Disqus - Latest Comments for pabel

Re: Questioning Direct Democracy

pabel — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:39:19 -0000

Austin -- Of course it is. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps it wasn't. I amended the copy to make it unmistakingly obvious. Thanks.

Re: Pragmatist’s Quote of the Day

pabel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:33:10 -0000

Sil -- Ouch! Thanks for the catch. Edit made.

Re: Conservatives Who Don’t Cut Taxes

pabel — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:14:06 -0000

CStanley -- You once again make some very good, cogent, compelling points.

Re: Conservatives Who Don’t Cut Taxes

pabel — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:30:32 -0000

OK, DLS -- but last I checked, the Baucus bill that Snowe voted for would actually reduce the deficit. That's fiscally responsible.

Re: The GOP and Its Wrongly Crowned Kings

pabel — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:08:48 -0000

I'm with TB. While I never knew one of Reagan's children, I think he did a lot of good for this country, much more so than the liberal chattering class will ever admit.

Re: The Latest Laughable Claims of the Radical Right

pabel — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:44:59 -0000

So I went back and re-read my update re: Ed Morrissey and attempted to clarify it -- just to make sure there's no further confusion about what I meant. Clearly, Morrissey sees no credibility in Ken Boehm's claims.

Re: The Latest Laughable Claims of the Radical Right

pabel — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:22:11 -0000

CStanley wrote: "I think you need to reread Ed's article. He completely debunked the claims that Boehm made."

I know, which is entirely consistent with what I said in the update to the post; i.e., that even a pundit as consistently right-wing as Ed concluded that Boehm's claims were without merit.

Re: Health Reform is Not the End of America as We Know It

pabel — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:36:05 -0000

Andy,

Good question. I did not mean to suggest that "health reform" = "public option." But I can understand why that might be less than clear.

My thinking behind the title of the post was based on the following: Certain prominent Republicans have rejected both a "public option" and "co-ops," describing the latter as a path to the former, and the former as a path to "single payer" ... and thus to the end of America as we know it.

Accordingly, I tried to short-hand the baseline sentiment of these Republicans, i.e., the sentiment that any substantive reform (at least any suggested by Democrats or RINO's) will lead to some tragic lessening of "America as we know it."

You and/or others can debate whether I was precise enough in doing so, or whether it was a fair leap in logic to make, but I hope that at least explains my path from blank screen to the post's title.

Re: Quote for the Day: Nancy Reagan on Ted Kennedy

pabel — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:35:45 -0000

Jason -- Hence my caveat in the last paragraph: "even if imperfectly."

Re: Health Care Debate: Beyond an Informed Electorate

pabel — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:43:48 -0000

Polimom wrote: "I'm wondering whether we haven't abandoned something essential in our education of our children. In the increasingly "square peg square hole" schools, they are not taught to question or challenge -- to think -- in a way that will serve them when they must later sift and sort between political and social input."

That seems to be precisely the point of Slouka’s essay.

Re: Health Care Debate: Beyond an Informed Electorate

pabel — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:40:07 -0000

Mikkel, CStanely: Your points are fair and duly noted. I have revised the concluding paragraphs of the post accordingly. Thank you.

Re: Easy Interpretation

pabel — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:13:15 -0000

DLS -- Your provided link goes to a Web site home page, not a specific article/item. Do you have a more specific URL that helps support your point re: co-ops being part of the early 1990's Clinton-led debate over health care reform?

Re: Easy Interpretation

pabel — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:03:58 -0000

Lynnehs wrote: "Unless I am missing something, co-ops would do little to solve the problem of millions of people being uninsured, would it? Unless you did something like offer to let people pay on a sliding scale according to income (which I don't think has been proposed) ... "

Good point: I, for one, would be perfectly willing to let people pay on a sliding scale according to income, within reason, plus subsidized or free insurance for the chronically poor, ala Medicaid. With those concesssions, I'd include an individual mandate -- i.e., everyone has to have a policy.

All of these are points that could be worked out in the fine tuning. However, to my larger point, if the Republicans refuse to get serious about either public option or co-ops, there won't be any fine tuning, just the Democarts' House Commerce or Senate HELP plan, for good or ill -- at which point Republican leadership will be as liable for the result (again, for good or ill) as the Democratic leadership.

This situation is comparable, I think, to members of the voting public who refuse to vote but insist on complaining about the results. I'd say the same thing to them that I'm saying to the Republican leadership: If your choices are A or B, but you choose "none of the above," then you've essentially deferred your decision to others and have to take responbility for that deferred decision. It's the old adage: No choice is still a choice.

Re: http://themoderatevoice.com/42966/42966/

pabel — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:30:02 -0000

I'm NOT fond of this idea, far from it, but seriously: How long can we continue to pay nothing for something? Yes, I know: There's always advertising, and perhaps the major outlets will figure out the formula to get more from online ads. But, if everything is "free" to the end user, the final model probably requires a combination of things:
1. More (and more intrusive) advertising
2. Not-for-profit status (ala NPR, PBS)
3. Massive consolidation.

