O man pulls it off

Hello America! Germany says, Welcome to 1883! The UK says, Welcome to 1911! France says, Welcome to 1930! 

 Via. It all looks nightmarishly complicated, but there seems to be quite a bit of “modern thinking” here as well in that a lot of what has been mandated is the compulsory purchase of insurance by individuals from private providers, who in turn have to accept cases they would previously have turned down, at least in theory. Maybe it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that such compromises might have produced a bill so hideously deformed that it will end up discrediting the case for actual comprehensive public healthcare in the US. At any rate, you’re not going to have real public healthcare until the rent seeking middlemen are either reduced to entirely marginal status or so bound with detailed legislation that they’re made into outright government subcontractors. Still, Obama finally pulled something out.

Comments

[Tom]

It does say something about the imminent irrelevance of a Best Mates With The States policy for the UK that the best the US can do in 2010 is a bit of warmed over Blairite tosh. I'm so looking forward to Mayor Johnson's forthcoming USA Day, which does rather seem to be an attempt by the neocons' UK wing to shore up support for transatlantic brotherhood.

[Dan Hardie]

I take it that all the seers, wise men and self-proclaimed experts on US politics who explained
here why the ineffectual Obama would never pass a healthcare bill are about to tell us what happened to their crystal balls...

[ajay]

I hadn't actually heard about USA Day. Having a festival to celebrate American culture in London sounds a bit superfluous (along the lines of "why is there a Mother's Day but no Children's Day? Because every day is Children's Day").

What's going to happen? Are the cinemas going to show popular American films? Are the radio stations going to explore the hitherto-neglected genre of American music? Will we be encouraged to try wearing traditional American clothing like jeans and T-shirts? Maybe Channel 4 will broadcast an evening of American TV.

And justifying it as a way to entice American tourists seems particularly weird. Do American tourists really come to London and think "I don't like this, it's all too British"? They can get American culture at home!

[Richard J]

Do American tourists really come to London and think "I don't like this, it's all too British"? They can get American culture at home!

Having read last week an American expats guide to Singapore praising the existence there of Chillis, KFC, Pizza Hut &c. in case you didn't fancy that foreign muck, I can sort of see this.

[dsquared]

I think the idea is that they're going to have shops selling hamburgers and Coca-Cola in Leicester Square.

[Richard J]

Mind, and this is rather random, I'll grant you, I note that Eastern Asia is now the only place in the world (bar Ontario) that you can visit a Kenny Rogers Roaster restaurant.

[ajay]

I think the idea is that they're going to have shops selling hamburgers and Coca-Cola in Leicester Square.

Wow, really? I must take a look.

[Nick L]

I think you are all being very mean in mocking the creation of a special day celebrating the achievements of a beleaguered minority, all too often rendered invisible by the media.

[jamie]

"...why the ineffectual Obama would never pass a healthcare bill are about to tell us what happened to their crystal balls..."

Well, I don't mind being wrong about something like that, though I think my argument was perfectly in line with the information available at the time. My guess is that he still wasn't inclined to get behind it until the Scott Brown election, at which point he had to do something or risk the utter demoralisation of his party. Perhaps this is the difference between Obama and Blair.

[Alex]

Well, I was wrong in underestimating what could actually be achieved by demonstrating WILL. Arguably, that's what Steve Benen and others did.

[Cian]

I never thought he wouldn't get A bill passed, merely that the bill which was passed wouldn't be a very serious reform. I was actually surprised by how hard he found it to get this bill passed, given he (mostly) had pharmaceutical and insurance company support. I don't think it was because it was particularly controversial (poll numbers seem to suggest that it wasn't), and I think a more skilled and braver politician (especially one who hadn't blown his political capital on blow jobs for Goldman's) would have had no problems with this bill. I think the main problem with getting the bill passed is that Obama is not very good at politics.

As for the resulting bill. Well its largely what they have in Massachusetts, where it hasn't been terribly effective at addressing the problems. It doesn't address the root of the problem (cost of providing healthcare), and while a few of the more outrageous excesses have been addressed, largely it tries to fix the problem by throwing more money at it. Which has been the modus operandi of this administration.

