tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post5602601715311940335..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: On Health Care, Parliamentary Democracy, and the Tyranny of the MajorityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1286697243172009872010-06-11T07:50:42.935-05:002010-06-11T07:50:42.935-05:00Thanks right, Jacob. Sorry I didn't correct Ba...Thanks right, Jacob. Sorry I didn't correct Barry's misreading sooner.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-85677610404985457552010-06-11T07:30:56.597-05:002010-06-11T07:30:56.597-05:00It was Russell, not me, who wrote the line about &...It was Russell, not me, who wrote the line about "stupid."Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-5331037743357336432010-06-04T09:11:01.350-05:002010-06-04T09:11:01.350-05:00Jacob (referring to Megan McArdle): "This is...Jacob (referring to Megan McArdle): "This is, to be blunt, stupid. "<br /><br />Jacob, Megan isn't stupid; she's a liar. She spent months writing about the efforts to pass this bill. Anybody who made even a casual honest effort to keep track of this struggle was aware that we didn't have a 'tyranny of the majority'; there were multiple choke points which needed to be passed in the Senate, choke points where Senator A, from small state B, bribed by special interests C, could and would stop things until paid off (or his special interest paid off).<br /><br />Second, Megan was largely a gloating Bush supporter during his administration; she not only had no problem with 'tyranny of the majority', but was comfortable with 'Bush is president, so STFU'.Barry DeCiccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-16396491468645801972010-03-25T08:47:30.307-05:002010-03-25T08:47:30.307-05:00SamChevre, thanks for commenting here. It's al...SamChevre, thanks for commenting here. It's always a pleasure to read your stuff at CT and elsewhere.<br /><br /><i>I thought "lie to the voters, and then ignore them" was exactly right; Obama campaigned strenuously against a mandate, which is a key feature of this plan.</i><br /><br />I will grant you that if you really can reduce the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--or more relevantly to this post, if you can reduce President Obama's own explanations of and justifications for, and Megan's consequent complaints about and disagreement with, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--entirely to the matter of the individual mandate, than your conclusion is both completely accurate and entirely on point. However, because I do not think you can so reduce things (and I seriously doubt either Obama <i>or</i> Megan would agree that you can so reduce things), I'd have to say you're in the wrong here, Sam.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-32464673100254335502010-03-25T07:34:11.379-05:002010-03-25T07:34:11.379-05:00OK, I want my name with my comment. That's Sa...OK, I want my name with my comment. That's SamChevre above.<br /><br />SamChevreUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16413067324979632815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-55351701974387880212010-03-25T07:29:29.112-05:002010-03-25T07:29:29.112-05:00I will note that I thought "lie to the voters...I will note that I thought "lie to the voters, and then ignore them" was exactly right; Obama campaigned strenuously against a mandate, which is a key feature of this plan.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16413067324979632815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-37415117607504273952010-03-24T12:59:38.458-05:002010-03-24T12:59:38.458-05:00I think I just misread who wrote the comment. Sor...I think I just misread who wrote the comment. Sorry.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-11361264160476609832010-03-24T10:07:18.367-05:002010-03-24T10:07:18.367-05:00Clark, why's that comment addressed to me?Clark, why's that comment addressed to me?Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-10055043100998323622010-03-23T19:17:36.430-05:002010-03-23T19:17:36.430-05:00I too am disappointed with Romney but Obama, Biden...I too am disappointed with Romney but Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Read could stand on shoulders four deep and never reach the little toe of Mitt Romney. That isn't praise for Mitt Romney.Aloysiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858618410784962169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-87422440273164273262010-03-23T18:22:38.851-05:002010-03-23T18:22:38.851-05:00Jacob, I think what Republicans never offered a se...Jacob, I think what Republicans never offered a serious proposal on was how to deal with the uninsurable. i.e. those with pre-existing conditions that make health care practically unaffordable. The typical approach is to either pretend the problem doesn't exist or else shrug the shoulders and say, "thems the breaks."<br /><br />That said I think there are some fantastic <i>conservative</i> solutions to health care. Too bad Republicans never embraced them.<br /><br />Further, as many have pointed out, there's really not a lot of difference between Obama's plan and Romney's. Romney's opposition once again comes off as purely opportunistic. Unfortunate given how frequently Romney comes off as opportunistic. (Sad, as I once had high hopes for him - even sadder because he still remains the best Republicans are offering for the Presidency)Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-48804246186417364062010-03-23T14:49:46.702-05:002010-03-23T14:49:46.702-05:00"The point is that insureds had access to the...<i>"The point is that insureds had access to the emergency room in the same way that uninsureds had access to the emergency room. And each party had to wait in line. The health care bill doesn't change this. It was just an illustration of the 'stupidity' of her comment because she chose a poor example."</i><br /><br />This strikes me as poorly connected to the world we actually live in. I recently drove my stepson to the emergency room because he had a kidney stone. He had no insurance. So he leaves the hospital a few hours later hopped up on pain meds, with a prescription, and with the little kit they give you to strain your urine for when the stone passes.<br /><br />And he gets a bill in the mail for $8,000.<br /><br />Now, in the intervening weeks he hasn't passed his stone. Occasionally he gets the pain again, and he more-or-less rationed out his pain meds so he could take one when it comes back.<br /><br />He could of course go back to the hospital. They discussed the surgical option with him the first time he went.<br /><br />But that doesn't seem like much of an option to him because he feels like a few hours there equals years of crushing debt.<br /><br />Of course, that calculus depends on whether someone is planning to pay the bill. If you're not, however, you may be dealing with collectors, your credit destroyed, perhaps bankruptcy.<br /><br />With those kinds of looming consequences, I don't think it's quite right to say access to the emergency room is the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-78762157978142462642010-03-23T08:37:51.965-05:002010-03-23T08:37:51.965-05:00Pay special attention to the comments on that link...Pay special attention to the comments on that link.Aloysiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858618410784962169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-38469412980728671652010-03-23T08:36:53.027-05:002010-03-23T08:36:53.027-05:00A worthwhile link: http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/...A worthwhile link: <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/22/should-glenn-instapundit-reyno" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/22/should-glenn-instapundit-reyno</a>Aloysiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858618410784962169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-3129289469158751112010-03-22T20:11:36.123-05:002010-03-22T20:11:36.123-05:00Anonymous,
Who is "WJ"? William Jenning...Anonymous,<br /><br />Who is "WJ"? William Jennings? I'm honored, but not worthy.<br /><br />Your list of "Republican bullet points" seem to me mostly to be issues where there was no compromise available, because the Democratic plan already incorporated essentially the same idea as the listed point, only under a different name (for example, through the health insurance exchanges), or because the point isn't really a reform idea at all, but rather some fuzzy boilerplate that sounds good but just wasn't actionable in regards to policy. The one point I'll grant has real force is the lack of any kind of real tort reform in the final HCR bill. I think the claims made on behalf of the costliness of lawsuits is overstated myself, but I recognize its importance, and even an establishment liberal like Tom Daschle (who, at one time, was slated to lead the administration's reform effort) thought that two needed to go together. So it's a shame that the Democrats never gave it serious thought. But the answer as to why they didn't goes right to the heart of the post: the Republicans were playing a filibuster-everything, all-or-nothing game. Since there was, in the end, no real chance of picking up Republican votes, what incentive did the Democrats have to alienate trial lawyers, one of the their biggest donor bases?<br /><br /><i>The Democrats didn't care what measures the Republicans pushed forward, because they didn't need to. They had the votes and that was all that mattered.</i><br /><br />As I said, in the end, that was the case--and as that's what our particular democratic rules allow, it's wrong to call it tyranny as Megan does. But even your comment seems to imply some disrespect or dislike for the Democrats' procedural choices...which, if true, suggests that your are forgetting about the months spent by Senator Baucus and others in the spring and summer of 2009, desperately trying to come up with <i>something</i> that Republicans would be willing to claim partial ownership over. It's not as though the Democrats didn't give the Republicans a chance.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-17277738923611717722010-03-22T19:09:00.155-05:002010-03-22T19:09:00.155-05:00WJ,
