I was surprised because in the 90's it looked like Democrats were getting better at combining populist and corporate goals, and then Gore ended up running against business in 2000, mainly because of running against Bradley but also I think to separate himself a bit from Clinton - not from disagreement as much as being his own candidate.

I thought Hillary did well to get off Wright as quick as she could, gave a reasonable answer on health care, looked comfortable and traded jokes well (much better than her last appearances on Letterman & the Daily Show). Mostly she just came across as solid and likeable, and her point about reaching across the aisles is important even as she says she's going to keep fighting. There will be the audience who would just as well choose her as McCain at this point, and if she wins the whole thing, having some of the venom against her defanged could be a big help (though I won't bet the bank on that one). Of course it looked like a bit of a love-a-thon even with O'Reilly's sometimes tough comments. Such is the nature of propaganda. Watching part 3 now.

If I could rec more than once, Desidero, I would. The Obamanauts are freaking because he's flaming out before their eyes. Some have kicked into high Hillary-hate mode to comfort themselves or to simply deny the obvious. Some you refer to are just plain nuts; always have been, always will be. A few may be too stunned right now to know what to say.

Thanks for the post and for the O'Reilly observations. If you had been more inflammatory, I'm sure you would have gotten more responses (if not more recs; they are hopelessly stingy). Maybe it's just that you didn't mention Hillary in the title.

If I had the time, I'd write a post about O'Reilly myself. One of my favorite moments was when Hillary said the word No seven times in a row to him. I was so amazed that I replayed it so I could count the Nos. Can't even remember what the topic was. Sanctuary cities?

I thought the interview was genius in many ways. The best short-term result will likely be reflected in the margin in Indiana.

Yeah, not many people read between 2:30AM and 8AM. Plus when folks start arriving at 8AM they push their stories out first and THEN read the lists.

Been there, done that. Best time to post is about 10AM.

I agree with this post (albeit for a slightly different reason) and I read your posts since they are usually of good caliber but the constant complaining about your victimization is really getting to be a turnoff.

Not implying any type of perfection in myself but you really just need to get over yourself. Shrug it off, check your objectivity and keep on topic. I think you will find a much more positive response overall after a couple posts.

I just linked from that post back to this one. Maybe the rise of one will trigger the rise of the other...

Sorry. That was not my intention. I would have been quite happy to displace the second "hoosiers are worthless" post. But it rises stubbornly ahead of superdel.

For the record, because I know that it disappointed you, I wrote the superdelegate post to make a point, not to be funny, so I don't regard it as frivolous, though you may to differ.

Anyway, desi has made the list now, and I'm glad for that.

I did indeed make it sound that way. My apologies. What really ended up happening was that I took on the additional costs. I just wanted the option of having it as part of the group plan, and had a struggle getting my boss to listen to the idea of even opening up a discussion in which we could make that an option. I should not have generalized to all small businesses. My stepdad is a small business owner and he does great things to help out his employees. (Sometimes to the detriment of his own bottom line!) It was really more of a reflection on my former boss. She consistently misinformed my coworkers regarding the options, misled them about FMLA, among many other things and other serious problems that we all had with her.

Anyway, I shouldn't have let one bad experience overshadow my comment. Again, my apologies.

Congrats! It made the list!

And these are excellent points. Fortunately, we have a model in MA to at least try to draw conclusions from.

"They do nothing to address the other major issues that affect the costs of health care."
(not snark)
Such as, foreign policy? Or what specifically in relation to heath care costs?
Health care cost structure is a "gamed" reality that was helped to its present dysfunctional level in no small part by the path chosen by Nixon et al (admittedly editorialized by Michael Moore in Sicko, but still the fact remains).
It's not to say that a patient/needs centered approach is without its problems, not the least of which is the probability of cost spirals (in the absence of prudent management), this is a logical extension of what Nixon was talking about and Moore editorialized; if the "game" is setup so the profit is in providing good (plentiful, or deluxe, how ever you want to define "good") care costs will spiral.
In essence the current "system" is an extension of a model that was minimalist on public good/patient care philosophy, and assumed that self interests would balance in a "free" market to ensure that the best health care system for America would emerge (now, by accepting that assumption, little political capital was consumed, as the health of profits is easier to measure than the health of the public).
It is a broken business model because it is a CONFLATED business model, not because it is "wrong" or "undesirable" to have individuals and corporations making oodles of money off of health care (service provision, support, technology, quality measures, and so on), hell, make it bigger, make it better, make it faster, make it work (that's the American way isn't it?).
The present model conflates cost containment with business opportunity and assumes the market will find a middle ground. BUT, 21st century public health issues include words like "pandemic" (which has a way of starting with poor people who have little or no access to health care, and spreading to whomever, wherever.) Why do insurance companies even WANT to be in the business of NOT paying legitimate claims? (I know, it sounds so RETARDED and NIEVE)What I mean is this, how is insurance different than service provision? An autobody repair shop might not want to fix a car correctly after an accident because if they can scam the customer, they pocket money for services they haven't provided, but if that accident claim is being paid by an insurance company, the service provider wants to (on paper anyways) do a DELUXE job (hey, they're paying for it), the customer wants a deluxe job, and the insurance company says "wait, cost contain, cost contain..." --fair enough, but if the car doesn't get fixed, the customer ISN"T going to keep paying premiums and the insurance company is NOT going to make (more) money. Every legitimate claim that is paid out by an insurance company (with appropriate cost containment) is an ADVERTISEMENT for the very core service that they are selling (ie. piece of mind). Not paying is NOT good business, it's racketeering.
Governments role? Referee/oversee the games, (TWO games) 1st game is service provision (access and structure of medical care,services, devices, and drugs), the 2nd game is the "marketization" of the "piece of mind" (including piece of mind of cost containment ie. "TAX" containment) industry. (the second game is where a uniquely American solution is possible, universal health care that is NOT socialist).

Why do we only have MA to look at? How about every developed country in the world, since they all have some form of universal health coverage (except us, of course). We pay more for medicines, for hospitalizations, for preventive health care; for EVERYTHING because we have a for-profit system. (Oh! and also because the lobbies of pharma and health care court our very own Congresspeople to protect themselves).

We don't have to invent the wheel. We can cherry-pick from all the successful programs in the world and use the parts that would work here. As long as there is a middle-man (insurance company) whose job it is to stand between the person and his/her health care, and to make money doing it, we are wasting money, and getting worse care in the meantime.

Our health system is needlessly complicated: pre-auth's, copays, deductibles, paperwork, approvals, denials, different levels of coverage if you have had the bad luck to be ill. Why? For profit. Why else would co-pays go UP to have a mammogram if you have had breast cancer?

But the title of this post is right for another reason: If we had a universal health care system all businesses could compete with the businesses all over the world who don't have to have a secondary business of insurance broker.

With respect: your personal beliefs on the morality of capitalism are your personal beliefs and I respect that. But your specific beliefs are EASY rhetorical targets for those who would leave millions of people without affordable, quality health care. The moral challenge then it would seem, would be to navigate towards a workable health care (and insurance?) model that provides for those who are disadvantaged by capitalist extremism, within the "house" that is the bastion of capitalism such as America is.
[On a side note; prostate exams at the post office may actually ATTRACT as much support as it discourages, hehehe.]

ditto