All of that means we can say goodbye to local professional journalism and news divesity. At best, we'll end up (in the US) with regional news dominated by 4-5 major news-generating groups (maybe 2-3). And that might (emphasis on might) be more detrimental than millions of us paying a reasonable sum per year (e.g., $30) to sustain diverse and localized news organizations.

Maybe.

Re: The Senate’s Most Bipartisan Votes of the Year

pabel — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:54:28 -0000

"I don't think that lack of bipartisan votes should be simply assumed to be the exclusive fault of Republicans."

I agree.

Re: Should Washington be looking to the states for health care?

pabel — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:18:47 -0000

Jim -- what does Missouri have to do with Minnesota or Massachusetts?

Re: Health Care Debate: What I Don’t Understand

pabel — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:46:12 -0000

CStanley -- The monopsony/monopoly distinction is an important one that I hadn't considered. Thank you for that. It also helps answer a question raised by another commenter about innovation. The answer, I think, is essentially this: Because the "monopsonist" is the only purchaser of a good or service it can dictate terms to its suppliers. The risk is that, if those terms become too strict (sparse), they strangle the discretionary margin available to the suppliers for their own R&D/innovation (e.g., think pharma innovation on new, life-saving drugs) -- which was effectively Megan McArdle's argument, to which I linked in this post, and to which you also linked in a later comment on this post.

Re: Health Care Debate: What I Don’t Understand

pabel — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:34:52 -0000

George -- I'm glad you saw and responded to my question, despite the Disqus/commenting problems today. Thank you for that.

For those who are curious, the shorthand version of my vanished comment, to which George has now responded, was this:

1. I agree with many others that (a) the current system needs to be fixed and (b) the so-called "free market" for insurance, left to its own devices, will likely NOT deliver that fix.

2. My core concern is not with government programs but with a dispassionate debate over the relative merits of cooperatives vs. the public option.

Re: Republican Candidate in the Making

pabel — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:50:22 -0000

JSpencer -- Do you know the source of Madison's counsel that "Theoretical reasoning must be qualified by the lessons of practice"? Love the quote, just want to understand its origin/context. Let me know -- preferably via email: abel-DOT-reply-AT-gmail-DOT-com. Thanks.

Re: Republican Candidate in the Making

pabel — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:34:34 -0000

George -- as I wrote in the post, I'm more in the camp of disagreeing than agreeing with this young man. Accordingly -- no -- I do not think McCaskill owes him any apology; if she does, then so does Reagan for using highway funds to force every state to raise its minimum drinking age to 21, so does every Republican who voted for Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid -- or any federal program that doesn't precisely fit the enumerated powers in Article I of the Constitution. In fact, the only point of agreement I have with this young man is the implicit point (buried in his overheated, oversimplified rhetoric) that a restrained central government is a better central government.

All that being said, I don't have to agree with him to appreciate the impact of his presence/presentation; he has some gifts which seem to be rare in people his age, even if the substance of what he suggests is flawed.

Re: Americans: Damned if We Do, Don’t

pabel — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:21:18 -0000

George -- I'm not communicating well. Let me try again: I'm suggesting Americans might be "clairvoyant" because they do not believe any of the current options -- to reform or not to reform -- will change an unsustainable system into a sustainable one. What I'm picking up on in these apparently conflicting poll responses is a virtual (if not complete) resignation to the fear that whether or not Washington acts, the dysfunction will continue. I'm not saying I share that fear, but three-fourths of Americans apparently do share it – and if that shared fear is proven correct, those Americans would have been, in effect, clairvoyant. Of course, we could argue that this is not clairvoyance but justified cynicism. Our history is certainly not devoid of examples of Washington’s failure to fix problems -- even when it tries.

Re: Americans: Damned if We Do, Don’t

pabel — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:44:22 -0000

George -- I think the questions/answers suggest extraordinary increases -- i.e., the sense that, with or without reform, no one has yet cracked the nut on mitigating out-of-control cost increases; that neither private nor public options will do much to slow down the higher-than-inflation curve.

Re: If You Read Anything This Year …

pabel — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:56:44 -0000

Jwest describes this post as an "insufferable, pompous screed." Wow. I had intended it as a confession about my prior failure to be fair and open minded -- and a sincere pledge to do better. Not sure how that was lost in translation, but so it goes.

Re: Health Reform: Urgency and Patience

pabel — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:08:07 -0000

George -- In answer to your first question, "No." In answer to your second, "Yes," but I'm not convinced that deadline has to be BEFORE the August recess. Hell, if they (Congress + Administration) are serious about the importance of this bill -- which I think they generally are -- they could always cancel the August recess. Even the threat of doing so might motivate the weary (and selfish) to focus a little harder on viable solutions.

Re: We’re All Lemmings Now

pabel — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:11:07 -0000

Jazz wrote: "... this cavalcade of spending and projection of crippling tax brackets should really be jarring all of us out of familiar patterns of behavior and into some sober, serious questions about exactly how we got into this handbasket and where it’s going right now."

Amen.