This is an interesting idea. If the red states decided to opt out they'd be removing some of the unhealthiest states in the country (http://www.webmd.com/news/20081203/report-vermont-is-healthiest-state)from the insurance pool.

-----------------
HP: Dems Discussing Public Option With Opt-Out Clause: The Silver Bullet? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html)

Sam Stein / Updated: 10- 7-09 05:24 PM

Senate Democrats have begun discussions on a compromise approach to health care reform that would establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program.

The proposal is envisioned as a means of getting the necessary support from progressive members of the Democratic Caucus -- who have insisted that a government-run insurance option remain in the bill -- and conservative Democrats who are worried about what a public plan would mean for insurers in their states.

"What folks are looking for is what gets 60 votes," said a senior Democratic Hill aide. "The opt-out idea is very appealing to people. It has come up in conversations. I know personally that a handful of members have discussed it amongst themselves."

In conversations with the Huffington Post, sources have said that while the opt-out approach to the public plan is in its nascent stages it has been discussed with leadership in the Senate. It was pulled out of an alternative idea, put forth by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and, prior to him, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to give states the power to determine whether they want to implement a public insurance option.

[More... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html)]

This is an interesting idea. If the red states decided to opt out they'd be removing some of the unhealthiest states in the country (http://www.webmd.com/news/20081203/report-vermont-is-healthiest-state)from the insurance pool.


Somehow I doubt there is much of a relation between a majority voting republican and people living unhealthy.

Generally a much likelier correspondence is between poverty and health. It is an interesting sociological question though why so many of the poorest Americans insist on voting Republican despite that party's explicit position that it does not want to improve their (social and economic) situation. Certain local unhealthy habits also are a much better candidate to explain why certain states show a lesser average health.

Also, we have to realise that in a ranking somebody has to be first and somebody last. That does not necessarily mean a great deal as the absolute differences can be small. (compared to e.g. people in Darfur even the people in Louisiana are paragons of health).

Regarding the idea to allow states to opt out, there is not much to discuss. If that is what it takes to get any form of change through the legislative process then that is what has to be done. I do however hope that there is a provision that both opting out and opting in are not immediate at a later date, if only to give the people in a state a certain degree of stability in what they can expect of their health insurance.


Eri

Somehow I doubt there is much of a relation between a majority voting republican and people living unhealthy.
They are also less educated and, on average, earn less.

Generally a much likelier correspondence is between poverty and health. It is an interesting sociological question though why so many of the poorest Americans insist on voting Republican despite that party's explicit position that it does not want to improve their (social and economic) situation.
Less educated people gravitate to more fundamentalist religions which provide a mechanism for people looking for their vote to manipulate them. Abortion, gay rights, Intelligent Design, etc... are issues that will make people vote against their personal economic interests.

Also, we have to realise that in a ranking somebody has to be first and somebody last. That does not necessarily mean a great deal as the absolute differences can be small.
It does not necessarily mean that but it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't either. :)

(compared to e.g. people in Darfur even the people in Louisiana are paragons of health).
Perhaps life expectancy (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2006/db20060913_099763.htm)would provide a better metric? I won't dispute that there may be genetic factors that bias the extremes in the list but I think the overall pattern is still valid.

This is an interesting idea. If the red states decided to opt out they'd be removing some of the unhealthiest states in the country (http://www.webmd.com/news/20081203/report-vermont-is-healthiest-state)from the insurance pool.And putting them right back on the EMTALA program, where we have to pay for them.

What a dumb idea. The whole point is to get all those lazy fat people OFF that plan.

States and local governments can already enact universal health care if they want to. San Francisco has already enacted such a plan. We don't need Congress for that.

The filibuster is one of the most idiotic features of the Senate. It means every vote has to be passed by a 60% majority instead of a 50% majority. And people wonder why nothing ever gets done there.

Somehow I doubt there is much of a relation between a majority voting republican and people living unhealthy.Oh but there is.

http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/fattest-states-2008-468.gif

If you're familiar with U.S. politics, that map should ring a bell. Because it's suspiciously patterned after this one (2008 election results):

http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/7/I/N/statemap_electoral_redblue_2008.pngIt is an interesting sociological question though why so many of the poorest Americans insist on voting Republican despite that party's explicit position that it does not want to improve their (social and economic) situation.Because those people are stupid and uneducated, and respond to fear/hate triggers such as gay marriage, terrorism, and so on, without stopping to think about what really matters -- or stopping to think, period.Also, we have to realise that in a ranking somebody has to be first and somebody last. That does not necessarily mean a great deal as the absolute differences can be small. (compared to e.g. people in Darfur even the people in Louisiana are paragons of health).The absolute differences are not small.

If you walk around San Francisco, you will not see many fat people at all. We have the one of the lowest obesity rates in California -- a state which is already less fat on average than the nation. (Not coincidentally, we also have the lowest soda pop consumption rates in the state, according to a very recent study (http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/PDFs/Bubbling_adultconsumption_county.pdf). And we also don't have a Wal-mart -- someone should do a study on that connection.)

If you walk in some cities in the South, there are obese people everywhere, waddling around or riding their scooters.

The difference is rather striking.

If the entire nation were as fit as San Franciscans are, we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic.

And putting them right back on the EMTALA program, where we have to pay for them.
People relying on EMTALA is going to happen no matter what unless we require that people carry health insurance. I'm OK with that provided a public option exists. Short of that, I wouldn't have a problem with making states which rack up disproportionate EMTALA costs footing more of the bill.

People relying on EMTALA is going to happen no matter what unless we require that people carry health insurance.But it's going to happen a lot less if people are required to carry insurance by law and they're given an affordable public insurance option.

The problem with EMTALA isn't the basic principle, but the fact that it has taken over as the de facto public option, and that it's extremely expensive.

The only part of the EMTALA plan that the participants like is that the rest of us pay for it. No one likes have to wait a whole day in the ER with a bunch of revolting sick people just to get any treatment. If you start making EMTALA participants pay for that coverage, I think they'll gladly choose the new affordable public option.Short of that, I wouldn't have a problem with making states which rack up disproportionate EMTALA costs footing more of the bill.That's not going to happen, unless we become a Confederacy. Which is, ironically, what the Southerners want.

Few things.

1) Uncompensated care exists in countries with single payer health care. This notion that health reform will eradicate all uncompensated care is ludicrous.

2) There are more elections in this nation than just the president. Many of the so-called 'red states' lean to the democrats in non-presidential elections. Even if presidential elections were the only elections in this nation, 2008 would be a terrible year to show what states are really red or blue given that Obama cleaned house.

3) I thought democrats found it selfish to vote purely out of economic self interest! Or do you guys hold the Bill Maher view that educated rich people should vote democratic for altruistic reasons but poor dummies should vote democratic so they can more better suck at the teet of government?

This notion that health reform will eradicate all uncompensated care is ludicrous.Most, not all. And that's all we need.

The Bachman plan I read about recently, I had a good chuckle about. But, it does beg the question of what else was in that piece of legislation. Speaking of that, I really would like the House of Reps, Senate, would make it available online, without a complete fuss for written bills and legislation to peruse. As soon as it is written, it is then, scanned, bang online. Then, the revisions and amendments to the legislation, to those which are signed into law as well.

I have been hearing about quite a few different plans nowadays. But, little to nothing on the underlying themes of what is wrong with health care. It seems health insurance solves everything, yet it doesn't.

I'm sure it's probably written in electronic format these days, probably not necessary to scan it.

Speaking of that, I really would like the House of Reps, Senate, would make it available online, without a complete fuss for written bills and legislation to peruse.Uh, how about http://www.senate.gov/ and http://www.house.gov/? Then there's also the daily Congressional Record (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/[/url).

Thomas(aka the library of congress) only goes back to 1989. It isn't very navigation friendly, unless, you know the resolution number. So, yes, It kinda sucks when they are linking to another piece of legislation before that date to amend. I kinda want it all available to peruse. I could care less about their Happy Bills, and records of who lead the pledge of allegiance that day, or recognizing Nevada for their 145th anniversity of becoming the 36 state. Which is what those sites provide primarily, other than the occasional this Bill amends the USC 60, blah blah, in the following ways, but, no other direct link to Us Section Code. Hint, don't bother looking for USC, as I was using a slightly fictious example of what Thomas does.

You really want our taxpayer dollars wasted scanning entire buildings of books full of ancient bills that have gone nowhere?

You really want our taxpayer dollars wasted scanning entire buildings of books full of ancient bills that have gone nowhere?

Well ... google is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to scan entire buildings full of books that have not gone anywhere, so I guess there must be some value to it.
And I think it makes more sense than dropping hundreds of millions worth of explosives on the heads of unsuspecting Afghan sheepfarmers. Or spending hundreds of millions of dollars for the past 40 or so years to wage a fight against drugs imports that has not gone anywhere either.

