« Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners | Main | Women and Men and Societal Lies »

Your move, Mike

Michael Moore is the gift that keeps on giving. First up, he slipped one of his bigger critics a cool twelve grand "anonymously" to help the guy cover his wife's health insurance (a "gift" that got plenty of play in his newest mockumentary). Then he gave his film distributors all kinds of aggravation when he announced that he didn't care if anyone downloaded and watched his film off the internet -- even before it hit the theatres.

North Dakota's most famous blogger (and Wizbang Guest Poster Emeritus) Rob Port has taken Mike up on his too-kind offer, and posted the complete film over on his always-excellent blog.

I'll be curious to find out just how long Rob's version will stay up before Moore's backers (who have a serious financial interest in people NOT doing just what Mike has encouraged them to do) have their lawyers send Rob a nastygram. In the meantime, though, feel free to wander over and see what the Riefenstahl of Flint has spun this time.


Comments (103)

MeThinks the Fat Man oughta... (Below threshold)
marc:

MeThinks the Fat Man oughta head over to Jolly Ole England for his next slockumentary on piss poor health services.

When 60% of the providers fail to meet the basic health standards ("silly" things like the risk of infection, failing to decontaminate equipment properly and not meeting the hygiene codes) the place is ripe for Moore's next epic.

But somehow I don't think it fits his agenda.

JayTea,You're much... (Below threshold)
Mike:

JayTea,

You're much too kind. Riefenstahl was a photo artist, albeit one who chose her most famous subject matter poorly. Check out her official website.

Moore is, well, a fat guy who makes cheesy propaganda films. More of a combination of Goering and Goebbels.

I thought Michael Moore was... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

I thought Michael Moore was an actor. I saw him in Star Wars playing Jabba the Hutt. He sure slobbers like Jobba.... spewing out more lies than the middle east has oil.

Serves him right for openin... (Below threshold)
WeeWee:

Serves him right for opening his big fat mouth. I hope NO one pays to see it.

Interesting move by Port. I... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Interesting move by Port. I wonder if Port thinks what's he's doing is legal?

"In the meantime, though, f... (Below threshold)
nice guy:

"In the meantime, though, feel free to wander over and see what the Riefenstahl of Flint has spun this time."

No thanks, I haven't eaten breakfast yet.

Michael Moore asked in the ... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

Michael Moore asked in the title of one of his books, Dude, Where's My Country?

Dude, You Ate It

He was TOLD to do it by Job... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

He was TOLD to do it by Jobba himself. Of course it's legal. Duh. ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

"He was TOLD to do it by... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"He was TOLD to do it by Jobba himself. Of course it's legal. Duh. ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL"

You post such drivel, steak, it's hard to tell if you a\re serious or not. (Or maybe you just pissed because you spammed the photo caption contest with 20 or 30 entries, and not a single one was chosen?)

It was a serious question, and if any adults enter the thread it might be an interesting discussion.

And mine was a serious answ... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

And mine was a serious answer. It is TOTALLY legal. I was merely laughing at the stupid question.

As much as I dislike MM, it... (Below threshold)

As much as I dislike MM, it appears that someone has stolen either his or his distributor's property.

"the Riefenstahl of Flin... (Below threshold)
Phoenix:

"the Riefenstahl of Flint"

You must have watched the movie to be driven to such an asshole comment like that. Or perhaps you didn't, but you'd love to smear anything that shows what a sorry state in which"free market" healthcare is.

It's going to be amusing in 9 days to see what the extreme right whacko blogosphere will do to try to shred this latest Moore film w/ the most absurd and vile ad hominem attacks because they can't stand the reality of his message.

From the pre-release coverage that I've seen, you all will be bleating, ranting and foaming at the mouth to try to save healthcare for greed. Sicko is going to create a firestorm w/ a public sick of the outrageous state of healthcare in America.

"It is TOTALLY legal."</... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"It is TOTALLY legal."

So then, meathead, if the President of Bank of America says "I don't care about people robbing our banks" that makes it *legal* to rob a BofA bank?

What country are you from P... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

What country are you from Phoenix? Or maybe I should ask, what planet? The next time i do something stupid such as smoke my lungs full of nicotine, i'll have you, lee, and Jobba pay for it.

Virtually every film is lea... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Virtually every film is leaked onto the internet these days, if not before it is released, on the day of it's release.

$12,000 is a bargain for such publicity.

If the CEO of BOA was that ... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

If the CEO of BOA was that stupid as to give me permission to rob his bank, it is perfectly legal to accommodate and help him in any way possible - and I would to the full extent of my ability - and every square inch of my truck.

I think where you miss it is if Jobba would give Mr. Port permission to post SOMEONE ELSE'S Lackumentary or if the CEO of BOA told me to rob SOMEONE ELSE'S bank. Think, Lee THINK. What country are YOU from?

Watch out, you're seeing th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Watch out, you're seeing the beginning of the Health Care election. Go over to Rob's and watch the movie, if you can stomach letting him profit off the work of others.

Oh, btw, watch what Moore actually said about file-sharing his films.

"As long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor, I would oppose that."

Gee, Rob gets paid for those ads on his page, doesn't he? Asshole.

Sicko is going to create... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

Sicko is going to create a firestorm w/ a public sick of the outrageous state of healthcare in America.

Curious. I suspect you have extensive knowledge gleaned from all the left-biased sources. All well and good that. But, what actual experience do you have with socialized medicine? Have you or someone very close to you been treated for a life-threatening condition under a socialized plan? In my own experience socialized medicine is great if you're healthy. It only starts to suck when you need treatment.

My best guess is that any s... (Below threshold)

My best guess is that any speculation on our part of its legality would be just that, unless we know who owns the actual rights to the movie; Moore or the distributors.

I don't know if it's legal or not, but it only shows that Moore is willing to bite any hand. Whether it has a hot dog in it or not :)

(Why yes! That's an ad hominem attack!)

Shorter Rob: I'm ... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

Shorter Rob:

I'm proving that Michael Moore sucks by stealing from him !1!1!!!! Teh!!

In my own experience soc... (Below threshold)
mantis:

In my own experience socialized medicine is great if you're healthy.

My guess is your experience is nil. All of my friends who live in countries with free national health care value it very much (and yes, some of them have received care for life-threatening illnesses, surgery, etc.), and think Americans are a bunch of idiots for not demanding the same from our government.

In my experience our health care system under insurance companies and HMOs only interested in making a profit is great, unless you are poor, or have a pre-existing condition, or come down with something they won't cover, or are magically "dropped" retroactively for some bullshit reason, or need prescription medication, or.....

Excuse me, I have to get to work, so I can help pay for the colon surgery my father is having this week, which his health insurance from the company he's been with for over a decade is, surprise, not covering.

John Galt -That's ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

John Galt -

That's the same for any medical system - they're ALL great when you don't need them.

Let's see - mandatory tax increases to fund a mediocre health care system (and you've got to wonder just HOW getting government involved in health care is supposed to make things better for everyone) or insurance premiums of about the same level to get decent health care... Frankly, I'd take the latter of the two.

He was TOLD to do ... (Below threshold)
jpe:
He was TOLD to do it by Jobba himself. Of course it's legal. Duh.

That would only matter if Moore holds the copyright and doesn't have an exclusive distribution agreement with the distributor. I doubt he holds copyright, and even if he does I'm sure there's an exclusive dealing clause in the distribution contract.

Duh.

Here's a link to a s... (Below threshold)
jpe:

Here's a link to a story showing the distributor, Lionsgate Films, citing copyright infringement in a demand to YouTube to remove Sicko from its site. So Lionsgate either holds the copyright or was assigned the right to enforce it by Moore.

The problem is in thinking ... (Below threshold)
kim:

The problem is in thinking that all men are created equal. Imagine if your doctor thought all men are created equal. It is your judge who is supposed to do that.
=============================

Gee, Rob gets paid... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Gee, Rob gets paid for those ads on his page, doesn't he? Asshole.

He's not charging for viewing the film, though, and that satisfies what Moore meant.

"you're seeing the begin... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"you're seeing the beginning of the Health Care election"

I thought that already happened in '92. "Two for the price of one" and all that.

I wonder how many people are going to be stupid enough to vote for the source of the problem (which won the election in '92) as if the source is gonna fix the problem.

He's not charging for vi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

He's not charging for viewing the film, though, and that satisfies what Moore meant.

Higher traffic = increased ad revenue

Assuming that Rob's stunt will generate more traffic to his site, he will profit from posting the film. That's not charging viewers, but advertisers. That's still profit, which is exactly what Moore said.

If you have reason to believe Moore meant profit from charging viewers as opposed to advertisers, back it up.

Your reading effectively me... (Below threshold)
jpe:

Your reading effectively means that very few bloggers could post the film on line (bracketing for the moment the fact that Moore's consent is meaningless).

How dare he pay for someone... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

How dare he pay for someone else's medical expenses! What an asshole!

"That would only matter if ... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

"That would only matter if Moore holds the copyright..."

LOL So you're saying that Jobba opened his big trap again and doesn't know what he's saying and doesn't know his authority???

(still ROFLLLL)

"If you have reason to beli... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

"If you have reason to believe Moore meant profit from charging viewers as opposed to advertisers, back it up."

READ what Jobba said. He opposes copyright laws WHICH ALSO MEANS any profit which that copyright ensures. IF he didn't want someone else to profit from his vomit, then he should have said so. He left the offer wide open....

He was not asked whether he... (Below threshold)
mantis:

He was not asked whether he holds the copyright or about legal issues, he was asked how he felt about his movie being shared.
Since steak has no clue what he's talking about, it's clear his only point is the ubiquitous "Michael Moore is fat."

(Btw, it's Jabba, not Jobba, moron)

"slipped one of his bigg... (Below threshold)
Phoenix:

"slipped one of his bigger critics a cool twelve grand "anonymously" to help the guy cover his wife's health insurance (a "gift" that got plenty of play in his newest mockumentary)."

While you provided a link to your last recent whack job, you might , in your effort to impugn Moore's $12k gift, have drawn attention to mantis" comment on that thread about Moore's generosity that he witnessed Moore offer in total anonymity.

In reference to your sneering label of "mockumentary," did you watch the film? If so, take it apart, if you can. Otherwise keep your shitty unsubstantiated remarks to yourself. Or is it the assumption here at Wizbang that substantiation is unnecessary; just ring the bell & the salivating yipping puppies will start slobbering w/ no information or documentation required?

There are people leaving th... (Below threshold)
kim:

There are people leaving the US for better and cheaper care elsewhere, but their destination is not Havana. I daresay Moore wouldn't use their system if he needed to, and I doubt he's following a Cuban doctor's obesity treatment plan.

Someone even more omniscient than mantis is keeping track of Moore's morals, so we needn't.
================================

Moore's a terrible hypocrit... (Below threshold)
kim:

Moore's a terrible hypocrite besides being an extremely clever disinformationalist. The director of Columbine employs armed guards.
========================

Just watched the flick. Ver... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Just watched the flick. Very good, indeed (though it cut off at 104''.

Started off like a lesser MM effort ("..Columbine"...ugh!). Then the Canadian-GB-French tour began. Sudden popcorn appetite.

Rob must be a socialist plant. Or arch-capitalist (vaunted ad:click revenue?).

MM should slip him some change for his service, anyway.
Would probably have never seen the flick w/o this link. Will recommend. Effective propaganda. Convincing.

Nice of Port to mischaracte... (Below threshold)
tas:

Nice of Port to mischaracterize Moore and then setup a strawman. Now if Port is sent a cease and desist letter it will all be laid on the head of Moore, though I imagine the reality will be that those with an interest distributing and airing Sicko in threaters will have sent out the letter -- without Moore having any control whatsoever over such actions.

Port has to be one of this most intellectual dishonest bloggers on the planet.

