"As demonstrated by the exchange the other day, no conservative can ever quite explain what harm will occur due to “far left” proposals. Its always some sort of frothy concoction of buzzwords and slogans, always some mirage which is right there, just beyond our vision but sure as shootin’ is real."
Do you care to debate the benefits of Medicare for All against someone that eats, breathes and sleeps the healthcare business?
My comments below notwithstanding, I like posts like these. You can read the detail below if you want, but I'll summarize my view here:
I identify as a left-of-center liberal. Lord knows I can't stand the identitarian Left and the shit show the toddler-like progressives in Congress are putting on. However, what you left out of your post that under Trump, the Republican Party is true to its ethics, which is why I'll never compromise my principles.
I didn't pick my spot on the spectrum, but I'm left of center. I don't care for illiberal mindsets and I'll have no problem going full-on scorched earth if I encounter it. The best I can say about the Right is the left is going to keep me busy for a while, but your party is just as much in my cross hairs. You'll see a bit of that below...maybe not a bit.
Note that I haven't read the comments yet and I'm going to have myself a little fun here. I enjoyed the post -
"a disastrous green new deal mouthed by insufferable, unmanageable, anti-Semitic, fringy freshmen."
Very nice. I would have thrown in a few more adjective like reality challenged and brain dead and used the term "toddlers" instead of freshmen. In fact, because most of the nitwits making the noise are women, I feel obligated to remind you that "freshman" is gendered, which you probably don't realize due to your internalized white privilege. Make sure you check all of that next time...or not... ;)
But yea, there's a "bit" of an anti-semitism problem on the Left. Seems like people are afraid to call bigots for what they are. The right has no problem though because the far right types are not only not afraid of calling it like it is but some back it up with violence. Let's not forget that. Therefore...this...
"nor will principled Zionists support a party where their own tribal leadership defends anti-Semitic diatribes from two of their own representatives"
I'm as sure as I'm as short that this is addressed above so all I say about that is that it's complicated - my own feelings notwithstanding.
"After three years of Trumpism, one would think the Democratic Party held some kind of common sense regarding the dangers of radical populism. And yet, their proclivity for identity politics and sugary dalliances with their fringe-box is the ultimate self-own for Nancy Pelosi."
But playing "hold my beer" is so much more fun. Identity politics? No such thing. Everyone should know that there are no fundamental differences in opposing racism, sexism, etc. from a liberal position (moral, ethics, politics) and anti-racism and intersectionality. Just ask Robin Diangelo...better yet...avoid that one like the plague...
"Marxism doesn’t mesh with kitchen table values, and the constant flinging of monkey-poo at the center-right by the left’s wanna-be-cast members for DC’s Clueless reboot may be a deal breaker for on-the-fence-conservatives."
As a liberal, I find most of what's to the left of me to be at best tolerable but on average infantile and obnoxious. However, while I prefer to use the term "bullshit" and not monkey-poo, terms like Marxism and socialism also qualify as bullshit, creating a scenario where people taking shit are themselves full of shit. Not good. Besides, grand narratives are a thing of the past...or so I've heard.
"Far-right populism isn’t conservatism."
Who cares? Unlike left-wing identity politics, right-identity politics can in fact manifest itself as a political force because it "mostly" deals with a single identity (white, nationalist) and seeks sovereign power to protect itself. Left identity politics assumes a different framework of power, which is why it seems so keen on addressing cultural issues. Sure, that's a crude framework but the point is that left identity politics is not able to translate to a political movement that can achieve let alone influence sovereign power. That, and the GOP will gladly turn a blind eye to it if not sell themselves out like they have. It's always been part of the right.
This is why right identity politics will ALWAYS be more dangerous.
"Across the U.S., Democrats are pushing full-term abortion legislation."
I'll check the comments on this one. My sense is that there's a reality vs. representation of reality difference going on. Your language kind of gives that away.
"Nearly two decades ago, Bush’s presidency ushered in a new era of pro-life voters, a monumental shift, and another losing message for Democrats."
Not that monumental. They failed miserably to get a Federal Marriage Amendment passed in light of the legalization of same sex marriage in MA. They also made complete fools of themselves interjecting in the Terri Schiavo case and trying to drag into the federal courts what was a state case based on state law.
"That should also include either party’s inability to reign in their own. To be quite honest, I’m not witnessing much of that on the left."
I commend the Republicans in Congress for reigning in the man-child in Chief.
"Planned Parenthood’s death grip and out of control lobbying is just as toxic as the NRA’s stranglehold on the GOP"
Here's the scary thing about this statement - I've been spending a ton of time diving into the whole identity politics thing and not just as the political pundit level where people talk broadly about groups and call-outs etc. etc. etc. That stuff is easy.
I've been diving into the "scholarship", the actual stuff behind it - in many cases in peer reviewed papers (i.e. Kimberle Crenshaw). For the good of the community, I've even suffered through reading the "whiteness" stuff (Diangelo, McIntosh, etc.).
Your comparison of Planned Parenthood to the NRA as being "a death grip", "out of control" and similarly "toxic" raises eyebrows. I'm surprised to see people admitting that the NRA is toxic, especially from the Right so that's good. Yet, the claim is about as supportable and falsifiable as the activist scholarship that is forever seared into my small brain. It's not an uncommon talking point on the right but that's all it is.
"The left’s ongoing desire to ravage lucidity for their self-destructive identity politics is why moderates in their party are becoming extinct."
Nah...some of us stayed behind and will start dealing with the children in short order.
"She attacked Ronald Reagan, called him a racist, and attacked capitalism."
Anything but that...
"What the clueless, social media acronym fails at discerning is that the Generation X conservatives and moderates from the Reagan era whom she viciously attacks will eventually put her party out of power."
You'd be surprised how many of us won't go right because we think it's a shit hole. It doesn't mean I like the left because...
"Justice Democrats is just a synonym for revenge toward everyone on the right, including NeverTrump."
I think you meant to say "everyone to the right of THEM". Big difference. I"m called alt-right-adjacent at least once a week by these kinds of people. They're children that just happen to be physiologically similar to adults...although none of them even lift.
"It no longer matters how contemptible Trump gets because the Democrats no longer have the moral high ground."
I never thought they did nor do you.
"As long as the president pushes policies for rock-ribbed conservatives, courts center-right once again while Democrats work in concert to obstruct those bread and butter issues, forget about impeachment, or about remaining in power."
