dajafi wrote:

pacino wrote:Ralph Nader with a hairpiece = Tommy Thompson

I've mostly watched this debate rather than the enraging game. The most surprising moment for me, by far, was when I found myself agreeing with everything Thompson said about health care reform. It wasn't enough--he didn't mention uninsured--but it was real good, with the emphasis on shifting to a preventatitve model and modernizing records.

The funniest moment, by far, was when they were asked how they'd use Dubsie-Doodle as an ex-president. The raw panic in the eyes of the "top tier" was sweet--but that douchebag Wolf Blitzer only asked the losers like Thompson and (the totally rabid nutso nativist) Tancredo.

dajafi wrote:
The most surprising moment for me, by far, was when I found myself agreeing with everything Thompson said about health care reform. It wasn't enough--he didn't mention uninsured--but it was real good, with the emphasis on shifting to a preventatitve model and modernizing records.

pacino wrote:

dajafi wrote:

pacino wrote:Ralph Nader with a hairpiece = Tommy Thompson

I've mostly watched this debate rather than the enraging game. The most surprising moment for me, by far, was when I found myself agreeing with everything Thompson said about health care reform. It wasn't enough--he didn't mention uninsured--but it was real good, with the emphasis on shifting to a preventatitve model and modernizing records.

The funniest moment, by far, was when they were asked how they'd use Dubsie-Doodle as an ex-president. The raw panic in the eyes of the "top tier" was sweet--but that douchebag Wolf Blitzer only asked the losers like Thompson and (the totally rabid nutso nativist) Tancredo.

I was just saying with their looks

dajafi wrote:The most surprising moment for me, by far, was when I found myself agreeing with everything Thompson said about health care reform. It wasn't enough--he didn't mention uninsured--but it was real good, with the emphasis on shifting to a preventatitve model and modernizing records.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

dajafi wrote:The most surprising moment for me, by far, was when I found myself agreeing with everything Thompson said about health care reform. It wasn't enough--he didn't mention uninsured--but it was real good, with the emphasis on shifting to a preventatitve model and modernizing records.

Isn't "preventative" what HMO's were heralded/promoted as back in the day?

dajafi wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

dajafi wrote:The most surprising moment for me, by far, was when I found myself agreeing with everything Thompson said about health care reform. It wasn't enough--he didn't mention uninsured--but it was real good, with the emphasis on shifting to a preventatitve model and modernizing records.

Isn't "preventative" what HMO's were heralded/promoted as back in the day?

Yes, to some extent. But I think that was more hype than reality.

Phan Paul wrote:More seriously, and this rarely gets the kind of discussion it merits, is that a public policy aimed at prevention or wellness can potentially make inroads into our private life.

If you think the NYC ban on trans fat in restaurants was an encroachment on our civil liberties, you may get much worse with a "prevention first" policy. It's one thing to tell people it's a good idea to have something other than a half dozen donuts and a pack of smokes for breakfast, but it is something else if your grocery shopping records (thanks to your "loyalty" card start generating friendly reminders from your government regarding the dangers of heart attack and stroke.

drsmooth wrote:

Phan Paul wrote:More seriously, and this rarely gets the kind of discussion it merits, is that a public policy aimed at prevention or wellness can potentially make inroads into our private life.

of course the nexus of 'private' and 'public' life is in play with practically any implementation of public policy, but don't let me slow you down....

If you think the NYC ban on trans fat in restaurants was an encroachment on our civil liberties, you may get much worse with a "prevention first" policy. It's one thing to tell people it's a good idea to have something other than a half dozen donuts and a pack of smokes for breakfast, but it is something else if your grocery shopping records (thanks to your "loyalty" card start generating friendly reminders from your government regarding the dangers of heart attack and stroke.

I'll admit it - your scenario lost me. Explain to me again 1) how prevention-driven public health policy might get entangled with your loyalty card transaction record without you having at least a few simple ways to contravene such entanglement (like just asking the clerk to swipe the store's always handy "john doe" card for your purchase?); 2) why that entanglement might produce a "live healthier, dammit, and have a nice day" message from the government on my (for instance) register receipt; and 3) what that would be intended to accomplish that hasn't already been tried and found seriously wanting, behavior-change-wise?

think of all the potentially more sophisticated variations on your model, variations that might provide incentives to do what would be better for both individual and 'body politic', that you might find palatable, and consider how those might actually flatten the cost of care curve somewhat.

if you'd rather not do that, look at complementary models, like clean needle giveaway programs for addicts. And consider all the while these 2 things:

1) that a very large, and increasing, component of what we view as healthcare is really a very loose, and crudely executed collection of monitoring 'techniques' - technologies, if you will - that are now being supplanted at an accelerating rate by IT-supported technologies that do the job a lot better, at much lower expense.

2) how your voting-booth votes, and your dollar votes in economic marketplaces, are increasingly being supplemented with your 'information votes' via any device you touch that transacts time/place/nature of transaction info, whether you are given an opt-in option or not.

TomatoPie wrote:Anyone seen the YouTube of "reporter" Matt Lepacek getting taken into custody at a GOP debate? I cannot find any coverage of this in the legitimate media.

Bloggers are going wild, suggesting that this guy was arrested on Giuiani's order.

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Anyone seen the YouTube of "reporter" Matt Lepacek getting taken into custody at a GOP debate? I cannot find any coverage of this in the legitimate media.

Bloggers are going wild, suggesting that this guy was arrested on Giuiani's order.

Sounds like it was Rudy's press secretary. But, yeah, that's how he rolls. Ten years ago he sued New York magazine for running a series of ads on buses touting their publication as "possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn't taken credit for."

He's a scary, scary guy. Very much like Bush in many respects: same arrogance, same unwillingness to let facts get in the way. But he's much smarter than Bush, and more vindictive. His social "liberalism" may or may not be overstated, but it's pretty clear to me that he made the calculation that if he couldn't win over Radical Cleric Dobson, he'd bend all the way over for Grover Norquist and the Hair Club for Growth. Rudy has no principle that's not for sale, and sees no limits on his own authoritarian instincts.

Grotewold wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Anyone seen the YouTube of "reporter" Matt Lepacek getting taken into custody at a GOP debate? I cannot find any coverage of this in the legitimate media.

Bloggers are going wild, suggesting that this guy was arrested on Giuiani's order.

Sounds like it was Rudy's press secretary. But, yeah, that's how he rolls. Ten years ago he sued New York magazine for running a series of ads on buses touting their publication as "possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn't taken credit for."

He's a scary, scary guy. Very much like Bush in many respects: same arrogance, same unwillingness to let facts get in the way. But he's much smarter than Bush, and more vindictive. His social "liberalism" may or may not be overstated, but it's pretty clear to me that he made the calculation that if he couldn't win over Radical Cleric Dobson, he'd bend all the way over for Grover Norquist and the Hair Club for Growth. Rudy has no principle that's not for sale, and sees no limits on his own authoritarian instincts.

Yeah but would you have a beer with him?

Fred Kaplan wrote:It is a disgrace that the town of Sodertalje, Sweden—population 60,000—took in twice as many Iraqi refugees last year as the number taken in by the entire United States. (Sweden as a whole took in 20,000; the United States 7,000.)

Disco Stu wrote:Can someone (preferably on the right) tell me why people (on the right) are dancing in the street about this? I mean, a guy who has mattered in 10 years telling us that the Senate Majority leader doesn't matter? And that he is ugly and whiny? Please tell me that I am missing something here...

House investigators have learned that the Bush administration’s use of Republican National Committee email accounts is far greater than previously disclosed — 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove alone — and that the RNC has overseen “extensive destruction” of many of the emails, including all email records for 51 White House officials.

For the last several months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been “investigating whether White House officials violated the Presidential Records Act” by using email accounts maintained by the RNC and the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign for official White House communications. Today’s findings confirm that the accounts were used “for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.” The report adds:

Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

Some other key findings:

– RNC account use far greater than believed: Despite White House spokesperson Dana Perino’s claim that 50 White House officials used RNC email accounts “over the course of the administration,” the committee learned that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts.

– Bush-Cheney 04 campaign stonewalling: The committee says it may need to “issue compulsory process” to force the cooperation of the Bush-Cheney ‘04 campaign. Despite providing at least eleven White House officials with email accounts, “the campaign has unjustifiably refused” to provide the Committee with even the most basic information about the accounts, including the number of e-mails that have been preserved.

– Destroyed RNC emails may be preserved by federal agencies. The RNC has preserved only 130 e-mails sent to Karl Rove during Bush’s first term and no e-mails sent by Rove prior to November 2003. “For many other White House officials, the RNC has no e-mails from before the fall of 2006.” Several federal agencies contacted by the committee have indicated they “have preserved official communications that were destroyed by the RNC,” but others have resisted the investigation.

– Gonzales may have known about RNC account use. According to a deposition from Rove’s former assistant Susan Ralston, in 2001, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales “may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.” The committee calls for an investigation into Gonzales’ actions on this matter.

Richard Nixon would never have gotten away with such an explanation, but the media seem to accept the phony-sounding excuses of his successors...Given the level of truth-telling in this administration, does anyone believe it would not have occurred to someone to get rid of anything, including e-mails, that might cause legal trouble at the highest levels?