Michael Moore making a movi... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Michael Moore making a movie about health care is like Paris Hilton writing a book about the virtues of being a nun...John Edwards on how to look macho....Hillary Clinton on how to cultivate charisma....yada, yada, yada....

Nice of Port to mischaracte... (Below threshold)
tas:

Nice of Port to mischaracterize Moore and then setup a strawman. Now if Port is sent a cease and desist letter it will all be laid on the head of Moore, though I imagine the reality will be that those with an interest distributing and airing Sicko in threaters will have sent out the letter -- without Moore having any control whatsoever over such actions.

Port has to be one of this most dishonest bloggers on the planet.

Mantis, JAbba (I call hi... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

Mantis, JAbba (I call him that because I once saw him devouring a sandwich in one bite) needs someone like you to defend his vomit. Twist and spin his sewage all you like but he SPECIFICALLY spewed out his thoughts about copyright infringment and included his mockumentary in the same statement. Continue to be his personal slave - without pay - defending his actions. Still ROFLLLLLLL

When Michael Moore came out... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

When Michael Moore came out with Roger and Me, he said Roger would not agree to an interview when in fact he did and did. Of course he lied in Farenheit. So now he has more garbage and lies to hawk. Lefties will go see it to get lied to again. Republicans are smart enough to already know it is riddled with lies.

Let's see: Go to the post office and see how well our government runs a user system. Look at immigration and our border problems. And the lefties actually want our government to handle life and death issues? How stupid is that? I am not surprised though. ww

My guess is your experie... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

My guess is your experience is nil.

And you would be wrong, but you only had a 50% chance. I married a Canadian and have a vacation home in one of the maritime provinces. During our 10 years of wedded bliss we have watched two loved ones die rather miserable deaths. It was the helpless watching and waiting that was most difficult. I haven't talked to many older Canadians (those who have a frame of reference) who care too much for their system. I've also noticed that Canadian parents don't spend too much effort in encouraging their children to consider the medical field as a career choice. It's a bit akin to us encouraging our children to be bureaucrats. There now. All anecdotal and for what it's worth, but it is experience nonetheless. And probably more direct experience than a vast majority of Americans including, I'd wager, you.

Happy days are here again, ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Happy days are here again, bD; were you feverish by 104 degrees?
==================================

And probably more direct... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And probably more direct experience than a vast majority of Americans including, I'd wager, you.

No, I have a good deal of direct experience through friends in Canada and relatives in the UK, and whatever problems they have run into have paled in comparison to the nightmare of our system my American family and friends have experienced.

I notice you don't detail how the Canadian system was responsible for the deaths of your loved ones. Having just recently seen a close friend succumb to cancer far earlier than she should have due to lack of care, I wonder how our stories would compare.

Moore has even been forced ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Moore has even been forced to admit that he distorts and lies in his phony documentaries. The fact that the lefties still suck on his every word tells you all you need to know about the Left.

And the fact that a guy like Moore, ( liar extraordinaire, hater of America, who said Americans were the dumbest people in the world, called terrorists killing our troops "Minutemen" etc. etc. ) was given a VIP seat at the last Democrat convention tells you all you need to know about the Dems.

Period. End of story.

"There now. All anecdotal a... (Below threshold)
for fun:

"There now. All anecdotal and for what it's worth, but it is experience nonetheless."

I know this was in response to someone's post but frankly you are right, it is anecdotal and is not worth much.

The fact is the Candian system ranks better than ours (not much) but it does. Canda 30th best health care in the world, U.S. 37th.

France number 1. of course they were too stupid to get on board with our wonderfuly concevied policy in iraq, so you can trust those dummies only so far.

John Galt, I too have heard... (Below threshold)
Jo:

John Galt, I too have heard of stories like yours. Mantis has no clue what he's talking about.

for fun, yeah, sure.<... (Below threshold)
Jo:

for fun, yeah, sure.

And I'm sure the same people would rank the U.S.A. as #1 in human rights violations. Uh-huh. Riiight. LOL.

You people are idiots and fool no one.

Peddle your crap elsewhere to people who have no clue such as yourself.

France is #1? Oh yes, now ... (Below threshold)
BB:

France is #1? Oh yes, now there's a well run country. It must be why they just threw out a bunch of socialists. Ya know, cuz everything, including healthcare, is just peachy.

The World Health Organizati... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The World Health Organization, which is responsible for the rankings, doesn't rank countries on human rights violations.

You can see the rankings and methodology here.

This measurement is the primary reason why the US ranks so low:

Distribution of Health in the Populations: It is not sufficient to protect or improve the average health of the population, if - at the same time - inequality worsens or remains high because the gain accrues disproportionately to those already enjoying better health. The health system also has the responsibility to try to reduce inequalities by prioritizing actions to improve the health of the worse-off, wherever these inequalities are caused by conditions amenable to intervention. The objective of good health is really twofold: the best attainable average level - goodness - and the smallest feasible differences among individuals and groups - fairness. A gain in either one of these, with no change in the other, constitutes an improvement.

Of course, we spend more money on health care than any other country in the world. We just screw the poor, and often the insurance companies screw the middle class to maximize profits. Watch the movie for some examples of both.

Mantis, yawn. Hey... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Mantis, yawn.

Hey lookie here! In some places the NHS even orders the staff not to change the sheets in the hospitals. Just turn them over!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=448395&in_page_id=1774

You whiners are welcome to move to these utopias of healthcare. Don't let the door slam you on your way out.

Morons.

That reminds me of reading ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

That reminds me of reading about how when Gwenyth Paltrow was about to give birth to her first baby over in the UK, her best pal and fellow UK dweller Madonna advised her to "go private" for the delivery, as she told Gwennie in so many words that NHS was a nightmare.

And Madonna & Gwennie being such lefties, I just thought that was a hoot.

"...see what the Riefenstah... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"...see what the Riefenstahl of Flint has spun this time."

I invoke Godwin's law. Jay loses.

"Watch the movie for some e... (Below threshold)
steak111111:

"Watch the movie for some examples of both."

LOL Sure. Right after Hillary and I are done talking to Eleanor Roosevelt.... ROFLLLLLLLL You guys are too funny!