[Cian]

And justifying it as a way to entice American tourists seems particularly weird. Do American tourists really come to London and think "I don't like this, it's all too British"? They can get American culture at home!

Actually what American tourists seem to do is go to those awful restaurants in Leicester Square and charged outrageous amounts for dreadful food. If they're Paul Krugman, or the Freakonomics guy, they then use this for the basis of a column about how awful British cuisine is...

So yeah, a Chillies would be an improvement.

[Richard J]

So yeah, a Chillies would be an improvement

There's one in Canary Wharf, IIRC.

[dsquared]

I think it closed down and has been replaced. I'll go and check.

If they're Paul Krugman, or the Freakonomics guy, they then use this for the basis of a column about how awful British cuisine is...

Oddly enough, the multimillionaire textbook author and Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman has a much more positive opinion of British food than that held by the middle-ranking academic of the same name ten years earlier.

[Dan Hardie]

This, from Cian, is quite possibly the stupidest single sentence yet written on Obama's healthcare bill: 'I don't think it (difficulty in passing the bill-DH) was because it (the bill- DH) was particularly controversial (poll numbers seem to suggest that it wasn't)'.

Let's politely ignore the grammatical trainwreck in that sentence, and talk about something called 'history'.

If you assert that major government intervention in the US healthcare market is 'not particularly controversial', you are ignorant of the most basic facts about the Presidencies of Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. Ignorance is strength, at any rate in comment threads.

(Stand by for a furious assertion that history is irrelevant, because 'my in-laws are American'... Sorry, folks.)

[Dan Hardie]

Gastronomically speaking, I was walking up Rue Monsieur-le-Prince, in Paris, to one of the best cheapish restaurants in France, with plenty of excellent brasseries about a minute's walk away, when I heard a well-dressed American tourist addressing his teenage children thus: 'So what are we gonna have tonight? Pizza or Chinese?'

Having said that, the worst display of manners in a French restaurant I have ever seen came from a middle-aged Englishman. He decided to stare in horror for several minutes at a disabled person eating nearby, in what seemed like an actual effort to make them leave the restaurant. I'm glad to say the Parisian waiters and waitresses treated the disabled person with great politeness and friendliness, and ignored the podgy Brit.

[Cian]

Yes Dan, if I had said that government run health care has never been controversial in the US, I would have been wrong. But I didn't. Now, unless you can show how these past political controversies are influencing current public opinion, I am going to wipe your spittle off my forehead.

[Dan Hardie]

Ah, it's 'health care reform is uncontroversial and history's irrelevant because *I* say so', with nary an in-law mentioned.

I would suggest that history is relevant because two Democratic Presidents were defeated on health care reform- and a third, Johnson, scared into compromise despite his fabled abilities at passing legislation. They were brought down by a mix of Congressional hostility, popular discontent or apathy and lobbying by vested interests. If a particular reform attracts massive resistance three times running, you need to make some kind of rational argument, based on fact, before you can say that the fourth time will be different. Argument from Cian: non-existent.

I would further suggest that any issue which can provoke the degree of massive political mobilisation which the health care bill has is by definition 'controversial'.

Argument from Cian: non-existent. We do get an evidence-free assertion: Obama's bill wasn't controversial.

So I would suggest that one looks for evidence of controversy.

You could see, for example, if there have been any cases of Democratic congressmen or Senators being picketed in their constituencies.

You could look for any large-scale push by the right-wing media to demonise the Obama reforms.

You could find out if there was any hugely over-wrought rhetoric (like, I dunno, suggestions that Obama wants to convene 'death panels' on the elderly) from rightwing politicians, and any sign that said rhetoric is gaining traction with at least some voters.

You could ask a few simple questions. Have there been any demands for compromise from 'centrist' journalists, perhaps? Any refusal to vote for the bill, in whole or in part, from 'moderate' Republicans? Any publicly expressed fears from Democrats that they would lose seats as a result of the way healthcare had been painted? Any highly-funded lobbying efforts against the bill? Any denunciations of Obamacare by the leadership of the Catholic Church?

And you know what? There have been all of these things, in abundance.

