I totally agree with you… It literally made me sick to see the replays over and over of the hit on Collie. I thought for sure he was paralyzed. What made me even madder was when they replayed the hit on the jumbo-screen and all of the fans started to boo the refs. Asante Samuel #22 of Eagles started jumping around like some kind of wild animal that had just killed its prey. The EAGLES make me sick!!!

Saints 34, Panthers 13.

I love this discussion., Thanks for engaging.

Before tackling broader policy issues, we should acknowledge some ground level facts. Policy based on misinformation breeds disaster.

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies and promotes best-in-class standards and practices of care. While not the only non-partisan and independent NGO, it has the reputation, at least, of having fewer axes to grind as it has one of the broadest sets of country participants, access to the world's best health institutions and the core data necessary to make assessments.

The WHO ranks every western European nation ahead of the US in terms of outcomes, access, and overall health of population. The only aspect of health care delivery that the US ranks 1st in is cost, and we are TWICE the cost per patient than the next highest costing nation. The most notable issues with the US system is its asymmetry. Access is severely limited to 15% of the population and roughly 70% of the rest are covered in what is termed "catastrophic care," where the patient is responsible for everything other than an emergency, life threatening situation. Some key analysts have termed our private health care system as a "denial of care" or "wait until and emergency" protocol system, as profits for the firms entirely depend on NOT providing or paying for health care, especially preventive care. Nations ranked highest in outcomes, access and overall population health are single payer systems that focus on prevention rather than emergency care.

Within the US care system itself, quality is extremely uneven. Paradigms vary by region, and even within regions, health centers have extremely uneven distribution of technologies. With a focus on emergency care as the primary generator of value added (read: profits) services, health providers are not incented to prevent health problems. As patients are required to pay for preventive services and not pay for emergencies, the rational consumer wishing to minimize personal cost usually opts NOT to engage in preventive care in order to foist the risk on the insurance system. Even further, because federal and state law require hospitals to take emergencies even without clear reimbursement (Medicaid as fallback picks up the tab or the costs are transferred to the premium paying customers) low and middle income people have no incentive to even buy insurance. Thus, emergencies become the breeding ground for waste, fraud and profit that have poor outcomes and lowers the overall effectiveness of the US healthcare system.

The first stage of the proposed changes in our US healthcare system is to force those who are skating by not contributing to the system to pay in. The second is to start forcing out the concept of the profit maximizing "denial of care" system and layering in preventive and inclusive care.

Your costs going up have nothing to do with this healthcare package. The majority of provisions are not due to come into effect until 2014, with only the addition of dependents under 26 can be included in parents' packages (not costly to healthcare companies) and forcing out the provisions that would deny care to those suffering from a catastrophe (which is why those with those policies were complaining) in effect immediately. Your costs have gone up because insurance companies are trying to convince you that this program will cost more money to them. In fact, all that's gone up has been these companies' profits. Care costs are relatively predictable, all that's different is the insurers' fear of the single payer system option, which would devastate their profit paradigm.

I personally don't understand why they would raise rates like this, as it only reinforces arguments that having the single payer option would benefit the participant. But what do I know.

Anyway, the point is that none of the changes to the healthcare system entail a free ride to anyone. In fact, these changes are what Newt Gengrich in 1994 and Mitt Romney in 2007 proposed to stop the burden on taxpayers, particularly the wealthy. Few of the measures come close to making us look like the European models which outclass our system. If anything, this healthcare package should be a huge boom to the private sector providers as more people will be buying products from insurance companies and more people will be seeking healthcare under the for profit system. Saying Mr. Obama has never been for business doesn't align with the most significant legislation in the past 50 years. It is decidedly pro-business. It is decidedly pro-personal accountability. Sure the government was meddling, but what recourse was there? This broken and bankrupt system wasn't going to fix itself. From here forward, when there can be ways to refine the model, the precedent is set that change is achievable. Many things can be done to improve the system, but not every change can happen immediately.

Lastly, the "failed policies" in Europe aren't failing because the policies are bad, its' because some of the rules in those policies don't match with the realities. Take their biggest problem, state pensions. Full Benefit retirement age in Greece is 53. Ridiculous. It's not the policy per se, its that it doesn't match with how long people live. Raise that to 67, like it is in the US, and their problems dissipate rapidly. Greeks pay far more into their system than do Americans, and get more out. They are all very satisfied with how their programs work in practice (from a withholding and payout basis), but they have a disconnect as to when retirement should become a benefit. We have that same problem here. 67 isn't the same today as 67 was 40 years ago. We live longer, we live healthier and most of us are capable of working well beyond 67, but none of us want to give up that "benefit." Raise retirement 3 years to 70, and Social Security's financial problems would be dramatically reduced.

In many ways, Social Justice programs like pensions and healthcare rely on the rules of engagement for success. Anarchic "free market" solutions often wind up having asymmetric results. Modern governments concerned with equity and fairness (The American Way) despise asymmetry in core markets where people have no choice in participation as the enemy of the state. It is seen as institutionalizing injustice, like slavery or denial of women the right to vote.

Remember, there is no perfect solution, but there is a "more perfect union." Free Markets can coexist with Controlled markets, each adapting from the other. Neither is a real enemy.

I have no real feel for Mr. Obama as a polarizing force. To my knowledge, none of his policies have caused unemployment, none have caused systemic breakdown of industries (like the Banking/Financial System), none have caused us to enter into needless violent conflict, and non of his policies have singled out any particular group for discrimination. Causing these would polarize me. My hope is that solutions for the above are considered and the best ones enacted.

The failed policies I speak of are those in Europe that are falling like dominoes, and while it's hard to pin him down to it, anyone who is paying attention can see that Obama would take us there tomorrow if he could. Europe cannot currently (or historically) defend itself from a termite invasion. Its health care is horrible. Its economy is worse than ours. Its standard of living is far below ours.

Yes, there has been what you call "job growth" in the private sector for several consecutive months, but Obama himself acknowledges that the growth is not enough to put a dent in unemployment. As an example, an 800 BILLION DOLLAR construction stimulus and still nearly a quarter million construction jobs lost? Obama is not for the private sector. Not now. Not ever. He a statist from the jump. I say it isn't enough. So does he. I'd say that it's not working is accurate.

Saying it can't happen under 'this' congress, I assume, means the Republicans will prevent it? I would like to suggest that there has rarely been a more polarizing president than the one we have now. Dare I say ever? No, it's can't happen overnight for any president or congress, but my health care costs just increased by 40% under Obama's plan to make it 'more affordable'. More affordable to whom? His constituents perhaps - the same people who will likely not show up again in two years to re-elect him because they thought the free ride was coming. I think THOSE people are the ones who fail to understand how much time change can take. If the Republicans are smart enough to keep Sarah Palin out of the main stream of their party, Obama is gone in 2012.

But let me allow Obama to speak for himself. He said this two days ago:

There is no "as if" to it. He is a big government guy. He doesn't hide from that, and for that at least I can applaud him, but he is wrong.

You might even theorize that the problems we face today are, in some ways, the direct result of the failed policies put in place to recover the economy during the great depression. There are many similarities. Many of those programs were sneaked through during the middle of the night and have been used and abused ever since as a way to continue to fuel big government. Businesses today are uncertain of what is to come from this 'big government'. They are reluctant to hire as a result. This is horribly similar to the 1930's, and it took WWII to fix it - more than a decade after it began, and the current administration is following the same script.

In my humble opinion, the recent election says the country has come to recognize this president's agenda as harmful and anti-American spirit - that it has far less to do with the expectancy of immediate results but rather has everything to do with a way of life. Working people are tired of unchecked handouts, and that which has been handed out by the Obama administration dwarfs any tax cut proposed or implemented by the previous administration.

I knew this day would come, and I knew it far before the politicians in Washington did. This president has an agenda that puts our country on the wrong track, which is not to say he hasn't had some good ideas, but there is only so much money to go around - and you can't just print more. This lesson has been learned by the European collective and, a bit closer to home, is being learned, albeit it stubbornly, by the failed People's Republic of California.

So far, the "failed" policies have worked. The recession is over and growth is returning (2% last quarter). Nine consecutive months of private sector job growth and price stabilization have been achieved. In not time during US history have 4% of the labor force been absorbed into paying jobs in 18 months (except during the gear up for WWII, and never during "peace time"), and the expectation of the Obama administration to make that happen with "passive policy" is ridiculous. It will not change under this Congress and will not change even with a new President.

The problem with macro-economic policies is that implementation timing is critical and the magnitude the effort must match the magnitude of the problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama took office 3 years into the recession. Mr. Bush did not begin addressing the downturn until mid 2008, and only half-heartedly. The current Republican theories on intervention is "Do Nothing - the Free Market will Decide." The current Democrat theories on intervention is "try anything that has historically worked."

I know the frustration with the speed of the recovery is not to anyone's satisfaction. Unfortunately, the globalization of our economy has taken much power away from our government's ability to nudge the economy as effectively as we want. I will refer you to a previous blog entry that discusses policy options.

BTW, Europe's new fiscal policies may wind up causing their currency to appreciate in the next quarter, and that would be devastating to jobs.

When you say "pushes back" what does that mean?

I certainly hope the tea party, the old-school republicans, the dems, and everyone else recognize the fiscal realities that exist in Europe, because sadly, to this point, the Obama administration has been hell bent on implementing their failed policies and programs right here.

It's high time the average working american pushes back.

I'm a fan of the blog. Thanks for sharing!

While I am sometimes a little harsh, I also want to say THANK YOU to Xan. I've learned a great deal in these posts and hope they keep coming.

I have enough time to say "THANK YOU Xan" for this blog and "THANK YOU" to saintfan for the comment. There's so much going on here I don't even know where to start. Just an awesome discussion. I'm going to try to attract more people to join in because this is just too juicy to pass on!

I think it's random when the uneducated place their bets, but those who are successful investors, while lucky at times, base those bets on something tangible.

Clearly written by someone who is angry at Bush and eager to promote the current administration. There can be no discussion about this recession without tracing it back to its source which began 25 years ago. Neither Bush nor Obama created this mess.

Which policies that could be potentially undone are agreed upon by nearly every economist of all political stripes? It's pretty obvious you support the democratic policies while you take shots at the republicans for doing everything they can to thwart the dems at every turn. It is a philosophical difference to be sure, and a political practice engaged in by BOTH parties.

The government (currently and historically) intervenes where it sees fit based on the loyalties of those in office, and those alliances are determined by those who lobby for a certain candidate and/or back them financially. If there is any doubt about this, see the Obama administration's "health care reform" which did nothing more than (a) put millions more on the same system while (b) making health care (ultimately) more expensive. The real problems were never addressed. There was never any plan to do so.

While you sing the praises of the Obama administration NPR style, trace the history of the melt down that caused this problem to begin with and you'll find it's roots in the democratic party circa the late 1970's.

I along with tons of other people recognize that we can't hit an 18 run home run, but I also see past the guy currently on the mound. The real problem is the team owner who keeps running these losers out of the bullpen knowing full well they aren't ready for major league hitters.

I believe this game will be a treat and a surprise. The Saints are due for an up week after a very down week. Roethlisberger hasn't been especially wonderful since his return. My prediction is that the Saints run defense will keep Rashard Mendenhall mostly quiet (under 80 yards rushing and perhaps 1 touchdown), and that Patrick Robinson will get his first interception of the season.

Final score: Saints 34, Steelers 20.

67 Sideways Trannys

well, to say anyone can run against tat steelers defense would be more of a xmas miracle than a halloween type of magic. I love my saints but the steelers just may be the best team in football at the moment.
I say ppour lots of bourbon on sunday evening

Go Vilma
Go Vilma

Go Pumpkin head

Go Vilma

Your company being bout out, Saintfan, is one example of investment, as Google has probably executed a broad based implementation of your technology(ies). This is what the capital gains tax was meant to do, reward you for taking that risk to bring something new and productive to the economy.

What I meant by random is that you could have just as easily picked "red" or "black" or the number of times Sarah Palin says "You Betcha" during a speech. Betting on whether an event occurs or an outcome of an event occurs is not a productive activity.

An educational read, although I benefited from the capital gains tax reduction significantly in recent years due to payout from Google when they bought the company I was working for.

I disagree with your use of the word "random" in the closing discussion, because I don't believe there is such a thing, but I get your point completely.

LOL

BRAVO! Best in depth blog ever read here! BRAVO!

Love the stats and perspective on the "Flat Tax" concept made famous by the Steve Forbes run for president years ago.

What sounds so simple and elementary may bankrupt our middle class. Infrastructure of our country is already poor and I wonder what impact a flat tax would have on further deteriorating our infrastructure... we'd have to forget about fiber optic networks etc. - hello 3rd world!

Can't wait to hear your take on the Bush Tax Cuts. I honestly hope we can keep them and revive our economy too. Then again, I wish I had a hot blond Swedish wife AND would love to inherit 10 million dollars from a lost uncle - in the infamous words of Dana Carvey's SNL imitation of President George Bush 1, "not gonna happen."

AWESOME BLOG POST!

Ok I think we're in business! Awesome blog. Gonna be interesting.