Oh however will we pay for health care? By paying the true cost

I'm presenting this section from the July 17 entry on The Daily Howler fully and without comment, other than to say it's mind-boggling that more people don't see the ridiculousness of the current "debate" about health care in America.

The atrocity in the room: How much extra will we rubes have to pay to get what everyone else already has? Sorry: To get what everyone else already has--at half the price we're already paying? We're not sure what the answer will be. But bowdlerized versions of that question have been in the air all week.

Yesterday, the AP began explaining the $1.5 trillion price tag (over ten years) it had put on the current House health reform bill. (For their explanation, click here.) This morning, the Washington Post leads page one with the CBO's latest gloom:

MONTGOMERY (7/17/09): Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory--or cost curve--of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, "The curve is being raised." His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse.

Numbers are going to move around, and Elmendorf's testimony will be read different ways. For ourselves, we'll just marvel again at our society's Ongoing Agreement to ignore the atrocity in the room.

What's the atrocity in the room? It's the astounding amount of wasted money involved in our current arrangements. Yesterday, the Post referred to "President Obama's ambitious drive to overhaul the nation's $2.3 trillion health-care system." We don't offer what follows as a criticism of Obama. But let's consider what that amazingly large number means:

Let's assume that our society is currently spending $2.3 trillion per year on health care. Since we're spending twice as much per person as other developed nations, about $1.15 trillion of that money is essentially "wasted" spending. Some of it goes to pay the middle-class salaries of middle-class people engaged in (useless) paper-shuffling at insurance companies. Some if it goes to doctors who perform useless procedures. Some it goes to insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the form of large profits.

But, in the larger sense, it's all wasted/misspent. And let's enjoy a bit of straight talk: That much misspent money is an utter social obscenity. And yet, that remarkable sum rarely gets discussed as we try to figure out how much more we'll have to pay--to get what everyone else already has. That astounding amount of misspent money thus becomes the atrocity in the room.

It's isn't Barack Obama's fault that this obscenity goes undiscussed. The liberal world has taken part in this gimmicked discussion for many years. But that misused sum does represent a true social atrocity. And alas! When it gets discussed at all, it tends to get discussed in the manner which follows.

Chrystia Freeland (The Financial Times) appeared on last night's Ed Show. She said more than is normally said:

FREELAND (7/16/09): This president likes to talk about the best being the enemy of the good, and is very much someone who is focused on achieving what is achievable. Having said that, I agree with you that the public option is really essential for true health care reform.

One of the nightmare outcomes that you could have is some sort of reform which is a half measure and ends up making things worse. I think the way you could get to that would be maybe to have coverage extended, but not to have action taken to bring down the costs, which is one of the things that the public option could do.

One of the really the ridiculous things about the American health care system, if you look at it from the outside, is America spends more on health care than other western industrialized countries, significantly more, but actually has equal or, in most cases, worse outcomes. So you should be able to have reform that gives more coverage and costs less money. I think it has to be the target that the president aims for.

Freeland, a Canadian, correctly noted that our system is "really ridiculous" ("if you look at it from the outside"). Well guess what, rubes? The situation Freeland describes remains deeply ridiculous if you look at it from the inside! But almost no one ever does. Freeland herself understates the insanity a tad--and her host, Ed Schultz, moved directly to a different consideration.

In that presentation, Freeland offers a bit of obvious logic. If the US pays twice as much as other nations for similar health care outcomes, "you should be able to have reform that gives more coverage and costs less money" (our emphasis). In the short run, it wouldn't be easy to accomplish that outcome; any actual "overhaul" of our profoundly ridiculous system would involve economic dislocations. But it's rare to see anyone make the obvious case Freeland offered last night. When she did, she understated the lunacy a tad--and Schultz moved instantly on.

Classicist Norman O. Brown got very hot in the mid 1960s. In his very hot book, Love's Body, he described how societies die:

BROWN (1966): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned...And so there comes a time--I believe we are in such a time--when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

We don't recall what that means any more. But we will say this: Societies die when they can no longer see, or discuss, what is standing right before them. A ludicrous, deeply disordered discussion continues in today's Post.

Got $10? Go get some Root:1 wine

The last few years, as I've honed my wine snobbery, I've taken to looking outside the traditional winemaking regions of the world to find wines with something to prove. Wines that have to be good, otherwise they'll just disappear, along with the vineyards. And as it turns out, I'm not alone in this quest; it seems you can't swing a bottle of Kendall Jackson in a grocery store without hitting a nice red from Spain, a whole rack of Australian and Kiwi wines and a selection of fermented beverages from a handful of states at least.

