In The Blogs

Righteous Anger

| Wed Jul. 22, 2009 9:38 AM PDT

It's true, as Josh Marshall said yesterday, that the political and institutional landscape is more receptive to healthcare reform this year than it was in 1994. We have bigger majorities in Congress; the GOP is in tatters; the HMO revolution has failed; the AMA and the hospital industry are willing to play ball; unions are working with us; business opposition is far more muted; and Obama's legislative strategy is more sophisticated than Clinton's.

Oh, and the public mood is more favorable to healthcare reform too. Right? Bob Somerby doesn't think so:

In fact, the Democrats “went into this round” with a public which is massively clueless about health care reform — and massively lacking in righteous anger, in angry desire for change....Real progressives would work for years — for decades — to develop public understanding and anger about such complex affairs. It takes a long, aggressive struggle to develop progressive political frameworks. As Krugman explained, the other side has pimped its poll-tested narratives down through all those years. But our own denatured “liberal leaders” are too fat and happy to fight against that. When have you ever seen them fight to develop a winning politics about anything known to this earth?

I'm not quite that gloomy, but I think Bob is basically right. Sure, if you take a survey and ask people if they "support healthcare reform," a large majority will say yes. But while that may be better than a large majority saying no, it's mostly meaningless. Most repondents haven't thought about it much, don't really know what healthcare "reform" is, and will switch views in a millisecond once they see a single TV attack ad. What you need isn't people willing to murmur yes to a pollster, it's people pissed off enough to inundate their congressmen with phone calls. But we don't have that.

Even though it's an even day and I'm supposed to be pessimistic about healthcare, I still think it's more likely than not that we'll get a fairly decent bill passed this year. Call it 60-40, maybe a little better. But the odds would be a lot shorter if liberals had done a better job over the past decade of getting middle class voters as angry about their healthcare as they get over, say, a pothole outside their front door. Note to Dems: it's still not too late.

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

Where's Obamanation?

Submitted by Model 62 on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 9:47 AM PDT.

All that networking and energy and grassrootsiness developed during the campaign... I figured an Obama Administration would keep those folks busy for a while putting pressure on Congress to see his agenda through.

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

As usual, liberals like Drum

Submitted by MacGruber on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 9:54 AM PDT.

As usual, liberals like Drum and Krugman think the average American voter is dumb: he/she requires a long progressive struggle to be convinced that the liberal proposition is correct and needed.

Unfortunately for liberals like Drum and Krugman, the average American voter is not dumb. He/she knows a socialist, pork-laden, big government disaster when he/she sees it.

To wit: audiences were laughing - laughing - at Democrat Rep. Russ Carnahan of Missouri as Carnahan tried to describe the benefits of the government health care plan. At the end, a member of the audience asked Carhanan if the government plan was so good, then why isn't Congress part of it?

Good question. If the Democrats are giving us some great utopian health care plan, then why did they actively exempt themselves from it?

The whole health care plan stinks and the American voter knows it. Medicaid is a money pit and Medicare is fraught with abuse, fraud and poor payment structure. Yet somehow, these are the paragons for the new plan.

Good luck, libs, with trying to force this down the throat of the electorate. You know the plan stinks when the Democrats in Congress and Obama are trying to get it quickly passed without, you know, actually reviewing the bill or laying out the details, the framework, of how this new system will work.

I find it kind of amusing

Submitted by scottp (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 12:11 PM PDT.

I find it kind of amusing that your response is laden with poll-tested Republican talking points that the GOP has been hammering into your head for years. Instead of refuting Kevin's argument, you're an illustration of it.

leadership

Submitted by Everett (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:12 AM PDT.

The Democratic congress and President would have an easier time of it if they would agree to live under the same system they are designing for the rest of us plebians.

It's the difference between yelling "Follow Me!" and "Charge!"

Everett

The public understands more

Submitted by urban legend on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:18 AM PDT.

