I guess my issue with that argument is that we already have a gigantic clusterfuck. Doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry are scheming to milk every last penny out of us. They've built a system that is so complex and confusing, that it's almost easier to just wave the white flag during any major issues. They've talked our government into limiting options and creating a system where we have no say.

So I'd argue that all the complaints about what would happen under a single-payer system is stuff we already have right now. We have tons of layers with complicated interactions of different entitites. We don't have much choice when it comes to insurance companies, plans, doctors, drugs, and so forth. And while the argument has been that the private sector does everything more efficiently which reduces costs, that has not played out when it comes to health care. In fact, the private industry is getting curbstomped by just about every other industrialized nation who handles it themselves.

You can measure effective tax rates, but I can't find that info past 1979.

In case anyone was interested, the HC 'summit' just started up.

No surprise, but between Obama's passive-agressive comments concerning partisanship and Lamar Alexander's counter statement to open for the Republicans, there's not going to be anything accomplished with this meeting.

Man, I thought Lamar Alexander would never finish.

Hm... House pushed the health care anti-trust exemption repeal through yesterday 400-something to a few?

SI

Obama looked like he was going to fall asleep there

SI

Now I remember why it's better for Pelosi to be out doing legislative leg breaking (which she's quite good at) rather than speaking.

SI

....and, sadly, she is 10X the public speaker that Harry Reid is.

I actually think that Obama comes off pretty well in things like this, but Congress (on both sides) just look like the out of touch millionaires that they all are, for the most part.

+1

This is a nice touch. Watch a stream of the health care summit with a list of the donations from healthcare companies for everyone that speaks!

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/live/

Wow. Max Baucus trying to sneak in "well, our bid had a state opt-out to the plan". I didn't see any news one way or the other with the Obama bill but I didn't hear anything about a state opt-out.

EDIT: Dear god, just don't let Baucus talk.

SI

Very nice touch - this is actually a way to limit the impact the constitutional free speech corporations enjoy regarding donation - if enough of us cared to vote based on this kind of stuff.

Well, Jon Kyl brings everything to a screeching halt and I have a feeling this is where the civility (read: mostly dog and pony show) breaks down.

Oh well. Paperwork is done for the morning and real work needs to happen so I guess I'll miss the rest of this "fun".

SI

I still remember the Online Gambling hearings a couple of years ago when Baucus starting asking questions. It was like he didn't even know what the internet was. I felt like I was trying to explain to my 90-some year old grandmother what e-mail was like. Painful to say the least.

Nothing can top Stevens.

That explains why my internet is so slow today... it sprung a leak. I have internet spilling all over the place, I need to call a network plumber.

The lack of even half-hearted commentary in this thread ought to sum up for everyone how meaningless today's hearings were. A photo op for both sides (or are there actually three sides, after all, "Because I'm the President" )that's about it.

A classic case of nothing-to-see-here-keep-moving-along

I felt pretty honored that President Obama took the time to text message me last night about this, but I had more pressing concerns.

I dunno - I'm interested to see more about how they went, but I've been busting my ass working all day.

A bunch of politicians got together to posture for cameras?

Yeah, I'm with Jon on this one.

I heard they fixed healthcare!

hehe:funkychickendance:

And reading up on Rangel I think he should frickin' resign and if the phone call by the Gov in NY is true he should resign too!

Rep. John Linder (R-GA) surprised pretty much everyone today by announcing that he will not seek re-election.

In addition to the usual suspects from the ranks of state politics & Linder staffers, the GOP is reportedly considering an effort to draft John Smoltz to run for the seat.

edit to add: Meanwhile don't be too surprised if Linder, a champion of the Fair Tax, doesn't end up making the rounds on the Tea Party circuit.

where's MBBF to scream the 'writing's on the wall'?

so dumb.

Agreed. Any assertion that this anything other than a retirement because he's too damn old is 'so dumb'.

slant much? One side retires = writing's on the wall, other side retires = anything but.

no one paints the corner youre in but you.

Eh, I'd say it's close to 50-50 that this is knowing that he's got a better chance of influencing the Tea Party et al into pushing Fair Tax than he does of getting the GOP to really push it without being forced to.

Let the record show that this thread did not get much slant until post #9240.

BTW, Smoltz tells the AJC's political reporter (via text message) that he's not interested in running for the seat.

I understand that its obvious but Im still remiss to allow it to slide because people assume that it is already taken with such slanted context. Thats what he wants, for the viewers to get lazy. :D

The only lazy assertion was your generalized statement that had no basis in fact.

Oh, the irony.

Please. Flasch makes me look intelligent in this thread. That's saying something.

I think we're well beyond the point of anyone looking intelligent in this thread.

We're starting to resembling the politicians running the show in that regard.

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) will leave Congress in order to focus full-time on his previously announced bid for Governor.

In his case, with what is shaping up to be a brutal primary fight that has at least four legitimate contenders (and two that are running ahead of Deal atm) it seems like the logical call. The seat seems awfully secure with 6 or 7 GOP candidates already declared & running, presumably most or all of them will seek to fill the unfinished portion of the term.

edit to add re: "secure" -- Deal won re-election 75-25 last time out, virtually identical margin by which McCain beat Obama in the district.

1. I had no idea Roy Barnes was running for governor again, should be a fun primary against Thurbert Baker.

2. I had no idea that Deal defended the Proof of Citizenship Law by saying that they were getting complaints from all the ghetto grandmothers.

3. Deal is apparently corrput, which makes him an excellent candidate to succeed Sonny.

4. Deal used to be a democrat and won the district fairly easily in 92 and 94 as a (D).

5. I had no idea that when Sonny and the republicans won control of the governorship and state senate, they voted to strip the Lt. Governor of all power (who was a democrat).

Is the parallel the Democrats' persistent ability to blow slam-dunk presidential elections?

Also, Obama's kind of like this decade's version of Gary Hart. Where's the Beef?

done.

Maybe I can't read, because it sure seems like you're using Obama's failures to argue that he will win handily in 2012. And that would just be dopey, so yes, the problem must be my reading.

So what happened in '84? Better Economy/Mondale, I guess. The equivalent to that in 2012 would be if the economy improves and the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin. Which could definitely all happen. (I only compare Mondale to Palin in terms of a party's disastrous nomination, not their qualifications)

Hart/Mondale in '84 was a lot like Clinton/Obama in 2008. Flash v. Substance. With different results.

OK, so if

Obama = Hart

and

H. Clinton = Mondale

then who's Reagan?

I'm so confused.


Seriously, though, for someone so keen on harping on about style over substance, you really need to re-read about how lightly Reagan was thought of during at least the first two years of his presidency.

I'll concede the point that the Democrats have a penchant for running truly terrible candidates: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and... Coakley. :D

I think the broader point is that early 2010 is way too soon to make predictions for 2012. Lots of things can happen in two years that negate the status quo of today.

Did someone call Walter Mondale "flashy?" :)

The GOP blocked a federal judicial nominee for months that today won confirmation 99-0.

Nice principles.

It's just stupid.

Panerd walks in the room... "Vote third party?" :)

I'd be curious as to their rationale beyond...business as usual.

Too bad the GOP didn't remove the ability to filibuster (a.k.a. the "nuclear option") back when they were in the majority and were threatening it. :D

Seriously though, I saw somewhere where the filibuster has now been used more in this session of Congress than in any other previous session. So much for the party of the "up and down vote".