Since we seem to be nearing the end of “phase one” of health care reform, perhaps we won't need to talk about it anymore? Not very likely, especially since some on the left have decided to back-away from even the taint of acceptance of the "reform" bill in order to avoid any embarrassing reversal of progressive cred (of course, this could change at any time). It must be confessed that whatever bill is eventually passed will so convoluted that no one will know its true effect for years, and by then we will need to hope that the party in power desires to improve it rather than scrap it altogether.

There are, one may suppose, some “good” things in the final bill which will obviously look a lot like the Senate version--like allegedly preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions (insurance companies could, of course, cite alternative excuses for not granting coverage), limiting how much insurance companies can charge seniors, and capping overhead costs (meaning that some of the people who are paid to say “no” may have get down on their hands and knees and learn how to say “yes” to another set of customers with another employer). Some say that this system still essentially locks-in the continued enjoyment of massive profits for the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals; loss of revenue on “Cadillac” plans will merely be made-up by increases in premiums (sort of like Thom’s wage and tax theory), and taxpayer subsidies will make-up any other loss of profitability.

We must especially hope that what emerges from confused state to semi-comprehensible is the so-called “insurance exchange” proposal, and its viability as an option to the public option. For one thing, there has to be a sufficiently large pool of “customers”—particularly among those who are not the otherwise “uninsurable” and impoverished—and an oversight body with enough power to secure insurance company compliance in the public interest. Apparently there is no guarantee of the former, and no assurance of the latter, particularly if a Republican administration has any say in how the exchange is regulated.

In the current proposal only a limited number of people initially (rather than all having the option) are being permitted access to the exchange, which is counterproductive. Nor is there a sufficiently strong enforcement mechanism to insure that insurance companies will play by the “rules.” We have to “trust” them. Without strong regulatory enforcement or the ability to negotiate rates to insure good benefits at affordable premiums, the exchange will merely become a dumping ground for wildly varying plans, from low premiums with high out-of-pocket expenses to high premium plans only (very) modestly moderated by tax subsidies. I suppose, if we want to look at it from a glass half-full perspective, that once this program is instituted and its failings manifest, that people will demand improvements, and maybe lawmakers will be forced to listen to them then, for once.

"Dick Cheney is a traitor", such a statement smears traitors everywhere.

I don't think there's a word for what Cheney is, in the future I think people will refer to characters that are beyond odious as 'Cheneyistic'

re:Cheney responsible for everything...yeah, the only exception being Rumsfield's responsibility for aspertame.

Here's the deal. These terrorists are not supermen. They aren't bigger than life, they don't have super powers, they aren't able to defeat our justice system, they can't escape from our supermax prisons. They are, to a man, pathetic wimps. They are weaklings. They attack innocent civilians because they know they can't handle a fair fight. They use fear because they are too pathetic and lame to be able to use persuasion.

The idiot coward fools who build them up are helping the terrorists and hurting America rather than protecting it. They are collaborating with the terrorists in making us more fearful and less free. Their approach of ramping up the fear is exactly the wrong thing to do. We need to put the terrorists in their proper place - prison - and treat them as what they are - weaklings, wimps and morons. I love that we are calling this latest guy the "underpants bomber", that disdain is exactly correct. We should be mocking these fools in the media, not building them up as bogeymen.

Sensible security makes sense, but the cost is too high if we trade our freedoms for security. We need to respond to the threat of terror with vigilance and mockery.

Eventually one of these morons is going to get lucky and actually succeed in their attack. We still need to mock them. They send a thousand morons, and one is bound to get through. Give them no respect. Refuse irrational fear. Yes, we'll grieve the loss of innocent life at the hands of moronic cowards who are too afraid to put up a fair fight, but we should never fear or respect them.

Thom,

It seems increasingly obvious that Obama's justice department will not prosecute the criminals or replace the U.S. attorneys from the Bush administration because they will turn over rocks that implicate members of the Clinton administration and other Democrats. Everything you are talking about today tells me there are "big secrets" that the American people just cannot be allowed to know without losing faith in major institutions of government.

I'm baaa-aaaack! :)

Been away for a while - vacation and office relocation madness have caused a bit of turmoil with respect to my ability to post my opinions here. My appearances hereabouts may remain rare for the next week or so, till things get back to what passes for normal at my office.

@Mark - You've touched upon my greatest fear regarding Health Care Reform. Even if Obama and Congress DO manage to pass a useful reform bill, sooner or later there will be another Rethuglican elected to the Presidency. So, what happens when a philosophical grandson of the Cheney/Rummy Cabal get to make decisions regarding public health? That, my friends, is when the "Death Panels" may truly commence.

@Blue Mark - Well said, sir! My sentiments to a "T"!

Re: Quark, The American people have faith in major institutions of the government?

I thought the Re-pube-lickens have been doing everything possible to make sure that no American would have faith in the government, and I think they're doing a damn good job at it too.

@Thom - re the question whether the crotch bomber info screwup was a CIA black op ---

"Never attribute to malice what may adequately be explained by screw-ups"

(...not original to me but pertinent...)

As far as our intellegence community, their reputation is shot! (I wanted to use another word)
Until we have leadership and intelligence working together, they are collectively working against our best interests.

"it behooves those in power to keep us very much afraid"

If the Fear-nistas had to take off their shoes, we just might see that they have hooves!

Is there really a difference between a socialist government and a truly democratic government. For the people by the people seems pretty socialist to me.

This guy, Jerry doesn't have a leg to stand on. None of these people do. Good thing he has health insurance. Maybe he'll be able to get a good artifical leg.

re your recent talk about why Byron Dorgan is leaving... get him on and ask him!

I have had arguments with conservatives about money and charity. I just had a thought about it. Conservatives love to tell us that their party members are more generous to charity than liberals. While this may be true when talking about financial charity, I really doubt that it is true about giving of one's time. I wonder if there are any polls that show which party is more generous with their time as I would not be suprised if it turns out to be the Democratic party. Many conservatives believe in the almighty dollar above all else, while liberals understand that there are more important things in life than money. This is just a thought I had and wanted to get out there.

ALLAN NAIRN: Right. Well, you know, the issue is not the safety of Americans. The issue is the safety of people. All people. You have to count not just the American deaths and potential American deaths, but the deaths everywhere, since—you know, since everyone counts. And the best solution is the one that protects the maximum number of people. And if you happen to be the party that is committing the largest number of killings in the world, as the US is now, then the solution is easy: stop committing the killings.
Again from: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/6/obama_has_kept_the_machine_set

In this case, in the present moment in history, that would have the added side benefit of most likely making Americans safer, as well, because you would take away the main provocation. Tom Brokaw, on TV this weekend, made a very interesting comment. He described what the US was engaged in as the “war against Islamic rage.” That’s actually the most telling definition I’ve seen. I mean, think about it. In Afghanistan, Karzai, the US/UN-installed president, basically the man thought of as a US puppet, the man previously lionized by the US press before he started speaking out against the US aerial killings of civilians, Karzai started to get enraged after a series of bombings of wedding parties by the US and NATO forces. Think about it. Somebody bombs your wedding, a foreign air force bombs your wedding. How are you supposed to react? Are you supposed to be delighted? Rage is the normal human response. If you stop that, you lower the rage, and you probably get fewer attacks on Americans.

You know, there’s a man named Kilcullen, who’s Australian by origin, who’s now one of the main intellects behind the US counterinsurgency policy. He advises Secretary Gates, who of course was Bush’s Defense Secretary, as well. He said that if he were a Muslim today in a Middle Eastern country, he would probably be a jihadist. Robert Pape, the leading academic specialist on suicide bombings who studied the entire database of all the suicide bombers in recent years, said it’s a consequence primarily of occupation. So, you stop committing mass murder overseas, and you immediately, immediately, just by that action, achieve the main goal, which is minimizing the overall deaths of people, and you most likely get the side benefit of also minimizing the deaths of Americans—

I would like to comment on Hour Three but if I use the f-word or the N-word, my post will receive a "Comment awaits moderation." My expressions and hands are tied.

Here is a good article by Tom Engelhardt and Nick Turse.

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2010/01/03/what-to-watch-for-in-2...

Today, January 6, 2010, was a glorious day for me. I receive Surveys from time to time from both the RNC and the DNC. Today, I received a DNC Survey. I unloaded both barrels. It is such a great feeling. I SAID THAT I DO NOT PLAN TO VOTE FOR OBAMA IN 2012. FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON OBAMA; FOOL ME TWICE SHAME ON ME! I DID SAY THAT THE ONLY WAY I WOULD VOTE FOR OBAMA IS TO HAVE HIM JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AT THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS AND WE BECOME PART OF THE FAMILY OF NATIONS.

I forgot to link the talk by Wolff and Fraad. Here is the link.

http://www.rdwolff.com/content/psychology-and-economy-discussion-brecht-...

Gerald Socha,

I look forward to listening to the Wolff/Fraad talk. I feel so low right now (it's my birthday today (Jan. 7) and I don't know how much longer I can go on. I can't find work and my money will run out before I do, I think.