Vermont resident here (the only Ricochet VT member?) .   There is much to be said about VT liberal politics, more than will fit in this space, but the comment about low information voters is very apt. 

Also, you would be surprised by the number of rabidly anti-Republican liberals who have a fondness for Ron Paul.  I think it is partly due to Paul's isolationism and partly due to the low information factor.  In one breath they claim to favor libertarianism and in the next they advocate socialized medicine. 

And as for socialized medicine, they have absolutely no idea how this poor, rural state with practically no industrial base is going to pay for single payer, but full speed ahead anyway. 

Peoples' Republic of Vermont.  Obamacare isn't good enough for us; we want full-bore single payer health care.  (Actually, there is an admirable, if perverse, integrity to that straightforwardness). 

Problems with that plan?  Oh, just a few.  The biggest one being that after studying the issue for the better part of 10 years, the D legislature and the D governor have not the slightest idea how to pay for it.  Just a small detail, they say.  Don't worry your pretty heads about it.  They'll think of something. 

When you sign up for Ricochet, the registration form advises that for your pseudonym, you should "use common sense and good judgment."  So, being the literal minded geek that I am...

In my defense, I never thought I'd ever post anything--I just wanted to support the site and see the lawtalk podcast.  Now that I've started (occasionally) writing posts and commenting on others, I am beginning to regret my little joke. 

So, a few straight, non rhetorical questions: how does the polling work?  When Gallup or Quinnipiac report a D+12 skew, is that the raw result or has that number been statistically adjusted?  I assume the poll is done by telephone.  Where does the database of phone numbers come from?  If the pollster has a database of phone numbers that produces a wild skew that doesn't even come close to the real partisan identification of the population being polled, do they question the validity of their database?  I wish Hugh Hewitt had asked that question. 

Okay, I want to put these authors (especially Lileks) into a PET scanner to image their brains while they are writing.  What is going on in there when they reach the state of not being entirely in control of the story?  I mean, there isn't actually an external entity--signals from the celestial spheres or something--directing the narrative and dialog.  It is some evidently unconscious part of the author's brain driving the story which to the author's conscious mind seems like "taking dictation."  Wouldn't it be fascinating to see what parts of the brain light up when this feeling occurs where to the writer it seems as if the characters are taking off on their own, doing things of their own devising? 

Mr. Carter, sir, thanks for that.  I enjoyed every word. 

I'm also reminded of what Evelyn Waugh wrote, late in life, in a letter to someone (his sister maybe?):

"I'm quite deaf now, such a comfort." 

To quote Instapundit (who was quoting somebody else), I'll vote for a syphylitic camel before I vote for Obama.  So, if Santorum is the Republican nominee, I'll vote for him, as I suspect will most if not all Ricochet-ers, including Tristan.  But that's not the point.  The point is who can defeat Obama?  I greatly fear that if we nominate Santorum,   Katievs will get a thrill voting for a true Christian believer and moral crusader, and Obama will cruise easily to a second term. 

You commonly hear that this is a 50-50 country politically, but in reality it's more like 40-20-40, where that middle 20 swing back and forth between D and R and the occasional I.  If you want to be President, you have to get a big chunk of that 20.  A candidate who spends his time talking about Satan isn't going to do that. 

Advice to all Republicans: ignore Prof. Epstein's "a pox on both their houses" argument.  We absolutely can and should blame the Democrats for high energy prices, for the reasons cited by the other commenters.  It is rare (maybe the very first time) that I read an opinion by Prof. Epstein and think "wow, that's just completely, spectacularly, wrong." 

On the plus side, there's something comforting to us mere mortals when a big giant head screws the pooch. 

Tennessee, I favor all of those reforms, and think they would bring down the cost of health care, but they don't solve the pre-existing conditions problem.  Treating leukemia costs around 1 million dollars.  Let's say we implement every reform.  How much will that save?  30%?  40%?  Maybe in our wildest dreams 50%?  We're still talking about 500K, which is still a catastrophic expense. 

Not JMR--I'm not sure I'd want to be your campaign manager.  Your plan for health insurance reform is, if I understand it correctly, if you get seriously ill, mortgage your house and beg from your neighbors.  Somehow I don't see that plan getting a lot of votes. 

Agreed. 

And spare me the sanctimony about a brokered convention violating the democratic nominating process.  Most people don't even get to vote to select the nominee because they don't live in the 10 to 15 states that have their primaries or caucuses first. 

And as for Santorum, if you are voting for him because he's a social conservative, then fine, not my cup of tea, but at least you are voting for him for the right reason.  But if you think he's a fiscal conservative, think again.  He's more of a Huckabee type, evidently motivated by his faith to vote for big govenment spending. 

 Brattleboro really got hammered.  That much rain in so short a time just has nowhwere to go in narrow river valleys. 

Montpelier where I live had relatively minor flooding but the downtown area buildings have had their second basement flood-outs in 4 months. That is just wearying.  Some businesses I imagine will not survive. 

There is some concern that there will be another release of water upstream from an earthen dam that needs relief. 

I like both Community and Parks and Recreation.  They both take on political correctness pretty sharply.  I thought the Community episode where they spoof "My Dinner with Andre" was genius. 

Agreed, but Rob's point was that if he were more sensitive to costs, he would have gone to the doctor earlier in order to avoid the ER and Levaquin expenses.  That doesn't seem likely to me.  A greater sensitivity to costs would have, at least in Rob's case, probably resulted in the same outcome--putting off seeking care until he absolutely couldn't wait anymore and stumbled into the nearest ER. 

My point is that Rob didn't go to his GP for a fever because

• he's busy
• he thought it would resolve on its own, and
• he's a man. 

Adding cost sensitivity to that list doesn't make it more likely he'd go to his GP, but less.  

 I'm sympathetic to the idea that a more market oriented health care system would reduce costs and improve efficiencies, but I'm not sure Rob's analysis of his experience logically follows. 

If a given health care consumer were more sensitive to costs than Rob was, wouldn't he be less likely to go to his GP for a fever in the early stages?  Most likely he would say to himself, eh, it's a virus of some sort and it will pass, so I think I'll save myself the copay or deductible just to have my doctor tell me to go home and rest.  Add to that the fact that Rob is a man (albeit a RINO squish, but still a man) and men just don't go to the doctor as frequently as women, especially when they don't have a (human) female in their house to nag them to go.