Romney shoved through a fairly useless "Universal Health Care" plan in Massachusetts. You're required by law to purchase health insurance. Lovely. It will fail miserably, and he can point to it as a government failure. Hmm, maybe he's a good neocon after all.

Am I also required by law to buy food?

I like the plan from the uberboys at The Corner the best: if you cannot buy health insurance for your kids for whatever reason, get a time machine, go back in time, and decide not to have kids.

Given that The Corner provides the philosophical foundations for Republicanism, I am sure sooner or later all the GOP candidates will come to accept tis grand policy proposal from one of the Luciannes.

Ok, can anyone think of the last time there were ANY republican presidential candidates that had an ounce of substance to their campaigns? I'm not sure I've ever seen one since I started paying attention in the Reagan Error. They are all puffed up bits of fluff, devoid of any ideology beyond "When we do it, its good; when they do it, its bad" and "The market will fix it, and people will get rich on the way. Ponies for all!"

Their political base can barely read, and the ones that can read mostly read the bible or the stock pages. Substance is wasted on them.

The health of the medical insurance industry is Mitt Romney's concern in this matter.

Even Republicans will soon see that. At least Mitt doesn't pretend to be other than a Business As Usual candidate.

The logic of the Massachusetts plan is that if everyone has health insurance, then everyone will begin to use doctors instead of emergency rooms for basic health care.

And, then the hospitals will be able to reduce their rates as they no longer bear the costs of funding subsidies and for expensive emergency room costs.

Except, that the hospitals are keeping the money, insurance rates are still going up at the same rate as prior years, and now lower middle-class young people that formerly opted out of health coverage, are mandated to buy it.

Its good for people like me, in my 50's, in our employer's group, as the average age of the population decreases, and my rates are then lower.

But, for those in their 20's and 30's, either single or with young families, they experience ENORMOUS inflation in their lives. Housing is very expensive, food is increasing in cost, health care is expensive and now mandated, education is very expensive, and wages aren't keeping up.

Again, the only solutions proposed are borrowing from the young, from the future (severely), to pay subsidies.

I think the Mittster is just recognizing that his base for the most part consists of those who (a) can pay their own health care expenses, and (b) who don't want to pay for anyone else's expenses, and (c) who aren't smart enough to figure out that they do pay for a lot of those other people's expenses in extremely inefficient ways.

And his funding and key political support comes from those who (a) can pay their own health care expenses, and (b) who don't want topay for anyone else's expenses, and (c) who don't care how inefficient the health care industry is as long as the health care industry can turn big profits.

President Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Thompson can reliably be counted on to be against whatever Clinton is for. Beyond that, if we total up their domestic and economic policy proposals, they intend to do almost nothing at all.

It seems inconceivable to a leftist that anyone could not support intensive control of American life at all levels by the government. Have the government do nothing? "Impossible!" says the Democrat. "Look at our websites. Unlike those stupid Republicans, we have plans covering page after page for how the government will handle anything you can think of. Have you seen our proposal for the carbon-offset fart license?"

The Democrats propose turning our health care over to the Federal government, with the inevitable controls over drug and facility prices, wages for doctors and others, and all the rest of provider costs. Profit will be replaced by politics.

As someone else said, if you think we'd be better off with our health care run by the same entity that runs the TSA, I can't help you.

Shorter Harry: My party is too incompetent to run TSA properly, so don't entrust us with health care. Harry, we don't plan to.

People have expressed some amazement and disgust with the weakness and silliness of the current crop of Republican candidates.

But the secret is simple: they are weak because they have nothing to say, and they have nothing to say because there exists no plausible story on any issue that they can grab a hold of to make themselves sound thoughtful and interesting. They are nothing but vague and evasive and foolish because, politically, they've got nothing.

The Republican Party is intellectually bankrupt in its full breadth and width. Every idea the right wing has ever had that ever resonated has been refuted by brutal experience.

Profit will be replaced by politics.

I think you mean profits at the expense of a massive number of uninsured and underinsured will be replaced by access to necessary healthcare for all Americans treated as a right.

It seems inconceivable to a leftist that anyone could not support intensive control of American life at all levels by the government.

The fact that you referenced the TSA refutes your contention that "only leftists could conceive" of intensive government control. Let's not forget the warrantless wiretapping and outrageous data mining by this Republican administration that you're in love with, as well as other dubious conservetard programs home of fevered dreams.

Yet another dopey, half-thought-out argument from tbrosz.

Add to that the fact that universal healthcare isn't "intensive control" any more than enjoying police or military protection is. Pissed that you're not able to hire your own private militia to protect you? Upset that the state keeps you from drinking unsafe water?

Might I also add that the government has succeeded in putting rockets into space where Rotary Rocket did not.

Let's also take a moment to acknowledge the terrible suffering of the Canadians at the hands of their intensive government healthcare.

Will no one rise up to liberate them from such tyranny?

harry, real problems call for real solutions, not your shopworn right-wing platitudes. If you can't contribute anything substantive to the discussion, then STFU.

Add to that the fact that universal healthcare isn't "intensive control" any more than enjoying police or military protection is. Pissed that you're not able to hire your own private militia to protect you?

