This piece was too predictable, but, hey, extra points for the strategy. Anything that disses Palin is a shoo-in for the WaPo clientele.
Pretty light on the substance. The tired old "conservati$m is $imple to under$tand"
should have cost big points in the cred department.

Please. The WaPo didn't know that Huffman was the ex-husband of DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee? Hard to believe that no reader picked that up but maybe nobody really cared about the vapid entries in this contest.

The voting by online readers showed one thing loud and clear: your readers do not want to be challenged by any opinion with which they disagree. God save them from ever re-evaluating their positions on any topic.
The WaPo will sink into terminal predictable boredom. Zzzzzzzz.

Nice to see this clown and his comedy won the day. Imagine if one of the women was so blatantly unserious. They would never have made it to round 1.

Was anyone else bothered by this comment?

"Thank goodness this journalistic Bataan Death March is coming to an end."

It struck me as offensive and a crude, inaccurate parallel. Surely there's a better metaphor for a long, light-hearted experience that goes on and on, and that the participant *voluntarily* chooses to be involved in.

How about alternatives?

This guy WON the contest? Another step into insolvency for the WaPo...

I like humor. Down here in Florida I always look for the delightful columns of Frank Cerabino and Carl Hiaasen. I really don't have the patience (or maybe the intelligence) for ponderous gravitas. The New York TIMES is supposedly written on a tenth grade level. That's me (despite all my graduate degrees). You have to have me at "hello," or I won't continue reading.

I like light and breezy. I wanted to see a woman win, but not Zeba. I was disappointed when Maame Gyamfi was axed.

This contest is flawed in the same way American Idol is. With Twitter and Facebook in the balance the voting process can be skewed by a fan base. (But I do look forward to reading Kevin in the future.)

As one of the original 4000+ submitters, I didn't get picked but, seeing what those ten finalists went through, I'm relieved. (Yes, the gripes were sour. Mis-spelling meant).

Kevin is a delightful writer that drives home a good point without pounding, poking or badgering.

Wish he would study the HAMP and write an article on this poorly constructed program; Americans are once more the scapegoats.

Realchoices, I suspect Kevin Huffman will win. As much as he feigns familiarity with social networking sites, he is no Luddite. The Teach for America twitter feed has been campaigning for him and he has over 6,000 people in just one of the several TFA facebook groups. Google him and you'll see a couple of major politicians tweeting for him including Kevin Johnson Mayor of Sacramento and some major education blogs. It's clear he's invested a great deal of time in this. One wonders though if his supporters will stick around after he wins.

I suspect Zeba Kahn will win, simply because she has been the top vote getter in the past thanks to her Facebook fan base. Kevin's article was excellent, yes, a tad bit sarcastic, but how else does one explain the SHAMELESS DISHONESTY of the Republicans. This is the party of small government yet they oppose ANY attempt to restrain a runaway entitlement program like Medicare. Some commenters object to his mention of Sarah Palin as a leading voice among Republicans, but can anyone truly deny that she is (sad as that may be)?

Good job Kevin. More people should be pointing out the Republican dishonesty.

Kentigereyes, as much as most of us detest what Palin stands for the Time magazine cover was inappropriate, as are your comments. Female politicians put up with a lot from their critics because of their sex. It's a sad truth and it doesn't seem to have gotten any better in 2009.

I'd love to see her with no clothes on, as long as she did not talk, cause she is full of it. TFL, Ken

Next!

Yeah, we definitely should listen to Palin. She's proved what a genius she is.

The explanation for Palin is really pretty simple: (No pun intended.)

For Palin, the only issues that she can speak intelligently about, are ones she has experienced herself.

In order to speak on other issues, she would need to do a little reading.

And we know that ain't gonna happen!

It is so funny that you saw this throug to to the very end (record numbers) and without any social networking! Yet, you were on FB just the other day. Wow! You must be some kinda' lucky groovin' typa guy, Kevin.
Regardless. In my book, you and Courtney were TIED FOR LAST from day uno. No. I don't think you are particularly clever. Remember Fred Astaire. He made dancing look effortless. I can not say the same for you and your dialogue.
There is way too much (je ne sais quoi) going on in your head for you to transmit one cohesive idea. What I mean is... What do you mean? You are so busy BEING PC THAT YOU DON'T EVEN REALIZE YOU'RE THE PC POSTER!
As I've said before, on account of perpetuation by the anonymous social networking crowd,
this contest was doomed from the get-go. It is a amazing that someone like Zeba (humble) went the distance. She must attract smart-votes, kinda like those missiles that are popular now.
My advice to you, Kevin. Grow up. Get real. Determine what your own values are before you trash the values of others. Otherwise you exist in a pretty boring "Kevin" vacuum. And, believe me. It's dull. So Washington, D.C.

This latest argument by the right clearly shows that their goal is to be against whatever comes from the democrats even if its things that they would normally agree with like finding ways to cut health care cost. Now the conservative position earlier regarding health care was to do nothing and rely on individuals taking care of themselves better as a way of cutting down visits to the doctor and the costs of unnecessary visits based on poor health. Now they are all for extra visits that run up cost because they think it makes for a good argument against the democrats and health care. Remember, most of the people against health care reform are people who already have great jobs and good health care like the guys on fox or they are public officials who have a government health care plan that works for them and their families like Jon Kyl. Then there is those older conservative gentlemen who dont know what to think about healthcare reform as they argue against government run health care while they are on medicaid yet blame the democrats for cutting the medicaid all at the same time. All they know is the republicans they see look more like them than the democrats do. (See old white men), and they have been republicans all their lives so they rely on people leading them in the right direction more than understanding what actually works for and against them. They are the town hall shouters who cant articulate what they are actually mad about when you break it down and ask them but they are good at being loud and angry and saying what they are against but not know what it actually means.

Mr. Huffman, I will cut and paste as far as I could manage to read in your article: "Clearly Palin, as the leading conservative intellect,"

That is as far as I got...your initial premise is simply ludicrous...Palin is no "intellect." Never was, isn't, never will be. She may be many things...leading, yes...Conservative, I guess so...possessing an intellect? No, not on your life, my life, or her life either will she ever be grouped with those possessing an intellect.

Starting a newspaper column, as you did, by attributing intellect to the most vapid, shallow politician to come along in a generation is just a bad starting point if you desire to be taken seriously. My comment here isn't some partisan swipe, but rather just a view of the facts and reality. Read the transcripts of her public remarks and interviews...I mean really read them...verbatim. Intellect or vapid...you decide.

While I get what Mr. Huffman is saying the writing style and composition leaves a lot to be desired. This is hardly suitable for the Petticoat Junction Ledger much less the Washington Post. The basis is there but not well thought out or composed... Sorry Mr. Huffman.

For the computer-literate in the crowd, here is my brief commentary on Kevin's "style":

Snark != Opinion

For the non-programmers, the above reads as "Snark does not equal opinion".

Mr. Huffman does a fine job in laying down lots of links and witticisms, but he has nothing new to say.

Wow! A politician who distorts a news item for their own (or party's) interest! Heavens! Thanks for enlightening us. What next...sarcastic rapartee on how the sun sets in the west.

See...when I replace discourse with one-liners, it's annoying. When Mr. Huffman does it, it makes him a finalist.

Ottodog-
You tell me. I, for one, don't suppose that Rio Grande Valley residents fork over twice the price for the same services as Minnesotans, as the article implied, nor do I beleive they incur twice the amount of injury or illness, which would be another explanation.
------------------------------------------
You've posted two separate criticisms of a statistic that you just admitted you don't understand. You don't know if it's what was billed out, spent, paid etc? How can you criticize it then.

Politicians speaking out both sides of their mouths?

Say it isn't so!

Confused about Palin's conservative values/motives?

Join the crowd!

LOL. No fault to you for saying your piece, but getting sucked into the faux rally cries of conservatism is a serious problem these days. Because you are right... politicians only pay attention to data driven policy when it suits them. Hypocrisy exists on both sides of the isle.

Ill vote for a true fiscal conservative with realistic ideas when I have the chance. Hate to break it to you, but Palin ain't the one.

Trust me. Its not YOU. They are as two-faced as you perceive them to be.

I see what he's going for but it's disorganized and confusing.

He throws Palin out there but never really develops on the theme.

I learned that last year, Medicare paid $50 billion for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives -- more than the budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

When we spend more on end-of-life care than on protecting the country, we obviously need to have a serious conversation. I don't need some overly PC politician telling me we shouldn't talk about death.

Americans are against death. Don't want to execute murderers. Don't want to allow terrorism. Don't want to attack and kill our enemies. Don't ever want to accept that death is imminent or unavoidable for a relative or friend. We are willing to spend millions(of other peoples money), to fight to delay the death of a comatose parent.

News flash! NPR recently announced that a survey started in 1964 by the Mayo Clinic, to study illness and death rates over a long period, has discovered that the death rate is near 100%, inspite of the best treatment.

3 of the 4 survivors from the 1000 subjects selected in 1964, have had very little medical care. The study thus proves that excessive medical care is closely correlated with impending death. If medical diagnostics and medication are cut in half, life expectancy increases proportionately!

High medical care causes death! Just as high CO2 causes global warming! The numbers prove it.

Kevin...i read your piece twice and came up with the same conclusion. My unsolicited advice was for you to find a subject with some meat and apply your humorous style. You tried...you failed.
You started with Ms. Palin but you left her pretty quickly. One quote that showed her vapid intellectual discourse...hell, there's a lot more to Wacky Sarah that could be mined..how about her main protagonist, Levi. His mom is getting 3 years of free health care from her beloved Alaska..how's that for fun stuff? Her ghost written book shows how shallow and vindictive Palin is. But instead you soon went on without a line sticking in my memory except the facebook thing...a sore subject in this contest.
You went on to skewer conservatives, or really Republicans. Yes, they lost the morally superior mantle of fiscal responsibility when they governed from 1994-2006 and particularly since 2001 when they had it all. But you weren't funny...data driven efficiencies...harrumph! I have a solid Republican buddy who observed during that period that Republicans were spending like drunken sailors who thought they were admirals. Guess I shoulda given you that line earlier.
I'm a sports fan so I got your football stuff. You're a Ohio guy and OSU-Michigan was on. You wanted to be on the couch, beer in hand, and yell at the TV in peace. Instead you had homework to do. Well, I assume you had Sunday and don't tell me you had to watch that pathetic Washington team with the racist nickname. Please!
Methinks you didn't handle the weekend well. Nice attempt, but it didn't get there for me. Your earlier work was better.

I vote for Kevin. I like his style. Columnists tend to either make a serious point (a la Ms. Khan) or point out the absurdities of life. Kevin chose the latter. Rather like the NYTimes's Maureen Dowd, he's fun to read if you like his politics -- and I do. Clearly the GOP has no principles at the moment, but just wants to be naysayers. Admittedly, Ms. Khan's piece is harder to write well, but it just left me puzzling with two questions. What simple dental visit leads to a cool $6K of work??? And, to paraphrase one of my favorite professors, "Surely, the lack of health care can't be the only reason you chose your profession?"

Dang it, my last hope dashed.
Kevin did a good job here of clouding his perspective and setting up a too-perfect bait and switch. But I'm convinced now that neither will be a significant broadening of the WP's punditry base.
The only point I'll concede is that Kevin might be a bit more fun to read. But that doesn't matter if he's just as wrong as the usual suspects.
Nice try, but no thanks. I'm not voting to legitimize either.

Loved the column. As someone who grew up in the household of a Robt. Taft Republican (Mr. Republican of the late 1940s and early 1950s) I always thought that "we must give up the idea that we can legislate the answer to everything" was the conservative mantra.

But GW Bush and his Republican majority on Capitol Hill were supposed to be the epitome of "conservatism", so why did they get so involved in the Terri Schaivo case?

This column pieces that sort of fluff (or should I say miasma) . Unlike SSF, I think this is a great columnist!

Completely offensive and mind-bogglingly dumb. And starting with the "friends procreating" line is incredibly annoying. Just look in the mirror and get ahold of yourself, man.

2nd part:

He raised a couple interesting points in his piece, but they have to be discovered, parsed out from amidst a lot of swing-and-miss attempts at either humor or sarcasm. This weakens their utility here. Maybe this is some post-modern experiment: let's write in a style that is just as confusing as the health-care debate! But for once, I would have liked to have seen this opportunity used to make a point, not a joke.

