The Schrug

I have no problem with the idea of government involvement in the health care industry. But Governor Deval Patrick’s decision to deny requested premium increases is not the way to go. Actions like this lend some credibility to the otherwise fanciful cries about a “government takeover of health care.”

As I pointed out recently, small businesses do have alternatives to paying ever-increasing health insurance premiums. I chose a lower-premium plan that offers a narrower choice of providers.

Fair market competition is the key to cost control in the long run. Last-minute government-imposed price freezes, especially those that seem arbitrary and perhaps politically motivated, introduce dangerous uncertainty for providers and a false sense of security for consumers.

As Atul Gawande just wrote in the New Yorker, controlling health care costs is a necessary but extremely complicated proposition. Governor Patrick’s “just say no” approach won’t cut it.

I got this today from Mike Capuano. He’s the guy who, if I’d had my way, would be sitting in Scott Brown’s Senate seat today. You’d think that Capuano, as an advocate of a single-payer system, would be a solid yes vote in this round. But he’s not. It was an eye-opener to read about all the little details he’s struggling with. It makes me wonder if Lamar Alexander had a point. When things get this complicated, can we do comprehensive well? Anyway, here’s what Rep. Capuano had to say:

March 16, 2010
Dear Friends,
Health Care reform is as important an issue as I have dealt with in my life and it is of great interest to many people. 

In my last communication I shared a detailed letter expressing some concerns and seeking input. Since that time, I have received many calls, emails and letters.  Most calls merely express support or opposition to the proposal.  Others have more detailed points to make.  I value this input and I thank you.  I am still weighing my vote.

I decided long ago that this is one of the few issues I will decide without regard for political impact – it is too important.  I will cast my vote on the basis of what I think is in the best interest of our country, state and district; if there is a political price to pay for that vote, so be it.

So, as of this writing, here is the status of the issues I raised:

1. Pundit views to the contrary – I have NOT decided how to vote.  I want to vote YES, but I am still not certain that this SPECIFIC bill deserves my support.

2. One reason for this hesitancy is that we still do NOT have a final draft of the reconciliation bill.  No one can or should make a final decision before they read, consider and discuss the final product.  We are so far beyond generalities and rhetoric that decisions made before the actual language of the bill is available are irresponsible.

3. Early Expansion States – This is our effort to make sure Massachusetts is not punished because we have already taken action to expand health care coverage.  I have received clarifying information on some details.  I am informed that the monies involved would not be CUT from current state receipts, but Massachusetts COULD nonetheless be treated unfairly in the future if we are not grandfathered somehow.  In the House, we addressed the matter in a general manner and would have brought the state about $1.3 billion for the three years FY 2013 – 2015.  The Senate specifically granted Massachusetts an exemption totaling $165 million for the three years FY 2014 – 2016.  Every informed observer would accept the Senate protection even though it is less generous than the House’s version.  However, everyone also emphasizes how critically important it is that Massachusetts receive some protection from unfair treatment.

The President seems to have backed away from his broad threat to strip all state-specific language because he realizes they are not all “give aways”.  At the moment, I expect this concern to be addressed, but won’t know until the reconciliation bill is finalized.

4. Area Wage Index – This is an issue I did not include in the original letter, but it has been raised by so many commentators that I feel compelled to add it now.  It is another immensely complex Medicare reimbursement issue.  The House did not address it.  The Senate did include corrective language that would allow Massachusetts to regain about $300 million.  Here too I will need to see the text of the reconciliation measure to ensure that language remains intact. 

5. DSH Cuts – These are the payments made to hospitals that provide services to a larger than average number of uninsured people, like Boston Medical Center and Cambridge Health Alliance.  I am informed that Massachusetts will not be as adversely affected as I feared because we have expanded coverage to more people.  Although the national cuts may be troubling to some, Massachusetts’ early expansion will save us from much of this specific cut.

6. Value Index – This is the Senate proposal that could reward so-called “low cost areas” simply because they do not bear the burdens of a costly patient pool, medical education, a high cost-of-living region, significant research overhead, or other factors beyond merely the cost of direct service. Furthermore, this proposed index has never even been tested to determine its true impact.