But Obamacare still wasn't controversial. Why? Because Cian says so. Facts are for the birds.

[dsquared]

Yep, Chilli's has closed down its branch in the Cabot Place centre. It's been replaced by a Nando's.

[Dan Hardie]

I'd like to believe that there's a Nando's in Cabot Place, but have we checked that Cian and his in-laws agree ?

[dsquared]

Actually there's only a hoarding up saying "Nando's coming here soon". I am sure that once the eventual compromises, political fixes and waterings-down have taken place, what opens up will barely be recognisable as a Nando's.

[Dan Hardie]

Cian's sister-in-law says that's what always happens when Chilli's are actually planning to re-open a branch.

[Cian]

I didn't say history was irrelivant, I said you needed to make a case for it being so. Times change. Just because something was once an important issue, or controversial, doesn't mean it still is. So for instance, during the Johnson era the unions were a powerful political force, now they're dying. During the same era taxation was a fairly marginal political issue, whereas now...

The healthcare system of the era was completely different to the modern US health system, and was seen as basically functional. Today even people who have good insurance complain about the system, whether its the bureacracy, the incompetence, the paperwork, or the waiting lists (about the same as the UK if certain people I'm not allowed to mention are any guide).

There is enormous public support in the US for some kind of public healthcare system. Its held steady at about 75% for several years now. Even when support for the bill dipped last year (not surprising given how confused it was, and how much crap was added to it), support for a public health system seemed to hold fairly steady. That's huge support. Almost nothing has that level of support in the US. So if that's controversial, then almost anything proposed in the US is controversial.

What you're in fact saying is that it is controversial in the media, and among the far right. The latter represents about 20-25% of the population and is mostly in states that always fall Republican.

You could see, for example, if there have been any cases of Democratic congressmen or Senators being picketed in their constituencies.

Well yes, the right are very good at mobilising their base. And their base are very good at doing crazy. Then the media pick up on it, because the US media love anything sensationalistic. Instant controversy! They got more purchase this time due to general Democrat evasiveness and waffling and the unexpected success of "Death Panels", not to mention the sleazy deals that got rather more attention this time than they normally do. The US general population was also highly suspicious anyway after the bailout, car firms, and unusual media focus on the mechanics of congress.

You could look for any large-scale push by the right-wing media to demonise the Obama reforms.

As opposed to all the other things Obama does that they cheer. I mean have you seen Fox news, or read the WSJ's/WP's editorial pages?

You could find out if there was any hugely over-wrought rhetoric (like, I dunno, suggestions that Obama wants to convene 'death panels' on the elderly) from rightwing politicians

Well they also call Obama a Muslim, a member of Al-Quaeda and a communist. Overwrought rhetoric is a feature of the American right. Lynne Cheney has just insinuated that the lawyers defending Guatenamo inmates are sympathisers for Al-Quaeda

and any sign that said rhetoric is gaining traction with at least some voters.

Yeah, they're called hardcore Republican voters. Its called pushing on an open door. They are very right wing and not very rational. I know and like quite a few of them, for my sins.

Have there been any demands for compromise from 'centrist' journalists, perhaps?

That's what centrist journalists in the US do, they demand bipartisanship from Democrats. What's new here?

Any refusal to vote for the bill, in whole or in part, from 'moderate' Republicans?

For which there are a range of possible explanations. These might include:
1) Some Republican reps will be facing re-election. Most house seats are fairly safe due to gerrymandering, but the selection battles are pretty competitive. The voters in those will tend to be more right wing, and so any congressmen who has a serious challenger will probably have one from the right.
2) There's also the determination of the Republican party to torpedo the health care bill (strategists were surprisingly open about the fact that they feared a successful bill could damage them politically), and they have much better discipline than the Democrats. So some will have just bowed to party pressure/bribes/threats.
3) When somebody is scrambling for every vote, you'd be a fool not to hold out for their best offer (stuff for your state, for your donors). That's how congressional, particularly senatorial, politics work.