Or he can just do what he normally does when he panders to bigots and they'll vote for him anyway.
"Gym lingo and slang turns me off and sounds incredibly dumb to me (Sorry Dave but if I could I would banish “Do you even lift, bro?” culture into 999 trillion atoms across the universe)."
Ok...not that I know much about any of this kind of stuff...
"The reasoning is simple enough. Consumers currently don’t know what the calorific content of most restaurant meals are..."
I'm not troubled by this, and even if they may think they know what the calorie counts are, they still won't know for more reasons than I need to discuss here. One reason - think about the calorie count for a serving of salad dressing and if you get dressing on the side, you notice that the amount of dressing looks three to four times the size of a serving size.
"This, we assume, will lead to people selecting lower-calorie and healthier food choices, helping them lose weight.."
Or just helping people with healthy food choices.
"A review of outcomes in 2013 found that “current evidence does not support a significant impact on calories ordered”"
No surprise. Think of comments like Mike's above - they're going to go eat out, enjoy something and not worry about the calorie counts. Very common and reasonable. I wouldn't even call that a "bloodbath" given that puts the wrong kind of connotation with food. Not that it matters in Mike's case, but I've seen that go into dark places.
"Great! But once we go to longer time periods, things get tricky. Calorie counting may help with short-term weight loss, but that’s true of many so-called “fad” diets too. A study in The Journal of the American Medical Association with over 600 participants even found that “there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet”. The same study also asserted that “no one dietary strategy is consistently superior to others for the general population.”"
Weight loss is a function of a caloric deficit, whether or not people realize they're in one. With fad diets, keto comes to mind, as much as they sell people on the fact that calories don't matter, the fact is that people lose weight because they're in a caloric deficit. This is why weight loss results are almost the same across different kinds of diets.
"Further to this, in a recent article for Tufts Nutrition Magazine, numerous quoted nutritional experts with various views on healthy eating could agree on one thing: calorie counting doesn’t work."
This is VERY dependent on context. What I understand from the source is almost a vulgar form of calorie counting where you're told to hit a number and you can eat whatever you want so long as you come in at/below that number. Sure, that can be a disaster and completely unnecessary. People on the standard American diet can cut back on sugar and eat a more balanced diet of whole plant and animal foods and lose weight without counting a damn thing.
I track my calories but I have different goals, objectives and interests.
"The reality is the average consumer isn’t a nutritional scientist, and it’s unreasonable for us to expect them to have the knowledge of one."
It's almost sad to think that my knowledge of nutrition puts me well above the average person in society because what I know isn't rocket science.
"Reducing this to a calorie count may actively mislead consumers into selecting low-calorie but nutrient-poor food over meals that are healthier overall. "
Thanks Mike. I'll respond with some comments later but looking through one of the sources, it says that the officers' body cam footage was released. I'm at work right now so I don't think it'd be smart of me to search for it but has anyone else seen it?
Well now...I'll make a partial defense of Sam's position....this got long. I apologize.
Mike,
Do you remember us talking about identity politics and me telling you I wanted to write some posts? Well, seeing as I'm sifting through about 100 sources and trying to make sense of a number of different things, I don't know when that's going to happen, but please allow me the opportunity to apply what I've learned to this discussion, starting with this comment...
"I’m not picking that variable because it’s convenient for me. That’s just a bonus. The reason I picked that variable is because I actually understand what I am talking about, while it appears you do not."
The post that was published here a few weeks back, The Apolitical Myth, fell short in two ways that I'll clarify here. They both relate to this discussion.
The first was about the nature of "the personal is political". The discussion was far too vague. While he was correct to point out that the idea was attributed to second wave feminism, that he failed to point out that it was radical feminism and not liberal feminism. To me, this is a critical distinction.
Where liberal feminists focused on political and legal equality (and some degree social), radical feminists believe women are THE oppressed class - oppressed by men through a power structure that transcended sovereign power and social power and went straight to "private" interpersonal relationships.
This wasn't just an assertion. Through the use of consciousness raising groups, they acquired knowledge of the lived experiences of women, experiences including rape, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, domestic violence, and other horrors women were subjected to at the hands of men. Given the extent to which this was occurring, they argued that these actions were not individual acts of violence but part of a larger power structure which allowed men to oppress women with impunity.
Whether or not you agree that it was a class-based form of oppression, you MUST respect the fact that their theory was evidence-based in that they had the blood, bruises and broken bones to show for it. You should also respect, to a degree, the fact that the consciousness raising groups were part of an apparatus that produced knowledge well outside what you or I could have produced. This goes to the development of feminist standpoint epistemology, the three main tenets being:
a) knowledge is socially situated - seeing as we aren't in those social situations
b) marginalized groups are socially situated in ways that make it more possible for them to be aware of things
These are descriptive and correct in the context. There's a normative claim that research should start with marginalized communities but it wasn't applicable to this situation. Also, as I'm aware that standpoint epistemology is controversial and can speak to it, but the way it was applied in the late '60's-early '70's isn't the issue. Radical feminists were asserting oppression based on knowledge of it. They weren't asserting privilege or any of the things associated with modern day identity politics. Right or wrong, they saw a problem and they went after it politically and sought change, doing what they criticized liberal feminists for not doing.
A way to diagram this - Knowledge ----->theory (oppression) -----> political action
Note that they didn't bust out the slide rules or statistical models. Note that they weren't concerned about the opinions of anthropologists or sociologists or anyone that could have approached from an "objective" or positivist perspective. This was a political issue requiring that people acknowledge the problem as a political one and moving from there. The pencil necks could piss off as far as they were concerned.
Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this, and I'm glad that you were kind enough to post the Quillette article because while you're averse to "wokeness", as am I, I don't think Sam's article hits the "woke" threshold by a longshot.
The only criteria that comes remotely close is the second one - bigotry being pervasive. My concern is that there are ways to make that claim without falling back on moral or ideological dogma. I'm not sure how Sam does that seeing as that he's using the response to police shootings of unarmed black men by prosecutors. Put that in the context of this country's history on race and even the historical issues between the black community and police. We can agree or disagree on the evidence-based claims, but "bigotry being pervasive" in wokeland takes on a different meaning.
So no, Sam's writing on this issue is not woke. Hell, if I wanted to, I'd draft a response filled with so much critical race theory and accusations of complicity, privilege and fragility that it would make your head spin. That's woke. It would also make me sick to my stomach and require me to take a shower after writing it so no thanks.
However, don't think you're in the clear. Putting my pessimist hat on, I can make an argument that you've failed to engage Sam's broader arguments. You've claimed a certain form of authority on the subject perhaps based on personal/professional grounds...understandable as I'd do the same in certain subjects. However, and I do have to question your approach because I think this is ultimately a POLITICAL matter and should be engaged as such.
I'll lay something out in the way I'd approach it rather than me pointing out how wrong everyone else has been...for all I know, I'm the one that's whacked.
- We know there's been longstanding tensions between the black communities and law enforcement. It exists. For the purpose of this discussion, the causes don't matter.
- For now, as an analytical tool, but not the only one, take the same broader approach to power structures as the second wave radical feminists understood it. If the idea of an oppressed group is too much, just use dominant/non-dominant. So what if it originates from Marxist thought. It's a tool. At least I'm not asking you to apply Foucault so give me some credit ;)
- Standpoint knowledge from non-dominant groups needs to be considered because it may provide insight you (or me) can't have based on our own standpoints. Note that I'm not asking you to PRIVILEGE their knowledge (that's the "woke" way) but make efforts to acquire it and understand it the way they do. I know standpoint epistemology is controversial because woke types use it to convey moral and epistemic authority. I reject that approach. I think a deeper dive is required and would most likely require some form of political engagement...I'm lost on the details.
- I'm not here to argue about structural racism on an abstract level, but I am wondering if there's a form of racism originating at the personal level that can when combined can pose systemic issues politically or in matters of justice. The radical feminists didn't need to show that every man was an oppressive abuser, only enough of them. Same goes for bigots, albeit it may be a little harder to demonstrate. The best example I can see clearly is the rise of white identity politics on the far right (and nationalist right wing movements elsewhere).
- Prosecutors don't want to prosecute because they don't think they can secure conviction or the risk-reward ratio is skewed. Are the reasons based on the facts of the case and evidence? Is it a general attitude towards giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt? Are there concerns about the racial nature of the case that could bias jurors one way or the other? I'd hope jury selection is such that the jury can put personal differences aside, but who the hell knows? It wouldn't be the first time.
This isn't meant to be clean. I'm as much a fan of universalism, objectivity, rationality and reason as the next person, but these are messy problems that geeks and their spreadsheets, models and "objective" standards aren't going to solve. It requires a different set of rules of engagement.
None of this should be read to suggest Sam is right. I have no clue. Mike, you could end up being right. I have no clue. What I do know is this - to the extent I see what's known as systemic racism, I don't follow the "woke" definition but recognize it two ways:
1) That there are ways that acts of individual racism or individual racists can create larger collective action problems. I think this can pose a problem in juries in certain kinds of case.
2) Reactionary politics creating political movements that get propelled to power and then have some control over political institutions. White identity politics on the American Right will always be better at doing this than any kind of left wing identity politics for reasons that should be obvious.
It's a tough subject to discuss. It's an even tougher discussion to have when we talk about figuring out what to do about it.
All I'm asking for is a look through a different perspective.
My apologies for the length. I've written enough, and lest anyone think I'm writing from a "woke" perspective, I can respond to that with my highest degree of disagreement but until then, this is the best I got for now...
Yes and when people that need it and can't afford it and choose between life and death, they choose life and get treatment in an emergency care setting, which in of itself is very costly. Not for profit health systems can absorb some of that since providing care to people in need is part of the community benefits they have to provide to main a not-for-profit status but that doesn't happen all the time, which is why the ACA's main goal was increasing ACCESS.
If you know the uninsured are going to seek healthcare whether or not they have insurance (as anyone interested in self-preservation would) and you also want to control healthcare costs by keeping people out of high cost healthcare settings (acute care hospitals), they need preventative care.
I'd even go farther and suggest that a Medicare for All type of plan should be considered in a larger reform of the social safety nets. Not that I have any concrete ideas but if part of having a universal health coverage plan, I would look at other indirect ways to address population health management.
Yeah, it may sound statist or paternal to the more free market types but in theory, I'm not bothered since I'm approach from a public health perspective.
"The ACA was sold as, and in fact is, purely an uninsured reduction rough draft.
It would be a HUGE and DIFFICULT lift to make it anything else than that. Time to let the ACA be what it is and stop thinking it is more than that.."
From the patient perspective that's probably correct. From the provider perspective, I've seen three things.
1. A wholesale change in the way hospitals and health systems, both profit and not-for-profit, are running their businesses. Because the cost of care in the acute care setting is expensive and in some cases more costly than the reimbursements received (i.e. emergency rooms), health systems are shifting to outpatient models where they can.
2. Because cost control is so important, there's been a shift towards hospitals partnering with operators in certain kinds of facilities. It's now commonplace with ambulatory surgical centers and hospital-affiliated in-patient rehab facilities.
3. One of the reasons M4A is being discussed - further consolidation. The ACA gave health insurers a lot of bargaining power and when five health insurers control almost 85% of the market, it creates an arms race on the provider side. This was going on before the ACA went into effect but is now going all-in on both horizontal (health systems or practices) and vertical consolidation (Aetna-CVS or UnitedHealth and Optum).
The health systems consolidate so they can wield power over the insurers in order to get higher reimbursements, and they can get them. On the flipside, because the health systems can extract more from the insurers, the insurers raise their premiums.
It's perverse. I work in the healthcare real estate business (I acquire commercial property on behalf of a fund). I'm watching the dynamics in real-time and those influence our strategy accordingly. From a real estate perspective, consolidation is good if you're on the right side of the game (i.e. own a property with a smaller health system about to get acquired by a larger one). My tenants get better reimbursements so the rent gets paid.
It's the reason why I don't touch medical real estate properties with a tenant base of primarily small independent physician practices. That model is dying (Medicare for All would kill it IMO). The insurance companies have them over a barrel to a point where it becomes less enticing to operate a business and more enticing to go to an employed model, hence the reason the rate of physician employment has gone from something like 25% to 40% in the last seven or eight years. Even with the problems from private pay insurers, they still don't want to deal with Medicare.
One reason why I like my business so much is that I get to talk to the doctors about the healthcare business. It's more important to me than the bricks and mortar. I don't ask about Medicare for All specifically but we do discuss payor mix. Like me, they like as high a percentage as possible from private pay insurers and as low a percentage from Medicare/Medicaid.