This comparison is inane. Leaving aside that police and military have always been proper government functions, doctors, dentists, technicians, and other medical providers are private citizens. Police and soldiers are government employees, heavily restricted in their behavior and freedom of action on the job. If you proposing putting all medical providers into that category, we can go on from there.

Maybe then we can continue the comparision, and discuss military technology, development and spending as a shining example of low costs and efficient use of government funds.

If you can't contribute anything substantive to the discussion, then STFU.

Donald, of all the responses here, only two besides me amount to anything other than "Republicans suck." The ratio is a lot worse on other threads.

As someone else said, if you think we'd be better off with our health care run by the same entity that runs the TSA, I can't help you.

Harry inadvertently almost makes a good point. The sort of administration that thinks the TSA and its confiscation of nailclippers and soda pop are suitable safeguards against terrorism, would be an administration I wouldn't want to handle the health care problem.

But Harry, that's not an argument against providing healthcare to those that need it in an efficient manner. It's an argument against electing incompetent administrations.

Donald, of all the responses here, only two besides me amount to anything other than "Republicans suck."

Harry's right. By pointing out that the TSA was a stupid and incompetent response to the threat of terrorism and a prime example of incompetent leadership, Harry's comment only amounts to saying that Bush sucks.

You can't generalize from that to claiming that Republicans all suck. It's a good rule of thumb but not a valid generalization in all cases.

Well, to be fair, "market reforms" does cover what we need. We need to reform the market by getting the insurance companies out of the market.

Mission accomplished.

I'm just curious, now: other than making sure all the employees were unionized and pumping cash to the Democratic Party, how would a Democratic administration have handled airport security differently?

By NOT taking the job away from private security agencies and turning it over to a new powerful Federal authority? Right.

Go look at the Aviation Transportation and Security Act (S1447), and see who sponsored the bill and who co-sponsored it.

mystic dog, yes i can think of one republican who ran for president and had some substance about him. he died.

harry,

you know the government already provides health care to a considerable portion of the population. i assume you've heard of medicare. i don't think there are any republicans out there who would seriously consider doing away with the program. it works, and works fairly efficiently. the va system works well and the military itself provides health care to its members and their families in a fairly effective and efficient manner. to say government bad, market good is just plain silly, especially if it's your only argument against a particular program. if the market was the solution to the health care problem, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't be any problem to begin with. if you're going to argue against a greater role for government then please come up with something to back it up other than the tsa, for crying out loud.

On the wider issue, the MSM refuses to look into policy issues, instead prefering to concentrate on trivial matters.

If you want different policy proposals, or you want policy matters to be discussed at all, do this:

1. Go to campaign appearances.
2. Ask questions.
3. Upload the response.

Unfortunately, few are going to try to do that for reasons including the fear that something similar would happen to those they support.

However, Ron Paul supporters might actually do it, and in that case the GOP and Dem front runners are going to have a lot of explaining to do.

Mudwall:

You have a good point about Medicare working pretty well for the elderly, although I've heard horror stories from medical providers on the bureaucracy crap. I could make a case that heavy government support and other subsidies (public and private) for medical care is one reason the costs are going up, but that's another story.

Unfortunately, Medicare is going broke. In fact, in every CBO report or discussion of long-term budget issues in America, Medicare is always listed as the biggest hole in the bottom of the boat. That's only covering about 40 million elderly.

Covering the rest of 300 million people isn't going to be any cheaper. It isn't going to be eight times as expensive as Medicare--the elderly cost a lot more for medical care than the general population as a whole--but it isn't going to be cheaper. Canada spends an average of about $4,500 Canadian per capita on health care (about twice that for just the elderly). If we adopt a similar system, I doubt we'll get by too much cheaper.

This tallies up to about $1.3 trillion dollars a year for the population of the U.S.

We sure aren't going to be paying for this with cigarette taxes. Or by quitting in Iraq and redirecting that entire amount into health care. Or just by raising taxes on the rich.

Raise payroll taxes to cover this and Americans will march on Washington and burn it to the ground. Explaining to them that employers are already paying this now as part of their cost of employment isn't going to sell.

If we absolutely have to go down this drain, the only way to do it with minimum financial disruption is by figuring out a way to tax the businesses that are paying for the medical insurance already, and hope that it's mostly a wash. Somebody needs to do the numbers.

I thought maybe Meyerson was being unfair. So I went to Mitt Romney's website to look at his healthcare plan. Here it is: "The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms." That's the whole thing. The rest of the page has a pair of quotes from two years ago, a single short video taken at a campaign event, and a couple of outside links. Sounds like it's a real priority for him, isn't it?

That's like just getting a card from your s.o. on Christmas. Wow, thanks for the card!

Meyerson's concept of "doing something" amounts to expansion of government. From his POV, even though the federal government already does a stupendous amount of things, if they simply comtinue doing what they're doing, that would amount to not doing anything. It's a one-way ratchet toward bigger and bigger government.

Unfortunately, that attitude is widespread at all levels of government. I think many Americans (and most Republicans) would like to see the government do a bit less. Many of us believe that bigger government generally correlates with less personal freedom.

I also think that for the majority of Americans, the area where they most want the government to "do something" would be to defeat Islamic terrorism. After all, "to...provide for the common defense" is in the first sentence of the Constitution, On this particular issue, it's the Dems who seem less interested in "doing something."

I also think that for the majority of Americans, the area where they most want the government to "do something" would be to defeat Islamic terrorism.

We get it...you are scared shitless. And I notice that the Constitution is a handy little figleaf for you - you are totally cool with the abrogation of the Constitution, but if you can use it to engage in a bit o' warmongering, then you will trot it right on out with a big red bow! What a loathsome toad you are...

harry and ex-lib seem to think they can grind people down with their stupidity. Look. Look across yer frickin' borders in any direction. Take your choice of any frickin' system. They all work better than yours. And spare me the crap about how your research subsidizes us all. It don't.

Your choice to argue from ignorance when you don't have to be ignorant speaks volumes. And it's frickin' tiresome. Go back and spend your time reading over any of the health threads of the past three years... nah, all of them and spare the rest of us your patent idiocies. You have no, no idea how utterly foolish and moronic your arguments look to anyone who has lived under a universal healthcare system. Please take my advice and save yourself future embarrassment.

common defense

is this what your country is busy doing in Iraq? Oh, my.

But it's the Democrats who are bereft of ideas and who simply wish to pick fights, right? RIGHT? Because that's the way it's been for years now.

The rightards still don't understand that they're currently paying for the health care of other already -- since the uninsured still need care, but have no way to pay for it, we all wind up paying through higher costs.

Maybe they can also show us a single plan by a legit liberal candidate that wants to put controls on how much doctors earn (harry's claim).

And why don't they think ensuring the good health of every citizen is a national security issue? It most certainly is, no matter how you look at it (ex-liberal's claim).

I guess throwing out lies and using a narrow world view to form a narrow definition of a large problem is par for the course.

It's just sad they're much more willing to put some false ideology above the needs of society. How very selfish.

"Meyerson's concept of 'doing something' amounts to expansion of government."

Nice ... an ad hominem attack, a strawman argument, and an attempt to change the subject all in one. Got anything substantive to say?

"I think many Americans (and most Republicans) would like to see the government do a bit less."

Since a) this point is irrelevant to the discussion and b) you cannot back it up, forgive us if we don't take this tripe any more seriously than we do the rest of your bilge.

"Many of us believe that bigger government generally correlates with less personal freedom."

LOL.... Many of you are batshit insane, too, dear.

"On this particular issue, it's the Dems who seem less interested in 'doing something.'"

ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, considering that the Republican Party's idea of "doing something" has come damn close to breaking our military, cost us in the trillions of dollars, and had the net effect of making us less safe, forgive us if we take this as the mindless partisan drivel that it is.

Back on topic, the interesting thing is that this was always true. See, for example, George Bush's campaigns in 2000 and 2004. Why is it only now that it's getting attention?

"You have a good point about Medicare working pretty well for the elderly, although I've heard horror stories from medical providers on the bureaucracy crap."

Dear heart, those same providers, and even more patients, can tell you hair-raising horror stories about dealing with the bureaucracy of private insurance companies and HMOs, as well. Did you have a point?

"I could make a case that heavy government support and other subsidies (public and private) for medical care is one reason the costs are going up, but that's another story."

Well, no, actually you cannot make that point, mostly because it's not true, which is why you don't even bother to try to support this assertion, any more than you do the rest of your silly assertions.

"Covering the rest of 300 million people isn't going to be any cheaper."

It's going to be cheaper than what we're paying now, dear, which is why it's eventually going to happen.

"If we adopt a similar system, I doubt we'll get by too much cheaper."

It will still be cheaper than what we pay now, dear, and will provide better outcomes.

"Raise payroll taxes to cover this and Americans will march on Washington and burn it to the ground."

ROFLMAO... Sorry, dear, but the American taxpayer is quite willing to pay for "socialized medicine," as poll after poll demonstrates. Your fantasies about taxpayer revolts are just that -- fantasies.

This tallies up to about $1.3 trillion dollars a year for the population of the U.S.

We sure aren't going to be paying for this with cigarette taxes. Or by quitting in Iraq and redirecting that entire amount into health care. Or just by raising taxes on the rich.

The US currently spends in the neighborhood of $1.7 trillion annually on healthcare, about 55% of which is private expenditures. So, all that is needed is redirecting the current public expendituers into one common system, and the new taxes that will be $400 billion less than the private costs now; if you distribute those taxes approximately the same way the private costs are now distributed, that means that everyone pays less than they do now, and everyone is covered.

Or everyone pays the same, and you spend the extra $1,000+ per capita per year to provide even better service. `

….Many of us believe that bigger government generally correlates with less personal freedom….ex-lax at 1:55 AM

Since the Bush regime had zero interest in providing for defense when warned repeatedly about the threat of a terrorist act, your pandering is even sillier and your whining about Islamic terrorism even funnier.

You can stop wondering why you are considered to be a clownish hypocrite.