The public understands more than the liberal experts what is needed. It's very simple: they need to be protected against financial disaster from loss of a job and loss of insurance -- and that requires complete universality, which only the government can do -- and they need to be able to get lower-cost insurance against other unexpected but theoretically manageable expenses regardless of pre-existing conditions. Solve those two problems -- and the simple way to do it is as obvious as the noses in front of our faces -- and we have a political winner. Complexity is the enemy of everything. Unfortunately, the experts only know complexity, and Obama has not realized that yet.

MacGruber may be stupid, but he's slow

Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:23 AM PDT.

MacGruber wrote: "... if the government plan was so good, then why isn't Congress part of it?"

Members of Congress already have government-provided health insurance, dumbass.

separate but equal

Submitted by Everett (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 12:06 PM PDT.

SA,

I suppose your point is that the new health care system is really equivalent to that of our congressmen. If that really were true, then why would there be a need for two separate systems?

Selling a system that is "separate but equal" is no more effective in health care than it is in public schools.

Time for Democrats to emphasize fear

Submitted by David in Ny (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:25 AM PDT.

I'm with urban legend. What sends chills down people's spine is the phrase "lost their health coverage." And with the job situation today, that could apply to everyone. Doesn't require anger -- fear will do fine, and there's lots to go around.

And why do wingnuts (see above) think ad hominem attacks -- if you toss in the word "libs" -- are a response to everything? Sheesh.

Don't worry, Urban Legend...

Submitted by Davis X. Machina on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:27 AM PDT.

...when Obama, or somebody, finally does understand what is necessary, rest assured that MacGruber, and the people who feed him his lines, will make sure you don't get it. 'Liberal experts' are the least of your problems.

Good point.

Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:28 AM PDT.

Everett wrote: "The Democratic congress and President would have an easier time of it if they would agree to live under the same system they are designing for the rest of us plebians."

Yeah -- how come every member of Congress gets to have SINGLE-PAYER nonprofit health insurance under open, accountable, efficient public administration, while that option is "off the table" for the rest of us, who are stuck paying huge premiums to the for-profit insurance corporations who then deny us the coverage that we have paid for when we need it, so their corporate CEOs can be paid tens of millions of dollars per year and fly around in corporate jets eating gourmet feasts from gold-trimmed China?

What does the public option

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:31 AM PDT.

What does the public option do to make my insurance safe during job loss?

Why aren't we pushing Ron Wyden's health plan?

Why aren't we pushing security of health insurance more?

I would add that there is

Submitted by urban legend on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:31 AM PDT.

I would add that there is not one single American except possibly a Supreme Court Justice with a lifetime appointment "satisfied" with insurance he or she gets through the workplace. The fact that they could lose it tomorrow, with no chance of getting anything new if they've ever had an ingrown toenail, is enough to make it, well, unsatisfactory. People holding onto jobs by their fingernails for the benefits? What an obscenity.

Trying to "build" on the existing system of employer-sponsored insurance, and doubling down on that seriously flawed system by effectively forcing employers to provide it, has been a serious mistake. Take unpredictable worst-case scenarios out of the hands of profit-taking enterprises with uncertain risks, and off the backs of employers, and we have a 95% social and political solution in hand.

The vapidity of MacGruber's liberal-bashing

Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 10:35 AM PDT.

David in NY wrote: "And why do wingnuts (see above) think ad hominem attacks -- if you toss in the word 'libs' -- are a response to everything?"

Well, what MacGruber is doing is not really an ad hominem, which is a classical rhetorical fallacy that's quite beyond his intellectual capacity to employ -- he just uses the word "liberal" as an insult.

Why? Because the fake, phony, corporate-sponsored, pseudo-ideological cult of "conservatism" to which he is mentally enslaved has no real content except hatred of "liberals" -- just as the pseudo-ideology of mid-1930s German brownshirts had no real content except hatred of "Jews".

Try an experiment: take any random rant by any random Dumbass Ditto-Head like MacGruber and substitute the word "Jews" for "liberals" each time it appears. It's very revealing.

getting serious for a minute

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:10 AM PDT.

I just hope that when the bullets start flying they won't be aimed exclusively at liberals.

Part of the problem about

Submitted by John G. (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:24 AM PDT.