The fact is, under the syst... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

The fact is, under the system of socialized medicine in Canada, people die because waiting lists to see doctors are too long to permit them to receive cardiac care in time to save their lives. In Canada, for example, a patient typically must wait 24 days for an appointment with a cardiologist--and 15 additional days for the type of emergency bypass surgery that saved Bill Clinton's life (He got his in 3 days. Dontcha bet he was glad to be in the good ol' USA). Similarly, a Swedish government survey showed that Swedes can be forced to wait as long as 11 months for a diagnostic heart X-ray and up to 8 months for essential heart surgery. The upshot, according to one research cardiologist, is that at least 1,000 Swedes die each year for lack of heart treatment.

The 'moral' belief in the right to health care beyond what an individual can afford--health care at other people's expense, if you're into calling a spade a spade--leads inevitably to demand for unnecessary or superficial care that clogs doctors' offices, overfills hospitals and tasks the health care system beyond its capacities. The predictable result is the endless waiting lists of socialized medicine.

I remember being at a salon... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I remember being at a salon one time and hearing this girl next to me go on and on about the healthcare system in Canada and how great it was and how it was EXACTLY like our healthcare system except that it was (yipeee!) totally FREE! Of course she had never set foot in Canada she said, but she had read somewhere that this was the way it was.

For about an hour I had to hear this crap and it took everything I had to not go over there and slap some sense into her.

It's just amazing what crap some people truly believe.

"And I'm sure the same peop... (Below threshold)
for fun:

"And I'm sure the same people would rank the U.S.A. as #1 in human rights violations. Uh-huh. Riiight. LOL."

Wow a fucking idiot. Who would have have thought it. Americans ranked lower in their responses to the following.

The overall level of health in the population
health inequalities within the population
health system responsiveness and patient satisfaction
distribution of financial burden


"Peddle your crap elsewhere to people who have no clue such as yourself."

I am peddling to people who have no clue I am peddling to you. now run along and see if you can find a coloring book.


Did you people know that ma... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Did you people know that mantis is a bigger liar the wee wee lee lee wardie?

"The fact is, under the sys... (Below threshold)
for fun:

"The fact is, under the system of socialized medicine in Canada, people die because waiting lists to see doctors are too long to permit them to receive cardiac care in time to save their lives. In Canada, for example, a patient typically must wait 24 days for an appointment with a cardiologist--and 15 additional days for the type of emergency bypass surgery that saved Bill Clinton's life (He got his in 3 days."

And yet More than 18000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care. regadless of whatever problems Canada has, and I am sure they have many:

1) The overall level of health of their population is better.
2) They have less health inequalities within the population.
3) They have a higher level of patient satisfaction in their system.

4) They have a better distribution of financial burden of health care.

health care system under... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

health care system under insurance companies and HMOs only interested in making a profit

Our 'intellectuals' have taught doctors that need comes before ability, and that healthy and rich doctors have a duty to support sick and poor patients. They have taught doctors that the consumers of medical services (patients) are morally superior to the providers of medical services (doctors), just because the consumers are in need.

Bureaucrats have eagerly latched on to this altruistic idea, and have erected a maze of welfare laws and regulations to satisfy the needs of the poor and the sick, and to "protect" them from "greedy" doctors. Because of these controls, it has become very difficult for doctors to think or to act freely on their own judgment. And it is the best doctors, the most dedicated and those least ready to relinquish their independent judgment, who have been the first to leave the practice of medicine when doctors' rights were trampled on. Who will ultimately be left if this trend continues? To quote Dr. Hendricks in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, "Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."

They have less health in... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

They have less health inequalities within the population.

And here you see it, folks. Here is the nature of their beast. For now, they are asking you to sacrifice your level of healthcare (and that of your children) for every dreg that marches into this country legally or not, willing to work or not. Soon, they won't be asking. Make them demonstrate their ability to be a good steward of my money first. Then I may consider it. But, probably not.

Watch <a href="http://youtu... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Watch this, Randroid.

Yeah! Screw the poor. Let t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yeah! Screw the poor. Let the families of US Citizens who work hard all their lives starve to death, rather than potentially threaten the profits of our noble insurance industry.

And screw the middle class, while we're at it. Why not? What have they ever done for America.

It used to be that "health is wealth". Let's make it "wealth is health" instead.

Oh, Galt, <a href="http://w... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, Galt, here's Linda Peeno's complete testimony, if you're interested. Not as succinct as pithy quotes from poorly drawn fictional characters half a century ago, but you may still find some value in it.

"Because of these controls,... (Below threshold)
for fun:

"Because of these controls, it has become very difficult for doctors to think or to act freely on their own judgment. And it is the best doctors, the most dedicated and those least ready to relinquish their independent judgment, who have been the first to leave the practice of medicine when doctors' rights were trampled on."

And what do you base this on? Do you have any evidence at all that indicates we are losing our most talented Doctors because they are obligated to treat the poor? I happen to know many doctors who got into medicine specfically--to help treat the poor.

Also, the opinions of bad fiction writers have no relevence to this discussion.

As a former medi... (Below threshold)
mantis:
As a former medical director, I have done the dirty work of managed care. This prompted me to leave and work aggressively for health care ethics. Because I know how the "system" works, I am best able to identify its ethical transgressions and suggest corrections.

Health care is a special category of business in that every decision, whether clinical or economic, has an ethical component. The ethical issues for "managed care" fall into four major categories of concern: professional, medical, business, and social. Some of the more important areas for attention include: the lack of professional code of ethics for physician executives; interference with the principles of informed consent and patient autonomy; violation of consumer rights; and social maleficence in obstruction to access and delivery.

I contend that "managed care," as we currently know it, is inherently unethical in its organization and operation. Furthermore, I maintain that we have an industry which can exist only through flagrant ethical violations against individuals and the public. Based on my experience, a health plan's resistance to ethical correctives will be proportionate to its reliance on ethical transgressions for its "success." We must not sanction their unethical practices at the expense of individual rights and public good will.

Although the "managed care" industry is quick to defend its actions with high-sounding justifications, their claims break down under examination. For example, can they really support the argument that the effects of "managed care" are necessary for the "good of society." What does this mean? Who should decide this? Can this be appropriately determined by the entity who stands to benefit the most from an economic definition of this "good"?

The systemic ethical problems in managed care require urgent correction in several areas: the monitoring of denials of care; the elimination of certain contracting arrangements with physicians; the requirement for full disclosures of financial arrangements, cost-cutting strategies, and consumer information; the development of open and reported grievance procedures; and the mandate of ethical guides and processes. How could the industry object? After all, this is just a way for "managed care" to apply its own processes of "quality management" and "outcome analysis" to itself?

Nothing less than the life and well-being of our society depends upon this. We have gone too far under our current system called "managed care." How much more harm and death must occur before we have the courage to do something about it?

- Linda Peeno, M.D. in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Health And Environment, May 30, 1996 (Not a fictional character from the 1950s)

Lee:>So then, ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Lee:

>So then, meathead, if the President of Bank of America says "I don't care about people robbing our banks" that makes it *legal* to rob a BofA bank?

Does the President of Bank of America own what he has in his vaults? Glad to see you're still the master of uncritical thinking.

If moore owns the copyright and says post the film online for download it's legal.

"If moore owns the copyrigh... (Below threshold)
for fun:

"If moore owns the copyright and says post the film online for download it's legal."

Well, the Weinsteins own the copyright to the film. 'Till they say it is legal, it is theft; regardless of whatever Michael Moore feelings on the matter are.

mantis - in ref to your WHO... (Below threshold)
marc:

mantis - in ref to your WHO excerpt, and you think the US Gov. can correct that?

How about correcting the problem within the current system vice constructing a vast Gov. run mismanaged sinkhole for money?

But that wouldn't fit the cradle-to-grave agenda held so dearly by some would it?

18,000 people in the US die... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

18,000 people in the US die each year? How old? Were they illegal immigrants? Were they obese? Did they do drugs? Drink too much? All of the above? So easy to throw statistics around that don't mean anything to those that think. I have been involved in the healthcare industry for many years. Hospitals mostly. Overall, treatment and service is excellent. Illegal immigration is killing the budgets of hospitals so they make it up on their service fees. Because the service fees go up, insurance premiums go up. So, start at the source. Fill the border. ww

We don't need national heal... (Below threshold)

We don't need national healthcare. We need to work towards removing the abuses our current system suffers. Our system is not bad. It's merely caught in a cycle of abuse by lawyers and neglect by insurance providers. One begets the other and it goes round and round. Lauding Cuba's healthcare system is a joke. And touting the benefits of France's or Canada's system without regard to the many and varied failings there is disingenuous. Trading one system fraught with problems for another fraught with problems is ridiculous.

I hear the argument all the time that if we enact national healthcare it's voluntary. One does not have to buy into it. But the problem with that is the whole issue is based on the claim of "inequality". If we enact national healthcare which is voluntary we will still have the same "inequality" that people claim.

Look at it this way: Private schools are almost always better than government run schools. Private retirement accounts are better than government controlled social security. Private anything is almost always better than government run anything. What makes one think that government run healthcare will be better or even at least as good as privately run healthcare? Nevermind that they have the power to take as much money as they want for it regardless of what they produce.

The envy and disdain that many feel for those who have personal retirement incomes and go to private schools will now be directed as well to those who can afford private healthcare. From that point, it's only a small step before they succumb to the cries of making government healthcare mandatory because of the "inequality".

Making healthcare more available to individuals is another matter that should be left to the states. Making it national merely shifts that burden from the state to the federal level. The states are surely not going to reduce their taxes and the federal income tax will surely go up.

mantis - in ref to your ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

mantis - in ref to your WHO excerpt, and you think the US Gov. can correct that?

Distribution? Yes. Who else can? The free market has failed miserably.

How about correcting the problem within the current system

If you have a proposal which insures the 50 million currently uninsured Americans (and those who will get screwed out of coverage by their current carriers) in addition to bringing skyrocketing insurance costs under control, please offer it.

But that wouldn't fit the cradle-to-grave agenda held so dearly by some would it?

It fits the strawman you have in your head, but my guess is you could make anything do that. But considering that despite being the wealthiest nation on Earth our infant mortality rate is higher than 40+ countries (we beat Lithuania and Belarus!), it seems that many who are opposed to universal coverage want to shorten the time between cradle and grave. Pretty ironic that most of those people are also pro-life. They'll protect the unborn tooth and nail, but as soon as they are born? Fuck 'em.

Consider this, the US pays more per-capita for healthcare than any other country in the world despite the fact that we do not have universal coverage. We spend about 16% of the GDP on healthcare (highest in the world), and that is projected to rise to 19.6% by 2016. With all of this spending, we still have 18,000 people die every year due to lack of coverage. Do you think that's because our system works? Do you think anything will ever change as long as Congress, firmly in the pocket of the industry, leaves the companies in charge?

For WildWillieThe ... (Below threshold)
for fun:

For WildWillie

The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV.


Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:

Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.

Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.

About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.

Being uninsured also magnifies the risk of death and disability for chronically sick and mentally ill patients, poor people and minorities, who disproportionately lack access to medical care, the landmark study states.

hopefully that adds a bit of meaning.

pithy quotes from poorly... (Below threshold)
Who's John Galt?:

pithy quotes from poorly drawn fictional characters half a century ago,

So, how exactly was Dr. Hendricks poorly drawn? And fictional works lose their relevance over time? Have you read the novel, or is this a template that you use to describe works that you think may present problems to your ideologies?

I happen to know many doctors who got into medicine specfically [sic]--to help treat the poor.

And I know attorneys whose aspiration it is to work for non-profits. However, some attorneys just want to make money. Both are living their dreams. Neither choice is morally superior to the other. Or are you evil enough to think so?

A quick question:T... (Below threshold)
marc:

A quick question:

Think of all the elective surgery that is performed in the US. You know the type, I suspect the Hollywood folk are addicted to it.

Since the introduction of various plastic surgery techniques that are NOT covered by insurance and ARE elective the cost has across the board got down since each has been introduced.

Why? Why have the costs gone down?

Could it be because free enterprise and the law of supply and demand works even in health care?

And mantis, about your infant mortality link... Why is that?

Maybe.... just maybe it's because the US system is so advanced medically that babies that NEVER would have left the womb alive in other countries do so in the US yet fail to live beyond a few hours or days.

There are many other reason too long to go into at the moment but to spew generic infant mortality rates without looking at the reasons behind them is disingenuous at best.

Trading one system fraug... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Trading one system fraught with problems for another fraught with problems is ridiculous.

Trading one system with problems for another with fewer problems is the only reasonable course.

Look at it this way: Private schools are almost always better than government run schools.

They are not "almost always better," they are better on average, and not by much.

Private retirement accounts are better than government controlled social security.

Unless you don't have one, or the market crashes, or your company drops all employee pensions, or...

Private anything is almost always better than government run anything.

Private fire protection? Private police forces? Private military?

What makes one think that government run healthcare will be better or even at least as good as privately run healthcare?

Looking at government-run systems that work better than ours, plus the fact that our system leaves 50 million people without coverage, something that wouldn't happen if a government plan covered them.

The envy and disdain that many feel for those who have personal retirement incomes and go to private schools will now be directed as well to those who can afford private healthcare.

So you think before now that uninsured Americans were not envious of insured Americans? Are you stupid?

From that point, it's only a small step before they succumb to the cries of making government healthcare mandatory because of the "inequality".

Hopefully, though I would phrase it more like "the people demand that their democratically-elected government ensure that healthcare is freely available to all citizens, because the alternative is outrageous in this day and age in the wealthiest country in the world."

The states are surely not going to reduce their taxes and the federal income tax will surely go up.

We'll save a great deal of money by providing preventative care and management of chronic conditions which will reduce preventable illness and complications which arise more frequently among the uninsured. We will also take a great deal of the burden off of businesses, who can use that money as capital, increasing tax revenue.

Jay's right. Imagine if Le... (Below threshold)
kim:

Jay's right. Imagine if Leni could have consulted on Oceans 13. Godwin declines the call on review of the tapes. Artist, paramount, she was. Like many, a fool.

Mantis is right; managed care is not managed in the patient's best interest. And it is an exuberant and luxurious system that spends nearly 40% of the dollar on administrative expenses. That's almost government level ineffeciency. Well, nevermind about that.

But would you consider giving to a charity with that kind of overhead? Exuberant, and luxurious 'tis, with all the evil, and good, to which that can lead.

Jo, it's so,
Oh, the woe.
========

So, how exactly was Dr. ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So, how exactly was Dr. Hendricks poorly drawn?

I've met cardboard boxes with more depth than Rand's characters.

And fictional works lose their relevance over time?

They can, yes, provided that they maintained any relevance in the first place.

Have you read the novel, or is this a template that you use to describe works that you think may present problems to your ideologies?

Oh, I've read her novels. I appreciate her contributions to philosophy, but she was a terrible novelist, writing painfully long winded and one-dimensional characters trapped in silly and unrealistic plots. This has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with insightful writing.

In any case, what do you think of Peeno's testimony, or are you content to ignore it?

Could it be because free... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Could it be because free enterprise and the law of supply and demand works even in health care?

Unnecessary plastic surgery is cheaper than it used to be. So what? How does that insure 50 million Americans?

Maybe.... just maybe it's because the US system is so advanced medically that babies that NEVER would have left the womb alive in other countries do so in the US yet fail to live beyond a few hours or days.

There are many other reason too long to go into at the moment but to spew generic infant mortality rates without looking at the reasons behind them is disingenuous at best.

Yeah, I know the reasons. What is disingenuous is the ridiculous reasons you just pulled out of your ass. You know why we have high infant mortality rates? Here's why, asshole:

In 1996 and 1997, 15 percent of uninsured pregnant women never went to the doctor before giving birth, compared with 4 percent of women with private or public coverage. Figure 2 outlines the related consequences: more low-birth-weight babies and increased infant mortality.

But wait, what about all our medical advances that should raise infant mortality? Oh, that's right, marc's a fucking moron who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about but enjoys making up excuses for our travesty of a healthcare system. Medical advances reduce infant mortality, you twerp:

Infant mortality has reached an all-time low for American babies, in part because of improved prenatal care, but also in part due to striking improvements in the care of high risk, low birthweight babies.

If you're insured, that is.

Gee, those reasons weren't too long to go into, and they had the added benefit of not being total bullshit.

"So, how exactly was Dr. He... (Below threshold)
for fun:

"So, how exactly was Dr. Hendricks poorly drawn? And fictional works lose their relevance over time? Have you read the novel, or is this a template that you use to describe works that you think may present problems to your ideologies?"

Can't speak for Mantis but I have suffered trough Ayn Rand's "writing." It is not lacking relevance because it is old. it is lacking relevance because the characters are silly and behave in no way that resembles human beings. The plot is ludicrous, and all in all, it is just a silly, silly piece of work. consider a scene in which a farm plow is pulled by men, even the horse, it appears, cannot survive when liberals flourish.

"And I know attorneys whose aspiration it is to work for non-profits. However, some attorneys just want to make money. Both are living their dreams. Neither choice is morally superior to the other. Or are you evil enough to think so?"

Not at all. You were the one making the case that we were losing our best doctors without a shred of proof. I have no problem with someone wanting to make money (most doctors and lawyers do quite well) I just think your contention is wrong and certainly doesn't fit with my experience. however if you have some real data I'd listen.

Thanks John Galt. It's a p... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Thanks John Galt. It's a pleasure to read posts from someone who actually knows what he's talking about on this issue.

And you just have to laugh at all these "stats" they throw out that have been debunked years ago. lol.

For fun, Mantis, and the other trolls have no clue what they're talking about. As usual. They're wrong on all the other issues, why would this be different. Sigh.

Again, they're morons.

"And you just have to laugh... (Below threshold)
for fun:

"And you just have to laugh at all these "stats" they throw out that have been debunked years ago. lol."

I think most people (even those on your side of this debate) are probably laughing at you, and not the "stats" Jo. Stats which come from sources, that have not been "debunked."

Since your such an idiot Jo, I am going to help you out. I am going to show you how to argue.

For example, if you think the stats we cited are incorrect, you could post--counter statistics. You could also make an argument that that you think the statistics are flawed because, (here you would use logic to explain your problem with the statistics specifically cited).

However, you choose to do nothing but an Ad Hominem attack. This is because you are an intellectually inferior dimwit, incapable of thinking in anything but logical fallacies. So run along, find a comic book, and don't comment again until you get that GED.

mantis:Yeah, I... (Below threshold)
marc:

mantis:

Yeah, I know the reasons. What is disingenuous is the ridiculous reasons you just pulled out of your ass. You know why we have high infant mortality rates? Here's why, asshole:

So tell me mantis... who's the "asshole" me or the one calling me one for NO valid reason other than you disagree with my point.

You've been unmasked. CHILD!

And BTW, while discussing "disingenuous," lets talk about your apples (elective surgery costs going down) and oranges (the uninsured) argument.

On second thought, why bother, it's obvious by confusing two very separate issues AND the use of uncalled for invective the subject it beyond your comprehension.

So tell me mantis... who... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So tell me mantis... who's the "asshole" me or the one calling me one for NO valid reason other than you disagree with my point.

No, you're an asshole because you want to wave away the unnecessary deaths of thousands of infants by offering a completely false and easily debunked explanation, while calling me disingenuous. That to me is a perfectly valid reason. You had no point, you knew it, and you called me a liar.

You've been unmasked. CHILD!

You've been unmasked. BULLSHITTER!

And BTW, while discussing "disingenuous," lets talk about your apples (elective surgery costs going down) and oranges (the uninsured) argument.

Here's the conclusion you drew from your "plastic surgery costs have gone down" example:

Why? Why have the costs gone down?

Could it be because free enterprise and the law of supply and demand works even in health care?

If free enterprise and the law of supply and demand works in health care, why do we have so many millions of uninsured people, of whom 18,000 die every simply because they are uninsured? I guess free enterprise just leaves them behind, right? You certainly have no explanation, or you wouldn't have tried to wave my question away as "apples and oranges."

the subject it beyond your comprehension.

Says someone who, when his arguments were shown as clearly inadequate, offered no rebuttal whatsoever.

for fun:I take it ... (Below threshold)
marc:

for fun:

I take it you admire the Canadian health care system, is that correct?

Here's some thinks to ponder.

While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive.

A long wait for hip replacement surgery was what prompted the Quebec case that wound up before the Supreme Court.

...snip...

Once upon a time, there were few complaints about lengthy waits for treatment. It was a time when the federal government provided about a third of the money the provinces spent on health care.

But as government belts tightened to deal with record budget deficits in the early 1990s, complaints about access to health care increased. The federal government drastically cut the amount of money it transferred to the provinces to cover health-care costs.

Marc, "I take it y... (Below threshold)
for fun:

Marc,

"I take it you admire the Canadian health care system, is that correct?"

The Canucks have a system that is ranked higher than our own. At least by the WHO. I have not heard of any other systemic approach to trying to determine the quality of health care that has ranked us above the Canadians. So yes and no. Their system has flaws and I think there are better models to follow, but I think on the whole they are doing a slightly better job than we are..


"While most Canadians - 80 per cent according to Statistics Canada - are satisfied with their access to the health care system, many experience long waits to see a specialist, get diagnostic tests and undergo elective surgery. Others find themselves facing huge bills for prescription drugs they need to survive."

Valid point. Again I never argued that Canada has the perfect system. I am arguing that it is ranking higher than ours (not by too much) but it is. I think it is a disgrace the U.S. is 37th. Given what we pay for health care.

Oh yes, let's talk about <a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh yes, let's talk about polls

Nearly 8 in 10 said they thought it was more important to provide universal access to health insurance than to extend the tax cuts of recent years;

...

Most Americans in the poll said they were satisfied with the quality of their health care, but there was widespread concern about costs. Nearly half of those with insurance said their employer had cut back on benefits or required them to pay more for their benefits in recent years. A quarter of those with insurance said someone in their household had gone without a medical test or treatment because insurance would not cover it. Six in 10 of those without insurance said someone in their household had gone without care because of the cost.

That level of concern helps explain the striking support for substantial change: Nearly two-thirds said the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans. They were then asked, "What if that meant that the cost of your own health insurance would go up?" Forty-eight percent said they would still support it.

Moreover, an overwhelming majority said the health care system needed either fundamental change or to be completely rebuilt, just as they did in the early 1990s, when a deep recession and soaring health care costs galvanized the public and spurred the Clinton health care drive. But now, as then, this concern did not translate into a consensus on what should replace it.

mantis:No, you... (Below threshold)
marc:

mantis:

No, you're an asshole because you want to wave away the unnecessary deaths of thousands of infants by offering a completely false and easily debunked explanation, while calling me disingenuous. That to me is a perfectly valid reason. You had no point, you knew it, and you called me a liar.

I called you a liar! Provide the quote mantis, I said you were "disingenuous" as in "hypocritically ingenuous or insincere"

And while explaining you lack of quote maybe you can explain how you conflate elective surgery costs which in FACT have gone down and a lack of health care of the uninsured.

You can also provide a quote that implys I waved "away the unnecessary deaths of thousands of infants."

You're making stuff up mantis.

That's far from your usual standards.

I love watching "for "fun" ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I love watching "for "fun" squirm. Hey, just "for fun" let's imagine you have a clue.

Hard to do. My imagination is good, but not that good.

Like I said, peddle your crap where people are uninformed.

I called you a liar! Pro... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I called you a liar! Provide the quote mantis, I said you were "disingenuous" as in "hypocritically ingenuous or insincere"

True, you did not use the word liar. A very nuanced distinction.

conflate elective surgery costs which in FACT have gone down and a lack of health care of the uninsured.

We're talking about the millions of uninsured and the abuses of the insurance companies, and you offer the argument that the free market works for the health care industry, due to a decrease in elective surgery costs. The implication is clear: the free market will solve the problems of the healthcare industry. I ask how. You offer no answer. If you did not mean to imply that the free market which decreased those costs was the answer, why the hell did you offer that up in the first place?

You can also provide a quote that implys I waved "away the unnecessary deaths of thousands of infants."

In response to my pointing out that our infant mortality rates were pitifully low considering how wealthy we are:

maybe it's because the US system is so advanced medically that babies that NEVER would have left the womb alive in other countries do so in the US yet fail to live beyond a few hours or days.

Translation: "Hey, we couldn't possibly save those kids; they never would have been born in the first place if it weren't for our medical advances," without any evidence to support it. It was you who made stuff up, and you did so in an attempt to dismiss thousands of preventable deaths.

Nice try... you failed agai... (Below threshold)
marc:

Nice try... you failed again.

How can I possibly rebut su... (Below threshold)
mantis:

How can I possibly rebut such a brilliant argument as that?

Stick to writing about NASCAR, buddy. You seem to have at least some knowledge of that topic.

"I love watching "for "fun"... (Below threshold)
for fun:

"I love watching "for "fun" squirm. Hey, just "for fun" let's imagine you have a clue."

Jo, Run along, your stupidity IS making me squirm. I hate watching stupid people incapable of making an argument, so stop humiliating yourself, buckle down, and get that GED!

God. The way people resist ... (Below threshold)
jim:

God. The way people resist the very notion that anything is wrong with our health care system, and that we should do anything about it.

So you don't like whatever you call "socialized medicine" in other countries, that just so happens to work better for their citizens, to the point that they say they would never trade their systems for ours in a million years...so you hate their systems, so what?

That means we should do nothing about ours?

Fine! Rein in the insurance providers. Let's do that at least. Let's cap their freakin' profits and tie the rates to actual increases in expenses; let's make them insure entire areas rather than let them pick and choose who to cover in some areas and let the rest of the people just die if they're already unhealthy; let's not let the providers have a say in whether saving someone working father or mother's life will "cost too much."

Oyster at least mentions this. Can we actualyl do something about this issue? Since it effects all of us? And actually work on some actual solutions?

Just because Michael Moore is for it, doesn't mean it's automatically a bad idea. Michael Moore is also into Cheap Trick and hamburgers; the latter a bit too much for his own good. That doesn't mean hamburgers are communist.

While it's true that our he... (Below threshold)
LAB:

While it's true that our healthcare system is lacking, we are 37th out of 193 according to WHO. Furthermore, I'm sure as hell not going to visit Cuba just to experience their free healthcare. Too many other atrocities are being ignored: http://www.therealcuba.com/Poverty.htm

Jim, For Fun are two who wa... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim, For Fun are two who want perfection. The statistic For Fun put out saying that trauma victims without insurance may not be admitted to a hospital is patently false. The doctors and hospitals would lose more money from the suit. The statistics also put in the caveats of "may" "might", etc. Also, I had asked For Fun if any of his statistics included Illegal Aliens and if they did, should we pay for full medical services?

I know our system needs reforming, but for the left to suggest the government will do a better job concerning our healthcare needs is very laughable. ww

As far as infant mortality ... (Below threshold)

As far as infant mortality rates go, statistics are gathered differently by countries; just as they count their crime rates differently. I mean, does anyone really trust the figures from Cuba, for instance?

The first analyst who reall... (Below threshold)
kim:

The first analyst who really put a finger on the doom that was to become the Soviet Union noted rising infant mortality over there. It is a sensitive indicator.
======================

Furthermore, Mantis, I've n... (Below threshold)

Furthermore, Mantis, I've never asked you if you are "stupid". I don't expect much from a few others around here, but you ...

I think the only line you didn't rebut in my entire post was that it should be a state issue. And when gathering all this information no one includes a) the people who CAN afford insurance, yet choose not to and b) all the people who are eligible for state run health care FREE yet do not take advantage of it. In the company I work for we offer health insurance. The cost to the employee for full coverage (an excellent plan) is about $100 a month. We're a very small business so we can't afford to give it away entirely. It's a struggle to get anyone to take it. And the average income in my company is the national average. They're not poor. So by the counting standards they're using, the majority of people in my company "don't have coverage" and are "without care".

There are valid arguments you have stated in regards to health maintenance and proper care for serious illnesses, but why is making it a federal issue better than making demands of our respective states where it can be better managed at a less cumbersome level?

Jim, For Fun are two who... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, For Fun are two who want perfection.

Wildwillie is wrong. Jim, speaking as himself, wants something that isn't 37th in the world, especially considering everything under 40th is a 3rd world nation.

How 'bout at least something in, I dunno, the top ten, even?

I know our system needs reforming, but for the left to suggest the government will do a better job concerning our healthcare needs is very laughable.

Hm....

What does a better job - private police companies or publicy funded ones?

What does a better job - privately paid ones or public funded firefighters?

But fine - you don't want anything that looks like "socialized medicine" to you.

What do *you* propose to fix this? I don't care if a solution comes from left, right, or along the 'z' axis if it works.

addendum - just looked at t... (Below threshold)
jim:

addendum - just looked at the list. Everything under 50 is a 3rd world nation; I'm being generous to the Czech Republic and Poland. Wouldn't want to forget Poland...

The questions you ask, jim,... (Below threshold)
kim:

The questions you ask, jim, are so amusing because you assume the answer. But it is a good question, which is better state-run or privately run? You do know there is vast disagreement about this, even about such hackneyed items as whether or not civil protection, police and fire, etc, ought to be government run, or privately so. For some of these tasks, government has been the default provider, with private being available when the market allowed options to the minimum standard and when the default provider didn't really accomplish the task.
===============================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy