it's enough to make you sick

An editorial that appeared today on the CBS News website made a pretty good point about the scream-fest that passes for a debate over health care in this election season.



Read it here.



One of the large issues that seems to go unaddressed in the health care'debate' is the issue of regulation. Just so I get this out to begin with, I am not a communist or a socialist, but I am in favor of some industries being regulated by some level or levels of government. The health care industry, particularly the insurance industry, is one of them. A large part of the 'crisis' in health care is the issue of 'spiraling cost'. (Note the presence of dramatic buzzwords in these paragraphs). In the United States, about 42% of the health care dollar goes not to doctors or hospitals or pharmaceutical companies, but to insurance companies andHMO's, for administrative costs and, let's be honest, profits. These are the outfits that are supposed to manage costs and keep care affordable. In contrast, medicare and medicaid keep administrative costs well below 10%, (and usually below 6%).

The CBS editorial noted above analyzes the idea, (as it is being pushed by more than one presidential candidate) of requiring everyone to buy insurance. That is a lot like requiring everyone to buy a car as a means of energy conservation. There is much to be said for the medicare model in health care, and it does not have to wreck the capitalistic element of our society, (that is, making it worthwhile to go to medical school and all that), as opposed to the free enterprise model. The notion of a controlled monopoly has been utilized very successfully, in this country in other arena's, notably the telecommunications and public service sectors, in ways that did not discourage investment and innovation. The model that we have now is not entreprenurial in any way, shape or form, it exploits the system while adding nothing in the way of value. I will not say that it is the sole cause of the predicament that we are in, but it is a roadblock that needs to be cleared before we are able to address the problem that we are faced with.

Think about it. Not all regulation is evil. There are some things that we all pay for, day in and day out, and the maintenance of the health care infrastructure is one of them. For the public to support this network for the benefit of a few well-placed private concerns is unconcionable. Like public accomodations and utilities, it is time to embed access to basic care as a given in American life and move on.


The time for innovation is now. I have yet to see a candidate how has the courage to stick his or her neck out to face up the realities of this, and quite a few other messes.

speaking of turkeys...

Well, the day has finally (almost) arrived. We have been confronted for years with in-your-face threats and rants from the NRA and other groups that the government, (under such pseudonyms as ZOG, the Reich and the far-left Liberal regime), wants to take away our liberties, such as the right to free speech and the right to defend ourselves, (i.e. to own guns). The issue seems to be framed as to whether this is a right granted to individual citizens, or a power given over to the several states.

It seems that the Supreme Court is going to decide the legality of a handgun ban in the District of Columbia in the coming term. The terms of this particular case are significant as it specifically notes that it is brought by an individual not associated with a state or a state sanctioned militia who wishes to own and keep a firearm in his home for the purpose of self defense. It hits on quite a few of the hot buttons that have driven the issue for all these years. Now there is no telling how the case or the decision will play out, but I think it is a bit ironic that (1) the decision will be handed down just prior to a federal election and (2) by a largely republican appointed court. Like the joke about the texas tornado, the conspiracy theorists, (on one side of the political divide or the other) are gonna have a field day with this.

In other news, with the writers strike showing no signs of abating soon, the presidential candidates are stepping up and doing their parts to keep us entertained. This seems to be the year of the Hillary. Like her or not, she is the defining force in this election. Republicrooks are trying to be seen as the candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton, thus confering on her the mantle of some sort of liberal Democratic sainthood. Demicrooks are trying to be seen as the un-Hillary, a viable alternative to the leader without the negative baggage.

Fred Thompson is doing a pretty good job of playing himself, waiting for the annointing of his party and looking for all the world like a wet dishrag.

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving.

I hope that you all have as much to be thankful for as I do. I have spent as much time as I can trying to put aside my prejudices and opinions and just going with the flow, (that friends, is hard enough). Sit back, relax, watch some football and think good thoughts.

I wish you all well.

That being (sincerely) said, stay focused.

With a writers Strike, it will be a long year....

OK, things are getting serious.

Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani. Now that really is something.

There is a lot being said and written about this, but Mr Robertson has said that Mr Giuliani is an "acceptable Republican".

OK.

Sam Brownback has endorsed John McCain, calling him "the best pro-life candidate to beat Hillary Clinton".

Well!

That alone keeps McCain afloat, although he has been gaining ground on his own lately. Personally, I think that either of these two guys could carry the GOP ticket credibly. An article in the Wall Street Journal suggests that a Clinton-Giuliani race at this point is a dead heat, and in that circumstance, Rudy is the more likable and believable candidate. A statistical tie would probably go to him, as he is seen my the centrist population, (you know---me), as a pragmatist rather than an ideologue, (not that I see Ms Clinton in that light, it is just that I have seen her in so many lights....). What is clear is that the voting public wants change on so many fronts, and that there is just so much change to go around. The issue then, is what will be prioritized as the most needed and the most changeable. I am calling the election this way. The Dem's will hold the House and most likely the Senate. The GOP will take the White House if Hillary is the Dem's nominee, and they have a decent chance of it if anyone else gets the nod.

The wild card here is Ron Paul. Ron Paul could give the White House to theDemocrats if he runs as an independent and pulls votes away from a strong conservative, (say Romney or Thompson---they are seen to be too much like W to be viable this time out...). Ron could give the White House to the GOP if he pulls votes from a moderate Democrat.

Watch what this man says and does. He has more influence on the direction that the campaigns will take than anyone in America--(save Obama'spersonal pilot...). The GOP race seems to be shaping up, although anything could happen. The Democratic race seems to have turned into a gang-bang Hillary fest this past week, although nobody in that party has the clout that she does. 2008 really will be interesting, if only to try to discern the usually invisible machinations of the GOP money machine and the incestuous comings and goings of the party on the left....

One has to ask, what is a conservative, (note the small c in that word), and how does the definition differ from the brand name "CONSERVATIVE"? How do either of those labels differ from the term Republican? When one labels him or herself with the term republican, (capitalized or not), what characteristics or values is he/she hoping to latch onto in the impression they are garnering? Same question with the term democrat? Is it any different from say, the term "20 Mule Team Borax" or "Tidy-Bowl"?


So, how are things with either of you?