We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
America is not in favor of the solution they want, or the one Obama is offering. That may not matter to them—after all, they know better than stupid Americans, and we should be wanting what our intellectual and moral superiors on the Left think we should want. But it is certainly a fact that, despite the 2008 election results, America has still not turned sufficiently to the Left for most of these people.
And Obama has been foundering of late as a leader. This should be completely unsurprising—after all, if you look at his history, why would he be a leader?
If insurance companies do avoid covering people who are "likely to need care," this suggests that the uninsured are unhealthy. But 60% of the uninsured are in excellent health (Table 10) (In fact, overall the uninsured are only slightly less healthy than the insured).
To be sure, this doesn't mean that being uninsured is not a problem but, contra Paul, it does mean that insurance companies would be willing to cover most of the uninsured at the same rates as the insured if the uninsured could or would pay those rates. In Paul's story there is a market failure, in the latter story health insurance is expensive and some people don't buy it. The difference matters because the wrong diagnosis will almost surely lead to the wrong treatment.
People like Paul see market failure everywhere.
Related: Pelosi says insurance companies are "the villains." Language like that is born of desperation.
WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE EVER DO THIS? I don't think a majority should be able to vote to disposess a minority in any circumstance -- including to force that minority to pay other people's health care insurance costs against their will. But according to the latest polls, doing so isn't even what the majority wants. So why are we even considering doing this?
Every doctor knows, as I did when I practiced years ago, how much unnecessary medical cost is incurred with an eye not on medicine but on the law. Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health-care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers.
Re: organic foods. Even if they are nutritionally equivalent to conventional foods, the granola-crunchy-tree-huggy crowd is going to claim they are safer for the people who eat them or for the environment or both. This is also false. The fertilizers favored for organic foods are typically laden with bacteria and have been implicated in food-borne illness outbreaks. The lower productivity of organic farming requires either more land for production or less production.
So if people want to spend more for less useful food, they should do so. If I think it's pretty silly, I will continue to buy conventional foods.
Geoff, I haven't heard about the "fertilizers favored for organic foods [that] are typically laden with bacteria and [that] have been implicated in food-borne illness outbreaks." Would you please give me some links or references to that? Thanks,