Karl von Rove publishes his plan to defeat health care reform!

[dave b]

It's worth reading. Just be ready to take a shower after.

How to Stop Socialized Health Care - WSJ.com

db

[kitkat]

Nice. I'm sure it will all resonate, when properly & skillfully presented, within the american electorate. Pure genius. Of course, never mind that existing systems (that he argues as being utterly disastrous) already exist elsewhere and are successful as well as contradicting every one of his fabricated arguments. But hey, that is no more than a mere inconvenience to an effective propaganda campaign-- certainly no bar.

M bet is health care reform gets about as far as another income tax deduction before it stops dead in its tracks. Any takers?

[PhilB]

Karl Rove is an asshole.

Karl Rove is on the right side of this issue.

That article, although dumbed down for public consumption, is on target.
At this point, the one single badly needed public service the Republicans could possibly perform would be to block socialized healthcare, by any means possible.

PhilB

[flylooper]

Originally Posted by kitkat

Nice. I'm sure it will all resonate, when properly & skillfully presented, within the american electorate. Pure genius. Of course, never mind that existing systems (that he argues as being utterly disastrous) already exist elsewhere and are successful as well as contradicting every one of his fabricated arguments. But hey, that is no more than a mere inconvenience to an effective propaganda campaign-- certainly no bar.

M bet is health care reform gets about as far as another income tax deduction before it stops dead in its tracks. Any takers?

Yup. Me. How much?

[BDFINALLY]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Karl Rove is an asshole.

Karl Rove is on the right side of this issue.

That article, although dumbed down for public consumption, is on target.
At this point, the one single badly needed public service the Republicans could possibly perform would be to block socialized healthcare, by any means possible.

PhilB

what means would be out of bounds?

[kitkat]

Originally Posted by flylooper

Yup. Me. How much?

Ok. But first, let's define "gets about as far", shall we? We need to dial in exactly what we're betting on after all. You see *I* think that the end result of any health care reform will likely be a net *increase* in costs to the insured (and corresponding increase in the profits of the insurers) --*and* an increase in the per capita amount we pay for healthcare in this country. And if this is not the case, any net savings to the insured will not amount to more of "a hill of beans" than "another income tax deduction". And a minor deduction at that. (You see i am being charitable.)

So do you really think that what health care "reform" that ends up emerging as law will actually *decrease* the cost of health care to the citizens of the country taken as a whole--or *decrease* the amount of money the nation spends on healthcare per capita from its present ridiculously inefficient levels comparative to other state's programs?

Then we need to talk about what data sources are legit for proving the point. You see, i want to be sure I have a bet that yields an unambiguous winner. Because it won't be you.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by BDFINALLY

what means would be out of bounds?

Any means within the system. Filibusters, bogus amendments, pull out all the stops. (So no, I was not meaning shooting anyone, even though I firmly believe that socializing the last free-ish market in medicine would cause millions of future deaths and would make those who made that happen mass murderers.)

PhilB

[flylooper]

Originally Posted by kitkat

Ok. But first, let's define "gets about as far", shall we? We need to dial in exactly what we're betting on after all. You see *I* think that the end result of any health care reform will likely be a net *increase* in costs to the insured (and corresponding increase in the profits of the insurers) --*and* an increase in the per capita amount we pay for healthcare in this country. And if this is not the case, any net savings to the insured will not amount to more of "a hill of beans" than "another income tax deduction". And a minor deduction at that. (You see i am being charitable.)

So do you really think that what health care "reform" that ends up emerging as law will actually *decrease* the cost of health care to the citizens of the country taken as a whole--or *decrease* the amount of money the nation spends on healthcare per capita from its present ridiculously inefficient levels comparative to other state's programs?

Then we need to talk about what data sources are legit for proving the point. You see, i want to be sure I have a bet that yields an unambiguous winner. Because it won't be you.

Sure. Let's use the Congressional Research Service:

Health care reform has emerged as an issue in the 111th Congress, driven by growing concern about widely discussed problems. Three predominant concerns involve coverage, cost and spending, and quality. Commonly cited figures indicate that more than 45 million people have no insurance, which can limit their access to care and their ability to pay for the care they receive. Costs are rising for nearly everyone, and the country now spends over $2.2 trillion, more than 16% of gross domestic product (GDP), on health care services and products, far more than other industrialized countries. For all this spending, the country scores but average or somewhat worse on many indicators of health care quality.

Linky

Let use this metric: If 17 cents of every GDP buck goes for "medical care," I'm willing to bet that if we get "reform," that number will drop. How much should it be to declare me the winner? Well, a one cent drop in a 13 trillion dollar economy equates to $130 billion. (Although I believe it will be significantly more if we get a viable public option)

That enough for ya?

When to declare a winner? I say on Inauguration Day 2012. I''ll be around, inshallah.

Amount? 100 American dollars.

[mishaken]

I'm going to stand with kitkat on this one.