Although this proposal causes everyone in Massachusetts some degree of concern, no one has yet suggested I vote against the overall package simply due to this provision. A few commentators have suggested that it would be acceptable for Massachusetts to lose money and others to gain if it helped the nation – although I respect that view, I do not share it.  Some observers have also pointed out that the Senate language has some possible protections.

7. Super IMAC – This is the proposal to strip Congress of oversight of Medicare and vest virtually all decision authority in the hands of the presidential appointees not subject to confirmation.

Again, virtually every commentator has shared my concern but not suggested I vote against the overall proposal for this reason.  One reason is that there is a ten year exemption for our major hospitals.  I cannot say that I am as trusting yet – ten years is not that long.

8. Process – Some opponents of the underlying proposal are focusing on the process for passage.  While I don’t like the convoluted process we will be following, it will not deter me from a thorough analysis of the proposal.  I would ask if anyone remembers the process that was used for Medicare, Civil Rights or any other important legislation.  Furthermore, I can assure you that convoluted processes have been used many times by Republicans and Democrats.  In fact, process is only a means to an end – the real issue is the product.  If the product is good, I will vote yes – if it is bad, I will vote no.  Following the process may be an interesting sidelight, but the important factors are decided in the substance of the bill.

Like others, I wait anxiously for the text of the reconciliation bill.  When it is public, I will ask again for comment from informed observers.

I realize that many people are tired of this debate – so am I.  But it is important and complicated.  It took years to enact Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – and I argue that it was worth the time and trouble.

I realize that some just want us to vote yes or no based on a few talking points.  I will not succumb to that suggestion.  Health care is a serious and complicated matter.  I do not believe that the vast majority of people really want me to vote on the basis of rhetoric.

I also realize that some see this as a political tug-of-war between the right and the left or between Democrats and Republicans.  I do not see it that way at all.  I see it as the implementation of basic values:

First – Do you believe that every American should have health care coverage?  I do.

Second – If you do not, the answer is easy, vote no.  But then you should also think we should repeal Medicare and Medicaid.

Third – If you agree with me that the goal is to expand coverage, the next questions are whether THIS actual proposal gets us closer to that goal, does it do it in a fiscally responsible manner, and does it harm the programs we already have in place?  The answers are never as clean and neat as the first two questions and this is what I am trying to decide now.

For those who have contacted me, I appreciate your input.  For those who wish to do so, we are happy to hear from you.

I’ve decided I want to make movies. I can’t remember what the germ of this idea was or what pushed it from crazy pipedream to something I’m willing to spend time and money on, but I’m at that point now. I’m not about to start making feature films, but I think that a couple sketches and maybe a ten-minute short within the next year or so is realistic.

I’m going to call my new venture Figmond Entertaiment. “Entertainment” because it gives me more latitude than “Films” or “Productions,” and “Figmond” because that was my nickname in elementary school and I’m fairly confident that no other production company is already called that.

Once I’d decided I wanted to make movies I considered getting started by taking classes at places like Emerson or CDIA. But I decided I wasn’t ready for that kind of commitment. So I put my Googling skills to work to find resources for teaching myself. It didn’t take too long to find a gold mine: MicroFilmmaker Magazine. I’ve really just started exploring the contents of that site. One of the first places I went to were the reviews. Based on their strong recommendation, I went to Amazon and bought $30 Film School. While shopping, I also picked up The Power Filmmaking Kit: Make Your Professional Movie on a Next-to-Nothing Budget and Digital Filmmaking.

I looked through the first two books to see what kinds of things I would need to buy in order to produce something that I and other people might actually want to see. (I knew I could theoretically make “a movie” using my digital point-and-shoot camera and Windows Live Movie Maker, but I also knew that no matter how good the content of a movie made that way, it would look and sound so bad that I’d get frustrated and disheartened.) I concluded that the minimum outfit included the following:

• A camera that could record HD video in a variety of formats, including 24 frames per second
• A good microphone
• A decent non-linear editing software package
• A tripod

And that’s pretty much it. I’ll probably soon decide that I’ll also need some lights, but these should get me started.

After reading some reviews, at first I was tempted to go with a pretty high-end camera, like the Panasonic Pro AG-HVX200A or the Sony PMW-EX3 . But while I was looking at some HD camcorder demonstrations on YouTube I saw a lot of people talking about something that looked a lot more appropriate for a newbie: the Canon EOS 7D. It costs thousands less than the full-size camcorders but the image quality looks spectacular. The only serious drawbacks in terms of video recording seem to be a 12-minute-per-shot limit and the inability to steady it on a shoulder while shooting. Neither of those were deal-breakers for me, so I ordered it.

Based on a review of the EOS 7D on YouTube (unfortunately, I can’t find the clip again right now), I also ordered a good quality audio recorder, the Zoom H4n. This should allow me to capture much cleaner dialogue than I’d be able to get from the camera’s built-in microphone alone.

I haven’t settled on my software package yet. I downloaded a trial of Adobe Creative Suite 4 Production Premium, but it was far too complicated to get started with. I’m trialing the scaled-down Adobe Premiere Elements 8, but I’ve seen a number of complaints about sluggish performance. I’ve ordered an upgraded video card for my computer, so I’ll have to see how well Premiere Elements 8 does once that’s installed. Another option is Pinnacle Studio, but its reviews are also less than stellar.

Total investment so far: about $3,000.00. I’ll continue to log my adventures as a movie mogul after the stuff arrives in the mail.

I thought things were complicated last year when I had to renew my small business’s health insurance plan. Back then, I was choosing between 25 different plans offered by the same insurer: Harvard Pilgrim HealthCare. (I could have gone with other insurers as well, but I’d been happy to that point with Harvard and had to limit my options somehow.) After some analysis and some guesswork, I chose a plan costing $360 a month. It had a $2,000 annual deductible, a $4,000 annual out-of-pocket maximum, and no coinsurance.

I was just notified that the 2010-2011 rate for this same plan was going up to $410 a month – a 14% increase. I wasn’t thrilled about that, of course, given that the overall annual rate of inflation these days is close to zero. But I figured it was better than the 39% increase facing some folks this year. So I was going to put my head down and pay the bills.

Then I got a letter from Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. This is the kind of government-organized exchange that is one of the core components of the President’s health care plan. It was created as part of Massachusetts’ universal health care system.

The letter told me about Business Express, a new way for small businesses like mine to purchase insurance for employees. (Before this, we had to shop directly with insurers or – as I did — join an organization like the Small Business Service Bureau.) I went to the Business Express web site, answered three or four basic questions about my business, and then got taken to this grid:

What’s on this grid? A choice between 35 private health insurance plans. That’s right. That’s how a health insurance exchange works. You go to a government-run web site and you get to choose between several competing private plans with a wide range of costs and benefits.

I noticed that the prices for the Tufts plans started a lot lower than the prices for the plans offered by my current insurer, Harvard Pilgrim. So I checked out some of the details of the Tufts plan options. The one for $280 a month has a $2,000 annual deductible, a $5,000 out-of-pocket maximum, and no co-insurance.  Co-pays for things like doctors visits, prescription drugs, and emergency room services might be a bit different, but essentially it’s the same plan as I have now … for 20% less than I pay now and 32% less than next year’s rate for my current plan.

Let me repeat that … because of my state’s version of the “government takeover of healthcare” I will be saving $1,600 in health care premiums next year. Same doctor (I checked – he’s on the plan.) Same drugs. Same hospitals. Even if I end up getting sick and paying the difference between the out-of-pocket cost maximums, I still come out $600 ahead. I’ll also save the $85 a year it cost me to join the Small Business Service Bureau.

Hmm, you say … maybe I’m getting screwed. Maybe there is fine print somewhere that I haven’t noticed and the Tufts plan excludes coverage for some things I’ll end up needing. I suppose that’s possible, but at least I have the assurance that every plan offered through the connector meets the State’s Minimum Creditable Coverage standards.

Oh, and if I hadn’t been a small business owner … if I’d just been some poor schmuck on his own trying to get coverage … I could buy the same plan for $307 a month. And if my income were less than $32,496 as an individual I’d be eligible for subsidized insurance through the Commonwealth Care program.