"I want to add something important to th...WJ,<br /><br />"I want to add something important to those who think that "access" to an emergency room means the same thing as access to health care."<br /><br />Yes Mak, this is true, but no one ever said access to an emergency room is the same as access to health care. This is a misinterpretation. The point is that insureds had access to the emergency room in the same way that uninsureds had access to the emergency room. And each party had to wait in line. The health care bill doesn't change this. It was just an illustration of the "stupidity" of her comment because she chose a poor example. <br /><br />If she wanted to draw a distinction between insureds' and uninsureds' access to office visits or to ongoing specialist treatment for chronic pain, that would have been another story entirely. But sadly, she didn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-52465815117855215822010-03-22T18:09:08.201-05:002010-03-22T18:09:08.201-05:00I want to add something important to those who thi...I want to add something important to those who think that "access" to an emergency room means the same thing as access to health care. Emergency rooms are only required by to perform emergency care. The details of what this means vary from place to place, but if you have a chronic health problem, or something like cancer, you aren't likely to get good treatment through your ER. You certainly can't show up for chemo there. <br />I will say that the worst time in my life was when I had cancer and was uninsured. Try finding anyone who will take you, even if you have money. Oncologists' receptionists couldn't hang up fast enough when I said I was "self pay." Ultimately I had to wait 5 months for a social worker to get me in for self paid treatment. I hate to think of what would have happened if I had no money. It also cost me more, as the treatment had to be more extensive due to the delay.maknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-79827710941177061482010-03-22T17:43:14.959-05:002010-03-22T17:43:14.959-05:00WJ,
But wait Russell, you forgot to note the stu...WJ, <br /><br />But wait Russell, you forgot to note the stupidity of Laura's comment and thereby missed out on half the fun. <br /><br />Her recitation of the all too common tripe that Republicans failed to come up with health care alternatives leads me to believe one of two things: either her ignorance stems from the sad fact that she has no internet access (free internet for all, anyone?), or she is simply not interested in informing herself of the actual facts. A simple Google search, for instance, could have zapped the following Republican bullet points on to her very own monitor in nanoseconds: <br /><br />-- Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;<br />-- Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do;<br />-- give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs (I'll give you the fuzziness aspect of this particular point);<br />-- End junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.<br /><br />My favorite part of Laura's comment, however, was her bit about Republican failure to "deal with the millions of uninsured Americans waiting in line in emergency rooms across the country." Someone should have given Laura a heads up that insured Americans always have and will continue to have wait in line in emergency rooms. Insurance coverage is not a fast track ticket to the doctor's office. This oversight is particularly egregious in her emergency room example, where Laura failed to understand that uninsured Americans already had access to emergency rooms.<br /><br />But to her credit, Laura is dead-on that everything needn't be bipartisan in Congress. And that is exactly what happened here. The Democrats didn't care what measures the Republicans pushed forward, because they didn't need to. They had the votes and that was all that mattered. <br /><br />"It was the cowardly way out of this problem." Someone please pass the bowl.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-38674464724588704002010-03-22T16:27:37.140-05:002010-03-22T16:27:37.140-05:00Yes, but no apologies necessary. It made me laugh...Yes, but no apologies necessary. It made me laugh-- though it also made me feel slightly dirty for having had an idea that even *could* be rewritten like that.Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-47903465368976828982010-03-22T13:57:05.043-05:002010-03-22T13:57:05.043-05:00Was I that obvious, Jacob? Perhaps I was. My apolo...Was I that obvious, Jacob? Perhaps I was. My apologies...Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-55654254065937299602010-03-22T13:25:04.333-05:002010-03-22T13:25:04.333-05:00I wish to clarify that the normative spin Russell ...I wish to clarify that the normative spin Russell gave to his paraphrase of my post represents his sentiments, not mine. *I* was offering possible *good* news. :-)Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.com