And the more I look, the more I read and listen to what people are saying about wines, the more I hear a steady drumbeat of praise for South American wines, particularly those from Chile. Apparently Chile, with its vicinity to the extreme cragginess of the Andes mountain range, has ideal climatology for several kinds of wines and somehow the original rootstocks from European colonists have survived all these years untouched, whereas rootstocks from Italy, France and the other renowned wine hotspots have been damaged by disease, necessitating manmade grafts with newer, less mature rootstocks.

And somehow the Chilean wines seem to be affordable -- nay, cheap -- even though they consistently garner top praise from wine critics. I've had a few Chilean wines (all red, all from 2003-2007) and I've liked what I've tasted, but it wasn't until I had Root:1's Sauvignon Blanc that I decided to raise the alarm.

This is seriously good wine. I have a bottle of 2008 vintage that cost me $8 at Meijer and it's blowing my mind. And I'm not even a fan of white wines. It's crisp and tart and refreshing with an extremely clean finish reminiscent of granny smith apples, strawberries and fresh-mown straw on the nose. This is a wine for summer.

And it's got a screw-cap bottle, which I just decided needs to be implemented on all wines ASAP. I hate having to recork or use one of those little "wine-saver" vacuum spigots for my bottles. Just give me a cap and I'll be fine. Also, as you can see, the bottles are kind of gorgeous and tell the story of Chilean wine and why it kicks so much butt.

Enjoy the denouement of summer with this wine, and with the price as low as it is, you should enjoy a lot of it.

Read more at Root:1 Wine

Why the GOP is dead: It opposes something 8 in 10 of us want

Political author and snarky blogger Bob Cesca has a giant, sprawling, fantastically sarcastic missive on the Republicans' uninformed, ignorant and stubborn refusal to even consider the fact that American health care as it currently exists may NOT be the best system that's ever existed.

While I spent a few moments of my holiday weekend revisiting the irony of anti-socialism protests taking place on socialized park land, it occurred to me that the proposed government-run public health insurance option probably won't cost nearly as much as the CBO is suggesting.

Because clearly there won't be any Republicans signing up for it.

I mean, no Republican would dare sign up for inexpensive, easily portable health insurance. Not when red, white and blue All American for-profit health insurance is available. After all, free market private health insurance will probably continue to be the more expensive option, so that must mean it's the finest insurance, right? Expensive equals good, no? (No. More on that presently.)

And of course none of the Republicans or Blue Dogs in Congress are covered by a government health insurance plan. Except for all of them.

Please explain, conservatives and wingnuts, why you wouldn't seriously consider switching to the public option if it turned out to be more affordable and portable from job to job -- not to mention the fact that you wouldn't be turned down for a preexisting condition; you wouldn't be randomly booted from the plan as soon as you needed it most; and you would never have to worry about health insurance coverage ever again. Employed or unemployed. Sick or healthy.

I find it hard to believe that you, Mr. and Mrs. Wingnut, would defiantly pay more for less reliable insurance if offered a better deal. To pay more for less would be outstandingly backwards. Palin backwards. "Quitter" equals "fighter" backwards.

The facts: We spend more health care money per capita than any other country on the planet and we're not getting the return. We already spend more than enough to care for every man, woman and child in the United States (plus the illegal ones, in all likelihood), so any doomsaying about "paying for" public health care is misinformed at best; misleading at worst. We're paying for it now, and we're not getting it. The Republican party as we know it -- the party as it's existed since at least the Reagan administration -- is dead, and the battle over health care is just the straw that's broken the trust-fund baby's back.

California's marijuana consumers say "Tax me, please"

This is for real. I'm not a Californian, but in a time of financial crisis the likes of which we're seeing right now worldwide, legalization and regulation of marijuana seems like one of the most no-brainer steps to help raise revenue for just about any state. Keep in mind, FDR ended Prohibition of alcohol in the United States in 1933, which just happened to be the beginning of the end for the Great Depression.

Get mauled by Grizzly Bear: Veckatimest

I really really really liked Grizzly Bear's first album, "Yellow House," for all of its solemn beauty and especially after I heard some of the group's a cappella interpretations of some of their own songs and realized "holy crap, these guys are a secret doo-wop group!"

With their sophomore album, "Veckatimest," the boys from the boroughs lose the secrecy and step a bit more fully into their neo-doo-wop/freak-folk skins and come away looking even better. For instance, revel in the sweet glory that is "Two Weeks," the (very smart) choice for first single.



And "Southern Point" may be one of the best track ones I've heard in a while in terms of setting the table for its album.



I can understand this kind of thing not being everyone's cup of tea, but for people who already like certain inferior acts in this genre (*ahem* Bon Iver), this should be a homerun; a shutout; a hat-trick; a wicket; a 92nd minute, game-winning goal; a slam-dunk; a six-length Derby win. Buy in digital or physical form via the boys' Web site.

Shake and drank: Ocean Spray On the Go Cran-Pom

Every once in a while I dabble in the single-serve drink mix powders because let's face it: This is on some futuristic, astronaut type stuff. Keep a couple in your pocket/purse/desk and turn any container of water into a delicious juice; it's Jetsons come to life.

OK that's a stretch, but it's still a pretty brilliant, simple, convenient concept. Unfortunately, most of the flavors I've tried have been subpar at best. They're either too bland or too grainy-tasting or the flavor doesn't quite match what it's going for, plus they're generally too expensive (10 or 12 packets for more than $2.50 = gyp).

But I gave Ocean Spray's entry into this product pool a try because I generally like Ocean Spray's juice and it was on sale at Kroger (I think $1.80 or so for 10 packets, not terrible). It came through for me. Cranberry and pomegranate are both strong, influential flavors and they're well represented in this mix. Each serving has 5 calories and 100 percent Vitamin C for your day, plus it's delicious. Definitely worth a try if you can stand cranberry and pomegranate juices.

WOW! Mountain Dew Game Fuel has returned

WoW, World of Warcraft, get it? Before, when the excellent Game Fuel hit the shelves, it was in conjunction with the release of Halo 3. Now it's back for a promotion for the well-aged MMO World of Warcraft and it's brought along a new flavor.

Before, the lone electric red colored soda had a nice cherry citrus kick to it, like Code Red but a little less syrupy sweet. That flavor has come to represent the Horde, which is one of the sides in the overarching battle in the game. The new flavor, a bright blue wild fruit punch citrus soda, represents the Alliance, which is sort of the "good" side in the battle. I don't play the game, so don't jump down my throat if I'm misrepresenting here.

At any rate, the company has a Web site set up where you can enter codes from your bottle caps for whatever side you choose, earn tokens and play for prizes, including in-game prizes. What's more important, however, is that the new addition to the Game Fuel lineup is a worthy competitor to the old one. It does indeed pack a nice fruit punch flavor with the traditional Dew citrus kick with not too much syrupy stickiness. I recommend both flavors and I genuinely couldn't care less what you play in WoW.

Side track: A comment on the DOJ actions lately

I'm going to have a review of the new Mountain Dew Game Fuel flavor up later on, but right now I wanted to turn my attention (and yours) to the news that the U.S. Department of Justice will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, otherwise known as DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, thus excluding same-sex couples from matrimony.

Gay rights groups are outraged, simply outraged, that the DOJ is defending the law of the land. Listen, I understand feelings of outrage and betrayal given that President Obama campaigned, in part, on getting rid of DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell and several other gay rights road blocks. But that's misdirected outrage: Obama has no control over what the law of the land is, and it's the DOJ's sworn duty to uphold the law of the land. The DOJ can't change laws or ignore them; Alberto Gonzalez and the Bush administration only made it seem that way.

Here's what's happening: Obama and the progressive leaders of this country want to defeat DOMA, DADT, whatever else, but these are law right now. So the DOJ does its duty of defending the law as vigorously as possible, knowing full well that these laws won't stand up to a sensible constitutional challenge. As they are doing with the Bush administration's wiretaps, secret prisons and suspension of habeas corpus, they're throwing the kitchen sink out onto the lawn, pushing every vile and reprehensible defense of these indefensible policies out into the public record, setting a precedent so that when these things are eventually defeated, whether through legislative means or a Supreme Court ruling, there won't be a defense left. It will have all been argued through in the most pure and meaningful exercise of American jurisprudence and American government.

The DOJ can't be an activist agency. Neither can the Supreme Court. And the executive office can't just blink laws in and out of existence at will (though the president does have SOME limited powers to change policy unilaterally, he couldn't bypass Congress for everything without eventually getting impeached [I know, I know, Bush did it, but he should have been impeached, that's not a radical notion]).

So by airing these arguments out as fully as possible instead of propping policy up on backdoor meetings and flimsy "because I said so" rationale, the Obama DOJ is laying the groundwork for a just and fair future for the GBLT community. If you're reading this and you're angry about DOMA or illegal wiretaps or anything else, agitate. Protest. Give money to progressive causes. Volunteer for political campaigns that fall in line with your values. Do these things because without We the People, these powers of checks and balance don't always work as they're intended. The DOJ is pushing, so push back. I'm sure the president will support you.

Let 'em do Hardin time: Why not move Gitmo to Montana?