Ah, but what this chart doesn’t show is the hidden costs of all the new government mandates and regulations, right? How much would I have been paying if all this health care reform had never been put in place? Well, in 2008 I was paying $486 a month (albeit for a plan with a much smaller deductible and out-of-pocket maximum, but also for one that had no prescription drug coverage at all). So the idea that more government action in the health care market inevitably leads to higher premiums is simply a canard.

OK, you Obamacare opponents … tell me which part of this you don’t like.

Continuing my observations from the previous post …

• Someone needs to take a poll of the American public: “Do you support the idea of having the Federal government create minimum standards for private health insurance policies?” I’m betting at least 60% say yes, and probably a lot more if you point out that the Federal government already does this for things like food safety, workplace safety, auto safety, and so forth.
• Funny to hear Republican Mike Enzi advocating so strongly for keeping Medicare (i.e. socialized medicine) intact.
• Enzi: “I like the exchanges.” Is he going to catch hell for that?
• Just for the record, I own a small business and I provide health insurance for all my employees. (I’m the only employee.) I pay $360 a month ($4,320 a year) for an HMO plan with a $2,000 deductible for hospitalization and other secondary services. I would pay this same rate regardless of my medical condition. I purchase this insurance through the Small Business Service Bureau, which is essentially an exchange. I’m given an option each year to change plans, and I can change between insurance companies or between plans offered by my existing insurance company. I think this is a perfectly acceptable solution and I’m not sure why it’s so hard to replicate this model across the nation.
• Tom Harkin is the first to address the problem of the incremental approach: It’s like seeing someone who’s drowning 50 feet off-shore and you throw them a 10-foot rope.
• Tom Harkin compares pooling to segregation. Yes, that is the only way to make a profit in insurance.
• Odd to hear Boehner referred to as “Leader.” Sounds like we’re in North Korea.
• Republicans’ reliance on state-by-state approaches sounds wrong. People are mobile, and in many cases families cross state lines. We need a national approach.
• Jay Rockefeller: “The health insurance industry is the shark that swims just beneath the water.” Ouch!
• Damn, just missed 10 minutes. What happened?
• “If Jay’s son got hit by a bus … and his father wasn’t Jay Rockefeller …” LOL!
• Obama: We want competition, but we want some minimum standards. Wait … isn’t that managed competition?
• Memo to Biden: Stop talking. Although your point about making Social Security mandated is well-taken.
• Memo to Biden ten minutes later: Seriously, stop talking.
• I hope someone does a fact check on Ryan’s budget stats, and if he’s right, the Dems need to take this seriously and get it fixed. On the other hand, it’s not clear how Ryan’s approach would make the situation any better.
• Obama trying hard to introduce “Medicare Advantage” into common parlance, since that’s the part of Medicare he wants to cut. If he can sell the idea that the cuts in Medicare he proposes are actually cuts in payments to insurance companies, he’s got a winning argument. Grassley has a rebuttal for this. Fact check time!
• Obama to McCain: “I think you make a legitimate point.” McCain is speechless. Nice moment.
• God help us if the CBO is a bunch of idiots.
• Grassley says this would be first time government requires people to buy something. Not really, since our tax dollars are used all the time to buy things that we as individuals don’t necessarily want bought.
• Conrad: Medicare is going to go broke in eight years. Doing nothing guarantees this. Right on.
• Conrad: Five percent of Medicare beneficiaries – the chronically ill – use fifty percent of all the money. Wow. Says solution for this is coordination of care. How much of the problem can be solved this way?
• Boehner thinks his job is to listen. That’s only part of it. The Congress also needs to educate and lead.
• Missed another half hour or so. Drat.
• It seems to me that both parties in both houses select the dumbest and most reactionary among them as their leaders.
• Barrasso talks about how scared people are about what will happen if the bill passes. But he neglects to mention that they’re primarily scared because they’ve been fed lies by opponents of the bill.
• Barrasso points out that people who have to pay out of pocket are best consumers of health care, because they are sensitive to cost. He’s right about this, and a fundamental weakness of the Democrats’ approach is a failure to make people more aware of what their own health care costs.
• Barrasso also right to point out need to eat less, exercise more, and stop smoking. (So will the GOP support tougher FDA regulations on cigarettes? Doubt it.)
• Obama rebuts Barrasso, pointing out that high deductible, low premium plans don’t work all that well for folks making $40,000. So true.
• Everything I’ve heard today just confirms what I think – and what others have suggested: We need a system that makes basic, no-frills care available to everyone regardless of income, employment, residence, etc., and then let the market take care of the extras like brand name prescriptions, treatments that extend life for less than three months, and all the other nice things that our “best in the world” health care providers can offer.
• Roskam makes same point about public reaction to the bill – they don’t like it – but the public thinks the bill contained death panels.
• Republicans probably make a good point that expanding Medicaid is not a great idea. But it may be the best bad idea we’ve got. What’s their alternative? As has been pointing out, you can’t help someone living at the poverty line with HSAs and tort reform.
• Obama: “Neither of these proposals are radical, the question is which one works best.” Yup.
• Obama FINALLY – at 4:35 – points out that the individual elements of the bill are popular even when the overall bill isn’t. Thank you!
• Republicans need to remember that we DID start with a blank piece of paper at the beginning of the administration. What’s the point of starting again … we’d just waste another year. Oh, and they don’t really want to start with a blank piece of paper. At least some of them want to start with the Boehner plan. (Obama made this point at the very end.)
• Again, enough with the anecdotes! We get it.
• Coburn is absolutely right that we need to reconnect the system of payment with the system of purchase. But to a great extent it’s the private health insurance system that inserts the disconnect. Why can’t he see that?
• Pelosi wraps up by saying the key thing is to eliminate discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. But that’s at the foundation of the insurance model. You try to estimate how likely something is to happen and you charge accordingly so you can make a profit.
• Overall I thought Obama came across as someone who takes this very seriously and listens to both sides but is not receptive to bull. Many (but not all) Republicans came across as simply whining and refusing to play.
• And I really hope this kind of summit happens again and again. Having these people make their cases without filtering them through talking heads. And it makes them do their homework. I loved it.

