<table><tbody><tr><td><a>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'<a>Hey, C'Mon That's Not ... Why Would You ...Whoa!<a></td></tr><tr><td><a>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr><td><embed src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:239853' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr><td><table><tr><td><a>Daily Show<br> Full Episodes</a></td><td><a>Political Humor</a></td><td><a>Joke of the Day</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

I don't know how to make the extra crap go away. Apologies.

You're better than that. (My work internet has been sucking lately as the entire office streams videos all day because we're gonna be laid off. Long story long, I could use a direct link, because the embedding isn't working for me. Thanks.)

Edit: Found it. Link

I'll admit it, I've lost track of the narrative with respect to health care. Did the blue dogs do anything particularly constructive to rein in what seemed to be a bad plan and make it a less terrible plan?

I've accepted it's going to cost me as an affluent person some money and I can deal with that. I've accepted that it won't reform things the way smooth wants them reformed and I can deal with that.

At this point I'm shooting for NOT worse than doing nothing.

jeff2sf wrote:I'll admit it, I've lost track of the narrative with respect to health care. Did the blue dogs do anything particularly constructive to rein in what seemed to be a bad plan and make it a less terrible plan?

I've accepted it's going to cost me as an affluent person some money and I can deal with that. I've accepted that it won't reform things the way smooth wants them reformed and I can deal with that.

At this point I'm shooting for NOT worse than doing nothing.

The problem as I understand it--and I'm not super-confident that I do--is that the Blue Dogs want two things that are mutually contradictory: to control costs, and to make the government role as small as possible. The smaller government's role is, the less bargaining power it has.

What they got as far as concessions was an increase on the cap under which small businesses are exempted from the pay or play mandate--up to $500k in total payroll, from $250k. That part seems fine to me. They also reduced by one percent the amount of subsidy people whose incomes are between three and four times the poverty rate would receive to buy health care through insurance exchanges. That saves $100 billion, which has the political benefit of bringing the total cost below $1 trillion.

I still see it failing substantively if not politically. Our system can't solve big problems anymore--or even honestly debate them, really--and the Democrats are only marginally less institutionally corrupt (as in bought and paid for; see the Senate Finance Committee) than the Republicans.

I'm quickly coming to view the difference between the two parties as little more than the speed at which they make things worse.

I don't know why I'm defending these people, but I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be...

Congress and America do rally around problems when they're real big problems, such as 9/11 or even the banking crisis last year. Now of course you can argue that if they had been on top of things earlier, some of these crises wouldn't have become such, but that's not the way things work. And I'm not necessarily sure it should work that way. Long term planning is notoriously hard to do.

One other thing that's also abundantly clear is that despite what all the intelligentsia may think, or perhaps because of it, there is no perfect solution to the healthcare crisis. This solution is probably not the best, but none of the others are viable. It's become Northeast fashionable to say that the Wyden proposal is the best, and from what limited knowledge I have of it, and also based on the fact that I'm a Northeastern rich guy who voted Democrat, it seems like the best plan. But that doesn't make it so. There's a reason it's almost a non-starter in the planning done by Congress and the answer is probably not, Congress is a bunch of evil idiots.

jeff2sf wrote:I don't know why I'm defending these people, but I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be...

Congress and America do rally around problems when they're real big problems, such as 9/11 or even the banking crisis last year. Now of course you can argue that if they had been on top of things earlier, some of these crises wouldn't have become such, but that's not the way things work. And I'm not necessarily sure it should work that way. Long term planning is notoriously hard to do.

One other thing that's also abundantly clear is that despite what all the intelligentsia may think, or perhaps because of it, there is no perfect solution to the healthcare crisis. This solution is probably not the best, but none of the others are viable. It's become Northeast fashionable to say that the Wyden proposal is the best, and from what limited knowledge I have of it, and also based on the fact that I'm a Northeastern rich guy who voted Democrat, it seems like the best plan. But that doesn't make it so. There's a reason it's almost a non-starter in the planning done by Congress and the answer is probably not, Congress is a bunch of evil idiots.

jeff, jeff, jeff.

While your (self-?) harshing on rich NE liberal elites isn't entirely off base, we (you) are a bit more nuanced than you suggest here.

I kind of think about Wyden/Bennett in the same way I think about single-payer: both would be better than the jerry-rigged system we have, and both would very likely be better than the jerry-rigged system we'll have if/when reform passes. And both are political non-starters because they'd cause so much disruption to the status quo that fearful politicians won't take that risk. (This to me is "conservative" in the best sense: it's why no responsible person ever calls for "revolution" because even if it eventually yielded something close to utopia--which it wouldn't, because humans can't do that--so much damage would be done in the meantime that it's a bad trade. Like dealing Utley and Hamels for BP's top five rated prospects below the legal drinking age. A little status quo bias isn't a bad thing.)

I'm a bit more annoyed that W/B won't get a fair hearing because, one, it really is bipartisan--that Bob Bennett is even in that conversation, much less a co-sponsor, is just short of miraculous to me, and I have enough of that Broder-ish default toward bipartisan fapping that I'm thrilled he's a part of it. And two, while the disruption that single payer would cause is really serious--thousands of jobs immediately lost, major economic dislocation--the only problem I'm aware of with Wyden is that people would have to spend a little time figuring out their personal finances. But we've become such a nation of lazy, worthless fucks that even those three hours spent away from "Dancing with Plastic-Surgery Victims" is too much to ask.

And that's really the problem. You got it right the first time: that you're willing to sacrifice a little from your own take-home pay to expand coverage puts you way, way ahead of most. Everyone wants better coverage for less money. (Just as we want to cut the deficit, but not raise taxes or reduce spending!) That's probably possible at the margin, but our status quo bias is so deep, so ingrained, that any claim that change will make things worse kills the prospect of it.

Finally, what nags at me is that I kind of believe (and I know this contradicts what I just wrote) that the American people are *willing* to make some sacrifices--that we almost are waiting to be asked. Most of us know, at least on an intellectual level, that nothing worthwhile in life comes free. That Bush told us to "go shopping" after 9/11 showed, among other things, a deep contempt for the country's moral character. That Obama still seems to imply that we can get something for nothing--and that no other figure in public life is even calling him on it!--is a worse disappointment for me, as someone who gave money and time to put the guy in office, and really believed that he could be a positive force in public life.

A last point: you say we don't do long-term planning. True. The problem is that now all our biggest concerns--from the structural instability of the federal budget to global warming--require us to do so. We either find the capacity to do this (which itself requires the sort of trust in leadership that we've seen disappear over the last 45 years, with good cause), or our society fails. Are you optimistic on this question?

Yes because tomorrow's problem 15 years from now really may not come.

What I'm saying is that not only could we come up with poor solutions to problems that may occur 15 years from now, we're also likely to not identify what those problems are.

And I'll say that in some respect, that's okay.

Finally, fellow northeast elitist, while you may be willing to sacrifice a bit, a lot of people are not, and what's more, a lot of people CAN'T if they wanted to. I don't think it's the wrong play to try to wring savings out of this first before asking us to pay later. It's not my approach, but if I'm sure on one thing, it's that I'm not sure what the right approach is, and despite your certitude, you probably aren't either.

jeff2sf wrote:Yes because tomorrow's problem 15 years from now really may not come.

What I'm saying is that not only could we come up with poor solutions to problems that may occur 15 years from now, we're also likely to not identify what those problems are.

And I'll say that in some respect, that's okay.

Finally, fellow northeast elitist, while you may be willing to sacrifice a bit, a lot of people are not, and what's more, a lot of people CAN'T if they wanted to. I don't think it's the wrong play to try to wring savings out of this first before asking us to pay later. It's not my approach, but if I'm sure on one thing, it's that I'm not sure what the right approach is, and despite your certitude, you probably aren't either.

I don't want to get all JFLNYC with you, but any certitude was read, not written. I don't consider myself particularly well informed on health care anymore; I defer to doc and kruker, among others, who've been following this more closely than I.

That's fine, but I was more attacking the certitude that this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

jeff2sf wrote:That's fine, but I was more attacking the certitude that this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

Fair enough. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing much reason for optimism.

I think the best we can hope for (and Jeff's anti-perfectionism is really, really vital--the perfect is the enemy of the good. It's an implacable, vicious enemy, to be fought at every turn) is a reform that allows for continued tweaking and improvement. If the public option is weak, that's ok as long as it is feasible to strengthen it. I think state based co-ops could work, especially if these co-ops are allowed enough flexibility that they can begin to abandon the dominant fee-for-service model that seems to be one of the huge problems as I understand it.

Without knowing a whole lot about it, I think there is some real potential in the co-op model, as states have been way ahead of the federal government on this issue for several decades.

But isn't it possible, dajafi, that people just like you have been saying this since, say, 1783?

jeff2sf wrote:But isn't it possible, dajafi, that people just like you have been saying this since, say, 1783?

Of course. As I said, I hope I'm wrong, at least within my lifetime and the lifetime/s of any offspring. But all good things, etc.

Corzine won't follow script

I really do like me some Steve Kornacki

North Dakota could become a major Senate battleground in 2010, if the state’s sitting Republican governor John Hoeven decides to run against Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)

Hoeven holds a 17-point lead over Dorgan, 53 to 36 percent, in polling commissioned by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which was obtained by POLITICO. The GOP firm Public Opinion Strategies, which conducted the poll, wrote that Hoeven holds “superstar numbers” – with 86 percent of North Dakota voters viewing him favorably, and only five percent viewing him unfavorably.

If the NRSC can recruit well, we might be able to pick up seats next year, which seemed impossible a few months ago. I really dislike Dorgan too. Raving protectionist, economically illiterate moron. He's bff with Lou Dobbs.

Lynn Woolsey = hero

Max Baucus = the bane of my existence

jeff2sf wrote:I don't know why I'm defending these people, but I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be...

Congress and America do rally around problems when they're real big problems, such as 9/11 or even the banking crisis last year. Now of course you can argue that if they had been on top of things earlier, some of these crises wouldn't have become such, but that's not the way things work. And I'm not necessarily sure it should work that way. Long term planning is notoriously hard to do.

One other thing that's also abundantly clear is that despite what all the intelligentsia may think, or perhaps because of it, there is no perfect solution to the healthcare crisis. This solution is probably not the best, but none of the others are viable. It's become Northeast fashionable to say that the Wyden proposal is the best, and from what limited knowledge I have of it, and also based on the fact that I'm a Northeastern rich guy who voted Democrat, it seems like the best plan. But that doesn't make it so. There's a reason it's almost a non-starter in the planning done by Congress and the answer is probably not, Congress is a bunch of evil idiots.

Congress did not rally around the financial system bailout. In fact, Republicans pretty universally played politics and opposed the plan proposed by their President, Treasury Secretary, and Fed Reserve Chairman. The treatment of the financial system emergency response and healthcare reform have been remarkably similar. The only members of Congress who have behaved at all differently to date are the Blue Dog Dems.

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/guide-to-north-korea-2-of-3
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/guide-to-north-korea-3-of-3

Really interesting, amusing viewing. Each is about 20 minutes long.

oh, I see how i goes. I'm out a week, come back, and all the best discussion of health care moves to the general politics thread. Great.

dajafi, jeff2sf, & TV (sorry if I missed others), covered more & better in about 7 posts here last week than alla rattling on in the single payer thread. And I only stumbled on it today.

jeff2sf wrote:I don't know why I'm defending these people, but I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be...

Congress and America do rally around problems when they're real big problems, such as 9/11 or even the banking crisis last year.

But people need to conceive of them effectively as big problems, and sometimes that requires all the skills an effective presider can bring to the issue.

Full-out TV coverage of planes flying into instantly recognizable buildings in an instantly recognizable major US city is an easy rally point for 'solving big problems' - maybe too easy (see Cheney/Iraq).

The really big problem of health reform - and make no mistake it's a really big problem - is that it's as insidious in its manifestations as cancer often is.

One other thing that's also abundantly clear is that despite what all the intelligentsia may think, or perhaps because of it, there is no perfect solution to the healthcare crisis. This solution is probably not the best, but none of the others are viable.

The problem is that the House measures provide almost nothing in the way of solutions, either for the health reform problem OR the politics of health reform problem. It provides no toehold for any effective further incremental advancement. Implement something big, something that would at least promise health cost inflection within a 'moon mission timeframe', and then make sure it has circuit breakers that could be whittled back if it was too ambitious. Don't settle for Pelosi's chicken sausage.

dajafi wrote:jeff, jeff, jeff.

While your (self-?) harshing on rich NE liberal elites isn't entirely off base, we (you) are a bit more nuanced than you suggest here.

....I'm a bit more annoyed that W/B won't get a fair hearing because, one, it really is bipartisan--that Bob Bennett is even in that conversation, much less a co-sponsor, is just short of miraculous to me, and I have enough of that Broder-ish default toward bipartisan fapping that I'm thrilled he's a part of it. And two, while the disruption that single payer would cause is really serious--thousands of jobs immediately lost, major economic dislocation--the only problem I'm aware of with Wyden is that people would have to spend a little time figuring out their personal finances.....

AND that the 'single payerishness' of W/B is probably it's most sacrifice-able portion.

right now we have the spectre of Team Barry deciding it has to talk about health INSURANCE reform, and prop up health insurers as the bad guy to bash. Big O had it right early on: it's about health, and health COSTS - not the mechanisms for paying them.

Finally, what nags at me is that I kind of believe (and I know this contradicts what I just wrote) that the American people are *willing* to make some sacrifices--that we almost are waiting to be asked.

Barry trial-ballooned likening health reform to the moon mission - and, apparently, got little traction with it. Which surprises me. That analogy actually works on a number of fronts, one of which is that, if well designed, effective health reform would involve fairly massive spending on activities which would produce dramatic (maybe even televisable) results, yet discomfit (getting healthier can be taxing in more ways than financial) a relatively small fraction of the population, while raising our 'population health' markedly.

Make those most effected your astronauts, and paint visions of Broadway tickertape parades for them after their svelte splashdown a few years hence. The rest of us, employers included, will pay a moderate admission price and cheer them on - maybe even twitter them message of support while they're in orbit.

Anyway, I hope Barry is working on his throwing arm this recess, b/c come the end of the month he's about gonna have to throw a 70-yard health reform Hail Mary for 6. And his Gates-gashed press conference ALS soft-tossing is not gonna cut it.