You think the government that can't create a good health care system can run one indefinitely?

How silly.

As for your attack on the Senate, and I'll defend the Electoral College as well, people who think direct democracy is a decent system for 1 million people - let alone 300 million people - ought to be condemned to live in a direct democracy for a couple years. If they survive the experience, they may be wiser.

Other nations run quite good national health care systems. Are you saying Americans are retarded?

bsharporflat:

Other nations run quite good national health care systems. Are you saying Americans are retarded?

Retarded? No. The average voter is apathetic, uninformed, and ignorant, with a memory and attention span of about two weeks. But certainly not retarded.

The House of Reps isn't exactly an example of direct democracy in action is it? Did the OP read the same article as everyone else, or does he just like non-sequitors?

Abolition of the filibuster and electoral college would not leave us with a direct democracy. Direct democracy would require legislating via national referendum. I agree that would be a bad system, but getting rid of the filibuster (which seems to be Noah's main concern) wouldn't bring us anywhere close to such a system.

I don't remember Noah advocating such a change then Frist was running the show. People would do well to pay deference to the value of historical precedent--but then again the left is probably too "progressive" to understand.

Ah but Republicans WERE advocating exactly that. And they were advocating it for far less egregious abuses.

Oh please Ben.

You are smart enough to know the difference between the political machinations of a Senate Power struggle (and that's all this is) and the operational execution of a government program.

conflating the two as predictive of each other is beneath your intellect.

degsme:

Ah but Republicans WERE advocating exactly that. And they were advocating it for far less egregious abuses.

I agree. Both parties suffer from hypocracy on this issue.

I'm arguing that Noah is trying to get closer to his ideal - direct democracy - and is criticizing the Senate for being undemocratic (that appears in this column, yes). I agree that the house is still a representative democracy, but that by taking out the senate, he is trying to further the damage done steadily against the distinctive nature and rights of the states and local government.

Now, there are many things to be said about how this system has failed and needs to be adapted to today's mobile society; but that's a much longer, harder discussion.

Well, I'm expecting that anywhere there is a pot of money as big as healthcare, the legislature won't be able to keep its sticky fingers out for very long...

but I know you will be more optimistic.

Any large pot of money attracts people. But the Lege generally is less corrupt than business.

No the reason for the Senate's structure is the combination of the Connecticut Compromise and the 3/5ths Compromise. It was an attempt to give smaller states enough voice to protect themselves.

It was NOT to give a minority political party the ability to block legislation.

That is a matter of opinion; the legislators have an unfair advantage - they get to decide what is illegal for themselves. However, if you get into moral territory, then businessmen get an unfair advantage because they don't need hypocrisy to be greedy.

Digging down a little further suggests that creating large pots of money is itself the problem; it creates complacency, attracts greed, tends to promote fraud/waste/abuse. It is also not always avoidable. There's the rub.

So I have reason to believe that aggregating health care dollars is a bad idea; that it would be better to have individual providers advertising and individual patients paying; that insurers make a hash of it, and that government would make a worse hash of it. You have (what I considered unfounded) faith in the government.

BenK:

You have (what I considered unfounded) faith in the government.

Other governments run their national health care just fine. It is the US government that Benk has no faith in. How did THAT happen?