• The discussion is flawed from the get-go. You can’t simultaneously rail against the private health care insurance industry and insist that everyone should buy into it. (See comment below regarding pre-existing conditions.)
• To tamp down on partisanship, they should have mixed up the seating arrangements so that Democrats and Republicans were intermingled. I’m sure the legislators said “no way.”
• Can anyone imagine George W. Bush convening a forum like this and talking for 10 minutes without a script?
• It’s a huge stretch for Lamar Alexander to say the American people have expressed disapproval of the Senate plan. When polled on the specifics, most people support the goals of that plan.
• Alexander put the GOP on record as being in favor of reducing health care costs. Will they then attack Obama for proposing cuts in Medicare? Yup, did just that less than five minutes later.
• Wow. GOP’s position is that “we don’t do ‘comprehensive’ well.” That explains so much about our country’s politics. What else do you really need to know?
• Pelosi’s “job lock” argument sounds like a winner. It’s a catchy phrase.
• Kennedy’s “health care is a right, not a privilege,” on the other hand, is a loser.
• What is the fascination with anecdotes? (Like the family whose baby was born with the cleft palate.)
• Good for Reid for bringing up the Kaiser Foundation poll to rebut Alexander!
• “You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.” Cute, but you can only say that if you yourself are acknowledging ALL the facts, not just the ones that support your position.
• Good for Reid for pointing out that part of the reason the current bills are so large is that they contain GOP amendments.
• The distinction between “good insurance” and “bad insurance” is critical. You can be “insured” if you have a policy that costs $10 a month and pays you a maximum benefit of $100 if you’re hospitalized. But that doesn’t mean you’re going to get good health care.
• Coburn is saying good things about problems with the system (e.g. lack of preventive care) but why is he so intent on blaming government? Government may be paying for bad medicine, but government isn’t actually providing that care or setting up the structures that incentivize it. The private sector is responsible for this as well. I find it extremely hard to believe that the fraud rate in the private sector insurance market is 1%. Even if that’s the actual reported rate, the private sector insurers have less incentive to detect fraud because they can just pass the costs along to their customers.
• Reid is coming across as a bit of an a-hole.
• Obama very quick to point out, in rebutting Coburn, that saving money in Medicare/Medicaid doesn’t help lower the costs of private sector insurance. This guy is sharp.
• Someone should have been standing at a white board writing down all the areas of agreement.
• Good for Obama to ask GOP specifically what they object to about the concept of a health insurance exchange. Kline goes back to advocating a step-by-step approach. So the main objection that Republicans have is that it’s a big bill? I just don’t get that.
• Baucus compares health care exchange to Orbitz and Expedia. Brilliant!
• It’s funny to hear Dems like Hoyer and Baucus heading up the cheering section for competitive markets. GOP can’t possibly object to that.
• Camp goes back to tort reform. Dems need to (a) put the realistic cost reductions of tort reform in context and (b) explain what happens to victims of malpractice if tort reform goes too far.
• Glad to see Camp referring to very specific provisions in the bill that he objects to. If that’s the level of debate, then we might actually get something done. It’s too bad that Obama shut him down on that. Hope they get back to that in the afternoon.
• Camp now objecting to mandated benefits. This is an argument worth having. Somebody needs to decide in advance what health care is worth paying for, as they did in Oregon.
• I have to say I am impressed by how these legislators are debating this stuff without relying on prepared statements and whispers from staff.
• Good for Obama to distinguish between government-imposed regulations on minimal standards in health insurance policies and “government takeover of health care.”
• Nice plug by Schumer for Atul Gawande’s article in the New Yorker about how costs are driven up by financial incentives. Everyone should read that article.
• Good for Schumer for pointing out GOP hypocrisy in railing against cuts in Medicare while also complaining about how Medicare wastes money.
• C-Span’s feed was more reliable than the White House’s feed on Facebook.
• Hopefully people are getting more educated about how health care economics work and the difference between types of insurance coverage. Kyl goes back to this question about premium costs going up because the benefits get better. Most people don’t object to paying more in order to get more.
• Obama points out that current Federal plan has mandated minimum benefits and Republicans aren’t howling to get those cut down.
• Boustany once again brings up the step-by-step approach. Obama and Democrats need to come up with a definitive rebuttal to that – why incrementalism won’t work in this case. (Either that, or agree to an incremental approach.)
• Boustany advocates HSAs, but as someone (Baucus?) points out, HSAs only work for the people who have extra cash to put into them.
• Republicans seem to have a lot of faith in the American consumer to navigate through a wide range of choices presented to them by health insurance providers and pick the one that makes the most sense for them. I don’t share that faith. The health care and health insurance market is simply too financially and emotionally complicated to let the market run free. What happens to the people who think they can get away with very cheap plans but then end up needing extensive benefits? We’ll end up with the same problems we have now.
• McCain says dealmaking was “unsavory,” but he says that “with respect.” Right.
• McCain wants to go through bill taking out concessions to special interests. OK, but that’s different from starting with a blank page.
• Sebelius is boring.
• Eric Cantor says he’s worried about 8 or 9 million people who might lose their existing coverage. Even if that’s true, should their interests trump the much larger number of people who are currently uninsured or underinsured? Obama replies those folks would end up with a BETTER deal! Take that, Cantor!
• Obama willing to admit that health care is complicated and needs a lot of pages. Calls out Cantor’s political stunt. Nice.
• Obama points out that food would be cheaper if we had no meat inspectors or food storage regulation. Yes!
• Obama points out that GOP agrees there should be SOME regulation. Forces them to point out which regulations they object to. Smart guy.
• Obama explains that you can’t prevent insurers from excluding people with pre-existing conditions unless you have something like universal coverage. That’s right. Are people willing to accept that?
• Cantor points out that in a perfect world everyone would have everything they want. Yes, that’s the problem … Americans have been led to believe that this is achievable.
• Joe Biden’s ten seconds last a lot more than ten seconds.
• Louise Slaughter gives some history of discrimination against women in health care research and insurance and why legislation is needed to fix this kind of problem. Nice.
• The debate about how to deal with pre-existing conditions puts the lie to the idea that a health care system based on the concept of insurance can work. Every other type of insurance is allowed to make rate adjustments (or deny coverage) based on pre-existing conditions. But we think – rightly – that it’s immoral for people to be driven to premature death or bankruptcy because of a medical condition. That’s why we have to throw the concept of health insurance out the window and come up with an entirely different model.

OK, time to break for lunch.

I cannot for the life of me understand why people are fighting so hard to make sure everyone has health insurance when what we need is basic health care. If we’re successful in getting 30 million more people covered by insurance, what we’re going to end up with is 30 million more stories like this. Followed by 30 million more stories like this. It honestly boggles my mind.

Of all the things President Obama said last night, the one that would have made me stand up and applaud was this:

[W]hat frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent — a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

Does anyone disagree?

OK, now I’m a little (??) obsessed with this viral video thing, even to the point of creating a new video in response to my first one.

The “other version” of the Hitler-Coakley-Brown video has now received well over a million views. But not only on DrRonPaul2012’s page. The same video has been uploaded to YouTube by:

• Battlefield315 (67,000 views as of Friday afternoon)
• RonPaul4Pres2K8 (4,200)
• tikamue (1,500)
• tonytonytee (1,200)
• wbradss (400)

… and a whole bunch of others. There are probably additional me-too posts coming in every hour.

So now I’m wondering whether DrRonPaul2012 is really the author of the subtitles of “Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Massachusetts Senate Seat” or if he was also merely a re-poster who happened to get found by the right people.

Can anyone shed some light the true origins of this clip? (Not the TRUE origins … we know it’s from the movie “Downfall.” I mean the true origins of the more popular Coakley-Brown version.) And if DrRonPaul2012 is not the real subtitle author, does the real subtitle author have any copyright claims against him? Or does the fact that we’ve all be stealing from “fairly using” the original movie void any sort of authorship rights for the new subtitles we’ve added?

I had a brilliant idea last night as the gloom of the Martha Coakley debacle set in. I was trying to imagine how President Obama must have been feeling as the returns were announced, and I thought of that scene from Downfall that has been endlessly parodied on YouTube. (Quick side note: I had to laugh just now as I was getting the link to Downfall from IMDB and the first thing that caught my eye was “Spoiler Alert!”) I’d seen and enjoyed a couple of the parody videos before, and this was the perfect opportunity to make one.

Some three-and-a-half hours later, I posted my creation:

I put a link to the video in my Facebook status update and in a tweet with the #MASen hashtag, and went to bed.

This morning I was very happy to see that a handful of people had already watched it. Some of my Facebook friends shared it, and some of their friends watched it, too. It wasn’t too long before the video had over 100 views. I was pretty psyched. People were paying attention.

Then around 1:00 this afternoon I saw myself mentioned in a tweet. It said “@universalhub Local playwright Dave Schrag’s video @dvschrag is a better take: http://bit.ly/7iOtjH.” OK, I thought, that’s good news. One of my friends is spreading the word. But then I thought … Wait a minute. A “better take” than what?

I looked at @universalhub’s earlier tweets and found “Hitler is stunned by Coakley’s defeat. http://bit.ly/6pRqzt.” Someone else had come up with exactly the same idea. And this other video was getting picked up all over the place, including big-name sites like Comedy Central. It was no contest. By early evening, my video had been watched almost 350 times, a number that I would have been awfully pleased with twelve hours prior. But this other video – which is funny but, IMHO, not as funny as mine – had almost 75,000 views. Seventy-five-THOUSAND views in a day. It was the 55th most viewed video today on ALL OF YOUTUBE!

So I ask those of you who know this stuff better than I, what did I do wrong? Why did this other guy go viral and not me? Did I fail to plant some seeds in the most obvious places? Or did this DrRonPaul2012 fellow have a huge head start on me? (He’s only got 61 YouTube subscribers, so I don’t think that alone could account for the rapid spread.)

Any ideas?