<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why preach the hysterics of one size fits all?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/10/why-preach-the-hysterics-of-one-size-fits-all/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/10/why-preach-the-hysterics-of-one-size-fits-all/</link>
	<description>Orange County&#039;s top political blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:03:53 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vern Nelson</title>
		<link>http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/10/why-preach-the-hysterics-of-one-size-fits-all/comment-page-1/#comment-109850</link>
		<dc:creator>Vern Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:32:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=31075#comment-109850</guid>
		<description>Kind of convoluted.  Your coinage then, huh?  Good luck on that catching on.  It really does require your long explanation. 

Now, back to my heavenly cup of Peet&#039;s.  Hey, is nobody else going to fisk this article?  (Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kind of convoluted.  Your coinage then, huh?  Good luck on that catching on.  It really does require your long explanation. </p>
<p>Now, back to my heavenly cup of Peet&#8217;s.  Hey, is nobody else going to fisk this article?  (Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry Crowley</title>
		<link>http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/10/why-preach-the-hysterics-of-one-size-fits-all/comment-page-1/#comment-109847</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry Crowley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:07:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=31075#comment-109847</guid>
		<description>Coffee filter. Someone who lives in society with all the body and the taste and the aroma of life passing through them, and all they retain are the dreck, the grounds. They don&#039;t have any of the coffee to speak about. When they talk politics, all they talk about is the dreck. All they point to is the dreck. And look how separate the coffee is from the dreck. And everybody else just wants to drink their coffee.

I think that&#039;s a fairly philisophical way of looking at it. The urban slang dictionary has a filthy description, something akin to the brilliance of teabagging. But, that there is another term for my expression is not my problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Coffee filter. Someone who lives in society with all the body and the taste and the aroma of life passing through them, and all they retain are the dreck, the grounds. They don&#8217;t have any of the coffee to speak about. When they talk politics, all they talk about is the dreck. All they point to is the dreck. And look how separate the coffee is from the dreck. And everybody else just wants to drink their coffee.</p>
<p>I think that&#8217;s a fairly philisophical way of looking at it. The urban slang dictionary has a filthy description, something akin to the brilliance of teabagging. But, that there is another term for my expression is not my problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vern Nelson</title>
		<link>http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/10/why-preach-the-hysterics-of-one-size-fits-all/comment-page-1/#comment-109833</link>
		<dc:creator>Vern Nelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=31075#comment-109833</guid>
		<description>More substantive post than usual, Terry, I&#039;ll respond to parts of it over the next day or two as I have time.  For one thing, as this bill morphs and festers and more and more details of it come out, I&#039;m not sure if I can still defend it, it&#039;s getting so jacked up by the more corporate whore Democrats; but I&#039;ll continue to defend single-payer and also the idea of a strong public option to force down costs even if the latter are no longer on the table this year.

&lt;i&gt;The granola bars belch and howl about how some percentage of our nation doesn’t have health insurance...&lt;/i&gt;  

I guess &quot;granola bars&quot; is in reference to steak eaters and whiskey drinkers like me who spend a lot of their days fighting for progress.  But the uninsured are far from our only concern.  Did you see Michael Moore&#039;s &quot;Sicko?&quot;  No, of course you didn&#039;t.  But it was not about the uninsured, it was about the plight of folks who thought they had insurance, and were screwed over anyway.  (And you don&#039;t have to watch a Michael Moore movie to know many of those people, or be one.)  Half of America&#039;s bankruptcies each year - I forget how many million - are caused by medical bills, and 3/4 of those people had insurance at the time they got sick.  

Insurance companies need to make a profit to survive, but in every other civilized country it is illegal for health insurance companies to make a profit.  And if the government ever were to try to control costs by starting a good public option, that would not be controlling costs by dictat as you characterize it, but really offering the American public choice and competition (this was the idea anyhow, there may be too many whores still in Congress to let that really happen this year.)  

And if the current private insurance model goes out of business due to that competition that would be a good thing, we would end up with single payer like most civilized nations have.  And if they figure out a way to compete and keep everybody happy and really offer some useful service, that would also be a good thing.  

And there are many other factors driving up health costs, but cutting out or cutting down the huge chunk that for-profit insurance takes out is the most important step.

I&#039;ll read your thing again when I have time and have more to say.  But I&#039;ve been wondering if you can help us all with this:  What&#039;s this new imprecation &quot;coffee filter?&quot;  Did you make it up, or should we be expecting to hear it from Glenn and Rush and Sean and Bill?  And what does it mean?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More substantive post than usual, Terry, I&#8217;ll respond to parts of it over the next day or two as I have time.  For one thing, as this bill morphs and festers and more and more details of it come out, I&#8217;m not sure if I can still defend it, it&#8217;s getting so jacked up by the more corporate whore Democrats; but I&#8217;ll continue to defend single-payer and also the idea of a strong public option to force down costs even if the latter are no longer on the table this year.</p>
<p><i>The granola bars belch and howl about how some percentage of our nation doesn’t have health insurance&#8230;</i>  </p>
<p>I guess &#8220;granola bars&#8221; is in reference to steak eaters and whiskey drinkers like me who spend a lot of their days fighting for progress.  But the uninsured are far from our only concern.  Did you see Michael Moore&#8217;s &#8220;Sicko?&#8221;  No, of course you didn&#8217;t.  But it was not about the uninsured, it was about the plight of folks who thought they had insurance, and were screwed over anyway.  (And you don&#8217;t have to watch a Michael Moore movie to know many of those people, or be one.)  Half of America&#8217;s bankruptcies each year &#8211; I forget how many million &#8211; are caused by medical bills, and 3/4 of those people had insurance at the time they got sick.  </p>
<p>Insurance companies need to make a profit to survive, but in every other civilized country it is illegal for health insurance companies to make a profit.  And if the government ever were to try to control costs by starting a good public option, that would not be controlling costs by dictat as you characterize it, but really offering the American public choice and competition (this was the idea anyhow, there may be too many whores still in Congress to let that really happen this year.)  </p>
<p>And if the current private insurance model goes out of business due to that competition that would be a good thing, we would end up with single payer like most civilized nations have.  And if they figure out a way to compete and keep everybody happy and really offer some useful service, that would also be a good thing.  </p>
<p>And there are many other factors driving up health costs, but cutting out or cutting down the huge chunk that for-profit insurance takes out is the most important step.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll read your thing again when I have time and have more to say.  But I&#8217;ve been wondering if you can help us all with this:  What&#8217;s this new imprecation &#8220;coffee filter?&#8221;  Did you make it up, or should we be expecting to hear it from Glenn and Rush and Sean and Bill?  And what does it mean?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Morrissey</title>
		<link>http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/10/why-preach-the-hysterics-of-one-size-fits-all/comment-page-1/#comment-109816</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Morrissey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:58:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=31075#comment-109816</guid>
		<description>Yes, you&#039;re right about the distortions caused by price controls. Like during WWII when to get around wage controls, employers were allowed to start providing subsidized health insurance. Now as taxpayers are subsiding those employed by big corporations I&#039;m sure you want that to stop. Of course, these subsidies are slowly dying by themselves as big corporations whittle away at benefits and layoff anyone likely to require big payouts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, you&#8217;re right about the distortions caused by price controls. Like during WWII when to get around wage controls, employers were allowed to start providing subsidized health insurance. Now as taxpayers are subsiding those employed by big corporations I&#8217;m sure you want that to stop. Of course, these subsidies are slowly dying by themselves as big corporations whittle away at benefits and layoff anyone likely to require big payouts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