My opinion on Medicare for All is simple - I will take no plan seriously if it doesn't appropriately address the consequences to health providers. Sure, it's great for patients if their healthcare costs are tied to Medicare rates in some way by way of lower premiums (or a tax increase that's less than cost of premiums + out of pocket).
We have a basic math problem here.
Average EBITDA margins for health systems are about 6%. The well-accepted assumption on the spread between Medicare reimbursements and private insurance is 40% higher for private insurance.
Conservatively, assume a payor mix that attributes 40% of total revenues to private pay insurance (as a point of reference, HCA, the largest publicly traded for profit operator is 50% private pay and Ascension Health is 45%).
Taking a 40% pay cut on 40% of revenue hits the bottom line by 16%. You may have administrative cost offset to some degree but it won't be close to that in a larger health system.
Heck, conservatively estimate a 10% net drop in revenues. If anyone is interested in explaining how this is supposed to work, I'm all ears. When that explanation arrives, I not only want an explanation on the business side of healthcare delivery but also the capital markets side.
Not-for-profit health systems may be not-for-profit and therefore not subject to the Wall Street scrutiny, but they raise debt through the tax exempt markets and have rated debt. Better ratings mean better cost of capital in the form of lower rates. Also, according to the ratings agencies, the reliance on government reimbursements for revenues is credit-negative already (which is why we don't touch skilled nursing with a 50-foot pole).
Shift to all government revenue and even hit the numbers with a 10% cut and it's a ratings disaster. At best, the top investment grade rated systems lose a little but stay investment grade but the other systems are screwed if they can even service their debt.
The good news for the Medicare for All crowd is that they watch this play out in real time and it's worth paying attention to how providers respond because 1) payor mixes are going to become more Medicare heavy given our current demographic trends and 2) our current demographic trends point to increased demand for all healthcare services, especially those of higher acuity.
At the very least, you'll be able to see how shifts towards more Medicare impact health systems.
My official position on M4A is that we're a generation or two away from being able to pull something like this off. The current demographics have to play themselves out and the business of healthcare needs to experience significant disruption in order to drive down costs. That can happen at some point.
Whether you eat meat or not can become a Matter of politics because of issues concerning animal rights or the environment.
There are people that would look at the way I lost weight, kept it off and continue to lift weights as political in that I'm perpetuating the kind of diet culture that oppresses fat people. That makes my individual decision political, at least according to them.
They can think what they want. I'm under no obligation to agree to see the world as they do or even engage.
Another problem is that the right-wingers and libertarians want to get rid of it and replace it with the “free market” free for all, free all and do it in a rip off the banadage manner.
Get rid of employer-based healthcare? Says who?
The left wants to replace it with some kind of government backed healthcare.
Medicare and Medicaid are public investments in community-owned and government-facilitated health care systems.
1. Medicare and Medicaid are government-run insurance programs. In no way shape or form can anyone describe them as "investments" based on the mainstream definition of the term.
2. Aside from the VA, the U.S. government neither owns nor operates health systems. Health systems describe healthcare providers, usually those own and operate acute care hospitals.
3. "Community-owned" is socialist nonsense. This is the kind of language trickery that was all over Matt Bruenig's rainbows and unicorns attempt to make a case for a U.S. "social wealth" fund, which in reality is really a sovereign wealth fund since the assets are technically owned by the sovereign government. While the "community" benefits, the idea that the "community" shares any of the rights/privileges/responsibilities associated with ownership requires a more vivid imagination than I have.
To add to this sad Greek tragedy of grifter theater, Loomer’s current insistence that she must fundraise to cover the incurred debts from staging these displays of human stupidity speaks volumes. She is the worst kind of grifter; an incompetent one, who in publicly complaining has let everyone in on the con, making it harder and harder for her to run her game. Laura Loomer’s problem is not Google, Lyft, Uber, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, “Big Tech”, or any other malicious forces. Her problem is Laura Loomer, maker of poor life choices, to say nothing of her business decisions.
Time will tell, but I don't share your optimism. People like Loomer are always going to have a long line of morons willing to support her. Hell, this country elected an incompetent businessman that sold himself as a competent businessman despite the extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
There are too many suckers out there to assume that the worst grifters will fall by the wayside.
Shooting for the moon is encourage if not expected. Ask for the world, get pushback, settle at or close to where you thought you would in the first place. I'd call that a good day.
Fact is, most Americans (often including a majority of conservative voters!!!) agree with policies which are conventionally attributed to “progressives”, or “the radical left”.
I don't think that's a fair explanation although that's not how I personally look at it. A majority of the people think M4A is a good idea, and frankly, so do I. I think there are a lot of good things that have happened because of the ACA, but on the payor/provider side, it's a mess and it's gotten worse - a predictable consequence of giving insurers the power they have.
Would I support it now? No. I think it would have horrific consequences on healthcare providers and the delivery of services. Having insurance to pay for healthcare services is one thing. Getting access to them is an entirely different animal.
All good. I didn't think negatively of your comments or thought you were thinking things you weren't. I just clarified is all.
I try to read most people here charitably anyway even when I'm my usually old cranky ass self. People know where to find me anyway in case there are concerns. :D
The new demographics are younger, more diverse, and socially liberal and because of the Fiscal Crisis more into the welfare state and what might or might not be “socialism” depending on your point of view.
Younger, more diverse and just as ignorant as we were at that age if not worse because they're more righteous than I ever was.
Oh, I can't wait for these people to try to make an impact on policy. I joined Team Blue for this very reason. Go me!
I have nothing against good academic literature, and I've read papers written by the academics working out of UC Berkeley on healthcare policy - especially on how consolidation in both the payor and provider spaces is wreaking havoc on healthcare costs borne by individuals.
I read a number of different healthcare sites, download white papers, read testimony, etc.
I may be just a dumb real estate guy, but I have to know everything there is to know about healthcare and then some and some of the academic literature is useful even if it's written for a different audience with a different perspective.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Never Say Never NeverTrump: Dems Far-Left Fringe Will Re-Elect Trump”
You too.
"
"As demonstrated by the exchange the other day, no conservative can ever quite explain what harm will occur due to “far left” proposals. Its always some sort of frothy concoction of buzzwords and slogans, always some mirage which is right there, just beyond our vision but sure as shootin’ is real."
Do you care to debate the benefits of Medicare for All against someone that eats, breathes and sleeps the healthcare business?