Any highly-funded lobbying efforts against the bill?
So you're saying that its controversial with a few, very right wing, wealthy people and companies that fear losing out. Similarly, I guess, you could argue that cracking down on offshore tax havens is controversial. Keeping financial regulations in the 90s must have been very controversial.

Any denunciations of Obamacare by the leadership of the Catholic Church?

Abortion. American Catholic Church. They got what they wanted (no abortions funded), they supported the bill. Its called politics. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Yes it was controversial in the media, and controversial among wing nuts. But its a manufactured controversy, much like the scientific controversy over global warming. The right in the US has got very good at playing this game. If the US media was better, or at least did its job, maybe this would be less effective. If the left were organised, or had serious resources, then maybe things would be different. But as it stands, the story in the media is very different from what people actually think/believe on most topics. And the centrists who were pushing/controlling this thing seem to be afraid of people power.

[ajay]

It'll also be interesting to see how popular it is in a year's time, once the agit-prop has faded away and people have actually begun to see benefits from it. HCR was very popular before the bill started to move - the public option, for example, attracted more than 70% support from the voters, but couldn't even get the entire Democratic party behind it.

I think Dan is defining "controversial" as "the Republican Party oppose it". In this light, pretty much everything that Obama has tried to do is controversial. Appointing a new deputy secretary of the Air Force was controversial.

[Cian]

The public option still gets about 70%, but was apparently politically impossible. Which says something about the state of democracy in the US. Especially when you take into account that crazy Republican rump who are never going to like any proposal, preferring free market solutions like Medicare...

The actual bill is pretty mixed. There's a lot to dislike (taxes on employee plans, compulsory insurance), while the stuff that looks good (increased and subsidised coverage, ending of the more vicious exclusionary tactics) are less impressive if one looks closely at them. And some stuff which could go either way (insurance exchanges), depending upon how well they're implemented. It doesn't seem to do anything to solve the underinsurance problem (if you have crap insurance from your employer, tough, you're stuck with it), or the catastrophic insurance problem which would have been fairly cheap to fix. And of course it does very little to control costs.

[Dan Hardie]

No, Ajay, I listed a very long, although not exclusive, list of non-Republican waverers on or opponents of the healthcare bill. You know this, I know you know this, and I suspect you bore yourself almost as much as you bore me.

Cian, any controversy in a democracy is going to be 'manufactured'- ie opponents of a measure will co-ordinate amongst themselves, think up lines, publicise true and untrue objections, attempt to whip up hysteria, etc. That's quite obviously what party machines, campaigning bodies and media outlets do. It's called 'controversy'. Now if you can present a distinction between 'real' and 'manufactured' controversies in a distinction that is neither mystical nor meaningless, do so, but I think we'll be waiting a long time.

[Cian]

No, Ajay, I listed a very long, although not exclusive, list of non-Republican waverers on or opponents of the healthcare bill.

You listed two: Democrat politicians and centrist journalists. You don't get the Catholic Church as that was purely about abortion. Which is, incidentally, a real controversy.

I'm going to be generous and assume we're not talking about the Democrat waverers who were ambivalent about the bill because they thought it didn't go far enough.
But yeah there was some democrat opposition. Some of them were old-skool Dixiecrats (you see, sometimes history does matter), or Democrats from midwest/south who are more right wing than many of their Republican colleagues. And some of them were politicians who got most of their donations from healthcare/insurance companies; puppets on strings.

As for centrist journalists demanding "compromise". Please... Next you'll tell me that Friedman has written a column about how great globalisation is. Its a fetish of centrist journalists, though they tend to demand it more of Democrats rather than Republicans

Cian, any controversy in a democracy is going to be 'manufactured'

Not really. Actual things that were genuinely controversial in the US. Bailing out banks. Bailing out car companies. The deficit (which incidentally was the genesis of the Tea Party movement, rather than healthcare). The economy. Abortion. Sure any political movement is going to try and capitalise and build on them if they fit into its objectives, but that's not the same thing.

