Presidential Speech on Health Care Reform

I will be honest, I am finding it hard to comment on the substance of what the president said last night mainly do to the unctuous behavior of the republican caucus last night. That is truly sad because there were some noteworthy subjects talked about during the speech. But, that being said, I do not think I have seen a more uncivil, peevish bunch, revel in their perceived sanctimony then last night.

Say what you will about the right and the left, being equivalent in their ridiculousness. That is just not the case. It is hard to overstate the levels to which the GOP has sunk. Imagine what would have happened if Dennis Kucinich had made catcalls during President Bushes remarks? He would have been labeled a terrorist, treason charges would have been bandied about and the like.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), is a ignorant know-nothing. He evidently can not read a bill. I hope, nay, it is my most fervent desire that Speaker of the House Pelosi absolutely censure his prevaricating ass.

Now on to the speech it self. I thought it was a good speech. The president showed some fire, and most of his information seemed to match up with independent analysis of the health care debate. If there was one thing that stood out the most to me though, was that this speech was as full-throated a defense of liberalism as I have seen in the public square.

In particular this bit toward the end grabbed my attention.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that is who we are.

This has been a long time in coming. Government intervention is not always a bad thing. Sometimes, it is an effective corrective. Reaganism as an ideology leads to bad government. It needs to be given the long kiss goodnight it has deserved for over a decade.

But that is a different argument.

If you have not I do highly recommend tracking down the speech it is worth a watch. If I get a version I will link it here.

-Cheers

Speechifying and Stuff...

Presidential address to both houses of Congress. You should watch (8 PM EST).

But in the mean time, here is something to read that should be more widely talked about.

The Supreme Court could radically alter the way elections are run and funded in this country.

So it is worth noticing what they are talking about.

-Cheers

Douche-Bag of the Day

Now with the current hackery going on with the health care debate, there are many, many, many candidates for douche-bag honors, but sadly in a slight change of pace I will have to give the nod to State Rep. Michael Duvall (R-CA).

Normally I do not comment on the peccadilloes of politicians unless it is illegal (child, goat, or dead prostitute), but the rank hypocrisy of Mr. Duvall is just jaw dropping.

Now Mr. Duvall is a crusading member of the California legislature, a major proponent of his view of family values and conservative social mores.

But evidently he is also a bit of a braggart as well. It would seem that while waiting for the beginning of a legislative meeting. The married, father of two, decided to regale his colleague with tales of his sexual prowess with two separate young ladies. Who I might add were not his wife.

Again normally I would not even care or comment about this. After all, this is truly a family issue, between he and his wife. But the statements that were recorded were just too salacious not to comment on! To quote:

She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!

I am honestly curious about these "eye-patch" underwear. They sound mighty uncomfortable.

Congratulations Rep. Duvall. You are the douche-bag of the day!

-Cheers

Mama said wonk you out

*Apologies to Ezra Klein for the blatant theft.

So over the last few weeks, health care has dominated the public discourse. Or I guess a more accurate representation would be that the health care debate has dominated the national discourse.

Acrimony and vituperation has categorized that discussion as of late. In general there seems to be little understanding of how our health care system actually works. So I decided to do some homework on the subject.

Today I decided to look into the subject of "tort reform".

A common refrain from right/GOP is that medical malpractice is a consequential driving force on the upward movement of health care costs. And if I was doing what is commonly done on the teevee machine, then I would not point out that all available information paints this statement in a bad light.

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) a non-partisan organization, which has in it auspices the duty to score governmental spending, looked at the issue in some detail. And what they found was this.

Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.⁽³⁾

Case closed right? Not really. Further they go on to state this.

Advocates or opponents cite other possible effects of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent to which physicians practice "defensive medicine" by conducting excessive procedures; preventing widespread problems of access to health care; or conversely, increasing medical injuries. However, evidence for those other effects is weak or inconclusive.

The problem with medical malpractice is that it is a complicated issue.

To society in general it is a valuable corrective. There must be some recourse of individuals done harm.

But at least, in regards to practicing doctors, their motivation can be equally persuasive. Even though the cases of malpractice litigation are rare, the fear and the personally deleterious effect on the physician are quite real. Even if there is a 1 in 10 chance of litigation the resulting suit may well cost the physician his practice or just be financially ruinous. These are real concerns and I do not want to minimize them.

The problem is more the perception of "tort reform". People believe, devoid of any statical evidence, that there is an epidemic of malpractice suit abuse. When in actuality the opposite is true.

"Thirty years of inflation-adjusted data show that medical malpractice premiums are the lowest they have been in this entire period. This is in no small part due to the fact that claims have fallen like a rock, down 45 percent since 2000. The periodic premium spikes we see in the data are not related to claims but to the economic cycle of insurers and to drops in investment income. Since prices have not declined as much as claims have, medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been remarkably profitable over the last five years."

Now this is not to say that some reforms are not needed, but to state as is commonly done, that this is some sort of magic bullet is inaccurate.

A few more articles and charts on the issue can be found below.

American for Insurance Reform
American Association for Justice
Scott Maxwell-Orlando Sentinel
Townhall.com
The Dallas Morning News (and example where they capped damage awards)

-Cheers

Word of the Day

Well this word is brought all the way from the steamy climes of St. Louis! With this lovely message from Ed attached:

This word perfectly describes you!

Gadabout

–noun

1.	a person who moves about restlessly or aimlessly, esp. from one social activity to another.

2.	a person who travels often or to many different places, esp. for pleasure.

---

Have you Roman? He has been such a cad of late! Kind of turning into a gadabout. We hit like 7 bars last weekend.

-Cheers

A movie have I will have to see.

The combination Clooney and "Jedi warriors" is just to much for my sci-fi addled mind to resist.

-Cheers

The peevishness of the modern day journalist

Another day, another chance to point out how thin skinned establishment journalists are to criticism. A little bit ago, I pointed out a some exchanges between Joe Klein and Glenn Greenwald.

Well it got a bit more involved yesterday. Joe Klein blew the proverbial gasket. Greenwald tentatively dips his toe into the muck.

Now I have approvingly posted both men over this course of this blog, but I have also agreed with many of the Greenwald's concerns and criticisms with some of Joe Klein's the pieces as well. Klein is at times the best example of what is wrong with mainstream media journalism.

But as Greenwald points out in his post many other bloggers take Klein to task for his mendacity.

It is all well worth a read. And count me as a "pathetic acolyte".

-Cheers