Howard Dean: "We Cannot Continue to Spend 16 Percent of Our GNP on Health Care. Period."

Talking on the generally excellent and substantive Morning Joe today, DNC head Howard Dean, an M.D., former governor of Vermont, and legendary presidential screamer says, "We cannot continue to spend 16 prcent of our GNP on health care. Period."

He added that he "thinks the decisions should be made at the individual level."

And that he's against "corporate care."

Confused? I am, and it's not just the corporate prescription pharmaceuticals. Just wait until the hard-core health-care reform roposals start hitting the ground in late January.

Also on Morning Joe: Co-host Mika Brzezinski, whose former National Security Adviser father Zbigniew appears on the show from time to time, avers that there's "something slightly distasteful" about the Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline to become the next carpet-bagging senator from New York.

Comments

prolefeed | December 17, 2008, 8:07am | #

"We cannot continue to spend 16 prcent of our GNP on health care. Period."

He added that he "thinks the decisions should be made at the individual level."

And if individual decision making shows what in economic terms is called a "revealed preference" for spending 16 percent or more of GDP on health care ... then smart people like Dean will override those individual decisions with collective decision-making ... for our own good, of course.

ed | December 17, 2008, 8:25am | #

"something slightly distasteful" about the Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline

No kidding. The sense of entitlement is sickening. Throw in sympathy for Uncle Teddy (tick...tick...tick) and it seems like a sure thing. Unless the people of New York come to their senses. Which is doubtful. "A woman must replace a woman!" "A Kennedy must replace a Kennedy!"

VM | December 17, 2008, 8:28am | #

"thanks", Howie.

Other Matt | December 17, 2008, 8:31am | #

"A woman must replace a woman!" "A Kennedy must replace a Kennedy!"

It's all just "acceptable candidates", dontcha know.

Other Matt | December 17, 2008, 8:35am | #

"We cannot continue to spend 16 prcent of our GNP on health care. Period."

Is it just me, or can this also be inferred "It must be far in excess of 16%"

domoarrigato | December 17, 2008, 8:51am | #

16% of GDP ain't what it used to be...

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 8:55am | #

Is it just me, or can this also be inferred "It must be far in excess of 16%"

No. National health plan advocates like Dean think 16% is too much.

We should be spending what enlightened countries like France or Canada spend.

And somehow this will improve the delivery of medical care.

P Brooks | December 17, 2008, 9:00am | #

Co-host Mika Brzezinski, whose former National Security Adviser father Zbigniew appears on the show from time to time, avers that there's "something slightly distasteful" about the Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline to become the next carpet-bagging senator from New York.

That's absurd. She's totally qualified. If her name was Betty Lou Gilhooly, the Demos would be looking at her just as hard.

*********

And does:

...he "thinks the decisions should be made at the individual level."

...he's against "corporate care."

mean Doctor Dean wants to smash the AMA monopoly?

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 9:13am | #

Of course we could save a lot of money if we just stopped letting geezers have those fancy-schamcy cancer treatments and heart surgeries.

And then we could process their bodies into motor fuel.

Come on, stop being so sentimental. The solution to the "health care crisis" and the "energy crisis" all in one package.

joe | December 17, 2008, 9:15am | #

And if individual decision making shows what in economic terms is called a "revealed preference" for spending 16 percent or more of GDP on health care...

It won't. That's the point. You get up to 16%, and still have our lousy heal outcomes, because the system is irrational.

We should be spending what enlightened countries like France or Canada spend. Since they have better health care than we do - in the aggregate, across the entire population - and since we're considerably richer than they are, there's nothing remotely incongruous about saying we can spend the same % of GNP on health care and get better results.

joe | December 17, 2008, 9:16am | #

On the question of who gets what health care treatments, I find wealth and luck in the job market to better criteria than age.

creech | December 17, 2008, 9:25am | #

Caroline Kennedy is probably as qualified to be senator as Sarah Palin was to be vice president. Which isn't saying much. Frankly, I'm surprised Michelle Obama's name hasn't surfaced to replace Barrack as Illinois senator. And we all know Beau Biden will replace the Delaware stand-in when he gets back from deployment in Iraq. Wanna bet Chelsea won't be running for Congress soon?

Hugh Akston | December 17, 2008, 9:30am | #

Just wait until the hard-core health-care reform roposals start hitting the ground fan in late January.

fixed.

adrian | December 17, 2008, 9:33am | #

Since they have better health care than we do - in the aggregate, across the entire population -

this just means that poor people have health care right?

Episiarch | December 17, 2008, 9:37am | #

avers that there's "something slightly distasteful" about the Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline to become the next carpet-bagging senator from New York

Look, people are just going to have to get used to the fact that there will only be two possibilities for New York Senator in the future: Chuck (we know what that rhymes with) Schumer and a politically connected woman from another state.

kinnath | December 17, 2008, 9:41am | #

The best way to control overall costs is to dramatically increase availability and lower cost of routine care.

Break the AMA and let Walmart open walk-in clinics staffed by nurse practioners.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 9:41am | #

joe,

I was just explaining the reasoning.

Now, as to whether a country as big as the US could administer a National Health system in the same way those countries do is an open question. I tend to doubt it.

Individual states, maybe.

As to my second comment, i surely hope you don't think I was serious. But to be blunt Medicare spending does take up a disproportionate amount of that 16%.

When other countries start keeping records the same way as the US does I will revisit "the better heath outcomes" issue.

I do hope that we can at least agree that we do no have a free market in healthcare in the US.

And yes, I recognize that one can reasonably argue that a free market in healthcare is not possible but lets not pretend that there is not already all kinds of government intervention in US healthcare, all of which was intended to lower the cost.

I'm just glad the glad the government never came up with a National Widescreen TV Plan.

joe | December 17, 2008, 9:42am | #

adrian,

Poor people have health care, and lower-income people have better health care.

creech,

Caroline Kennedy has more natural gifts than Sarah Palin, but she's got even less of a resume. Run for Congress! Run for Lt. Governor! She's the sharpest of this generation of Kennedys, she'd do great. But handing it to her like that...who the hell is she, that she gets to jump the line like that?

joe | December 17, 2008, 9:46am | #

Isaac B,

France doesn't have a national health care system like Canada. It has an almost entirely private health care, but a public health insurance system.

It's the difference between the government owning the roads, and the government owning the cars.

As to my second comment, i surely hope you don't think I was serious. No, I was just taking exception to the statement that we could have a health care system that is both better and cheaper. We certainly could - our current system, on top of everything else, is incredibly inefficient.

meerdahl | December 17, 2008, 9:48am | #

Canada has a single payer system, where in many cases it is actually illegal for a doctor to provide services to patients outside the system.

In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,714; in Canada, US$3,678. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.

So Canada has a much cheaper system, for a few reasons:

1) Healthcare is rationed. You can wait months or years for operations that would be done immediately in the US. Hospitals are closed, doctors & nurses are pushed into early retirement, diagnostic equipment not purchased, all to save money.

2) Free rider. Canada benefits from medical advances and pharmaceuticals from the US, developed due to the profit to be earned in the US.

3) Demographics. In the US, there is much more variation in lifespans and health problems between different ethnic groups than in Canada. Plus, the average age is lower in Canada.

Most of lifespan and health is based on public health measures (clean water, vaccinations, nutrition), and more now is personal choices (weight, smoking, drugs). Spending more money on hospitals and treatment will not raise average lifsepan in the aggregate by much, but of course would make a difference to you if you are waiting 2 years for a hip replacement.

SugarFree | December 17, 2008, 9:48am | #

"We cannot continue to spend 16 percent of our GNP on health care. Period."

Yes, because anything paid for through governmental redistribution of wealth is suddenly no-longer expressible as a percentage of GNP. I mean no one could possibly express Social Security or Medicare expenditures as a percentage of GNP.

Oh, you mean he's saying the government run health care would be cheaper than our current system? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I'm pretty sure Howard Dean got into medical school based on a decibel test alone.

Episiarch | December 17, 2008, 9:48am | #

But handing it to her like that...who the hell is she, that she gets to jump the line like that?

Uh, joe...she's a Kennedy. That's the point. You would, however, at least think that she'd have the decency to line-jump in MA. Maybe RI.

adrian | December 17, 2008, 9:50am | #

adrian,

Poor people have health care, and lower-income people have better health care.

And wealthy people have worse health care (than wealthy people here)?

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 9:53am | #

joe, I actually know what kinds of health systems other countries have. But thanks anyway.

France's system still relies on a great deal of central control. Social conditions that do not exist in this country make this possible.

One of them is that it's a much smaller country, with respect to both area and population.

joe | December 17, 2008, 10:01am | #

Canada has a single payer system, where in many cases it is actually illegal for a doctor to provide services to patients outside the system.

That's not a single-payer system, that's a single provider system.