Part of the problem about stoking anger about the need for reform, is that most people ARE satisfied with their current plans, whether they've had to use it or not.

The problem is the complexity of their plans, the aggravation of paperwork, being put on hold, the time it takes, etc. That's true with ANY plan you have.

Do you really believe that the American people will say "hey, a massive federal bureaucracy as an option for healthcare might be the way to go for me and my family"?? Have you seen the government run ANYTHING with efficiency and convenience? Not to mention the waste and the money it will cost. And the small businesses that will get squeezed, and I believe the House bill has a provision that you will pay a "fee" for NOT having insurance.

The president campaigned on transparency. The Congress and the White House are NOT being transparent about what's coming down the pike, instead we're just getting dribs and drabs about what it entails, and Americans are not liking it one bit.

And if the plan won't be fully implemented until 2012 as the latest incarnation says, what's the rush to have a bill by the recess? Obama is coming across as a pedestrian here...

Have you seen the government run ANYTHING with efficiency and co

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 12:01 PM PDT.

Conrail, United States Railroad Administration. The former was a deteriorated infrastructure of failing private enterprise, rebuilt by a government bureaucracy staffed by government bureaucrats, turned into a highly profitable enterprise which generated a tremendous bidding war when it was finally put up for sale. It was sold at at huge profit to the taxpayer after operating for some years at a profit.

If I had to choose

Submitted by Heiuan on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 1:12 PM PDT.

between incompetencies, I'd rather have the one that didn't insult me by costing a me an arm and a leg every payroll. Private insurance companies exist to make a profit. I don't object to that, but obscene premiums MUST come down.

Why does health insurance cost any more than homeowner's insurance? I can insure my house w/ $250K coverage for less than $2K a year. Why can't I find a comparable family health plan for less than $12K? The health insurance industry and their supporters (of both parties) cry foul any time health reform is attempted, but yet still post huge profits year after year after year. If the danged companies quit gouging people with horrendous premiums, then we wouldn't be kvetching about it.

How can the companies justify these premiums? It doesn't make sense unless every person who pays for insurance costs the insurer almost as much as the insurer receives in premiums. That doesn't happen.

If the public option comes out of Congress giving me the same level of coverage and service as the private insurance companies, but will cost me considerably less, then I'll take it. At least it would be a start and we could work from there. If BC/BS and its brethren want to continue to gouge me, then I'll just follow market dictates and take my premium payments elsewhere. At least with the public option, I may actually have something other than a Hobson's choice.

Part of the problem about

Submitted by John G. (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:25 AM PDT.

Part of the problem about stoking anger about the need for reform, is that most people ARE satisfied with their current plans, whether they've had to use it or not.

The problem is the complexity of their plans, the aggravation of paperwork, being put on hold, the time it takes, etc. That's true with ANY plan you have.

And if the plan won't be fully implemented until 2012 as the latest incarnation says, what's the rush to have a bill by the recess? Obama is coming across as a pedestrian here...

Don't let yourself be confused by facts, John G.

Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:38 AM PDT.

John G. wrote: "Do you really believe that the American people will say 'hey, a massive federal bureaucracy as an option for healthcare might be the way to go for me and my family'?? Have you seen the government run ANYTHING with efficiency and convenience?"

Both Medicare and the VA health care system are far more efficient and have far less bureaucratic overhead than the for-profit insurance corporations, John. And have higher customer satisfaction ratings and better health outcomes as well.

Do YOU really believe that the American people are saying "Hey, I'm glad to have an insurance corporation charge sky-high premiums that are bankrupting my family and/or my small business, and then turn around and deny coverage for the care that I need and have paid for with those premiums, so that the insurance company CEO can be paid thirty million dollars per year and ride around in a corporate jet eating gourmet feasts from gold-plated china"?

You seriously described

Submitted by John G. (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:52 AM PDT.

You seriously described Medicare, a program that is about to run in the red in less than 20 years, an "efficient" program? Medicare still sends paperwork to my grandmother's address and she passed on in 1997. Real efficient.

Please tell me there's more to the health care reform argument than saying "hey, medicare works great"....please??

I'm hoping that there is no

Submitted by Trippp on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:40 AM PDT.

I'm hoping that there is no great need for years of nurturing righteous anger. I'm hoping enough people have had personal experience with how BAD it is working with our existing health care insurance and as stated above how crappy it is to be locked into certain jobs because of it.

Shoot, I think it is only the insurance people and their lackeys that like the current system.

Businesses don't like the hassle, small businesses really don't like it, workers don't like it, Doctor's don't like it, and neither do the other health care providers.

I am currently fighting to get a claim re-imbursed that is nearly a year old. The amount is relatively minor, about $1200, but dammit it should be covered under my existing insurance.

The insurance provider will not reject the claim, they simply say they need more information before they can process the claim. The medical provider says they must receive a request for that information before they give it out.

If this was TCP/IP it would be the classic deadlock of both parties being in receive state with no timers running.

Arg! I have had verbal assurances and reassurances from the insurance company that the proper paperwork will be sent to break this dead lock and so far every verbal commitment has been reneged upon. Now I'm starting to get things in writing, and I am starting the appeal process on this claim.

Personally I have righteous anger and I do not think I am the only one.

Doing away with health insurance would be the biggest blessing since they prohibited telemarketing. Our current system is bureaucracy at its worst!

Tripp

If somebody would let

Submitted by David in NY (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:48 AM PDT.

If somebody would let Americans know how good other people in the world have it, they'd have no problem with a single payer plan, at least of the kind they have in France. It is so wonderful to get medical care there without the worry that you'll be broke. I've been hospitalized while on vacation, had no other insurance, was desperately worried I'd owe money I couldn't pay, and I walked out without paying a cent (in another case, where just a doctor's visit was necessary, I paid 10-15 dollars). What's so wrong with that? They don't seem to be crushed by taxes.

Trippp -- your insurer has

Submitted by Barbara (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:49 AM PDT.

Trippp -- your insurer has constructively denied your claim and you should proceed as if it has been denied.

SecularAnimist, stick to

Submitted by MacGruber on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 12:17 PM PDT.

SecularAnimist, stick to flinging pathetic insults in the "global warming" threads. You truly are a dumb shit (ad hom for you right there): Congress does not have a single-payer, non-profit system.

They are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). It is not single payer. It is not non-profit.

Look it up, lazy ass.

MacGruber, you are in arrear on evidence

Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 12:37 PM PDT.

Hey MacGruber, where is the evidence for your recent claim that on the occasion of Senator Franken's election '25% of the Minnesota precincts had more ballots cast than eligible voters'?

Or is it OK that we call you a serial liar?

People are satisfied with their policies ...

Submitted by Michael Carpet (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 12:23 PM PDT.

... but, apparently, only if they haven't used them. My son fell ill in Wales back in the 1990s, so we took him to the doctor. When we asked what we owed, he looked at us like we were bugs and said that the national health care took care of the cost. The key is taking the profit out of the medical industry.

Hey

Submitted by MacGruber on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 12:52 PM PDT.

Hey SRW1:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

http://hometownsource.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9309...

Voting irregularities that harm liberals and Democrats are to be scrupulously investigated. Voting irregularities that harm conservatives and Republicans are swept under the rug.

How did Coleman go from a 775 margin over Franken to only 215 after the first recount and then, eventually, losing?

How does that happen?

MacGruber does make stuff up

Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 6:12 PM PDT.

OK MacGruber, I took the trouble to check out your sources and did some further research on your claim of massive voter fraud in Minnesota during the November 2008 election. The following is my summary of what came up.

In May of 2009 a Republican outfit, itself accused of voter suppression, files a law suit against the Minnesota Secretary of State and a bunch of county officials in which it is alleged that the voter database for the state of Minnesota has not been updated in a timely fashion after the 2008 election as required by federal law. The law suit is accompanied by a press release from the same Republican outfit. In the press release they throw around a bunch of numbers, but essentially claim to have discovered as a result of their own research what they 'perceive' (interesting choice of words here) to be a discrepancy of 400,000 votes (ie 13.8 % of the total of 2.9 Mio votes cast) between the voter database and the State Canvassing Board Report for the 2008 election.

