What do prostitution, pot and private insurance have in common? They all coexist peacefully in the Netherlands. In legalizing prostitution, the Dutch also controlled it in a way that dramatically reduces the disease and violence associated with it in most nations, while allowing consenting adults the freedom to pay for sex and to get paid for it.

In regulating private health insurance and aligning its incentives with those of the people, the Dutch have managed to keep costs low, quality high, and give everyone coverage. And it isn't just the Dutch who do it. So do the Germans, the Swiss and other nations to one degree or another. Their costs are slightly above those of single-payer nations, on average, but they have fewer access problems (like wait lists for elective surgery).

So how do they do it, and why are so many on the left convinced it can't be done? And why do all the top tier Democratic candidates propose systems that are like those of Germany and Holland (multipayer) rather than England or Canada (single payer)? Despite the earnest arguments of good diarists like bonddad, I have come to tell you that you have nothing to fear from multipayer universal healthcare.

There are some truths we hold self-evident: the Iraq war is a moral and tactical failure; George W. Bush is a wretched catastrophe of a president; the working class is getting screwed economically; HMOs are blood-sucking profit mongers.

I have nothing new to add to the first three truths, fine sentiments all. On the last, though, I have a question: just how big are those HMO profits? Are they pretty big, or obscenely big, and how much of American health care goes to pay for these profits?

After having spent some time doing research, I have answers to share below. But what I really want to do is poll the dKos community to see what the general sense is. Poll, and answers, follow...

The NY Times conducted a poll recently that shows the people most gung-ho about the war in Iraq are under the age of 30. Apparently this happens with every war, including Vietnam. The young support it far more than those who have experienced wars, even though it is the young who fight and die.

The statistics: 48% of those 18-29 support the invasion of Iraq while 45% think it was a mistake. In stark contrast, only 28% of those over 65 support the invasion, while 67% think it was a mistake.

What does this mean? And how should those opposed to the war respond? Two thoughts: 1) this is very, very good news for the 2008 elections. 2) strategies for swaying more of public opinion should aim more squarely at those under 30, but don't expect much. More below.

It is no secret that the American health care system is a mess. Iraq gets the headlines, but the real blood and treasure is spent and squandered on health care, making it arguably the most important economic and political issue America faces today.

The financial dimension alone is enormous: 16% of our entire economy is devoted to health care, which came out to $2 trillion in 2005. We now spend over $6,000 per person per year, which is twice the average for developed nations and about $2,000 more than the next closest country, Switzerland. And what do we get for it? Lower life expectancies than most other developed nations, and over 50 million who are either uninsured or poorly insured, compared to almost none in our peer nations. Those numbers point to one central fact to guide our thinking about health care reform: one-third to one-half of our expenses can be cut without any loss in the overall health of the American people

Taken from an AP story today titled "Iran Leader's Radicalism Angering Allies." I thought the story sounded familiar. I think you'll agree once you read it in light of my minor edits [in brackets]. In fact, it's rather stunning how just substituting "Bush" for "Ahmadinejad", "America" for "Iran" and so on can create a story that you would never guess wasn't about our president.

You can find the original article on Iran's new leader here: http://news.yahoo.com/...

[Washington DC, USA] - Critics say the 1980s-style radicalism of ultraconservative President [George Bush] is hurting [America] at home and abroad...

Good news all ye faithful. Only Fowler remains in serious opposition, and perhaps "serious" should be put in quotes. Personally, a burden has been lifted from my shoulders, and I'm sure those of thousands of others who toiled for months on Dean's campaign. It's good to see our efforts bear fruit, even if not what we intended at first. The Times story is here.

We've had 24 hours to process our disbelief, anger, and despair that a president who by most measures isn't simply bad, but one of the least competent in American history, has been elected by a majority of those who bothered to vote.

One of the worst things that we could do now is to retreat to the comforting belief that we understand these people, at least to the point of knowing that it isn't our fault we didn't reach them, because they are unreachable. If you truly believe that, why not just start packing your bags for New Zealand, or buying weapons for your Kamikaze run on the battleship of American culture?

One of the best "gotcha" moments of the debate occurred when Kerry caught Bush conflating between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Bush said that "we were attacked" and so we had to respond by invading Iraq. Kerry not only pointed out that it was not Hussein that attacked us, but did it in a dramatic way that no one could miss.

However, did anyone else here notice that afterwards Bush showed his Iraq obsession two more times? In a discussion of Al Qaeda, Bush began to speak about going to "Ira..." then stopped himself knowing that he wanted something else. So he switched to a person and actually said "Saddam Hussein" before he corrected himself and finally got it right with "Bin Laden." I think this was after Kerry's gotcha moment, and he still couldn't keep them straight!

Any other Bush bloopers that people noticed?

Inspired by Armando's last diary, here is a sketch of the kind of speech Kerry could give to try decisively take the upper hand on the WOT. I don't claim that it's good, but it's the start that my fevered brain is capable of right now. I've put in [brackets] parts that I know Kerry could never say:

"George Bush is selling America short. He used to say that the War on Terror would take generations, decades to win. Now he's even more pessimistic. He said on national television that we can't win the war on terror. Think about that: we can't win.

Overriding the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and acting against the recommendations of the Big Four accounting firms, Alan Greenspan, and a host of good-business advocates like Warren Buffet, the House today voted against requiring firms to expense their options to employees.

That means, essentially, that the millions in lost revenues to companies that come with stock giveaways don't enter into the books of those companies. In short, employees are paid millions but it isn't recorded as a cost.

What's the big deal?

There are some powerful economic statistics out there that argue clearly in favor of Democratic administrations and policies. I'd like to add data that I hadn't seen before which I hope contributes in some small way to the picture of an economically bankrupt Republican ideology.

I should emphasize that I'm no economist, and welcome any corrections.

It's too early to say whether this will blow over quickly, but it's already clear that the Bush/Cheney ethos of never admitting error or backing down (well, never admitting to backing down) has already pushed them to the brink of a serious problem.

To wit: The Southern Baptist Convention is peeved at the Bush/Cheney campaign for trying to get the names of church members for political mobilization. They're offended, and believe they've been undermined by the campaign. When confronted with the intrusion into the privacy and independence of the churches, a spokesman for B/C had the gall to deny that they'd done anything wrong.

It's nice to see that the tactics which have bonded America to its old allies so closely the last few years are now being turned on political allies of this administration within the U.S. If it continues, we can expect the same glorious results.

More of the AP story follows...

I recently discovered a new window into America's soul: hotornot.com. </hyperbole>

For those few who don't know, it's a website which allows you to vote on how hot other random strangers are, from 1-10, and also allows you to post your own photos to be voted on.

I read about it in the NYT and thought it would be worth checking out. After a little exploration, and lots of voting on the hotness of strangers, I've come away with some observations:

For those with a yearning to dress up in a tux or other upscale garb and feign disdainful snobbery for a political purpose, check out the Billionaires for Bush Ball tonight. It looks like it's going to be a big event, and a lot of fun if you're in the right spirit.

Normally I'm not a fan of mockery as a political technique (it usually puts off the very people you need to convince), but the Billionaires do it with a joie de vivre that makes it work.

Oh, and it's a costume ball, but you can get cheap accessories (like a chintzy top hat) at the door.

Here's the scoop:

This from The Guardian:

Fifty-three former US diplomats today accuse the White House of sacrificing America's credibility in the Arab world - and the safety of its diplomats and soldiers - because of the Bush administration's support for the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon.

Germany has decided to no longer guard US military facilities on German soil. Apparently about 2,500 Greman soldiers had taken the place of Americans, who had to leave for Iraq.

That means the U.S. now has an even more difficult task of finding an extra 2,500 soldiers while the supply of soldiers is already stretched far too thin for comfort (especially the comfort of National Guard members and reservists).

Germany also says that it won't help govern Iraq as a member of a NATO force. It still leaves open the possibility of a U.N. role, apparently....

We have many terms to describe the politics of this administration and its supporters--neocon, right wing, wingnut, extremist, etc. But a fine old term has been neglected: reactionary. That's a shame, because it may be the best single term to bring together critical parts of the worldview that has brought this nation where it is today, at the same time as it presents this worldview in a negative light.

Let me explain...

Since I didn't see an entry on them anywhere else...

This from the AP:
Kerry outpaced North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) 2-to-1 in the first returns from strongly Republican Utah and built an even stronger margin as the first polls reported from Idaho.

Not a big deal, but making it that much harder for Edwards to save himself on March 2nd.