Episiarch,

The Kennedys in Massachusetts or Rhode Island all won their offices in open elections. THAT'S the point - they're talking about appointing her. In fact, the last Kennedy to run for a seat he didn't already hold in Massachusetts got laughed off the stage - Michael, I think it was, when he tried to run for governor.

adrian,

And wealthy people have worse health care (than wealthy people here)? That probably depends on the country, and whether it allows private spending and services outside the public system.

adrian | December 17, 2008, 10:08am | #

So to sum up, by saying "better health care system", you mean worse health care for people who can afford it unless they pay extra for private care, and better health care for people who can't afford it.

Got it.

dhex | December 17, 2008, 10:09am | #

morning joe is an unwatchable load of what the hells.

that said, the kennedys are just everyone's favorite robber baron family. i don't get it in the slightest. ted gets the dying pope treatment and everything.

so weird.

Episiarch | December 17, 2008, 10:11am | #

THAT'S the point - they're talking about appointing her

Sure, sure, point taken. But my point about the point is to point out the point that she wouldn't be getting ap-pointed if she wasn't a Kennedy.

Reinmoose | December 17, 2008, 10:20am | #

New York always kinda wanted to be more like New England anyway.

Episiarch | December 17, 2008, 10:23am | #

that said, the kennedys are just everyone's favorite robber baron family. i don't get it in the slightest. ted gets the dying pope treatment and everything.

It's all about Camelot, Acid Damage. Frank Sinatra and Jackie and Marilyn Monroe and Peter Lawford and all the rest. Why do people love Princess Diana? Same idiotic bullshit.

John | December 17, 2008, 10:30am | #

When we start comparing health care systems across the board, we better correct for life style issues. Americans shoot each other at a very high rate. Americans are also more obese than other countries. No amount of government healthcare is going to make Americans skinnier, exercise more, or stop inner city gang members from killing each other. Further, a lot of healthcare statistics like infant mortality are deceiving. America spends billions on premature babies that would be aborted and not counted toward infant mortality rates in countries like France and the UK. The US tries to save those kids and the unsuccessful attempts count against our infant mortality rates. Even beyond that, no amount of government healthcare will stop mothers from using drugs. The US has worse healthcare statistics not because we have a bad healthcare system, but because we make bad lifestyle decisions.

Creeps like Dean would love to run our lifestyles. Government healthcare will come with coercive lifestyle changes. For governments it is always about control. Socialized medicine is nothing more than an excuse to control more of our lives.

Jack Frapper | December 17, 2008, 10:35am | #

hey, its only money! What the heck!

jess
http://www.anonymity.at.tc/

John | December 17, 2008, 10:40am | #

"It's all about Camelot, Acid Damage. Frank Sinatra and Jackie and Marilyn Monroe and Peter Lawford and all the rest. Why do people love Princess Diana? Same idiotic bullshit."

People love elites. We didn't have monarchies in the world for 1000s of years because people hated them. Sadly, we are developing a terrible dynasty system in this country. With the Bush's on their way out, we don't really have one on the R side, but Dems love them. Don't forget the Udals out west and the Daly's in Chicago.

Caroline Kennedy seems like a nice enough woman. But I can't figure out what she has done warrent being anywhere near power. But this is just the begning. Wait until Chelsea runs for office or one of the Obama girls. Why don't we just stop lying and just grant them peerages. At least we would be being honest.

meerdahl | December 17, 2008, 10:41am | #

That's not a single-payer system, that's a single provider system.

Joe, in Canada, it is known (and referred to) as a single-payer system.

meerdahl | December 17, 2008, 10:44am | #

The other notable result of a single-payer system is that people with connections, or people willing to make a bribe, jump to the head of the healthcare ration queue. If not, they just go to the US to get treatment.

The poor, and unconnected (there's a pretty good overlap between those groups), are at a serious disadvantage in Canada.

dhex | December 17, 2008, 10:46am | #

"It's all about Camelot, Acid Damage. Frank Sinatra and Jackie and Marilyn Monroe and Peter Lawford and all the rest. Why do people love Princess Diana? Same idiotic bullshit."

i dig your point here episiotomy, but still. good goddamn. especially ted. fuck that asshole. any justice in this world and he'll drown in the bathtub.

and john, people generally don't love "elites" - any bar in any town will have all sorts of talk about theys and thems and those people, invariably up to no good. even lonelywacks has an elite behind his brown horde, controlling things.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 10:48am | #

Sorry, I like a two minute hate for the Kennedys as much as the next guy (probably more), but I'm going to have to be contrary here.