Khan has been panned for being to serious, but I see in her pieces an earnestness (as opposed to removed and easy sarcasm), and a willingness to take risks in her writing (i.e., exploring unconventional topics - Islamic finance in Detroit?!). She has made great strides this contest, and has experimented with different techniques, all of which make for a great writer. I've only seen one act from Huffman: humor/sarcasm, and though it works 50% of the time, it makes the other failed 50% annoying to read.

It's clear that my vote is with her, but in fairness to Kevin, I wanted to share exactly what I saw wrong with this submission. I'm sure the debate will end up on 'social networking winning the vote,' but if today's columns were to be fairly assessed by WP judges, it's clear who the winner would be.

Sorry, but this is a flop. Props to Kevin for some of his writing throughout the contest, but this is nowhere near readable. The readers and judges have been harsh on the contestants, but to be fair, they had a very short period of time to put these final pieces together. With Huffman's, it shows.

I found myself having to read and re-read this piece as though it was the first-ever attempt at an op-ed by a young student. The only way I could make sense of it was to map it out (which is not generally a good sign). And lest you criticize me for being 'too dense' to recognize sarcasm, spare yourself: I recognize it, but also when it bombs, and the fallout from his has ruined his piece. Maybe I'm taking this contest too seriously as a non-participant, but here's a close read of this piece:

a. Lighthearted facebook set-up, peg to recent Palin post
b. Sarcastic reference to Palin’s intellect
c. ‘I’m late to healthcare b/c of football’ joke
d. Sarcastic (less so) reference to conservative philosophies as mooring
e. Declaration of conservative philosophy 1: data-driven policymaking. Non-sarcastic praise for limits on unnecessary procedures (this, obviously, was opposed by conservatives, though). Link to NYer article with interesting fact about McAllen v Rochester. Throwaway to tort reform.
f. Less clear reference to conservative philosophy 2: being annoyed by political correctness. Nothing connecting it to previous graf. But then a non-sarcastic criticism of how much $$ is spent on last 2 months of patients’ lives. The only way the sarcastic reference to Grassley, a Republican, works, is if it’s actually stated, but it's hyperlinked: this was supposed to be a column, not a blog.
g. Floppy humor again with entry of philosophy 3: only buy what you can afford. Awkward presentation of a fact, and complaint about extraneous tests, which depend on reader being able to navigate the sentence-by-sentence switch between sarcasm and straightforwardness.
h. ‘So’ paragraph, which suggests that the author will tie together the piece. His premise: new recommendations on mammograms provides him a chance to ‘reanchor’ debate in the conservative philosophies he just outlined and panned as hypocritical.
i. Quotes reflecting right-wing pandering on debate, which are hypocritical of conservative values.
j. Kevin is confused. So am I. Why and how on earth has he made such a basic observation (that conservatives seem to have lost their philosophy) into such a muddled mess?
k. 2nd-to-last graf is his main point, after much being lost to attempts at sarcasm.
l. Final graf he washes his hands of the issue, and his piece, and trots out a tired Palin joke.

(c'td)

The Washington Post doesn't need another snarky columnist. I like some humor in commentary pieces but a steady stream of snark just makes me yawn and close the column. Loose this guy.

Well done. I was thinking about the same type of thing this morning, i.e. how to conflate espoused conversative ideology with the real world. I was struggling to do it and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one. I'm not so crazy after all.

For those who criticized Kevin, I think you missed his point and style. He set a cool trap to get the neo-cons following along cheering "Yeeessss, Kevin is my man", only to skewer them in the end (so to speak).

(Oops. Maybe the critics are those same neo-cons.)

Very good piece! The composition was intact and readable. Palin has fashioned herself into a 'tar-baby' for both the left and right. It is so much fun reading the responses from those readers of your column who have gotten themselves mired into her. Thanks for placing her in the middle of our path once again.

Wow -- this is an unbelievably lame column. Nothing is worse than seeing some amateur try humor. A snarky attitude does not make one funny. It's incoherent as well. This is really one of the two best contestants?

ashotinthedark
The fact that twice as much money is spent has nothing to do with what ends up being paid. What an absolutely intellectually bankrupt comment.
==============================
The "intellectual bankruptcy" is in Mr. Huffman's use of the fact to decry the state of healthcare.
Is his figure for "money spent" what is actually paid, or what is charged? You tell me. I, for one, don't suppose that Rio Grande Valley residents fork over twice the price for the same services as Minnesotans, as the article implied, nor do I beleive they incur twice the amount of injury or illness, which would be another explanation.