The smart money says you don't.
"
"However, it is disingenuous for liberal lawmakers of their states pushing full term abortion knowing only 13% of the country supports it."
The mindset in NJ and federalism go quite well together. We do what we choose to do and don't give a flying fish what the rest of the country thinks.
"
Tracy,
My comments below notwithstanding, I like posts like these. You can read the detail below if you want, but I'll summarize my view here:
I identify as a left-of-center liberal. Lord knows I can't stand the identitarian Left and the shit show the toddler-like progressives in Congress are putting on. However, what you left out of your post that under Trump, the Republican Party is true to its ethics, which is why I'll never compromise my principles.
I didn't pick my spot on the spectrum, but I'm left of center. I don't care for illiberal mindsets and I'll have no problem going full-on scorched earth if I encounter it. The best I can say about the Right is the left is going to keep me busy for a while, but your party is just as much in my cross hairs. You'll see a bit of that below...maybe not a bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details:
Note that I haven't read the comments yet and I'm going to have myself a little fun here. I enjoyed the post -
"a disastrous green new deal mouthed by insufferable, unmanageable, anti-Semitic, fringy freshmen."
Very nice. I would have thrown in a few more adjective like reality challenged and brain dead and used the term "toddlers" instead of freshmen. In fact, because most of the nitwits making the noise are women, I feel obligated to remind you that "freshman" is gendered, which you probably don't realize due to your internalized white privilege. Make sure you check all of that next time...or not... ;)
But yea, there's a "bit" of an anti-semitism problem on the Left. Seems like people are afraid to call bigots for what they are. The right has no problem though because the far right types are not only not afraid of calling it like it is but some back it up with violence. Let's not forget that. Therefore...this...
"nor will principled Zionists support a party where their own tribal leadership defends anti-Semitic diatribes from two of their own representatives"
I'm as sure as I'm as short that this is addressed above so all I say about that is that it's complicated - my own feelings notwithstanding.
"After three years of Trumpism, one would think the Democratic Party held some kind of common sense regarding the dangers of radical populism. And yet, their proclivity for identity politics and sugary dalliances with their fringe-box is the ultimate self-own for Nancy Pelosi."
But playing "hold my beer" is so much more fun. Identity politics? No such thing. Everyone should know that there are no fundamental differences in opposing racism, sexism, etc. from a liberal position (moral, ethics, politics) and anti-racism and intersectionality. Just ask Robin Diangelo...better yet...avoid that one like the plague...
"Marxism doesn’t mesh with kitchen table values, and the constant flinging of monkey-poo at the center-right by the left’s wanna-be-cast members for DC’s Clueless reboot may be a deal breaker for on-the-fence-conservatives."
As a liberal, I find most of what's to the left of me to be at best tolerable but on average infantile and obnoxious. However, while I prefer to use the term "bullshit" and not monkey-poo, terms like Marxism and socialism also qualify as bullshit, creating a scenario where people taking shit are themselves full of shit. Not good. Besides, grand narratives are a thing of the past...or so I've heard.
"Far-right populism isn’t conservatism."
Who cares? Unlike left-wing identity politics, right-identity politics can in fact manifest itself as a political force because it "mostly" deals with a single identity (white, nationalist) and seeks sovereign power to protect itself. Left identity politics assumes a different framework of power, which is why it seems so keen on addressing cultural issues. Sure, that's a crude framework but the point is that left identity politics is not able to translate to a political movement that can achieve let alone influence sovereign power. That, and the GOP will gladly turn a blind eye to it if not sell themselves out like they have. It's always been part of the right.
This is why right identity politics will ALWAYS be more dangerous.
"Across the U.S., Democrats are pushing full-term abortion legislation."
I'll check the comments on this one. My sense is that there's a reality vs. representation of reality difference going on. Your language kind of gives that away.
"Nearly two decades ago, Bush’s presidency ushered in a new era of pro-life voters, a monumental shift, and another losing message for Democrats."
Not that monumental. They failed miserably to get a Federal Marriage Amendment passed in light of the legalization of same sex marriage in MA. They also made complete fools of themselves interjecting in the Terri Schiavo case and trying to drag into the federal courts what was a state case based on state law.
"That should also include either party’s inability to reign in their own. To be quite honest, I’m not witnessing much of that on the left."
I commend the Republicans in Congress for reigning in the man-child in Chief.
"Planned Parenthood’s death grip and out of control lobbying is just as toxic as the NRA’s stranglehold on the GOP"
Here's the scary thing about this statement - I've been spending a ton of time diving into the whole identity politics thing and not just as the political pundit level where people talk broadly about groups and call-outs etc. etc. etc. That stuff is easy.
I've been diving into the "scholarship", the actual stuff behind it - in many cases in peer reviewed papers (i.e. Kimberle Crenshaw). For the good of the community, I've even suffered through reading the "whiteness" stuff (Diangelo, McIntosh, etc.).
Your comparison of Planned Parenthood to the NRA as being "a death grip", "out of control" and similarly "toxic" raises eyebrows. I'm surprised to see people admitting that the NRA is toxic, especially from the Right so that's good. Yet, the claim is about as supportable and falsifiable as the activist scholarship that is forever seared into my small brain. It's not an uncommon talking point on the right but that's all it is.
"The left’s ongoing desire to ravage lucidity for their self-destructive identity politics is why moderates in their party are becoming extinct."
Nah...some of us stayed behind and will start dealing with the children in short order.
"She attacked Ronald Reagan, called him a racist, and attacked capitalism."
Anything but that...
"What the clueless, social media acronym fails at discerning is that the Generation X conservatives and moderates from the Reagan era whom she viciously attacks will eventually put her party out of power."
You'd be surprised how many of us won't go right because we think it's a shit hole. It doesn't mean I like the left because...
"Justice Democrats is just a synonym for revenge toward everyone on the right, including NeverTrump."
I think you meant to say "everyone to the right of THEM". Big difference. I"m called alt-right-adjacent at least once a week by these kinds of people. They're children that just happen to be physiologically similar to adults...although none of them even lift.
"It no longer matters how contemptible Trump gets because the Democrats no longer have the moral high ground."
I never thought they did nor do you.
"As long as the president pushes policies for rock-ribbed conservatives, courts center-right once again while Democrats work in concert to obstruct those bread and butter issues, forget about impeachment, or about remaining in power."
Or he can just do what he normally does when he panders to bigots and they'll vote for him anyway.
On “Progress And Its Enemies”
Ah...part of a broader conversation I'm having with Maribou, which reminds me of an email I must complete. Now if you'll excuse me.
On “Manhood Isn’t Toxic, but It Also Isn’t Static”
Wait, what?
"Gym lingo and slang turns me off and sounds incredibly dumb to me (Sorry Dave but if I could I would banish “Do you even lift, bro?” culture into 999 trillion atoms across the universe)."
The world would probably be a better place.
On “Let’s Abstain from Mandatory Calorie Counts”
Ok...not that I know much about any of this kind of stuff...
"The reasoning is simple enough. Consumers currently don’t know what the calorific content of most restaurant meals are..."
I'm not troubled by this, and even if they may think they know what the calorie counts are, they still won't know for more reasons than I need to discuss here. One reason - think about the calorie count for a serving of salad dressing and if you get dressing on the side, you notice that the amount of dressing looks three to four times the size of a serving size.
"This, we assume, will lead to people selecting lower-calorie and healthier food choices, helping them lose weight.."
Or just helping people with healthy food choices.
"A review of outcomes in 2013 found that “current evidence does not support a significant impact on calories ordered”"
No surprise. Think of comments like Mike's above - they're going to go eat out, enjoy something and not worry about the calorie counts. Very common and reasonable. I wouldn't even call that a "bloodbath" given that puts the wrong kind of connotation with food. Not that it matters in Mike's case, but I've seen that go into dark places.
"Great! But once we go to longer time periods, things get tricky. Calorie counting may help with short-term weight loss, but that’s true of many so-called “fad” diets too. A study in The Journal of the American Medical Association with over 600 participants even found that “there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet”. The same study also asserted that “no one dietary strategy is consistently superior to others for the general population.”"
Weight loss is a function of a caloric deficit, whether or not people realize they're in one. With fad diets, keto comes to mind, as much as they sell people on the fact that calories don't matter, the fact is that people lose weight because they're in a caloric deficit. This is why weight loss results are almost the same across different kinds of diets.
"Further to this, in a recent article for Tufts Nutrition Magazine, numerous quoted nutritional experts with various views on healthy eating could agree on one thing: calorie counting doesn’t work."
This is VERY dependent on context. What I understand from the source is almost a vulgar form of calorie counting where you're told to hit a number and you can eat whatever you want so long as you come in at/below that number. Sure, that can be a disaster and completely unnecessary. People on the standard American diet can cut back on sugar and eat a more balanced diet of whole plant and animal foods and lose weight without counting a damn thing.
I track my calories but I have different goals, objectives and interests.
"The reality is the average consumer isn’t a nutritional scientist, and it’s unreasonable for us to expect them to have the knowledge of one."
It's almost sad to think that my knowledge of nutrition puts me well above the average person in society because what I know isn't rocket science.
"Reducing this to a calorie count may actively mislead consumers into selecting low-calorie but nutrient-poor food over meals that are healthier overall. "
Have you heard of IIFYM?
"
The thing I like about you the most is the creative and diplomatic ways you go about responding to what I would call bullshit. :D
"
I guess I've been doing it wrong all along.
On “Stephon Clark’s Killers Go Free”
Thanks Mike. I'll respond with some comments later but looking through one of the sources, it says that the officers' body cam footage was released. I'm at work right now so I don't think it'd be smart of me to search for it but has anyone else seen it?
"
Well now...I'll make a partial defense of Sam's position....this got long. I apologize.
Mike,
Do you remember us talking about identity politics and me telling you I wanted to write some posts? Well, seeing as I'm sifting through about 100 sources and trying to make sense of a number of different things, I don't know when that's going to happen, but please allow me the opportunity to apply what I've learned to this discussion, starting with this comment...
"I’m not picking that variable because it’s convenient for me. That’s just a bonus. The reason I picked that variable is because I actually understand what I am talking about, while it appears you do not."
The post that was published here a few weeks back, The Apolitical Myth, fell short in two ways that I'll clarify here. They both relate to this discussion.
The first was about the nature of "the personal is political". The discussion was far too vague. While he was correct to point out that the idea was attributed to second wave feminism, that he failed to point out that it was radical feminism and not liberal feminism. To me, this is a critical distinction.
Where liberal feminists focused on political and legal equality (and some degree social), radical feminists believe women are THE oppressed class - oppressed by men through a power structure that transcended sovereign power and social power and went straight to "private" interpersonal relationships.
This wasn't just an assertion. Through the use of consciousness raising groups, they acquired knowledge of the lived experiences of women, experiences including rape, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, domestic violence, and other horrors women were subjected to at the hands of men. Given the extent to which this was occurring, they argued that these actions were not individual acts of violence but part of a larger power structure which allowed men to oppress women with impunity.
Whether or not you agree that it was a class-based form of oppression, you MUST respect the fact that their theory was evidence-based in that they had the blood, bruises and broken bones to show for it. You should also respect, to a degree, the fact that the consciousness raising groups were part of an apparatus that produced knowledge well outside what you or I could have produced. This goes to the development of feminist standpoint epistemology, the three main tenets being:
a) knowledge is socially situated - seeing as we aren't in those social situations
b) marginalized groups are socially situated in ways that make it more possible for them to be aware of things
These are descriptive and correct in the context. There's a normative claim that research should start with marginalized communities but it wasn't applicable to this situation. Also, as I'm aware that standpoint epistemology is controversial and can speak to it, but the way it was applied in the late '60's-early '70's isn't the issue. Radical feminists were asserting oppression based on knowledge of it. They weren't asserting privilege or any of the things associated with modern day identity politics. Right or wrong, they saw a problem and they went after it politically and sought change, doing what they criticized liberal feminists for not doing.
A way to diagram this - Knowledge ----->theory (oppression) -----> political action
Note that they didn't bust out the slide rules or statistical models. Note that they weren't concerned about the opinions of anthropologists or sociologists or anyone that could have approached from an "objective" or positivist perspective. This was a political issue requiring that people acknowledge the problem as a political one and moving from there. The pencil necks could piss off as far as they were concerned.
Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this, and I'm glad that you were kind enough to post the Quillette article because while you're averse to "wokeness", as am I, I don't think Sam's article hits the "woke" threshold by a longshot.