The problem with this proposed library of legislation proposals is that it will not actually help. The problem with legalese is that it is a language designed to give the writer the optimal ability to both prevent any wriggle room and at the same time put in all the wriggle room they want without making it appear so. Unless you speak the language fluently it is just so much jargon and incomprehensible terminology. What is needed is the translation into more understandable english so that people can look up what was proposed, by who, and what it was intended to achieve.

Oh, and I think that the American legislation process really really REALLY needs one big overhaul. The ability urgently needs to go to tack on additional amendments to a law that have nothing to do with the proposal itself and that only serve to make it harder for some senators and members of congress to vote for or against it. (Same as with the combining of elections and referenda to be honest).


Eri

Well ... google is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to scan entire buildings full of books that have not gone anywhere, so I guess there must be some value to it.Google does all sorts of things that have no value, simply because they can afford to do it.

aybe the feds should hire Google to scan their libraries, with appropriate little text ads along the way.

I mean, the bills are already sponsored by big companies, so we might as well see the advertising directly.

quote"You really want our taxpayer dollars wasted scanning entire buildings of books full of ancient bills that have gone nowhere?"

Yes. And alot of those ancient bills do go somewhere. I have yet to find a complete copy of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, with all the amendments, clauses, and such intact, as well as the how it should read with those bills attached. That is some pretty important legislation, and it has been amended over 150 times. As well as tax codes and such. It becomes one big mess, with difficulties in sorting them out. I want to sort them out.

Then, we got old laws and clauses that need to be phased out, that are on record and enforcable. Things like in Arizona, they have a law specifying if you see 3 or more native americans gathered, they could be considered a war party and therefore you can kill them, with no murder charges or anything. I want this stuff identified so, we can remove them.

quote"The problem with this proposed library of legislation proposals is that it will not actually help"

we got this actually. And yes, it doesn't really help. Neither does when the resolutions and bills pass either. It doesn't display the full text of the legislation. Just what section c line 33b becomes as an example.

quote"Oh, and I think that the American legislation process really really REALLY needs one big overhaul. The ability urgently needs to go to tack on additional amendments to a law that have nothing to do with the proposal itself and that only serve to make it harder for some senators and members of congress to vote for or against it. (Same as with the combining of elections and referenda to be honest"

Ya, we call it pork. An example of this is with the Patriot Act. If we ignore what the Patriot Act does, if you will. Inside the legislation contains a bill for immigration controls and stuff, completely different from the actual Act itself.

Yes, the part with American legislation needing an overhaul is true, which is what I am advocating as well. I would like our constitution phased out in favor of a new one. Sure some things may or may not be the same. Things like the 3/5's law will be phased out. I would like the Bill of rights amendments to be sitting right under the citizen rights guaranteed clause, including women and homosexuals. Clearly defined executive powers, vice presidential, term limits on reps and senate. Removal of the Electoral College things like that. That constitution is really old, by far the oldest of its type.

I mean, the bills are already sponsored by big companies, so we might as well see the advertising directly.
I still like the idea of dressing our reps like race car drivers so we can see who is sponsoring them. :p

I still like the idea of dressing our reps like race car drivers so we can see who is sponsoring them. :p

It would be more honest :)

Or .. maybe with the power of internet we can have one of those 'ticker tapes' that they always show with programs about stock markets, the ones that show stock information from minute to minute. They could show the major shareholders of each senator and member of congress and how whatever the person is saying on television is affection their 'shares' (e.g. as a result of this speech Sen. Bluecollar lost 1.4 points with the rednecks of Missisipi, gained 2.3 points with DuPont and lost 0.2 points with the moderate conservatives nationally...)

...

It could happen?



Eri

I still like the idea of dressing our reps like race car drivers so we can see who is sponsoring them. :phttp://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/index.php

Yes, the part with American legislation needing an overhaul is true, which is what I am advocating as well. I would like our constitution phased out in favor of a new one. Sure some things may or may not be the same. Things like the 3/5's law will be phased out. I would like the Bill of rights amendments to be sitting right under the citizen rights guaranteed clause, including women and homosexuals. Clearly defined executive powers, vice presidential, term limits on reps and senate. Removal of the Electoral College things like that. That constitution is really old, by far the oldest of its type.

Both things in bold are extemely dangerouse.

When I was younger 15-24 I thought the same way. I had a major eye opener though watching California politics as they were the guinea pigs for the rest of the nation. It has also led me to question term limits on Presidents although Bush Jr. made me question my reasoning once again. I'm so glad he couldn't seek a 3rd term.

Removal of the Electoral College is the same way. Sit in on a college Political Science Course where they discuss removing "The College" and what would happen and how politicians would manipulate the popular vote. It's no where near perfect but I've yet to hear a better plan.

Sit in on a college Political Science Course where they discuss removing "The College" and what would happen and how politicians would manipulate the popular vote.Because they don't manipulate it now? :rolleyes:

At least with the electoral college removed, those of us who are really running the nation would have a fair say in who should lead it.

The main problems with removing it are that it's too fair and logical, that it would probably put a few bureaucrats out of a job, and that people are afraid of change.

Even an unpopular president getting elected after losing the popular vote wasn't nearly enough to get the process started; what will be?

Even an unpopular president getting elected after losing the popular vote wasn't nearly enough to get the process started; what will be?

Nothing ever will. Burocracy and politicians have too must to gain by having as many layers between voters and themselves as possible.
The only incentive to change from a district system (which is what the USA has now if you do away with all the pretty words) to a direct or even indirect representation is if the party implementing the change gains a better (read near certain) chance of winning the next election, but given that to be able to make the change they need a two third majority in both houses and are exceedingly unlikely to actually need such change (let alone to gain from it), well, you should not hold your breath on it.


Eri

that is what sucks about our electorial process. It is a fool's hope pretty much, I know I wouldn't get it. Pretty much the reason I do not vote anyways. The primaries themselves just to elect a party canidate is largely a joke. What was it 1/6 of the voting makeup for a canidate determines the canidate selection to their party? In regards to the house of Reps and the Senate, how long have many of those guys and girls been in office? 20-30 years or more? How many issues are left untouched or neglected or other wise argued over with no middle ground in that time? How about the issues today and the future? With health care, that issue has been brewing. How about the recession? that had been brewing for quite awhile, but, it was preventable, or at least should have been minimized.

Same faces, same faces. Yes, it would shake things up. Maybe they need a good shakeup to progress. New idealogy, new methods to approach the problems of today as well as tomorrow.

but given that to be able to make the change they need a two third majority in both houses and are exceedingly unlikely to actually need such change (let alone to gain from it), well, you should not hold your breath on it.Not to mention 3/4 of the states. With today's level of American partisan politics, amending the Constitution is effectively impossible except for slight changes by the Supreme Court.

Because they don't manipulate it now? :rolleyes:

At least with the electoral college removed, those of us who are really running the nation would have a fair say in who should lead it.

The main problems with removing it are that it's too fair and logical, that it would probably put a few bureaucrats out of a job, and that people are afraid of change.

Even an unpopular president getting elected after losing the popular vote wasn't nearly enough to get the process started; what will be?

Yes, its manipulated now, but they have to at least manipulate 170 votes in the electoral college. Switching to a popular vote they would only need to manipulate a few states, Texas, Florida, and California. And considering that 1 of the 3 states is a given how it will vote popularly, that only leaves 1 state that would require some work (California) and another who doesn't have the best track record (Florida) of guaranteeing voting rights. Throw in the mix of many of the densly populated states on or near the east coast with their backyard politics and you could have a country quickly run by the minority.

The closest thing I've seen in politics that works is Louisiana's parliment style government where everyone runs against each other and during the Primary you vote for the best of 2 candidates even if their from the same party. But with all the corruption in LA, I'm not sure if it's caused by this voting method or the location of the state.

Yes, its manipulated now, but they have to at least manipulate 170 votes in the electoral college.Well, they only have to manipulate five or six swing states now, so I don't buy the argument that it's too difficult.And considering that 1 of the 3 states is a given how it will vote popularly, that only leaves 1 state that would require some work (California) and another who doesn't have the best track record (Florida) of guaranteeing voting rights.Under a fair system for president, we would simply count the popular vote, so it wouldn't be a matter of winning states.

Right now, such candidates ignore most of the nation and pour all their money into a few swing states, and the rest of our votes don't matter since it's only each state's majority that counts, instead of the total popular vote.

Under a fair system, they would have to win over everyone in the population centers, and work for their vote, instead of taking 95% of it for granted and splitting hairs over the remaining 5%.

The original reasons for the electoral college simply don't apply today, and it should be abolished.