Now, I have this vision of dancing bears, acrobats and … clowns.

“Clowns” is an appropriate term, Varan.

If you're running for Indiana's Senate seat next year, I have just one thought, and you should hold onto this:

12.5 million.

That's the warchest against which you must compete.

Checkmate.

I don't care if he's got 100 million. I kept an open mind. I listened to, “Oh Evan, Hell, he's a cheap son-of-a-gun.” It came time to walk-the-walk on “fiscal restraint” and it didn't happen. Unless he finds a Jesus moment very shortly, I may fail, but I'm working for whomever is the candidate most likely to defeat Senator Evan Bayh. I don't exactly send anybody shaking in their boots from my donations, but I can work a phone, email, blog, etc.
.
I don't care if Bozo the Clown is the best that can be rounded-up. It's unconscionable (maybe just unconscious) to already be double-digit trillions in hock to Medicare and Medicaid, have the dean of Harvard Medical school (within state-run health care) agree the legislation is a fiasco, and 15% more Americans concur in over 20 national polls that we DON'T WANT this health legislation!
.
I counted. The Economist had approximately five, FIVE covers during the election featuring then Senator Obama. ZERO McCain covers. They are not exactly an official publication of the GOP. In a very lengthy article they had some months ago (with our President in scrubs on the cover), they made it clear that the common denominator that needs to be fixed for our health care is lack of a check on COSTS. So, is there a legislative mandate to have pricing up-front from hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies in this legislation?
.
Nope- can't have that.
.
Is there now enabling of medical plans to cross borders and be offered without government mandates, to better COMPETITON for COSTS?
.
Nope- can't have that.
.
Is there any malpractice or tort reform?
.
Nope- can't have that.
.
85% of Americans have basically said is that cost is the primary (not the only) issue for their insurance. What this administration has said is, “Tough. You're paying for the other 15% that aren't covered.”
.
You want to be pissed about Bush, Cheney, and any Republicans who got us into unwinnable Middle East excursions, or were ideologically rigid beyond the capacity of a respectable donkey, or spent money like Fort Knox has just discovered some hidden additions – I AGREE.
.
It still does NOT justify our current administration doing the SAME THING- only worse.
.
So, yeah, I'll take Behney or whomever has the best shot against Senator Evan Bayh.
.
You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Taxpayer, you need to get your news from more accurate sources.

Sen. Bayh held out on deficit principles.

The plan before the Senate will save the US Treasury, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

There are things in the plan I don't like. And things that aren't there, that I wish were there.

But the thrust of the plan was to cut wasteful Medicare spending, which it does, and make insurance affordable, which it does. It delivers 30-40 million customers directly to the doorsteps of the nation's health insurers, with subsidies if folks aren't making enough money to pay for insurance. That, to me, is criminal.

It does nothing to stop the prolific overbuilding of hospitals. Also criminal.

You can rail against Evan all you want on most subjects. But on the deficit, he's to the right of Atilla the hun. Facts are stubborn things.

And he'll win next year. Easily.

Evan's a whore who sold out the minute he went national.

And you believe our President when he says the health care scam will cut insurance premiums? What am I asking? You believe everything he says. The administration's own actuary says premiums will go up. And yes, facts are stubborn things. Your 'predictions' are not facts, only wishful thinking.

Evan may win next November, but your party is going to have its ass handed to it.

I don't know if I should view it as 'appropriate' or a 'matter for concern' that this is someone whose day job is connected with toilets and the flow of sewage.

“Savings” is a relative term to how deep in the hole we already are. If I owe somebody only $100, granted, that's delightful compared to $200 dollars.
.
Peter Peterson reiterated around three months ago on the PBS Charlie Rose show that we're double-digit TRILLIONS lacking in Medicare obligations. We're to be impressed that expanding health care reduces the overall amount somewhat? Now? At a juncture in our economy when we're STILL, literally, routinely, borrowing billions we don't have? How do we explain this logically to our kids? Particulary, with the Hippocratic Oath still leaving most of the hospital doors wide open? It's not like this bill will make things any cheaper- ask Dr. Flier of Harvard Medical.
.
One- Pardon, (regardless of party), if I'm a bit jaded about goverment claims of furture efficiencies, particularly when they've had years to work on it already. Two, this “solution” includes “efficiencies” that are to come from Medicare (serving Seniors) while there's still no serious attept to stop non-emergency benefits to non-citizens. Basically, we're telling the Seniors, “To heck with you guys, you're old. We want to take care of these young illegals. They won't cost us as much money.”

Even if all the guest workers, illegal immigrants, non-citizens, whatever label you want were all airline pilots with lineage from Wales, that doesn't change the fairness. Non-citizens are suppossed to trump elderly citizens for a national health care program? Really? I don't believe in national health care, but IF we're to have it, we definitely need a discussion of the ethics of benefits distribution. Forcing it upon the elderly by telling them they no longer outrank non-citizens is not it.

As an elected legislative body, our Congress could have attempted to have an in-depth audit, ranking, and plan. Kind of like couples do at the dinner table before they decide to turn off the cable tv. Similar to when Oregon had a list of procedures, with prices, and a known kettle of money to work from. Or, we can delegate some other body to do it and stand by their decision- sort of like the base closure commissions. Or, we can be sneaky, in a big fuss and hurry about it, which is what is going on down. Don't get me wrong- sneaky and in a big hurry is generally bipartisan.
.
I'm with you on hospitals, REALLY with you on hospitals. Tell me when the picketing starts & I'll meet you. Bayh may be a step-up from others regarding spending money, but we need much, much better. We're dug a deep, DEEP hole. You are right that facts are stubborn things.

Think again did you really just quote the Congressional Budget Office numbers…..OMG i can't stop laughing .

Think again you used the Congressional Budget office numbers …oh my god I can't stop laughing….you might want to see how often those are revised, changed or throw out…..ROFLOL

Sort of comparable to the Peterson checkmate, right? He had 10 times more money that Ballard.

The fact is that having a lot of money doesn't assure you of election or re-election. It helps – a lot – but people's assumption that the money advantage can never be overcome is wrong.

Events of 2010 could be favorable for Republicans. That might put an R within striking distance of Bayh even without the money.

I am a life long Democrat and I am ready to say Bye Bayh. If we are going to have a Senator voting with the right wing lunatic fringe then it might just as well be a republican. Evan stands for nothing.

Libertarian, you might want to check the CBO, too. Its accuracy is pretty spot-on. It's the yardstick by which the GOP threw up over the first House version of health care.

You might want to think before you type.

Fact Checker, he frustrates me a lot, too. But the alternative scares the Bejesus out of me. Another DeMint, or worse yet, another Graham or Inhoffe?

No thanks.

There are extremists in each party, FC. The difference is that your looneys are running the show.

You really should change your name. The Dems haven't givin' a flying f about facts for years. And from what I've read in your posts, you wouldn't know a fact if it was resting on your chin.

And until the CBO was threatened by the thugs on Penn St., the numbers told quite a different story. The admin's own actuary said our insurance premiums would increase.

What has Bayh voted on that puts him within the “right win lunactic fringe?” Before you say against public funding of abortion, you should know that Congress has for about 30 years voted against public funding of abortion, including tons of Democrats.

When one isn't grounded one scares easily. Evan stands for something. Ever see that statue of Moses with his finger up in the air? That is all Evan is, an indicator of which way he thinks the wind is blowing. Weathervanes accomplish the same thing at much less expense.

I like the sentiment from 'taxpayer'. If grassroots unknowns want to make a difference, regardless of economic and political obstacles, then more power to them. Instead of derisive comments, we should all applaud that in America this is embedded in our heritage.

