.
I think Arianna Huffington is right on the mark when she yearns for a return of “the National Conversation” -- not least of all about health care. Unfortunately, the unseemly and tactically manipulated noise that is going on at town hall meetings hardly qualifies.
.

Somewhat of an aside.... my son's private school added an additional requirement for admission this year. Family must provide proof of health insurance to be eligible to enroll.

Not a problem for us, but we really need a fix for the massive number of uninsured in the US.

The GOP seems to be in meltdown mode and are now pandering to their lowest common denominator. Conversation isn't possible with a fanatic.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_ro...rnc/index.html

Why the Christian silence?
 

.
I am deeply disappointed that there aren’t howls of protest from Conservative Christians at the systematic and massive violations of the Ninth (Eighth) Commandment. How can anyone with eyes sit easily in their chair and not object to this "bearing of false witness" perpetrated by those who profess to be spiritual brethren?

Apologies if I offend anyone, but the repeated lies are so obvious -- and the silence so sickening.
.

Conservative Christians are not alone in this regard, Stones. Clearly, fundamentalists of every stripe are willing to overlook the sins of their own kind in pursuing the "greater good" as they perceive it. It's an unfortunate human proclivity to protect your clan even when you know they're wrong. How else can you explain the world's massacres, or that Conservative Christians are more likely to divorce than the general population (contrary to the generally held belief that families that pray together stay together)?

Apologies if I offend you.

I hold no brief for conservative Christians, quite the contrary, but there is a problem with those statistics, in that atheists are far more likely to cohabit, and only to marry if they are very solid. When live-ins break up, they don't register on the divorce statistics; whereas many born-agains get married when what they really want (and can't admit to themselves) is just to get laid. I'd like to see figures for "people who have lived together > 3 years and have children and then part ways"; I guarantee that this will increase the atheist "score".

I did like the bit about how being born again doesn't necessarily offset your poor relationship skills. And that divorces are much more likely after people have been "saved" doesn't surprise me a bit: as well as quarreling over who takes out the garbage, they can now quarrel over one another's lack of faith -- and over wifely submission.

Just to keep this on task.... in the Southern US, you have to marry the girl to get health insurance for her! Also, everybody in the South is Christian if you ask them... whether they have been to church in the last 20 years or not. That's the way we were raised.

Personal view: The secret to a long marriage is, "Don't get a divorce." The secret to a happy marriage is, "There ain't no such thing as a happy marriage."

If you want to get a divorce there will always be plenty of reasons to do so. And if you're expecting the world to be nothing but bliss because you're married now, well that ain't gonna happen. It's about choosing carefully and facing the world and all its problems together. A little bliss along the way is just a bonus.

I've been married 44 years.

Woodsman makes very good points. Like him, I find the data a little suspect.

Who is out to get Grandma?
 

.
Perhaps it really is appropriate to raise the question of "death panels" and "pulling the pulling on Grandma" -- but not in the way currengly being done. An honest investigation reveals very different answers than those insinuated by Grassley, Palin & Co. This Newsweek article explores the question further.

The insurance industry’s denial of life-saving medical services to many who are insured, and the denial of life-saving services to the millions of uninsured who cannot afford to pay, costs more than 18,000 American lives per year.

On the other hand, of course, I’m sure that makes the bottom line more attractive in many insurance companies -- which is the nature of their game. God help the CEO who has the guts to really prioritise Grandma over shareholders’ return; he won’t last long on his job!

It seems to me that the "death panels" in the private sector are currently working overtime. Dr Kerkovian has long since been outclassed by the competition...
.

Ever see that Gary Larson cartoon about Death, complete with cloak and scythe, being discombobulated by finding his girlfriend at the movies with Jack Kevorkian?

IMH we can't fix this before we undo the demutualisation of all kinds of insurance. Insurance companies + external stockholders = denial of indemnity.

Meanwhile, I have an economist friend who suggests reconstructing the mutual society from the bottom up by getting together with friends, neighbours and colleagues to create new insurance pools. Like car-sharing, but in writing. This probably won't fly for the biggies like fire insurance, but it might work for home contents, defined small medical bills and so forth. That ought to frighten the scamsters. But alas, they'll only lobby to have it made illegal, if it isn't already.

.
I am surprised that the American Medical Association hasn’t tried to establish their own mutual company for malpractice insurance. Surely there must be billions for their members to save on that.

Or perhaps they have, and I just haven’t heard about it? Or is this illegal?

Another question: Are there any major, truly mutual insurance companies remaining in the USA? I am really curious...
.

Krugman has it right in the NYT this morning

Here's one of the attack ads targeting Obama's health care. Kinda cute.

http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf