Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Krugman linked to a pdf of it this July blog post: Why markets can’t cure healthcare. I doubt you'll agree with it. [grin]

You're quoting an Nobel-laureate economist from Stanford? You may as well be doing a "Jay Walking" segment from the tonight show. [smile]

Did the esteemed professor and Nobel-laureate ever get around to pointing out that the economics of an inelastic market are well known and studied while he was inventing his political propaganda or did he require that the reader not have an economic background?

Fixed. And how is this not trolling, exactly?

Quote:Original post by Promit
Fixed. And how is this not trolling, exactly?

Making an academic joke about a source and pointing out what I feel is a shortcoming in his analysis is trolling then?

How is quoting one small portion of my response, much of which was substantative, then accusing me of trolling a good use of your time? Did you have anything valueable to add sir?


Summary: Less bullying, more work on your profiler please.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:Original post by Zahlman
Here's some discussion of the latest Republican goalpost-shifting on the bill.

The Baucus plan is a giveaway to the health care industry, along the lines of the corporate welfare that is ongoing in the financial sector and auto industry. This is not surprising as Baucus has received more money from the health care sector than any congressman in the history of the union. A quick google will yield several thousand hits on the subject from both liberal and conservative sources.

More on this, the Baucus bill has now been shown to be authored by the ex-VP for Public Policy and External Affairs for Wellpoint. Wellpoint is a conglomerate of many of the major health insurance companies. So the insurance companies basically wrote this bill by extension.


Here's a blog post, there are several. It hasn't really bubbled up to the MSM yet.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
More on this, the Baucus bill has now been shown to be authored by the ex-VP for Public Policy and External Affairs for Wellpoint. Wellpoint is a conglomerate of many of the major health insurance companies. So the insurance companies basically wrote this bill by extension.


Here's a blog post, there are several. It hasn't really bubbled up to the MSM yet.

I'm not replying to this specifically, but the link goes tangentially with the topic and some points discussed here (amongst other things, see below). I'm sorry I don't have the thing to participate more fully than to just drop a quick link, but I didn't see this being brought up as of yet. Inhuman Models by Michael Feldman in HPCWire on the subject of high performance trading software in Wall Street and the simulation models used therein.

Quote:... By the way, the latest financial instruments Wall Street has come up with are called "life settlements." They've actually been around since 2005, but have spread rapidly since then. In a nutshell it works like this: Financial institutions buy up and package lots of life insurance policies into securities, which they can then resell to investors. (Sound familiar?) The payout is made when the people that took out the policies die. The quicker the person dies, the bigger the yield...

[Edited by - Naurava kulkuri on September 18, 2009 3:19:20 PM]

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:Original post by LessBread
You don't share my belief that substantial numbers of Democrats in Congress will go along with undermining the bill on behalf of the companies who donate to their reelection campaigns? It seems to me from your comment that you do agree. Consider what David Sirota had to say about this subject last weekend: UnitedHealth Lobbyist Announces Pelosi Fundraiser As She Begins Backing Off Public Option.

You didn't say Democrats, you said Republicans. So long as we both understand that both parties are standing in line at the same trough, and rather cordially.

Yes I did: "It depends on how many of them the Republicans are able to insert into the bill they won't vote for, which companies will benefit and if those companies contribute to Democrats too." The Republicans insert the poison on behalf of the health insurance lobby, and those Democrats paid off by the health insurance lobby gladly do nothing to remove it. As for standing in line at the corporate money trough, that's a line I think the Libertarians would love to join...

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
I see, you're looking at this from the perspective of the insurance companies. You're saying that they will have to start spending more of each dollar they get from premiums on actual health care instead of pocketing it. Right now they spend around 80%. If the public option matches the 4% overhead cost of Medicare (in other words Medicare spends 96% of each dollar received on actual health care), then insurance company costs will rise to match that. Is that what you're saying? If so, I think that's intended, even if that way of phrasing the matter is inverted. The way you've phrased it sounds like you're saying that the cost of health insurance -- what everyday people are looking at - will rise to meet the cost of insurance purchased from the government and that doesn't make any sense given the assumption that the public option will cost everyday people less than private insurance. I suppose you would use the word price to describe that rather than the word cost. It seems to me that most people are far more concerned with the price they have to pay for coverage than they are with the costs paid by insurance companies.