While some have time to chortle at Mr. Behney's campaign against our intelligentsia, consider yet another political nugget, unearthed by the Wall Street Journal deep within our health care “reform” package:
.
Some of the biggest employers in the U.S. are warning that a provision in the Senate's proposed health-care overhaul could lead to cuts in retiree benefits and a sharp reduction in reported earnings next year. Companies including Boeing Co., Deere & Co., MetLife Inc. and Xerox Corp. plan to lobby Democratic leaders to drop the provision, which would change the tax status of payments for retiree health benefits. Democrats identified the change as a way to help pay for the health-care overhaul. It would raise about $5.4 billion over 10 years — a relatively small slice of the bill's overall cost — according to estimates. The AFL-CIO has joined the corporate giants in an unusual alliance to warn the provision would encourage companies to drop drug benefits for million of retirees. Many of the companies that would be hardest hit are unionized and offer better retiree benefits than are available under Medicare.
.
Put this together with what we already know: No demand for upfront pricing, or deregulated competition across state lines, or legal reform. Instead: Over 2000 legislative pgs publicly acknowledged as “unreadable”, inapplicable to Congress, that will increase (not decrease) health costs according to the Harvard Medical School dean, includes language to CHANGE SENATE RULES within the legislation, and is to be funded on the backs of seniors, business, union members, and basically all citizenry (relative to non-citizenry).
.
THIS is the “Change” you believe in?
.
Then speak up.

Would those be the same corporations, Taxpayer, who benefitted greatly from the last eight years? And whose top executives likely saw unprecedented tax cuts, which cost the treasury over a trillion?

As for across-state-line purchasing,unless the federal government regulates that, as they do trucking tariffs, etc., we'd have 50 state insurance commissioners who effectively become national insurance commissioner. A true mess.

The idea sounds great. Practically, it can't work.

There's no such thing as “costing the treasury.” The treasury is a cost to, and born by, the people. V1, V1, V1; the velocity of money accelerates or decelerates in direct proportion to tax rates. Disposable income is invested or spent; the economic sovereignty of natural selection. The lifeblood of a free market is transactional sovereignty. More transactions (investment or spending) result in more tax revenue- it's that simple.

Like many of you, I've marveled at the extravagance of some wealthy folks. But caterers, party planners, architects, house keepers, gardeners, country clubs, etc. are employment & part of the economy. It's their money, to spend as they wish. No amount of prejudicial contempt or envy can justify stealing from or mistreating anyone.

We're capable of traveling to other planets but can't handle an adventure in insurance, deregulation, competition, etc.? That's crazy.

OK Dave, I tried. Three times. I read it over and over, and just when I think I'm getting close to understanding your words, then **poof** the brain fries and I disconnect.

Decode, please.

And could you please stop sleeping with a Thesaurus, huh?

If your intent is to make a point, you have failed. If your intent is to impress us with your vocabulary, you have failed. If your intent was to befuddle and confuse us then you have achieved success.

P.S. I apologize for using such common words.

You guys are kidding right? Thesaurus can usually be cured with a little Gold Bond; nothing impressive about a rash.

Americans are grossly overtaxed & therefore overcharged for the wanton irresponsibility of government. When taxes are increased, economic activity decreases in response. More tax means less disposable income (the personal property & fruits of one's labor) for investment or spending; fewer transactions that also generate tax revenue.

To be fair, taxes should be broadly based & applied, sales being the most common to everyone. Tax targeting is agenda burdened mistreatment of a select group which is wrong; patently unfair & barbaric. Envy doesn't excuse theft.

And, there's no immutable law which says 200 or so insurance companies can't compete in Indiana or any other state. In time & with genetic mapping, we all will be known to have “pre-existing conditions,” there should be no such disallowance. Indiana ain't too bad but torte reform is needed in many states.

Anyone in Congress who enabled that legislative dung to advance, without appropriate disclosure of what the wealth scare bill actually says, including those who signed without reading it, needs to be held accountable for their malpractice.

TA- I enjoy your thoughts and particularly your experiences (as I believe do a lot of readers). Have a Merry Christmas.

1) It's been established health care “corporations” don't make the alleged obscene profits, but some American corporate (and Congressional) heads darn sure do. I'm with you that the “honor system” of self-regulation of banks and Wall Street works about as well as “a home for everybody”. In other words- bloody awful.

2) If we're so damned enthusiastic to have national health care, I'll take the 50 insurance commisioners over the blatant bribery and gouging that makes midway carneys look respectable we've preliminarily passed. Besides, there won't be 50 commisioners because that would mean respecting the rights of states and missing the opportunity for an Interstate Insurance Czar. We can't miss that one.
.
Hey, I 'm not the one that thinks national health care (except emergency care) makes sense unless your country is incredibly affluent- and then it's proven to be a temporary solution. Fix the problems with the free market of the private industry you have. Mayber we're closer to agreeing that America needs to be more of a participative co-op up the center of our demographics, that a pepetual candy store for the edges. Both edges.
.
Merry Christmas to all.

Much better, Taxpayer. Much better.

But you're dead wrong on health insurance companies. The five largest ones, including our own Wellpoint, averaged 26.6% annual profits over the last nine years.

Hospitals are a big part of the problem too. They're allowed to overbuild, willy-nilly, and place those hugely-under-used facilities into their rate base, and pass it along to insurers, or, ultimately, the taxpayers and policy holders

Think Clarian. A Carmel hospital AND one at Exit 10/I-69? Please. Someone should be ashamed. St. Frances abandoned a perfectly good downtown Beech Grove facility for a sprawling mega-complex on south I-65. And every damned one of them has every damned expensive piece of diagnostic equipment known to man. God forbid any of them should share these resources. No, just “build new” and let it get used at a rate of 20-30% occupancy per month. Yeah, that's real smart. Building for the 'burbs. Funny thing is, the burb folks are the most-able to transport themselves to any facility anywhere. Those left without are the inner-city, the poor…

The Senate bill passed yesterday is a start. Obama campaigned on this, and said he'd help pay for it with a tax on the wealthy. Like it or not, it's hardly money-envy, Taxpayer. Did you know that our medicare tax stops at about $340,000 of gross income, regardless how much you earn? Continue that tax on all income above that threshold, and you pay for every single Medicare expansion. Couple that with the elimination of fraud inside the program, also sought in this bill, and it's a good start.

It ain't perfect. But it may be the best you can get now, inside this corrupt and bought/paid for Senate. And as folks begin to realize it's not what Mitch McConnell says it is…well, wrath is an ugly thing at the ballot box.

A lot to agree upon: hospital over-building & poor utilization, the unfair cap on income contributions to medicare (which also begs overhauling our carnival wheel of taxation), & the general waste, fraud, and abuse. Unfortunately, incessant, bipartisan WFA is my basis for disagreeing on national “anything”, beyond the scant agreements in the Constitution. I'm all for theoretical utopia & egalitarianism, I just think we're living continuation of the proof that our species is not collectively productive enough to do it. I keep arguing “bipartisan sacrifice” & what we get is, “I'm in power now! Time to stick it to the other guys!” I feel like I'm watching a Deep Space Nine episode.

Balls in my court on data substantiation of health corporation profits, as I still owe a tort/malpractice rebuttal.

I hope Dr. Flier of Harvard, the majority of the American people, the WSJ, & I are mistaken, I hope the “reform”, if passed, is better than what we had. I'm still working against it because it is too corrupt & asks too much sacrifice for too few. I agree wrath is an ugly thing at the ballot box. I don't want the pendulum to swing as far as last election, but I see it coming. The “reform” is not exactly the poster child to foster moderate cooperation. When do our parties pass legislation that reflects a bipartisan common sense approach instead of our take-no-prisoners method?

Nixon's treatment only begat Clinton's treatment which brought Bush excesses which brings us to now. We've lost the notion that a good ballgame is one in which the fans of both teams are unhappy, because the game got called down the middle. Our success is based on down the middle, not rejoicing on one side and creating Nancy Polosi or Dick Cheney dartboards on the other.

I'm going to work on cleaning house for Christmas. Not a day for dartboards for any of us.

Dartboards serve a purpose, on occasion. But not as common practice.

Tort reform. Hilarious subject, Taxpayer–Indiana and 20-plus other states already have jury caps. Put in place here, I might add, under the watchful eye of a doctor-governor who gave us the Property Tax Replacement Fund. So we n=know he was drunk with power and stupidity.

Ho Ho Ho. A lump of coal for them all.

Dartboards serve a purpose, on occasion. But not as common practice.

Tort reform. Hilarious subject, Taxpayer–Indiana and 20-plus other states already have jury caps. Put in place here, I might add, under the watchful eye of a doctor-governor who gave us the Property Tax Replacement Fund. So we n=know he was drunk with power and stupidity.

Ho Ho Ho. A lump of coal for them all.