The only criteria that comes remotely close is the second one - bigotry being pervasive. My concern is that there are ways to make that claim without falling back on moral or ideological dogma. I'm not sure how Sam does that seeing as that he's using the response to police shootings of unarmed black men by prosecutors. Put that in the context of this country's history on race and even the historical issues between the black community and police. We can agree or disagree on the evidence-based claims, but "bigotry being pervasive" in wokeland takes on a different meaning.
So no, Sam's writing on this issue is not woke. Hell, if I wanted to, I'd draft a response filled with so much critical race theory and accusations of complicity, privilege and fragility that it would make your head spin. That's woke. It would also make me sick to my stomach and require me to take a shower after writing it so no thanks.
However, don't think you're in the clear. Putting my pessimist hat on, I can make an argument that you've failed to engage Sam's broader arguments. You've claimed a certain form of authority on the subject perhaps based on personal/professional grounds...understandable as I'd do the same in certain subjects. However, and I do have to question your approach because I think this is ultimately a POLITICAL matter and should be engaged as such.
I'll lay something out in the way I'd approach it rather than me pointing out how wrong everyone else has been...for all I know, I'm the one that's whacked.
- We know there's been longstanding tensions between the black communities and law enforcement. It exists. For the purpose of this discussion, the causes don't matter.
- For now, as an analytical tool, but not the only one, take the same broader approach to power structures as the second wave radical feminists understood it. If the idea of an oppressed group is too much, just use dominant/non-dominant. So what if it originates from Marxist thought. It's a tool. At least I'm not asking you to apply Foucault so give me some credit ;)
- Standpoint knowledge from non-dominant groups needs to be considered because it may provide insight you (or me) can't have based on our own standpoints. Note that I'm not asking you to PRIVILEGE their knowledge (that's the "woke" way) but make efforts to acquire it and understand it the way they do. I know standpoint epistemology is controversial because woke types use it to convey moral and epistemic authority. I reject that approach. I think a deeper dive is required and would most likely require some form of political engagement...I'm lost on the details.
- I'm not here to argue about structural racism on an abstract level, but I am wondering if there's a form of racism originating at the personal level that can when combined can pose systemic issues politically or in matters of justice. The radical feminists didn't need to show that every man was an oppressive abuser, only enough of them. Same goes for bigots, albeit it may be a little harder to demonstrate. The best example I can see clearly is the rise of white identity politics on the far right (and nationalist right wing movements elsewhere).
- Prosecutors don't want to prosecute because they don't think they can secure conviction or the risk-reward ratio is skewed. Are the reasons based on the facts of the case and evidence? Is it a general attitude towards giving law enforcement the benefit of the doubt? Are there concerns about the racial nature of the case that could bias jurors one way or the other? I'd hope jury selection is such that the jury can put personal differences aside, but who the hell knows? It wouldn't be the first time.
This isn't meant to be clean. I'm as much a fan of universalism, objectivity, rationality and reason as the next person, but these are messy problems that geeks and their spreadsheets, models and "objective" standards aren't going to solve. It requires a different set of rules of engagement.
None of this should be read to suggest Sam is right. I have no clue. Mike, you could end up being right. I have no clue. What I do know is this - to the extent I see what's known as systemic racism, I don't follow the "woke" definition but recognize it two ways:
1) That there are ways that acts of individual racism or individual racists can create larger collective action problems. I think this can pose a problem in juries in certain kinds of case.
2) Reactionary politics creating political movements that get propelled to power and then have some control over political institutions. White identity politics on the American Right will always be better at doing this than any kind of left wing identity politics for reasons that should be obvious.
It's a tough subject to discuss. It's an even tougher discussion to have when we talk about figuring out what to do about it.
All I'm asking for is a look through a different perspective.
My apologies for the length. I've written enough, and lest anyone think I'm writing from a "woke" perspective, I can respond to that with my highest degree of disagreement but until then, this is the best I got for now...
On “Choosing Your Own Adventure: Healthcare Edition”
Yes and when people that need it and can't afford it and choose between life and death, they choose life and get treatment in an emergency care setting, which in of itself is very costly. Not for profit health systems can absorb some of that since providing care to people in need is part of the community benefits they have to provide to main a not-for-profit status but that doesn't happen all the time, which is why the ACA's main goal was increasing ACCESS.
If you know the uninsured are going to seek healthcare whether or not they have insurance (as anyone interested in self-preservation would) and you also want to control healthcare costs by keeping people out of high cost healthcare settings (acute care hospitals), they need preventative care.
I'd even go farther and suggest that a Medicare for All type of plan should be considered in a larger reform of the social safety nets. Not that I have any concrete ideas but if part of having a universal health coverage plan, I would look at other indirect ways to address population health management.
Yeah, it may sound statist or paternal to the more free market types but in theory, I'm not bothered since I'm approach from a public health perspective.
"
"The ACA was sold as, and in fact is, purely an uninsured reduction rough draft.
It would be a HUGE and DIFFICULT lift to make it anything else than that. Time to let the ACA be what it is and stop thinking it is more than that.."
From the patient perspective that's probably correct. From the provider perspective, I've seen three things.
1. A wholesale change in the way hospitals and health systems, both profit and not-for-profit, are running their businesses. Because the cost of care in the acute care setting is expensive and in some cases more costly than the reimbursements received (i.e. emergency rooms), health systems are shifting to outpatient models where they can.
2. Because cost control is so important, there's been a shift towards hospitals partnering with operators in certain kinds of facilities. It's now commonplace with ambulatory surgical centers and hospital-affiliated in-patient rehab facilities.
3. One of the reasons M4A is being discussed - further consolidation. The ACA gave health insurers a lot of bargaining power and when five health insurers control almost 85% of the market, it creates an arms race on the provider side. This was going on before the ACA went into effect but is now going all-in on both horizontal (health systems or practices) and vertical consolidation (Aetna-CVS or UnitedHealth and Optum).
The health systems consolidate so they can wield power over the insurers in order to get higher reimbursements, and they can get them. On the flipside, because the health systems can extract more from the insurers, the insurers raise their premiums.
It's perverse. I work in the healthcare real estate business (I acquire commercial property on behalf of a fund). I'm watching the dynamics in real-time and those influence our strategy accordingly. From a real estate perspective, consolidation is good if you're on the right side of the game (i.e. own a property with a smaller health system about to get acquired by a larger one). My tenants get better reimbursements so the rent gets paid.
It's the reason why I don't touch medical real estate properties with a tenant base of primarily small independent physician practices. That model is dying (Medicare for All would kill it IMO). The insurance companies have them over a barrel to a point where it becomes less enticing to operate a business and more enticing to go to an employed model, hence the reason the rate of physician employment has gone from something like 25% to 40% in the last seven or eight years. Even with the problems from private pay insurers, they still don't want to deal with Medicare.
One reason why I like my business so much is that I get to talk to the doctors about the healthcare business. It's more important to me than the bricks and mortar. I don't ask about Medicare for All specifically but we do discuss payor mix. Like me, they like as high a percentage as possible from private pay insurers and as low a percentage from Medicare/Medicaid.
My opinion on Medicare for All is simple - I will take no plan seriously if it doesn't appropriately address the consequences to health providers. Sure, it's great for patients if their healthcare costs are tied to Medicare rates in some way by way of lower premiums (or a tax increase that's less than cost of premiums + out of pocket).
We have a basic math problem here.
Average EBITDA margins for health systems are about 6%. The well-accepted assumption on the spread between Medicare reimbursements and private insurance is 40% higher for private insurance.
Conservatively, assume a payor mix that attributes 40% of total revenues to private pay insurance (as a point of reference, HCA, the largest publicly traded for profit operator is 50% private pay and Ascension Health is 45%).
Taking a 40% pay cut on 40% of revenue hits the bottom line by 16%. You may have administrative cost offset to some degree but it won't be close to that in a larger health system.
Heck, conservatively estimate a 10% net drop in revenues. If anyone is interested in explaining how this is supposed to work, I'm all ears. When that explanation arrives, I not only want an explanation on the business side of healthcare delivery but also the capital markets side.
Not-for-profit health systems may be not-for-profit and therefore not subject to the Wall Street scrutiny, but they raise debt through the tax exempt markets and have rated debt. Better ratings mean better cost of capital in the form of lower rates. Also, according to the ratings agencies, the reliance on government reimbursements for revenues is credit-negative already (which is why we don't touch skilled nursing with a 50-foot pole).
Shift to all government revenue and even hit the numbers with a 10% cut and it's a ratings disaster. At best, the top investment grade rated systems lose a little but stay investment grade but the other systems are screwed if they can even service their debt.
The good news for the Medicare for All crowd is that they watch this play out in real time and it's worth paying attention to how providers respond because 1) payor mixes are going to become more Medicare heavy given our current demographic trends and 2) our current demographic trends point to increased demand for all healthcare services, especially those of higher acuity.
At the very least, you'll be able to see how shifts towards more Medicare impact health systems.
My official position on M4A is that we're a generation or two away from being able to pull something like this off. The current demographics have to play themselves out and the business of healthcare needs to experience significant disruption in order to drive down costs. That can happen at some point.
Here's some fun reading:
https://www.capitaliq.com/CIQDotNet/CreditResearch/RenderArticle.aspx?articleId=2151274&SctArtId=465221&from=CM&nsl_code=LIME&sourceObjectId=10834664&sourceRevId=1&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20290109-21:50:39
On “Wednesday Writs: West Virginia vs Barnette”
Reality may be worse...
"
Poe's Law...
This is your brain on grievance studies.
On “Those Dastardly Billionaires, or Something”
And then some.
On “Apolitical Myth-Making”
There are people that would look at the way I lost weight, kept it off and continue to lift weights as political in that I'm perpetuating the kind of diet culture that oppresses fat people. That makes my individual decision political, at least according to them.
They can think what they want. I'm under no obligation to agree to see the world as they do or even engage.
On “McConnell: Trump Will Sign Bill, Declare National Emergency”
Howitzers? Are we talking about my biceps?
On “Linky Friday: Adventures in Amazon”
Get rid of employer-based healthcare? Says who?
You are a lawyer aren't you?
On “A Responsibility to Find New Pain-Relief Methods in Midst of the Opioid Crisis”
1. Medicare and Medicaid are government-run insurance programs. In no way shape or form can anyone describe them as "investments" based on the mainstream definition of the term.
2. Aside from the VA, the U.S. government neither owns nor operates health systems. Health systems describe healthcare providers, usually those own and operate acute care hospitals.
3. "Community-owned" is socialist nonsense. This is the kind of language trickery that was all over Matt Bruenig's rainbows and unicorns attempt to make a case for a U.S. "social wealth" fund, which in reality is really a sovereign wealth fund since the assets are technically owned by the sovereign government. While the "community" benefits, the idea that the "community" shares any of the rights/privileges/responsibilities associated with ownership requires a more vivid imagination than I have.
On “The Grift Giveth, the Grift Taketh Away”
Time will tell, but I don't share your optimism. People like Loomer are always going to have a long line of morons willing to support her. Hell, this country elected an incompetent businessman that sold himself as a competent businessman despite the extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
There are too many suckers out there to assume that the worst grifters will fall by the wayside.
On “The End of Conservatism: How the Ideology of Reagan and Thatcher is Fading Away”
Shooting for the moon is encourage if not expected. Ask for the world, get pushback, settle at or close to where you thought you would in the first place. I'd call that a good day.
I don't think that's a fair explanation although that's not how I personally look at it. A majority of the people think M4A is a good idea, and frankly, so do I. I think there are a lot of good things that have happened because of the ACA, but on the payor/provider side, it's a mess and it's gotten worse - a predictable consequence of giving insurers the power they have.
Would I support it now? No. I think it would have horrific consequences on healthcare providers and the delivery of services. Having insurance to pay for healthcare services is one thing. Getting access to them is an entirely different animal.
"
All good. I didn't think negatively of your comments or thought you were thinking things you weren't. I just clarified is all.
I try to read most people here charitably anyway even when I'm my usually old cranky ass self. People know where to find me anyway in case there are concerns. :D
"
Younger, more diverse and just as ignorant as we were at that age if not worse because they're more righteous than I ever was.
Oh, I can't wait for these people to try to make an impact on policy. I joined Team Blue for this very reason. Go me!
"
I have nothing against good academic literature, and I've read papers written by the academics working out of UC Berkeley on healthcare policy - especially on how consolidation in both the payor and provider spaces is wreaking havoc on healthcare costs borne by individuals.
I read a number of different healthcare sites, download white papers, read testimony, etc.
I may be just a dumb real estate guy, but I have to know everything there is to know about healthcare and then some and some of the academic literature is useful even if it's written for a different audience with a different perspective.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.