In response to the law suit, the Democratic Secretary of State in Minnesota says that there never will be a perfect correlation between the database and the canvassing board report and states that the ongoing maintenance work has narrowed the discrepancy in May of 2009 to 30,000. His spokesperson goes on to say that the so-called analysis of the Republican outfit is flawed, as it misses the data from an entire Congressional District, (of which Minnesota has eight, ie one district represents approx 12.5% of the total state electorate). He furthermore points out that the previous Secretary of State, Republican by party affiliation and famously rabid at that, appears to have made no attempt to resolve the discrepancy after the 2004 election to any number better than 50,000 and that after the election of 2008 election officials had been inundated with thousands of requests related to an ongoing US Senate recount (sound familiar?).

Presumably feeling slightly sheepish, the Republican outfit then decides to modify the number in its lawsuit from 400,000 to the 30,000 the Secretary of State had sated in its response, additionally emphasizing the exact number of unverified ballots to be less important than the fact of election officials not being in compliance with the law.

So much for the background. Now, the question as to how much of a discrepancy between voter database and canvassing report may represent a tolerable number is well worth a discussion for the people of Minnesota (and beyond), especially in light of the close decision between Franken and Coleman. What is not worth a discussion however, is whether this story represents a basis for the claim of our dear friend MacGruber that “25% of the Minnesota precincts had more ballots cast than eligible voters'.

What has to be most ridiculous in MacGrubers allegation is the inherent proposition of the Franken and Coleman camps having haggled for months over a few hundreds of votes in and out of court, all the while this massive voter fraud was starring them in the face. Yet Norm Coleman, as well as all of his lawyers and advisors, stupid guys that they are, totally missed that clear piece of evidence for systematic voter fraud and therefore failed to bring it to the attention of the public and the courts. And its not poor old Norman and his immediate circle of supporters alone. To this very day the corresponding RNC web page reports the total number of known cases of voter fraud in Minnesota as: zero, nada, zilch (www.gop.com/Minnesota.htm).

Conclusion: The accusation that our dear friend MacGruber is making up stuff out of thin air is well warranted. As a consequence, the stuff he writes does not merit bothering with. At least I'm done with it.

Let's cut to the chase

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 1:22 PM PDT.

Some services don't belong in the private sector--education, criminal justice, libraries, mental health, and health care come to mind.

The profit motive in these areas is an invitation to potential abuse.

Thus, we do not need insurance companies. They serve no purpose whatsoever.

They are artificial barriers between patient and doctor/hospital, a way to skim off the cream and divert it to investors before the moola reaches health care providers.

Again, let's cut to the chase: no insurance companies.

The Kennedy Problem

Submitted by santamonicamr (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 1:48 PM PDT.

Kevin, you may be right, but I think this has to be put in the context of what we can call the "Kennedy problem." No, not Teddy: Tony. Passing health care reform is like winning in the Supreme Court. I don't care what your position is or how brilliant you are; if you don't win Tony Kennedy over, you'll lose. Last year, he was in the majority 92% of the time; he was in the majority in 18 of 23 5-4 cases.

So too in health care reform. All that matters ultimately is what a couple of folks think. Ben Nelson. Chuck Grassley. Olympia Snowe. If they're OK with it, we'll get it. We may even get something good. If they're not, we probably won't. I don't really see the role of an informed, outraged public here. A thought experiment: if true health care reform could be passed with 50 votes in the Senate, would its prospects be the worse right now because we haven't educated the public as Somerby wants? I doubt it.

So we'll either get or not get health care based on what a couple Senators think. Pretty much end of story. But that's good news. We're getting some pretty good legislation put together. We have very smart and savvy people who know Congress in the White House. It's not impossible to win these swing Senators over. And health care reform that passes even without the mob in the streets with pitchforks demanding it is still health reform.

Dumbass Ditto-Head MacGruber's 'evidence'

Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 2:08 PM PDT.

SRW1 wrote: "MacGruber, you are in arrear on evidence ..."

MacGruber doesn't do "evidence". He regurgitates whatever bullshit some corporation decides to pay Rush Limbaugh to spoon-feed him. If Rush says it, that's all the "evidence" a Ditto-Head like MacGruber needs.

For example, he complains that the Congress wants to "force" the American people to accept a health insurance system based on managed competition, including a nonprofit public option, rather than allowing the American people to have what members of Congress have, which is a system based on managed competition, including nonprofit public options.

He spouts nonsensical ignorant drivel and when he's called on it, he whines about "ad hominems" and spouts even more nonsensical ignorant drivel.

Ditto-Head "evidence"

Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 2:37 PM PDT.

MacGruber wrote: "Voting irregularities that harm conservatives and Republicans are swept under the rug."

Yep. And that's how George W. Bush became president.

Keep on clowning, little Ditto-Head.

SA, for the love of your

Submitted by MacGruber on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 5:33 PM PDT.

SA, for the love of your Flying Spaghetti Monster, drop the 2000 elections. Al Gore fought it to the highest court in the land and on each and every stop before that, he was found to have lost. The SCOTUS deemed he lost. And that was with the nation watching as a bunch of workers laboriously analyzed each and every ballot, looking for "hanging chads."

Democrats won in Minnesota without nearly as much press or scrutiny on their ballot problems.

If the DOJ had any balls, they indict ACORN on RICO charges. ACORN has been in under investigation in how many states? How many fake or improper registrations did they set up on behalf of Democrats?

Speaking of DOJ, they refuse to go to trial in the famous New Black Panther voter intimidation case. It was a no-brainer: no way DOJ could lose. Hell, you could see evidence of intimidation on YouTube. Nope. Holder let the NBP walk away after intimidating white people at the ballot box.

How many state electoral officials worked their asses off to ensure military write-in ballots weren't counted? Last count: at least three.

How about Mr. Pay-to-Play, Blagovich?

SA, the Democrats have been and always corrupt when it comes to rigging elections. Buying out unions. Anything to win.

MacGruber the troll

Submitted by Trippp on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 5:45 PM PDT.

Now you have proven you are a troll. I happen to live in MN and I happened to watch the local part of the recount in person and I also watched much of the rest of the process on TV. The entire process was open and above board and members of each party watched everything every step of the way.

Read the FiveThirtyEight blog if you want to educate yourself. The short answer is that a recount was required by law, but at that time Coleman tried to get Franken to concede before the recount could begin. The recount process discovered uncounted ballots, valid ballots, that gave Franken the lead. Now how do you think those ballots, from a mostly Democratic district, were initially 'misplaced?' Maybe it was an honest mistake, I dunno. I do know that Coleman and the Republican lawyers accepted those ballots as valid votes, but since that put them behind they wanted to get more ballots counted. Those were the absentee ballots that were initially denied because they had identifying marks on them, making them invalid. You see, Minnesota law says if a ballot has an identifying mark it is invalid to prevent vote buying. Some people mailed in their absentee ballots in an envelope that had a return address on it. During the recount process the courts allowed both Coleman and Franken to identify which absentee envelopes should be opened and the vote counted. Coleman took a chance and asked for a bunch of the absentee ballots but that put him further behind. Still Coleman did not give up, and he took the case to the Minnesota Supreme court claiming that even though he personally got to decide which rejected absentee votes to include in the recount the standards for rejecting absentee ballots were not consistently followed and so the entire election results must be thrown out. He was unable to prove his case, and the vote counting was over. In case you hadn't noticed - Coleman conceded. And yet, after all this cost, all this openness, and after your candidate conceded you are still trying to puff up a controversy over this.

Why heavens, I'm sure the Minnesota Supreme Court and the Minnesota Republican Governor and Republican Norm Coleman and all the Minnesota citizens will arise as one and proclaim that since an internet troll has suggested the election was a fraud we will all do it over again just to please you.

Yeah, sure.

I've stopped reading your comments. You are a troll and nothing more.

Tripp

Incrementalism is not necessarily a betrayal

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Jul. 22, 2009 11:34 PM PDT.

