progressive economist, and Andrew Sullivan is apparently the token voice of opposition, though to what, I'm not sure. :lol

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

That shouldn't be a factor for Tony Blair. He used to get grilled all the time, e.g.:

Blair getting asked random questions

Yeah... that one is fake.

 

[adamsappel]

I'd even go along with catastrophic health care for the indigent, that is, if you have a heart attack and you're broke? sure, we can deal with that much.

You are dead to me!

/JayDubya

 

[kkaabboomm]

Yeah... that one is fake.

(neutral) Napoleonthechimp
Crusher of DREAMS
(Today, 07:57 AM)
Reply | Quote

 

[CharlieDigital]

:lol :lol :lol somehow I doubt that, but either way he's entitled to his opinion. France, like just about any country certainly has some fine doctors.

I'm going to post again since this keeps coming up at the early hours. But have a look for yourself....

Just to add onto the UHC debate here (since I missed most of it).

If you take a look at life expectancy around the world, I would say that there is a strong correlation between higher life expectancy and UHC.

From the CIA World Factbook, here is the list of life expectancy by country:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

1 Andorra 83.53
2 Macau 82.35
3 Japan 82.07
4 Singapore 81.89
5 San Marino 81.88
6 Hong Kong 81.77
7 Canada 81.16
8 France 80.87
9 Sweden 80.74
10 Switzerland 80.74
11 Australia 80.73
12 Guernsey 80.65
13 Israel 80.61
14 Iceland 80.55
15 Anguilla 80.53
16 Cayman Islands 80.32
17 New Zealand 80.24
18 Italy 80.07
19 Gibraltar 80.06
20 Monaco 79.96
21 Liechtenstein 79.95
22 Spain 79.92
23 Norway 79.81
24 Jersey 79.65
25 Greece 79.52
26 Austria 79.36
27 Virgin Islands 79.34
28 Malta 79.30
29 Faroe Islands 79.29
30 Netherlands 79.25
31 Luxembourg 79.18
32 Montserrat 79.15
33 Germany 79.10
34 Belgium 79.07
35 Guam 78.93
36 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 78.91
37 United Kingdom 78.85
38 Finland 78.82
39 Isle of Man 78.80
40 Jordan 78.71
41 Puerto Rico 78.58
42 European Union 78.51
43 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.33
44 Bermuda 78.30
45 Saint Helena 78.27
46 Cyprus 78.15
47 United States 78.14

I've bolded the ones with some form of UHC systems as listed by wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

I'm sure there are others on the list that also implement some form of UHC (someone needs to cross check). Yes, there are other non-healthcare related factors to lifespan, but it's no doubt that easy accessibility to healthcare and medicine plays a big factor in lifespan.

 

[Price Dalton]

New Daily Kos poll

Obama 49
McCain 42
http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/09/19

Encouraging numbers. I do wish they'd rename that poll. I know Daily Kos doesn't actually conduct it, but the name makes it easy to write off.

 

[rancor]

*looks at polls*

Oh thank Christ. Faith in America restored (for now)

Till the next big scandal that really is just a bunch of bs to divert from the real issues. So by the start of next week.

Gotta wonder how those republicans can sleep at night knowing the only way to get elected is to perpetuate horseshit and lies. Says a lot for their ideology.

 

[electricpirate]

http://web.archive.org/web/20050414020844/http://mattwelch.com/archives/week_2005_04_03.html#003088



O snap.

I've read that the US governement spending on health care is roughly the same as the french spending on health care, per capita. Anyone have a link to prove or disprove that?

 

[Mandark]

I've read that the US governement spending on health care is roughly the same as the french spending on health care, per capita. Anyone have a link to prove or disprove that?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=health+care+spending+per+capita&btnG=Google+Search Take your pick.

The rule of thumb is that the United States spends about twice as much as the average developed nation with a single payer system.

 

[so_awes]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185184&title=gov-at-first-sight

Gov at First Sight, from last night.

:lol :lol

 

[Cheebs]

Andrew Sullivan is apparently the token voice of opposition, though to what, I'm not sure. :lol

Andrew Sullivan is not opposition anymore. He supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 but supports Obama in 2008. He is still conservative, but just a pro-Obama conservative. He sees Obama as the new Ronald Reagan from what I gather.

To be fair Maher also used to be opposition at one time. According to him he voted Dole in 96, supported McCain in 2000 but when he lost he voted Nader, and in 2004 supported Kerry, and 2008 Obama. He has grown more and more liberal after being fairly libertarian in the 90's.

 

[Barrett2]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=health+care+spending+per+capita&btnG=Google+Search Take your pick.

The rule of thumb is that the United States spends about twice as much as the average developed nation with a single payer system.

The problem is that about 50% of all health care spending in the US is actually spent on the bureaucracy of the HMO system, etc.

The US health care system's main problem, IMO, is that it is horribly anti-competitive and wildly inefficient.


On another topic, anybody else see this NY Times article? Interesting stuff; apparently over the last 8 years the number of foreign courts that cite to the decisions of the US Supreme Court has decreased dramatically.

Because the US is the oldest constitutional democracy, foreign courts have always looked to US Supreme Court decisions in drafting their own opinions, which in turn has been one of the primary ways the US has exported its democracy throughout the world. But as other nation's legal systems develop, the US remains adamant in never referencing other countries legal decisions in our own cases, and other countries are starting to get pissed. This raises some interesting questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/18legal.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&em

 

[3rdman]

Also, Bill Maher tonight. Ugh. We've got the "Yes We Can" Black Eye Peas dude, fucking Naomi Klein, a Keynesian progressive economist, and Andrew Sullivan is apparently the token voice of opposition, though to what, I'm not sure. :lol

That actually sounds like a decent list of guests...the show works much better when everyone is on the same "team"...objectivity and fairness be damned. The show is infinitely easier to watch when they don't invite a Republican as the show almost always devolves into a shouting match.

 

[CharlieDigital]

This raises some interesting questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/18legal.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&em

Basically, we're no longer the cool kids?

 

[Mumei]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=health+care+spending+per+capita&btnG=Google+Search Take your pick.

The rule of thumb is that the United States spends about twice as much as the average developed nation with a single payer system.

From what little I've read, single payer seems like the best overall choice.

Whenever I read about single-payer systems in reputable news outlets, I am told that waiting times are minimal or nonexistent in France or Germany, and waiting lists in Canada exist for "certain non-emergent procedures."

For some reason, though, whenever I talk to my mother, it is waiting lists this and waiting lists that and inferior medical care that. She's a HRM for a study abroad program, so she knows people living all over Europe (the study abroad field offices out in those countries), and it's like she's taking their anecdotes ("I hate to wait X amount of days / weeks for _____" / "When I finally got it, it was terrible!") without considering whether they are qualified to analyze the care they got, or whether they actually know how long average waiting times compare.

So, I can't convince her about single payer.