Manufacturing a controversy is when you make it seem like there is a controversy. Things like packing a meeting with 100 bused in extremists, which makes for great TV. ANGRY PEOPLE! CONTROVERSY! ACTION! Whereas town meetings where people don't shout and scream make for pretty boring TV and get less coverage.
Or you could have propogandists from "Think Tanks" spout their talking points on TV. Nobody's filming what ordinary people think, instead the airwaves are filled with "pundits", whoever they are (excluding Fox, which is just permanently outraged by everything, including the president's choice of dog). They become the "debate", the "controversy".
If there was an equivalent Democratic propoganda machine maybe this would be cancelled out, but there isn't. And so the Republicans are able to dominate and control the media debate, even when there's very little support for their arguments.

Now if you really want to hang onto your definition of controversy you've basically defined everything Obama does as controversial. His election is controversial, indeed his legitimacy as an American is controversial. The status of his religion is controversial. These are all topics discussed heatedly on Fox News, by the same people protesting against healthcare-communism. Apparently every time a Republican uses over-wrought rhetoric in the Senate, or house (i.e. everyday), there is a controversy. I know you hate me and want to rip my spleen out with a rusty spoon, but still. Backdown a little? Or are you saying that everything that Obama does is controversial?

[ajay]

Well, yes, Dan, but the rest of the opposition depended on Republican opposition, more or less by definition.*
The whole point about being a centrist journalist is that you're in between the two edges: if both parties had been on the same side, the centrist journalists wouldn't have been on the other side, would they? Then they'd be extremists.
As for Democrat opposition: a tiny minority of senators and congressmen. Significant only because of the tight numbers and bizarre Senate rules, and, obviously, because the existence of R opposition put them in a position to demand concessions like the Cornhusker Kickback.
And Cian has already pointed out that Catholic opposition was limited to abortion; it was also limited to the bishops. Other Catholic organisations like CHA were strongly in favour.

(*And that opposition was in turn, as has become clear, based not on a clear policy position but on the calculation that any D failure would be an electoral advantage for Rs. Witness the multiple changes of footing on things like individual mandates. Understanding this is really central to understanding what's been going on across the water this last year.)

If this is boring you, no one's keeping you here against your will.

[Dan Hardie]

Hmm, looks like the experts against the charlatans on whether there was a controversy over Obamacare and whether the legislation was a big deal.

The charlatans:
Paul Krugman: 'Unless some legislator pulls off a last-minute double-cross, health care reform will pass the Senate this week. Count me among those who consider this an awesome achievement. It’s a seriously flawed bill, we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge step forward...
our current situation is unprecedented: America is caught between severe problems that must be addressed and a minority party determined to block action on every front. Doing nothing is not an option — not unless you want the nation to sit motionless, with an effectively paralyzed government, waiting for financial, environmental and fiscal crises to strike. (Both December 20, 2009).

Just one more reminder of what a victory Obama and Pelosi pulled off (March 22, 2010, 6:51 pm)...
(March 21, 2010, 10:26 pm)...Right now, we have a system that creates huge incentives for bad, one might say demonic, behavior: Assurant made $150 million by revoking coverage, almost always without cause. We can end all of that — not in some indefinite future, but with a single vote right now.(
March 17, 2010, 11:31 am)...
Imperfect as it is, the Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives, save many Americans from financial catastrophe, and partially redeem us from the shame of being the only advanced nation without some kind of universal care.(January 19, 2010, 1:53 pm)...Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory? (December 26, 2009, 7:44 am)...

I could quite literally quote dozens of Krugman columns or blogposts to reinforce the point- and he's been the man right out in front of the (surely justified) leftwing criticisms of Obama for his timidity on all this. But he still thinks the bill's a big deal, and he thinks the bill faced massive opposition. What an ignorant loser.

Or Ezra Klein:'along the way, a lot of progressives have lost sight of the fact that the very existence of this legislative process is a huge progressive victory...this bill represents an enormous leftward shift for American social policy.It is not, in my view, a sufficient leftward shift, but it is unmatched by anything that has passed into law in recent decades.
'The public really does disapprove of his health-care reform effort, or at least disapproves of what they think his heath-care reform effort includes.(September 1, 2009; )'

Again, I could post dozens of quotations from Klein- a strong critic of Obama from the Left: and yet he still thinks that the healthcare bill is a big deal. The poor, deluded fool...Can't we get Cian to put him right?

The experts: Ajay and Cian. The bill wasn't a big deal, there was no controversy, and we know this is true because they say so. You can't argue with that, can you?

[Cian]

So we've gone from a demand for facts, to an appear from authority. Neither Klein, or Krugman, are experts on healthcare (Krugman is also a self-admitted non-expert on congress), nor are they left wing. Left of Obama, sure, but Obama's on the right of the Democratic party.

Krugman doesn't actually say that the bill was controversial, only that it was opposed by a minority of obstructionist Republicans in the senate, thanks to self-imposed rules on the filibuster. He also argues, like I did earlier, that Obama/Democrat leaders should have called their bluff. Did you read the article? Have you read some of his other pieces where he argues that the Democrats could have got a better deal. Does your interest in this subject extend beyond trying to destroy myself and Ajay? I mean so far you've demonstrated only a superficial understanding of what has happened[1] and made some pretty bizarre comments [2]. For someone who's so angrily certain that I am wrong, you don't seem to really have any basis for believing this. Other than I guess the fact that I believe it, so clearly it must be wrong.

The first Klein article is a standard apologia. The "This might suck, but its better than anything else and do you remember the last government" bait and switch for the disenchanted base. If the Guardian ever needs to replace Polly Toynbee, maybe they should give Klein a call. After 13 years of New Labour, surely we should all be immune to that kind of bullshit, no?

His second piece doesn't actually say what you seem to think it does. It was the bill that was unpopular; a bill that was so convoluted that senators who were pushing it had trouble explaining what it would do, or achieve. At the same time Single Payer had support from over 70% of the population.

Two experts who would disagree with Klein and Krugman are David Himmelstein and Len Rodberg, who argue (partly by actually bothering to look at what actually happened in Masachussets. And I'll do you the favour of assuming that you know why that state is significant) that its affect is likely to be marginal, will worsen some people's situation and is likely just to result in many people paying the fines (unless that got removed in a final piece of horse trading. A close relative was in ICU at the time, so I wasn't paying close attention). They've also pointed out that the bill is a big giveaway to insurance companies, not entirely surprising given that they (or rather their lobbyists) helped write the thing. Which was the deal made by Obama with them at the beginning, but of course you knew that. Right? I mean the great internet authority Dan Hardie surely must have known this elementary fact... He wouldn't be so abusive if he was just winging it, right?

Other people who've studied health insurance companies have argued that the bill doesn't address the quality of insurance (arguably a bigger problem is under insurance), or the fact that plenty of Americans have largely useless insurance and if its employee provided (e.g. by Walmart) they're stuck with it.
They have to pay for it, and can't even replace it. Maybe I missed it, but there seemed to be nothing that addressed the ways in which insurance companies deny, or delay, treatment in pretty arbitrary ways. And while it addresses the most grotesque forms of insurance company abuse, there seem to be plenty of loopholes remaining. Maybe someone will point these out to Ezra Klein. Of course its a great deal for insurance companies - lots of new captive customers.

Oh, and there's nothing very substantial in the bill (a few homilies and voluntary things excepted) that deals with cost containment, which is the biggest problem. Or at least that's what healthcare economists seem to think, both on the left and right.

Anyway, your part in this debate seems to be more about your need to destroy/crush myself and Ajay, rather than an interest in the actual topic. I mean seriously what "facts" have you provided here. A couple of skimmed articles by two very prominant bloggers/opinion journalists, a very superficial and ill-informed rendering of the debate and that's about it. Do you always form such strong opinions from such a superficial grasp of the issues? Or have has your hatred of myself and Ajay pushed you over the deep end?

[1] Your comment that the bill was opposed by the Catholic church kind of gave this away.
[2] For example, suggesting that there was something unusual about the comments from Republican politicians, or the style of coverage on Fox news

[Charlie]

I've not so far seen any purpose in a Nando's. Can someone explain?

[Alex]

It's a reference to the Decents, specifically Nick "Not Nik Cohn - the other one" Cohen, for whose writing it is something of a trope.

[dsquared]

Also, factually, it is a Nando's they're opening on the site that was previously occupied by the Canary Wharf branch of Chillis.

[Dan Hardie]

Shorter Cian: I believe that Paul Krugman's words mean the opposite of what they say, I think that Ezra Klein knows less about US healthcare than I do, I brush off discussion of the benefits of a multi-billion dollar plan with the citation of one paper, I wave away a massive political row lasting over a year without any argument at all, I refuse to acknowledge the existence of a huge number of left-of-centre Americans who backed Obamacare, and I know that anyone who disagrees with me is a lunatic moral degenerate who hurls abuse rather than discuss the issues.

[Cian]

You cited Ezra Klein as an expert. I pointed out he wasn't. I mentioned the name of a couple of experts, something you've failed to do.

You've criticized for not providing any facts, despite getting elementary things wrong. You've mostly ignored the argument I have made, while abusing me for not making an argument. You also don't seem to know very much about what the bill does, and doesn't, achieve.

Incidentally, this bill may well affect me personally. I'm guessing its unlikely to affect you. I've paid attention because it matters to me and mine.

I refuse to acknowledge the existence of a huge number of left-of-centre Americans who backed Obamacare

I never brought the topic up, and fail to see its relevance to any point I'm making. Though given you're mr Facts, can you define "huge". Are we talking percentages, numbers. How are we defining support here? "Better this crappy bill than nothing", or "This is fantastic!". How are we defining centre-left? Are we talking centre-left activists who've studied the issue, or centre-left who've only got the vaguest idea. And what evidence do you have for this. I mean you've got an example to set here.

I know that anyone who disagrees with me is a lunatic moral degenerate who hurls abuse rather than discuss the issues.

No, I know that anyone who disagrees with me by engaging in personal abuse, rather than with the arguments, must have some anger management issues. Or you're a troll. Its the latter isn't it. You got me. You're trolling.

[Dan Hardie]

'You cited Ezra Klein as an expert. I pointed out he wasn't.'

This is literally beyond parody. You are qualified to pronounce on Ezra Klein's lack of knowledge about the US healthcare system? Does any sane person here want to second Cian's ability to do so?

Cian: 'Incidentally, this bill may well affect me personally. I'm guessing its unlikely to affect you. I've paid attention because it matters to me and mine. ' Check out the petulance masquerading as deep moral outrage.

This is clearly bad faith on your part, since when we were discussing a war which has killed a large number of people, your moral seriousness about the contents of comments threads was rather less obvious: 'Who knew that my comments on a blog thread had such power to influence life and death in Afghanistan.'

And you know why I've taken such a deep interest in Afghanistan- because it is likely to affect me personally and people I deeply care about. Whereas, to quote your attempt at a put-down, 'I'm guessing it's unlikely to affect you.'

Yet I'm prepared to listen to, and change my ideas on the subject because of the views of someone who isn't personally affected- like Dsquared, say, because he writes with great intellience and insight.

That's because, like any reasonably intelligent person, I don't fantasise that my personal involvement with a subject gives me omniscient and infallible knowledge of it.

[Cian]

Okay attempt to head off the "moral seriousness" or "dilettante" accusation a failure. Lesson learnt. Also noted: Dan's mind reading abilities haven't improved.

Dan can you point to any evidence that Ezra Klein, well known opinion journalist/blogger specializing in beltway/politics issues, is an expert on healthcare? The burden of proof is on you here, and the continual Ad Hominem is growing tiresome.

Yet I'm prepared to listen to, and change my ideas on the subject because of the views of someone who isn't personally affected- like Dsquared, say, because he writes with great intellience and insight.

That's very nice, but actually I'd just like you to stop spitting in my face. You could ignore me, that might work. Or failing that at least you could email me the abuse, thus saving future threads from derailment.

Incidentally, do you think that you have been writing with great intelligence and insight on this thread? Or that this kind of behaviour is likely to change anyone's mind, even someone you seem to think is borderline retarded?

Cian

[Phil]

If we took a vote on who's coming out of this looking (a) better or (b) worse, would that either (i) help or (2) shut people up?

[Cian]

I'll get my coat.