I see absolutely no reason why Caroline Kennedy is unsuitable to replace Hillary. She was after all born in NYC, is a longtime resident of NY state and has a long record of public service in the state.

She is well connected to the Democratic Party without being a hack, that is, she does seem to have had a life outside of politics, and well regarded apparently.

And she seems to have escaped the stupid gene that so many of her family, especially practically all of her cousins and late brother, seem to inherit.

kinnath | December 17, 2008, 10:52am | #

Caroline is at least as qualified as Hillary was when she ran. But at least Hillary won the seat in an election.

John | December 17, 2008, 10:53am | #

"and john, people generally don't love "elites" - any bar in any town will have all sorts of talk about theys and thems and those people, invariably up to no good. even lonelywacks has an elite behind his brown horde, controlling things."

They say that but then they talk about how wonderful Caroline and John John are. They just don't like other people's elites. If they truely hated elites, mediocrities who happen to be children of popular politicians wouldn't be getting elected all over America. Again, the monarchies were popular among a lot of people.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 10:54am | #

dhex

I think John used the wrong word.

What Americans love is celebrities. And we have made the Kennedys into celebrities. I mean how much attention would JohnJohn's plane crash have gotten if he had been John Nobody. Six lines on page ten?

And, yes, lacking royalty, we have created our own with celebrities.

A love/hate relationship, perhaps. But the LOVE is there.

Episiarch | December 17, 2008, 10:57am | #

especially ted. fuck that asshole. any justice in this world and he'll drown in the bathtub

Oh, I am with you 100%, dude. The Massholian love for the man mystifies everyone but them.

John | December 17, 2008, 11:08am | #

IB,

Good point. I should have used the more modern term celbrity. Back in the day people like Marie Antonette (she was actually a rock star in France when Louis first married her), Austrian Emperess Elizabeth (Franz Joseph's illfated wife), and Prince Albert were just as much celbrities as Angelina Jolie or George Clooney are today. We don't have royalty anymore we have celbrities who function as the same thing.

R C Dean | December 17, 2008, 11:15am | #

Oh, you mean he's saying the government run health care would be cheaper than our current system?

It could be, if you went full socialization (either overt or via sub rosa "single-payer" with no opt-out and all the attendant requirements imposed on providers), and were willing to implement draconian rationing.

Of course, you would see hundreds of hospitals close, thousands of doctors leave medicine, and a great deal of our high-tech medical infrastructure rust in place.

But you could do it, no question.

R C Dean | December 17, 2008, 11:17am | #

Caroline Kennedy has more natural gifts than Sarah Palin,

And we know this how? Sarah Palin at least built her resume from the ground up. Caroline Kennedy, who I'm sure is a delightful person, was born with literally every possible advantage (wealth, social position, media recognition, political connections, you name it), and has done very little with it.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 11:24am | #

John

We also don't have royalty anymore because we told fat King George to fuck off two hundred and thirty two years ago.

Some people have felt a void in there lives ever since so they crwned movie stars royalty. Then we got the Kennedys who were possibly our first real political celebrities (certainly the greatest ones).

SugarFree | December 17, 2008, 11:28am | #

They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 11:34am | #

R C Dean, agree absolutely with your 11:17am comment.

Pro Libertate | December 17, 2008, 11:35am | #

For the love of God, can we drop these people once and for all? No more Bushes, either, please, though I suspect we're going to get one in the Senate soon. He, at least, will have credentials and will have to actually win an election and stuff.

As bad as the GOP can be, what's with the Democrats and all their pre-anointing lately? Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. Bah. Let them earn the higher office before you "assume some qualifications."

ed | December 17, 2008, 11:46am | #

Caroline Kennedy...was born with literally every possible advantage (wealth, social position, media recognition, political connections, you name it

She can't help it. She was born with a silver shoe in her...wait, that was Bush the Elder.

The biggest advantage, of course, is that her daddy got his head blown off (because he was held upright after Oswald's first shot by the brace he had to wear because of the back he reinjured in September during a bedroom tussle with a lady friend of Hugh Sidey's at Bing Crosby's house).

It's one of history's great comic ironies, if getting your head blown off can be considered comical.

robc | December 17, 2008, 11:48am | #

No more Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, Adamses, Harrisons, Roosevelts, Tafts, or Lees.

Some of those seem to be well taken care of, but just added them to the list for completeness.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 11:53am | #

As to C Kennedy "earning" the office, it's my understanding that she'll have to do just that in 2010 even if she is appointed now.

I just can't see her being any worse than any of the other NY Democrat hacks that have a shot at this thing.

Pro Libertate | December 17, 2008, 11:56am | #

Incumbents, even short-time incumbents, have a much easier time of getting re-elected. If she's so great, how come this is her first foray into politics? I'm sure the alternatives are bad, too, but another Kennedy? What hath God wrought?

J sub D | December 17, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Also on Morning Joe: Co-host Mika Brzezinski, whose former National Security Adviser father Zbigniew appears on the show from time to time, avers that there's "something slightly distasteful" about the Kennedy name opening doors for Lady Caroline to become the next carpet-bagging senator from New York.

Slightly distasteful?
SLIGHTLY?

WTF America? After two goddam centuries you want to bring back royalty? We avoided replacing Bush II with Clinton II. We avoided having the scion of a military family dynasy assume the executive powers. So now we need another Kennedy?

Why don't we just give the spoiled rich girl a crown and scepter?

I have to go practice my bowing now.

P Brooks | December 17, 2008, 12:06pm | #

"What hath God Obama wrought?"

I couldn't resist.

ed | December 17, 2008, 12:10pm | #

We can only hope somebody talks Caroline into flying lessons.

joe | December 17, 2008, 12:32pm | #

No, adrian, you don't got it.

adrian | December 17, 2008, 10:08am | #

So to sum up, by saying "better health care system", you mean worse health care for people who can afford it unless they pay extra for private care,... Extra, above and beyond what they're receiving under the universal system. Not extra, above and beyond what they're paying now.

meerdahl,

Joe, in Canada, it is known (and referred to) as a single-payer system. So it's sort of like the English vs. American "billion," eh? The distinction I'm making is between the provision of health care (providers) and health care financing (payers). In France, they have a single payer, but private providers who, IIRC, can take fee-for-payment as well as government reimbursement.

The other notable result of a single-payer system is that people with connections, or people willing to make a bribe, jump to the head of the healthcare ration queue. Good thing the wealthy and connected don't get better health care here. And thank heavens there aren't any bureaucrats who ration care! Um...

RC Dean,

And we know this (that Caroline Kennedy has more natural gifts than Sarah Palin) how? Because we've heard them both speak.

Caroline Kennedy, who I'm sure is a delightful person, was born with literally every possible advantage (wealth, social position, media recognition, political connections, you name it), and has done very little with it. Wow, you really don't know much about what Caroline Kennedy had done, do you? *sniff* I've never read about here winning a mayoral race, or writing something in the WSJ, so what could she possibly have done with her life?

FrBunny | December 17, 2008, 12:55pm | #

I've never read about her winning a mayoral race, or writing something in the WSJ, so what could she possibly have done with her life?

I have to agree with joe. "Experienced" career politicians are the problem, and 99 times out of 100, H&R agrees with that. She wouldn't be my choice, but I'd pick her over nearly any politician who's "earned" it. She's active in the community and a reliable lefty. If I was the lefty looking to appoint someone, I could do a lot worse.

Pro Libertate | December 17, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Whatever ones politics, why support yet another member of this messed up family getting into national politics? There are millions of other people to choose from! Even being selective, there are probably a hundred reasonable candidates not named Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, etc.

I wish they'd appoint Eliot Spitzer, myself.

J sub D | December 17, 2008, 1:14pm | #

I have some predictions that the good folks at reason will archive and make available to y'all if I'm wrong.

After whatever health plan the Democrat party shoves down our throat -

1) Per capita spending on health care will continue to rise.

2) Life spans will increas but at no faster rate then they have been increasing over the last couple of decades.

3) The rich will still get better and more expensive coverage than the poor.

4) It will be used to justify taxing things that the nannis decide aren't good for you.

5) Petty bureaucrats will still make unjustifiable decisions on health care. The only difference is it will be more government bureaucrats and less private bureaucrats making the damnable decisions.

Dig this post up in five years.

P Brooks | December 17, 2008, 1:24pm | #

Whatever claim Caroline had on being a "different kind of Kennedy" goes out the window as she actively seeks to be appointed to the Senate, based on her specialness.


and

I let this slide, earlier, but... the generally excellent and substantive Morning Joe ...

?

Cut it the fuck out!

J sub D | December 17, 2008, 1:24pm | #

Oh yeah,

6) joe will be posting that all of the above would have been worse if not for ObamaCare.

PFJ | December 17, 2008, 1:29pm | #

"We should be spending what enlightened countries like France or Canada spend. Since they have better health care than we do - in the aggregate, across the entire population - and since we're considerably richer than they are, there's nothing remotely incongruous about saying we can spend the same % of GNP on health care and get better results."

Ceteris Parabis. Another country getting better results from their healthcare system does not prove that its better. Other countries have different lifestyles that make their results better, even if the healthcare system isn't causing it.
That said, the current system is a complete disaster.

meerdahl | December 17, 2008, 2:02pm | #

Good thing the wealthy and connected don't get better health care here. And thank heavens there aren't any bureaucrats who ration care! Um...

Joe, I think you're missing my point. The Canadian system is much cheaper than the US one, and the rationing element of it would reduce US costs as well. Plus, either system is not going to make much of a difference in lifespan. So I'm generally in favor of the Canadian approach, as long as individuals are allowed to buy treatment out of their own pockets.

But people are pretty naive if they think that a government controlled healthcare system in the US will result in equal treatment for all. People with connections and/or money would still get much better, faster treatment.

R C Dean | December 17, 2008, 2:24pm | #

Let's go to Wikipedia, then, which reveals that Caroline is:

(1) an attorney

(2) a member of the board of directors of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

(3) a fundraiser for public schools in New York City.

(4) an honorary chairman of the American Ballet Theatre.

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty slim resume for a US Senator, especially given where she started in the whole liberal/lefty/NYC scene.

Pro Libertate | December 17, 2008, 2:31pm | #

You know, I'm as qualified as Kennedy to be in the Senate. Maybe I should call Patterson. He owes me one.

After reading the wiki entry, I must say that I didn't know that she was the Caroline in "Sweet Caroline". Another knock against her, in my book. Hmmm, I wonder who the Kentucky woman was then?

P Brooks | December 17, 2008, 2:45pm | #

honorary chairman of the American Ballet Theatre.

Now that I think of it, The United States Senate as dance theatre has some appeal.

FrBunny | December 17, 2008, 4:48pm | #

that's a pretty slim resume for a US Senator.

I'm starting to see that I'm in the minority on this, but we're talking about a position that requires no special skills whatsoever. Yes, ProLib, you are qualified. As am I, as is joe, and as is Ms Kennedy.

A poor choice? Yes. An unqualified choice? I think not.

I'm also noticing that this is a dead thread. Sigh.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 4:52pm | #

Sounds like a pretty standard resume for a northeastern liberal democrat to me, RC. :)

Pro Lib, of course we all know you'd be a better Senator, but I'm fairly certain that the two sitting Senators from NY are prima facie evidence that NY voters have no sense at all. You wouldn't stand a chance.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 4:54pm | #

Now that I think of it, The United States Senate as dance theatre has some appeal.

I pretty much see it as performance art myself.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 4:57pm | #

Sorry, but i'm having a hard time taking any of this seriously.

It's as though when they stopped involuntarily committing people years ago the lunatics all just turned around and started running for office. And the voters are too fucking stupid to recognize insanity.

Pro Libertate | December 17, 2008, 5:00pm | #

I don't want to harp too much on "qualifications", because the qualified in this business are usually good at corruption, lying, and all the other things that make term limits a great idea. However, I do protest most strenuously the idea of putting yet another Kennedy in power. Ye gods, haven't we had enough?

It would be nice if we could have people who we trust and/or view as competent. "And" would be nice, but I'll take "or" if that's all I can have. "Neither" is the big problem these days.

P Brooks | December 17, 2008, 5:25pm | #

The single most important demonstrable "qualification" displayed by the Senators who win their seats in open elections is an ability to win elections.

What does that tell us?

Pro Libertate | December 17, 2008, 5:27pm | #

That we should vote for people who aren't electable. So to speak.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 5:39pm | #

Well, to get back to the main topic here, I must confess that it occurs to me that I'm not exactly sure what the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare has to do with the issue of whether we actually need more government intervention in healthcare (or less).

I mean to say, does someone actually know what the right percentage of GDP to spend on healthcare is?

Maybe, given our demographics "we" should be spending more, not less.

What relevance does Canada's spending (or France's or anywhere else's) have anyway?

But every time someone like Dean gets off on a tear like this it's the same thing.

Isaac Bartram | December 17, 2008, 6:31pm | #

You see, it occurs to me again.

You know how every time some study comes out that says how stupid American kids are compared to BanglaDeshi kids, or some such, the always a clarion call that we're not spending enough FOR THE CHILDREN.

So, it seems our kids will get smarter if we spend more money on education but the rest of us will get healthier if we spend less money on healthcare.

Right?