Implicit in the success of any "pundit" is
public trust. I have followed this contest from beginning to end. And while I can say good things about most, if not all, of the chosen top ten, the only one I would have come close to trusting was Maame Gyamfi.

Of the final two: Zeba provides some good information, Kevin is usually funny---but the feeling of trust is not there. Rather, I tend to think, why should I care about what either of them says? Gaining a perch on a major newspaper ought to require a climb(shout out to judge Eugene Robinson; I checked) not a cushy landing via parachute jump from a maiden flight...

So who would this reader trust? Fellow commenters MSJS, MFKPadrefan, and others. I don't know you, but your thoughtful analyses have earned my respect. Even though you were not chosen as finalists, you stuck around, and what you have had to say has been well worth reading. It has "made" the contest for me. Without you, I would have stopped reading(and commenting)
after the first batch of columns. As MSJS has already said elsewhere, you're the ones who rock.

Well, my vote goes to Kevin although he didn't earn it completely until the last third or so of his column. But in that third, he managed to deal with the real issues of health care that I and others can identify with--more than the free-lancers and independent work-at-homers-to-be can identify with in Zeba's last column.

Her column was so narrow that shed couldn't win me over despite her fine writing and her ability to bring up new trends.

Kevin wasn't funny at times and I'm not sure I agree with his points, but I don't require agreement to read a columnist. Kevin stimulates me to think and here he does it with humor and real-life situations.

Go Kevin!

Many of these comments are much too harsh, and others indicate that the commentator is humor challenged. Cliff’s Notes version of the column: The positions of Republican politicians on the health care debate are hypocritical, nihilistic, and inconsistent with the conservative principles in which they claim to believe. Kevin’s tongue in cheek approach makes the point in a less confrontational manner.

I remain unhappy about the manner in which the contestants’ self promotion in other media has influenced the votes, and the failure of the Post to follow its own rules, but this contest has been fun. It is gratifying that two of the three strongest contestants are in the finals (Mamme Gyamfi is the third). This is not Kevin’s best work. Zeba has also done much better, as today’s column buries her central point. But over the course of this contest, both have produced a body of work far superior to the output of many of the Post’s regular columnists (Broder, Cohen, Krauthammer, Kristol and the AEI warmongers, I am talking about you). I look forward to reading the winner’s columns.

A lot of work has gone into this contest, but the sad truth is that neither of the 2 finalists is ready for the honor and the responsibility of a writing regular Post column. Awarding a regular writing gig to someone whose prose is stiff, cliche-ridden, and uninspiring would hardly serve the Post's readers or the paper. Please follow the lead of classical musical contests which decline to name a winner when no contestant is up to the mark.

Neither of the 2 finalists is ready for the honor and the responsibility of a writing regular Post column. Awarding a regular writing gig to someone whose prose is stiff, cliche-ridden, and uninspiring would hardly serve the Post's readers or the paper. Please follow the lead of classical musical contests which decline to name a winner when no contestant is up to the mark.

Boring.

Kevin

You have a good argument about the balance between availability of health care vs individual costs. Unfortunately your writing appears disjointed and somewhat incoherent until after the sentence "We were ready to turn this health-care debate around!". Each paragraph before that is promising on its own, but when you go the next one it's like "Whoa, did I miss something in the previous one?"

Zeba on the other had had a a better style of writing but her main premise was weak.

I do not think either one is qualified to be a pundit for WaPo.

also, this column is darn near unreadable.

yes, democrats want to be fiscally responsible with middle class people's health care so they can shower a new, ambigious, "right" to health care on the poor.

there is nothing conservative about knowing how to got to the place you're at. and i have a feeling we got to having the best quality doctors and facilities in the world by renumerating doctor's apporpriately, not through government coercion.

you almost come off as a conservative, but not quite. you remain too vague on real information to have trenchantly proved that.

since we're talking punditry here, let's get some numbers that matter. the regular mammography between the ages of 40 and 49 catches 1 case of cancer per 1900 tests.

the number only decreases to 1 case per 1300 tests during the next decade. so it worth it during a woman's 50s? i guess that you'd say no, since so few lives are saved despite all of those wasteful tests those unreasonable women demanded from their doctors.

your punditry ought to be limited to fund raising and elementary ed. and skip the health care debate, since it appears politics color your ability to gain and comment substantively on the issues.

