No one's interested in Vermont single payer? If this works, it could be the most important thing to come out of all the recent health care reform.
I am. I just don't have anything interesting to contribute.
I'm curious how they're going to get such a thing past CMS and/or Congress. It seems like a whole lot to put in a state waiver.
Is there any hope for rationality?
With that said, I will use this blank space to ask what "fee-fees" are. Certain liberal blogs have started using the word "fee-fees" in their more strident and contemptuous posts.
"Feelings". As in "that mean ol' socialist in the White House hurt W.'s fee-fees by not giving him all the credit for killing Osama".
Oh, so it's the new "whiny ass titty babies".
I would dearly love to see words like "fee-fees" and "Rethuglicans" disappear from the lefty blogs. What are we, twelve years old?
3: I believe they either have or are expecting to get a Medicare and Medicaid waiver. Although come to think of it, I'm not dead sure how a Medicare waiver would work. Medicaid's easy, because it's operated by the states, but Medicare's more difficult.
I just read the interview (which is not long, I've just been busy today) and it's very good.
The most impressive thing, from my perspective, is that they've managed to get (many of) the local hospitals and insurers to buy into the plan.
I feel like that would be difficult to pull off nationally, but it makes it even more intriguing to wonder what sort of precedent "Green Mountain Care" will set if it manages to lower costs.
The way they brought on BCBS, based on the interview, seems very difficult to repeat elsewhere.
||
Huh, the comments thread for this yglesias post is actually sort of awesome. It appears that, when he posts something which calls for good-natured ribbing, the commenters are well prepared to provide.
|>
The comments are funny, but I stared at "Lybia" for a while and could not. figure. out. what was wrong.
||
OT question for academics, kinda long
Cambridge v5
Early in this chapter we observed that historians in the West tend to credit traditional values such as consensus and loyalty to the emperor with minimizing "dysfunctional" conflict in Meiji, whereas most Japanese historians emphasize the repressive role of the state. But at least in the case of liberal opposition movements, it is interests rather than values that are salient. The propertied and educated had a sufficient material stake in the emerging social order to keep them from launch- ing a truly radical attack on the government. Their class interests dictated compromise rather than unrestrained confrontation; they faced selective, and not massive, repression by the state.However, the classes marginalized by the Meiji reforms, groups that were losing social power as a result of modernization, faced an entirely different situation.
Obviously I like this and think it useful, but it was written ca 1980 (ex recto). So I go online and into catalogs to look for additional reading, and I discover various things.
Current scholars have moved on to different subjects than the Chichibu rebellion of 1883, which was covered (ex recto) in 3 books and ten articles in the 50s-70s. Good on them. Subject was covered, styles, fashions, interests change, careers must be advanced with original material, etc. But say those three books are out of print, and Journal of Asian Studies, not available to me, is scanned only back to 2000.
So my question is, to what degree is the older scholarship not being added to, but being actually effectively replaced? Of course the Ivies and Library of Congress have everything, until JAS 1957 turns to dust, but UC Davis has a limited budget and shelfspace, and may dump fifty-year-old scholarship in favor of recent stuff, especially since students will follow faculty. And if JAS 1957 is only available to be read from paper vols at Harvard and the LoC, it isn't really available.
Is scholarship being effectively lost?
|>
Forget it. Although unable to read anything, a ToC search at Jstor showed that old back issues of Journals are apparently being scanned. So the question would be resources, and frankly, the desire.
And of course, I mourn that the attitude of the paragraph cited in 13 is being replaced and lost, but I suppose that's in part a geddaoffmylawn worldsgointohell oldfart thing.
12: Ace of Spades stared at labia for a while and could not figure out etc.
Heh: "You'll take all this back when they introduce the drumstick burrito and the gordita nugget family pack."
So the question would be resources, and frankly, the desire.
Laydeez.
I hate when I post something stupid and then feel obligated to comment again to admit I was the one who did something stupid.
Lovely semi-topical quote from Rand Paul:
With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It's not an abstraction. I'm a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you're going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone's services -- do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? -- you're basically saying you believe in slavery.
I'm a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That's ultimately what the right to free health care would be.
According to Senator Paul, the entire judiciary is enslaved.
Some of our slaves managed to get OBL at least.
I feel the sheer insanity of Senator R. Paul's diatribe is not getting due respect. And it was even semi-topical!
i'm not sure it was sincere but I appreciate it, stanley.
No, I was serious. That's nutterballs.
1
No one's interested in Vermont single payer? If this works, it could be the most important thing to come out of all the recent health care reform.
It doesn't sound like it's imminent. And the interview concludes:
... But that's the question: whether they can control costs. That'll be everything.
but earlier:
... The Vermont Medical Association and the Vermont hospitals are supporting this legislation ...
Providers aren't supporting this program because they expect it to control costs. Just the opposite.
1: I assume it will be deliberately destroyed in some way. I have no idea how this will happen, but I feel too tired to believe in progress.