In all the smear ads featuring Canadian victims of a single payer system and the torqued "news" items and commentary on that system as it is today, there is one thing you will not hear. That's the fact that it was built incrementally in a series of steps over many years. And in fact, some of the steps were introduced by conservative governments faced with compelling cost reasons to get with the plan. Why not start out with a politically palatable initial stage with blended private and public insurance components, then move forward later citing the obvious waste and duplication the initial stage will show for all to see. You could even have a unified plan administered by a for-profit entity and not the government if you cared to. British Columbia employs such a company presently and while I would personally not recommend this way to proceed, it can be done and it does seem to work. In doing it this way, the public portion of the medical services sector can actually be made to shrink quite dramatically since in many locations with large group practices all the records are already stored and consulted electronically, even x-rays and diagnostic test materials, and essentially there are no paper forms to be filled in at all. In addition to the obvious efficiency advantages such a system entails, there are statistical and scientific advantages as well since one can detect clusters of illness on the fly as it were as the electronic case documentation flows by. Since the scripts are entered into the system as well, one could also detect unusual prescribing practices and the untimely use of brand name drugs instead of generics. Just a few examples what can arise out of a well run single payer system that's fully converted to databased operation. I suspect the US is many years away from such a fully ramified delivery system but there is no harm in taking a couple of small steps in the right direction initially.

Tripp - I could care less

Submitted by MacGruber on Thu Jul. 23, 2009 6:12 AM PDT.

Tripp - I could care less what you do. You and SA can whine and cry about the supposed "stolen" 2000 election, but the facts and data against Al Gore are even greater than the Franken/Coleman election. But that doesn't stop you or any other liberal cry about that.

I notice you don't even touch ACORN or the other examples. Because you can't. But go ahead, please wave me off as a troll. Just as I wave you and SecularAnimist off as merely cogs in the Democratic machine. Do your duty, spread your propoganda. Global Warming! Diebold! Universal Health Care! More taxes! BushMcChimpyHitlerHalliburton!

Poor little Ditto-Head

Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Thu Jul. 23, 2009 7:53 AM PDT.

Dumbass Ditto-Head MacGruber wrote: "Al Gore fought it to the highest court in the land and on each and every stop before that, he was found to have lost."

It's always hard to tell with you whether you are deliberately and knowingly lying, or whether you are just a weak-minded ignorant stooge repeating the lies that have been spoon-fed to you by the phony-baloney, so-called "conservative" media.

The campaign of George W. Bush was the first one to go to court over the 2000 election, not the campaign of Al Gore.

And the campaign of George W. Bush was the one that "fought" the case all the way to the Supreme Court, not the campaign of Al Gore.

And on each and every stop before the Supreme Court, the Florida courts ruled in Al Gore's favor. That's why there were recounts going on, dumbass. In point of obvious fact, it was the ruling of the state supreme court of Florida in Gore's favor that prompted the Bush campaign to appeal to the US Supreme Court seeking to prevent all the legally cast ballots in Florida from being counted in accordance with long-established Florida election law.

And of course, that all happened AFTER Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Florida Secretary of State (and chair of the Bush campaign in Florida!) Katherine Harris had successfully conspired to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible African-American, Democratic voters by falsely identifying them as "felons" and purging them from the rolls.

The fact is, that once all the legally cast ballots were counted, they showed that Gore won Florida. Period.

The fact is, that if the criminals Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris had not disenfranchised voters with fraudulent purges, Gore would have won Florida by tens of thousands of votes.

But that's OK, little Ditto-Head. You just go on fantasizing about the ACORN Black Panther Islamofascist Feminazi Enviro-Whacko Commie boogeymen hiding under your bed, conspiring to pollute your precious bodily fluids with flouride.

You are really a total clown.

SA - dude, give it up. Even

Submitted by MacGruber on Thu Jul. 23, 2009 8:18 AM PDT.

SA - dude, give it up. Even Gore eventually realized he lost Florida. It is funny, though, how recounts always show more and more votes for the Democratic candidate. I wonder how that happens.

Go back to your commune and whine some more.