Finally Kevin opens up at least a little bit about leveraging his social network to get out his vote. It was bound to get out he's vice president of a major organization with tens of thousands of people. The Teach for America facebook group alone has at least 6,000 people and they've been blasting vote for kevin notices from the very beginning of this contest.

Along with his other high ranking execs he oversees an organization with a $75 million dollar budget partly funded by tax-payer dollars. No way Courtney and Zeba COMBINED could compete with that. Thanks for nothing, Washington Post.

Cogent analysis, but unfortunately, sloppy and disjointed writing style. I expect Mr. Huffman to lose to the whiny, illogical, factually challenged other finalisit who unforturnately has a much brighter, more engaging style.

Satire is a tool that requires a sharp blade. Practice and merciless editing will give you the sharp edge of good satire, Kevin.

I think I would enjoy spending time discussing issues with you, over a beer perhaps. When you lose me in developing your thread, I could bring you back.

Talk it out, write it, edit it and make it clean. This is not clean.

I'm glad to see so many commenters out there commenting. Y'all have my vote.

For the newbies who can't understand why Kevin's a finalist: This contest has never been about writing or punditry, it's about WaPo profits and corraling new readers. Of the ten finalists, the two with the most extensive social networks are the ones we're reading today.

For Kevin: Ambitious attempt. I give it a B- for its execution.

The piece drags a bit in spots and that detracts from its humor quotient.

Also, a lot of commenters seem to be searching for your main point, and that reduces the impact of the humor as well.

Finally, commenters have begged in the past for something new to be added to the debate, or our perception of it, as a result of your punditry. I came away with nothing new here. So if you win this thing, please please pleeeeeeez give me something fresh in your 13 columns.

OttoDog
Alas, McAllen, TX is awash in what you'd call "undocumented immigrants". The care isn't twice as expensive, it's just that less than half of the bills ever get paid.
-------------------------------------------

The fact that twice as much money is spent has nothing to do with what ends up being paid. What an absolutely intellectually bankrupt comment.

First 3 paragraphs appear to be pundit's opinion about himself (see his quotes below). The rest of it seems to be a snarky, tougue-in-cheek swipe/praise of things he has given little thought to. Clearly, this writer in not aiming to engage or retain long-time readers. But is he trying to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of 'lamestream media' that is costing readership? Probably saves bucks on salaries for qualified journalists/writers too.

"I was on Facebook the other day, yukking it up about the lamestream media and seeing which of my friends had procreated. . . "

" I admit that I was a little late to engage in the key issue of the day . .. "

"As I struggled to get up to speed on the subject . . ."

I guess the newspaper industry is now for entertainment rather than information, which may explain why this kind of writing is supposed to be good.

The wit expressed here wasn't quite strong enough to be clear satire despite the promise by portraying Palin as the "leading conservative intellect". Too bad; I would've voted for good satire.

Your comment about the conservatives like data-driven policy making and the recommendations put out by doctors/analyst recently states that conservatives are intellectual and will come out with rational statement about cost in health care sounds like playground politics because it equates to "I am smarter than you, so I will make the decision for you." Well, you are wrong because there are some people on all political spectrums out there can analyze lots of data and information and break it down to abstract terms and facts that be understood by readers (I know I am one too).
In the next sentence about Kyl, Hannity, and Palin using emotional statements about rationing, due to the recommendations, in order to fan the misinformation twisted your mooring. Well it is no surprise there is it?

Kevin, great piece!

You got me thinking, had me laughing and kept me interested. Everything a reader should get from a well written op-ed.

You've got my vote.

I've been following the contest from day one and you clearly stand out above the rest. I can't wait to read what you come up with next.

Just how low will the bar be set? If this person gets space, then it really is who you know and not what you know.

Just how low, Mr. or Mrs. Executive in charge of The WashPost, are you wiling to go? You hire this clown, you're credibility slips closer to The Wash Times.
You know, the Moonies...

