Fiscal conservative oxymoron

The Senate Finance Committee voted today against the only possible mechanism under consideration for reducing America's incredible lead in the inefficient delivery of health care. Never mind single-payer, which isn't on the table, if there's not at least a healthy public option, there is no possible way that the current reform could restrain insurance companies' thirst for profits. Those huge profits are the sole slice of the pie that's out of whack compared to our economic competitors in the developed world.

The upshot: The so-called fiscal conservatives on the committee voted against fiscal conservatism, voted to keep us on an unsustainable path of expense growth. If we were actually getting better health care, we might find a way to sustain the growth. But we aren't.

We're paying more for less. That's what the conservatives, Democrat and Republican alike, voted for. Is that what any of their constituents would actually choose if they were well-informed?

These Senators voted for insurance company profits over any other interest or principle. Is there a more plausible explanation?

Update (9/30): This is everywhere in the blogosphere - Atrios, Ezra Klein, Kos, and Eschaton again. How many decades before the big media apologizes for failing again to deliver the facts front and center?

Deal-breaker

On health care, the Republicans want to do nothing:

Republicans on the panel, who voted unanimously against the measure, described the idea of a new public insurance option as a deal-breaker.

The lack of a public option would be the deal-breaker for health care reform.

Update (7/18): Barack has my back...

Only tool a hammer

For the Republicans, cutting taxes for the rich cures all ills. At least all the ones that matter.

How has that worked out so far?