As a disclaimer, a preface to this rant I'm about to go on, let me just say if you're one of these people who lives in constant fear of terrorist attack because of what happened on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City, the Pentagon and one other plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania due to some heroic and badass citizens, you and I may not see eye to eye on this issue.

Because here's the thing: These terrorists that we're all so afraid of, they're not really that scary. Let's take a look at how they pulled that attack off. They went to flight school and said "never mind landing, I just want to learn how to steer a plane." They bought some box cutters and some fake bomby-looking stuff, they got some plane tickets (and hell, a couple of them nearly missed their flight) and then they threatened to blow up the plane (with bombs that didn't exist) and brandished their knife cutters to get control of the plane.

Knife cutters and half-assed flight instructions and the knowledge that airline protocol for hijacking presupposed that your hijackers will just want to land somewhere and do a hostage negotiation, not slam the plane into a building: That's what it took. Crafty, yes; scary, no. Have you ever seen the clips from al Qaeda or Taliban training videos? I'm no firearms expert, but these people, who you have to presume are the Best and Brightest, otherwise why would they star in training videos, barely know how to operate an AK-47, which was designed to be literally so easy a child could operate it. They know how to run around sloppily, take defensive positions sloppily and lay down cover fire (code for "spray bullets in that direction to keep them from shooting or moving around") sloppily. Also, they apparently know where to hide pipe bombs in the desert. You probably live within 5 miles of someone more dangerous and more adept at killing than most of these clowns.

So all this brings me to this story about a sleepy Montana town about an hour's drive east of Billings, in the flattest part of the flattest area on the continent; a town whose council recently voted unanimously to offer up their unoccupied, shiny new $27 million prison to hold the detainees at Guantanamo Bay until they get their days in court. See, Hardin, Mont., is a destitute little town of 3,400 with crippling unemployment and no industry to speak of. They built this prison on spec -- meaning without any contracts in hand from anyone who'd actually want to use it -- out of desperation. It was a last-ditch effort to attract money and people to the town.

Do you see that? That's concertina wire.

I say, good for them! This is an ideal situation: A town in the middle of nowhere, where everyone owns a gun and knows who belongs and who doesn't, who has a shiny new prison and nobody to put in it, and has a willingness to update the prison to whatever specifications are needed to hold these "dangerous" "terrorists."

But the congressional delegation of Montana, which includes a dude who's missing a couple of his fingers, wears a flat-top and likes to hunt, said nosirreebob, we're not taking any TERRRRRRISTS here! And the Democratic governor of the state, too, said "nope, can't do it."

WHY. THE HELL. NOT? Right now we've got these so-called dangerous people holed up in a ramshackle, ad-hoc military facility that honestly shouldn't even exist given our adversarial relationship with the nation it sits on (Cuba). Here in our country, we have a wide variety of prisons to hold the most hardened murderers, rapists and actual terrorists in their own tiny cells. We have facilities where people convicted of the most heinous crimes go and are never heard from again. The movie-style image of prisoners milling around in a common area with relatively little supervision ("where terrorists could recruit other criminals to their cause!!!") is just that: A MOVIE, MADE UP. General population situations only happen in the lowest-level jails with the lowest-level offenders, and even they've been placed in separate cell blocks as to avoid interactions between warring gangs or allied groups of prisoners.

Think about how many prison riots there are in the United States every year. There are two or three that make the national news at most. Then consider that the United States is the most prison-happy nation in the history of the world, with more people locked up at any given time than the populations of many civilized countries. If our prisons, with all these angry-ass, neglected, uneducated, unloved and hopeless characters, aren't erupting in riots every week or two like they do in Brazil or Mexico, why do you suppose that is? Could it be because we have top-of-the-line facilities with cameras in every corner, three security checkpoints between any given cell block and the nearest open area and well-trained, well-armed guards?

Spoiler alert: The answer is yes. When politicians say they don't want the "danger" of terror suspects in our jails, not only are they being ignorant -- seeing as how we ALREADY HAVE many terror suspects in prisons around the country -- they're also saying that they're afraid our resources aren't good enough; that American correctional officers and military base staff aren't capable of keeping some emaciated foreigners in line. If I was a warden or a guard or even just a sheriff's deputy and I heard my elected representatives say "not in my prisons," I'd be insulted.

Which is why I think, whether it winds up being in Hardin or Terre Haute, Ind., or Florence, Colo., or any other capable facility in these United States, these detainees will be imprisoned on American soil sooner than later. And not the "American soil" on a corner of Cuba, the real stuff. And nobody -- NOBODY -- has any reason to fear that.

They keep getting better: Auto tune the news Vol. 4

Is it just me or did Katie Couric seem like she was intentionally being lyrical and musical to secure her usual spot in ATTN?