I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of a consumer, regarding a service industry with an inelastic market, and a proposed alternative state mandated service provider. In an inelastic market, when margin goes down and demand goes up you get A)Rationing, B) Increased black market activity.

What you wrote only makes sense when looked at from the perspective of the health insurance companies. With ~50 million people cut out, we have health care rationing already.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Are you talking about a 30% cut in margin? ie, 30% of 30%? So you're saying that if the margin falls from 30% to 20% that business is insolvent? The way I figure it, that business would need to sell 50% more to maintain the same total profit (20% of 150 == 30% of 100), so it really depends on how great the higher demand is. Moreover, it seems that insolvency only comes to bare when the margin approaches zero. I think the idea is that insurance companies spend a lot of money denying care, so if the law prevents them from denying care, their administration costs will decrease and they'll spend that money providing care instead. I also think that when the final bill is passed, one signal to look for to indicate if that's how the system will operate will be the price of the stock of publicly traded insurance companies. If their stock goes up, investors believe the reforms haven't reformed anything, and if their stock goes down, then investors believe the reforms have reformed the system (at least until they figure out how to game the reforms).

A 30% cut in revenue, not margin. In fact, operating cost will go up almost linearly with the increased demand. Assuming a similar 80/20 split among the entire sector that means the sector runs at a loss and is defunct.

If that's so, then I say great. I think the health insurance industry should be scrapped entirely and replaced with a single-payer system. Meanwhile, I don't see how these reforms will lead to a 30% cut in revenue, especially if they include an individual mandate. Increased costs, sure, revenue cuts? You'll have to elaborate on that.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
That's the one. What I'm saying is that fretting over the restructuring of 16% of the economy, when more than half of that 16% goes towards fixing broken windows, makes no sense. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, "... wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent in the United States, more than half of all health spending." (2008) That's a lot of money spent repairing broken windows that could be spent more productively elsewhere.

That's a poor analogy. Transaction costs aren't the same thing as a broken window fallacy. How much of the 1.2 trillion is spent on conforming with regulation and lobby?

I think the analogy holds. It's money diverted from productive use. You can read the report for yourself or at least the summation at that link. So far this year more than $260 million has been spent on lobbying. Last year the figure approached $500 million [1]. That's less than one twentieth of a percent of the waste identified by PWC.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
No, the government pay taxes to it's bond holders... [grin] I'm surprised that you make that argument considering it could also be made in regard to the offshoring of manufacturing. I doubt you would say these things about that.

You're mixing the private sector with the public sector. One is a business, the other is a monopoly.

Duh! There would be no humor in it if I didn't mix up the categories. Even so, the interest the government pays on bonds isn't too far removed from a tariff or other forms of taxation.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
That's not what I wrote, so there's nothing for you to quote. Obama appears to be doubling down on Afghanistan, not on those other countries. He seems to be dragging his heels on withdrawal from Iraq. We'll have to see about that next year.

Just making sure. I'm really happy to see some of the left gaining momentum on the anti-war front, and Obama now delaying an increase of troops to Afghanistan. It could be PR or it could be something real, let's cross our fingers.

I'm on the fence when it comes to Afghanistan, actually.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Korea, Germany, Japan - I don't think it's fair to lump those together and dump them on Obama. Japanese politics have entered a new era. It's too soon to say how that will play out vis-a-vis US Empire. SK and NK appear to be back on track towards rapprochement after an 8 year delay courtesy of the Bush administration. Germany appears to like the money from US Empire, but elections there could change that. The neocons have regrouped and are pressing Obama to attack Iran. We could be surprised this October. And then there's Israel, Turkey and the other "stans", not to mention Somalia and Sudan. When guns fight with butter, guns win, so reforms may falter, but Obama isn't LBJ and the impetus behind health care reform this time isn't humanitarian. If nothing is done to correct the excess health care will consume too much of the economy even as it becomes too expensive for most people (How Health Insurance Premiums Are Eating Up Middle-Class Incomes).

Obama could unilaterally announce to withdraw from Korea, Japan, and Germany before dinner this evening. He doesn't need congress, a bill, or a consensus. It's one of the few things his station gives him ultimate authority over. I try and make allowances that however well intentioned he may be over a given issue he still has to deal with congress. But in this instance all he has to do is pick up the phone.

He could but he won't and it's absurd to expect him to make that move unilaterally. Such a move would be highly disruptive and given today's political climate would wreck his credibility entirely. Just look at the guff he received for making the sensible move to reverse Bush's plan to put missiles into Poland. Obama could end "don't ask, don't tell" without involving Congress but he's dragging his feet with that. Obama is a centrist at heart but given how far to the right the Bush administration took the nation, then center now seems left.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
But these days private investors aren't investing. And while we fuss over who should invest in renewable energy in the absence of private investors, the Chinese are preparing to take the lead (Don't blame the feds if Silicon Valley falls behind).

Thus the need to make some moves to facilitate our own research. Start by making 100% of research money spent on renewable resources tax deductible.

Tax deductions are superfluous to those who don't pay taxes, but if you're recommending higher taxes on polluting technologies in conjunction with deductions for research into non-polluting renewable energy, that would at least by worth looking into.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Krugman linked to a pdf of it this July blog post: Why markets can’t cure healthcare. I doubt you'll agree with it. [grin]

You're quoting an economist from Stanford? You may as well be doing a "Jay Walking" segment from the tonight show. [smile]

Why send Leno to the street when I've got you? I mean, clearly, you think that knocking a top ranked university constitutes a rebuttal.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Did the esteemed professor ever get around to pointing out that the economics of an inelastic market are well known and studied while he was inventing his political propaganda or did he require that the reader not have an economic background?

Instead of asking loaded questions, how about demonstrating the flaws in Arrow's argument? If the economics of inelastic markets are so well known and studied, then it should be quick work for you to demolish Arrow's paper from 1962.

Quote:Original post by LessBread
Yes I did: "It depends on how many of them the Republicans are able to insert into the bill they won't vote for, which companies will benefit and if those companies contribute to Democrats too." The Republicans insert the poison on behalf of the health insurance lobby, and those Democrats paid off by the health insurance lobby gladly do nothing to remove it. As for standing in line at the corporate money trough, that's a line I think the Libertarians would love to join...

Really? You were making a point on the mechanics of the corruption? As if you've any way of knowing, and as if it were pertinent in any way to our discussion? It's seems more likely you were playing partisan again. It's a compulsion better cured than embraced.

As to your crack about libertarians, it's flat silly. Corporate welfare is anathema to libertarianism. More partisan games, and in this case I can't see an end it serves other than mastubatory. Feel free to enlighten me.

Quote:
What you wrote only makes sense when looked at from the perspective of the health insurance companies. With ~50 million people cut out, we have health care rationing already.

Supply of a service or good in an inelstic market is based on cost and margin. If the cost of non-governmental insurance rises as a result of regulation then either the price will go up or the coverage will go down. Apply yourself, I'm sure you can grok it.

Quote:
If that's so, then I say great. I think the health insurance industry should be scrapped entirely and replaced with a single-payer system. Meanwhile, I don't see how these reforms will lead to a 30% cut in revenue, especially if they include an individual mandate. Increased costs, sure, revenue cuts? You'll have to elaborate on that.

OK, two things. First, it's not just the insurance companies in question, it's the entire health sector. I pointed that out earlier but you somehow missed or dismissed it.

So, In my earlier example I made clear that governmental insurance would either be better or worse than private insurance. If it doesn't have a mechanic that allows it to discriminate among its clients(and it wont) then only the infirm will use it and costs will skyrocket(and coverage will likely be winnowed away). If they pass a law that no insurance companies can use a mechanic for risk aversion, and public insurance is cheaper and offers good coverage then people will flock to it. Because the public insurance company pays 30% less than the private companies once some critical number of insured are reached the entire sector will make 30% less.

A company operating at a 20% margin, as you outlined above, is paying $80 to provide X service and selling X service for $100. Public care would pay 70$ for the same service and increase the demand for it. A company can't pay 80$ to provide X service and sell it at $70.

Quote:
I think the analogy holds. It's money diverted from productive use. You can read the report for yourself or at least the summation at that link. So far this year more than $260 million has been spent on lobbying. Last year the figure approached $500 million [1]. That's less than one twentieth of a percent of the waste identified by PWC.

I'm all for eliminating as many transaction costs as we can. That doesn't make your analogy apt. How much money is "wasted" in advertising every year? Why not promote a government take over all of industries? Food is more mandatory than healthcare, why is it you don't support food subsidies and that you shop at private firms for food distribution? Shouldn't the government take over this industry as well?

Quote:
I'm on the fence when it comes to Afghanistan, actually.

Surprisingly illiberal of you sir. [smile]

Quote:
He could but he won't and it's absurd to expect him to make that move unilaterally. Such a move would be highly disruptive and given today's political climate would wreck his credibility entirely. Just look at the guff he received for making the sensible move to reverse Bush's plan to put missiles into Poland. Obama could end "don't ask, don't tell" without involving Congress but he's dragging his feet with that. Obama is a centrist at heart but given how far to the right the Bush administration took the nation, then center now seems left.

So it's a question of expedience? I'd argue that it doesn't fit his agenda.

Quote:
Tax deductions are superfluous to those who don't pay taxes, but if you're recommending higher taxes on polluting technologies in conjunction with deductions for research into non-polluting renewable energy, that would at least by worth looking into.

I couldn't support the government being the benefactor of taxes when it's individuals that are harmed by pollution. I fully support tort reform to make businesses and individuals fiscally liable for their pollution, as well as support any effort that nixes the governments ability to give legal sanction to polluting.(e.g. cap and trade)

Quote:
Instead of asking loaded questions, how about demonstrating the flaws in Arrow's argument? If the economics of inelastic markets are so well known and studied, then it should be quick work for you to demolish Arrow's paper from 1962.

I don't imagine that's a good use of my time. I'd either get technical and you'd cry "jargon" or else you'd ignore any point I made and appeal to authority. I'd rather have this discusiion with you instead of the court jester.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:Original post by LessBread
Yes I did: "It depends on how many of them the Republicans are able to insert into the bill they won't vote for, which companies will benefit and if those companies contribute to Democrats too." The Republicans insert the poison on behalf of the health insurance lobby, and those Democrats paid off by the health insurance lobby gladly do nothing to remove it. As for standing in line at the corporate money trough, that's a line I think the Libertarians would love to join...

Really? You were making a point on the mechanics of the corruption? As if you've any way of knowing, and as if it were pertinent in any way to our discussion? It's seems more likely you were playing partisan again. It's a compulsion better cured than embraced.

As to your crack about libertarians, it's flat silly. Corporate welfare is anathema to libertarianism. More partisan games, and in this case I can't see an end it serves other than mastubatory. Feel free to enlighten me.

I correct your error and you respond by insulting me. Great. Maybe that wouldn't be necessary if you carried forward some of the context of the discussion. It almost seems that you omit earlier exchanges in order to make fabrications about what went on. Let's see. You wrote: "You didn't say Democrats, you said Republicans." I responded by saying "Yes I did" and dug out the sentence where I went after Democrats too. And now, instead of saying, "I was wrong, you did say Democrats" before proceeding, you pretend to be incredulous and - even though I've just slagged my party - accuse me of playing partisan. You have seriously warped view of partisanship. And when it comes to compulsion, you seem to have a compulsion to lump both Republicans and Democrats together anytime there is an opportunity to do so, painting both as equally corrupt and equally on the take, nuance be damned. That looks like playing partisan to me.

And my remark about libertarians wasn't flat silly. It wasn't about corporate welfare either. Corporate welfare may be anathema to libertarianism, maybe it's just a bugbear they pay lip service to opposing, but my remark wasn't about corporate welfare, it was about corporate lobbyists controlling members of Congress - "standing in line at the corporate money trough". You've distorted what I wrote and tossed in a few insults to divert attention from that. You've said nothing about how taking contributions from corporate lobbyists is anathema to libertarianism. It's clearly not. Here's a list of the corporate sponsors of the Cato Institute. It includes Altria, Chevron, ExxonMobile, Comcast, General Moters, Pfizer, R. J. Reynolds, Verizon among others. Maybe you'll claim that CATO isn't libertarian, but maybe you won't. Maybe you'll ignore the point instead of conceding it.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
What you wrote only makes sense when looked at from the perspective of the health insurance companies. With ~50 million people cut out, we have health care rationing already.

Supply of a service or good in an inelstic market is based on cost and margin. If the cost of non-governmental insurance rises as a result of regulation then either the price will go up or the coverage will go down. Apply yourself, I'm sure you can grok it.

You're assuming that the decision makers in charge of the insurance corporations will have no choice when it comes to adjusting their profit margin. You assume that they won't eat the increased costs, that they'll either pass them along to their customers or cut back on services to their customers while keeping their profit levels the same. It appears that in this regard you have no faith in the market, no trust that competitors will be able to offer better coverage at a reduced price - through improved efficiency and reduced waste (remember $1.2 trillion per year wasted by the current system). This seems like a major blow to the central tenet of your ideology. It appears that you are assuming that the decision makers in charge of the insurance corporations will continue dancing to the tune demanded by Wall Street rather than adjust to the tune demanded by their customers. Tell me, where is the locus of the health care market, on Wall Street or on Main Street?

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
If that's so, then I say great. I think the health insurance industry should be scrapped entirely and replaced with a single-payer system. Meanwhile, I don't see how these reforms will lead to a 30% cut in revenue, especially if they include an individual mandate. Increased costs, sure, revenue cuts? You'll have to elaborate on that.

OK, two things. First, it's not just the insurance companies in question, it's the entire health sector. I pointed that out earlier but you somehow missed or dismissed it.

So, In my earlier example I made clear that governmental insurance would either be better or worse than private insurance. If it doesn't have a mechanic that allows it to discriminate among its clients(and it wont) then only the infirm will use it and costs will skyrocket(and coverage will likely be winnowed away). If they pass a law that no insurance companies can use a mechanic for risk aversion, and public insurance is cheaper and offers good coverage then people will flock to it. Because the public insurance company pays 30% less than the private companies once some critical number of insured are reached the entire sector will make 30% less.

A company operating at a 20% margin, as you outlined above, is paying $80 to provide X service and selling X service for $100. Public care would pay 70$ for the same service and increase the demand for it. A company can't pay 80$ to provide X service and sell it at $70.

Given that 55% of what's now spent is waste (1.2/2.2 = .55 - per the PWC study), a 30% overall reduction of spending still leaves a 25% margin of waste. In hard numbers, you're saying that a reduction in spending from $2.2 trillion to $1.54 trillion would bankrupt the system, even though that's $500 billion more than what the PWC study says is actually needed.*** As for your argument, I think your focus on profit margin has led you to distort the numbers. Private insurance spends 80% of every dollar of revenue on costs. Public insurance spends 96% of every dollar of revenue on costs. So public care would pay $80 for the same service but would sell it for $84 instead of $100. That's 16% less than what private insurance would charge, not 30% less. It appears that you've doubled the numbers in order to make them fit your argument.

// edit
*** Actually needed to cover the 5/6 who are now covered. If the ratio holds, we should be able to cover everyone for $1.2 trillion, that's $300 billion less than what you say would bankrupt the system.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
I think the analogy holds. It's money diverted from productive use. You can read the report for yourself or at least the summation at that link. So far this year more than $260 million has been spent on lobbying. Last year the figure approached $500 million [1]. That's less than one twentieth of a percent of the waste identified by PWC.

I'm all for eliminating as many transaction costs as we can. That doesn't make your analogy apt. How much money is "wasted" in advertising every year? Why not promote a government take over all of industries? Food is more mandatory than healthcare, why is it you don't support food subsidies and that you shop at private firms for food distribution? Shouldn't the government take over this industry as well?

Instead of asking me how much money is wasted on advertising every year, how about providing a reference to an expert estimation of the size of the advertising industry? Maybe you don't make the effort because you're lazy, but maybe you don't because the answer won't support your preconceptions. Either way, it's a stretch to jump from that to government take over of all industries. I do support food subsidies, but I don't think the government should take over the food industry.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
I'm on the fence when it comes to Afghanistan, actually.

Surprisingly illiberal of you sir. [smile]

Maybe so. We can start a new thread to discuss that if you'd like.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
He could but he won't and it's absurd to expect him to make that move unilaterally. Such a move would be highly disruptive and given today's political climate would wreck his credibility entirely. Just look at the guff he received for making the sensible move to reverse Bush's plan to put missiles into Poland. Obama could end "don't ask, don't tell" without involving Congress but he's dragging his feet with that. Obama is a centrist at heart but given how far to the right the Bush administration took the nation, then center now seems left.

So it's a question of expedience? I'd argue that it doesn't fit his agenda.

Not expedience, political pragmatism. We can start a new thread to discuss Obama's approach to Afghanistan if you'd like, but it's off topic here.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Tax deductions are superfluous to those who don't pay taxes, but if you're recommending higher taxes on polluting technologies in conjunction with deductions for research into non-polluting renewable energy, that would at least by worth looking into.

I couldn't support the government being the benefactor of taxes when it's individuals that are harmed by pollution. I fully support tort reform to make businesses and individuals fiscally liable for their pollution, as well as support any effort that nixes the governments ability to give legal sanction to polluting.(e.g. cap and trade)

Tort reform seems like an odd bromide to recommend against pollution. I thought tort reform was all about making it more difficult for individuals harmed by businesses to sue businesses and win big settlements. At any rate, that's off topic here too, but we can discuss it in a new thread if you'd like.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Instead of asking loaded questions, how about demonstrating the flaws in Arrow's argument? If the economics of inelastic markets are so well known and studied, then it should be quick work for you to demolish Arrow's paper from 1962.

I don't imagine that's a good use of my time. I'd either get technical and you'd cry "jargon" or else you'd ignore any point I made and appeal to authority. I'd rather have this discusiion with you instead of the court jester.

In other words, you're not able to easily explain your position so you'd rather not bother making the effort... [grin]

[Edited by - LessBread on September 22, 2009 12:38:33 AM]

Baucus is pushing the Republican alternative from 1994. Individual mandates without the public option amounts to a massive government subsidy to the health care insurance industry. The excuse he gave about why he voted against Rockefeller's amendment, that there weren't enough votes in the full Senate to break a filibuster, is completely spurious. The insurance company lobbyists got their money's worth when they bribed him.

GOP Favors Public Option for Property, Not People -- David Cay Johnston

Quote:
Atop the front page of the New York Times today is a color photo of Georgia homes flooded up to their rafters, an image that illustrates how when it comes to insurance our Congress applies two standards, separate and unequal, one for property and a lesser one for people.

Unlike people without health insurance, homeowners have access to public option flood insurance.

Even those who fail to take personal responsibility to buy insurance to protect their property can get benefits, thanks in good part to politicians who are leading opponents of public option healthcare.
...
Instead of being laughed at by his fellow Republicans for promoting socialism, the concept of retroactive relief was warmly embraced, although not the idea for retroactive insurance. Instead the government went with handouts.
...
Congress is so generous in its subsidies for property that the public option for flood insurance even covers property built in flood prone areas. And you can literally buy insurance on the day of a flood in some cases, and 1 day before in others.
...
We have elevated property above human lives. That members of Congress who frequently proclaim their religious faith and cite the Bible as their guide would put property above people suggests they need to actually read the texts they claim guide them. Neither Jesus nor the Old Testament prophets ever put property first. They did however denounce those who did, labeling their deeds with a simple word: evil.

Two standards, separate and unequal, for the health of property and the health of people, are un-American. This bias in favor of property over people should be ended with all deliberate speed by raising the standard for people to that of property. A public option would be one small step in that direction.