Pundit? No way. This guy is an idiot. He says, in relation to health care: "And no amount of liberal badgering will get me off the idea that you should only buy what you can afford and shouldn't rely on others to pay for your stuff." Moronic. So those who can't afford health insurance or health care should just die in the gutters? That's what happens in third world countries like India, Kevin. Every other developed country has managed to provide health insurance and care for all its citizens, but the richest, most powerful country in the world can't? What are we, stupid or just downright mean and greedy?

What a great post! It is appropriately sarcastic, totally entertaining, and actually informative. It is plainly obvious and truly unfortunate that many of the negative comments posted about writing style and structure are motivated by the desired results from the contest.

Would've like to hear more about Ms. Palin and her mammogram opinions of the moment.

Keep up the good work! Add a little more about the football side of your attentions-silly as they might be, they are less onerous and ponderous than Health Care concerns.

Who knows? We might draw some insight from football predilictions. Frivolous or not...

Thanks for this sentence:

Clearly Palin, as the leading conservative intellect, would be eager to embrace rational cost-control measures.

There is nothing shocking about the hypocrisy of Palinistas. The party is one big bastion of hypocrisy. But, you bring to light this feature in your column.

At the same time, I have to throw in my two cents. First, you compare Medicare spending and, in particular, end of life Medicare spending, to the Homeland Security budget and conclude that we spend more on end of life than on "protecting our country." Of course, this is way off, as DHS is one agency of many involved in "protecting our country." I'm pretty sure the Department of Defense has a mission designed to protect us.

Second, you say that you "shouldn't rely on others to pay for your stuff." And, you lump in "health care expenses" with "stuff." This is weak. The question is whether, in a wealthy and informed and civilized society, someone should die because they cannot obtain treatment that will cure a condition from which they suffer? Health care is not stuff. It's a necessity. Yes, there are instances where doctors over-prescribe, but to lump it all in as some sort of commodity like a television is pretty absurd.

Finally, on the substance of the argument, you should have highlighted, better, that the cost of the procedure was not a factor in the panel's decision.

Nice try for a Steven Colbert kind of satire but you have to realize that emulating his schtick is not a spoon for everyone's mouth. Granted, your piece is a lot more entertaining to read than the bland, myopic, whiney drag of a column by Ms. Khan, but I don't think it should make the cut for a pundit at this level. Perhaps WaPo should consider not declaring a winner and going back to square one (or at least moving a few squares backwards).

"It's a crazy world when we spend more than twice as much per person on medical treatment in McAllen, Tex., as we spend in Rochester, Minn., -- home town of the Mayo Clinic. And Texas already has tort reform!"
=======================================
Alas, McAllen, TX is awash in what you'd call "undocumented immigrants". The care isn't twice as expensive, it's just that less than half of the bills ever get paid.

Here in Dallas county, over 65% of the births at Parkland hospital are to "undocumented immigrants", who never pay a dime.

You're right, it IS a crazy world. Are you prepared to shelve your P.C. perspective and put an end to it?
I thought not.....

Great article, Kevin. I am amazed at how many people attack intellect because they lack it. As evidence, just review the comments made by people attacking an insightful article that deals itself with the confusion surrounding the health care debate. Some readers simply fell asleep when they were in school many years ago. Now they masquerade as critics.

Outstanding piece. It was a humorous, enjoyable, and authentic read.

First time I've checked in on the contest (better late than never?)

I thought this was a good hit on the so-called "fiscal conservatives" but the comments show it was WAY over the head of the Palinistas.

Is that a good thing? Maybe.

Good luck in the final round Kevin. I love your background, and the fact that you seem middle of the road. The links to references is a great idea for truth-telling, as opposed to truth-making.

You do get a ding for making a complicated discourse on a complicated topic, however.

"Your a lawyer!
Your a teacher? A Union Sap!"

Posted by: jjcrocket2
********************************************
Maybe you should have paid more attention to YOUR teacher.

Mr. Kevin Huffman has an eagle's eyesight to juxtapose the most popular controversial political instigator (Mrs. S. Palin) with the heatedly debated issue (Health Care Reform).

He is also a courages writer to tackle such a gargantuan topic (evidenced by the eight-thousand readers' Comments to one article this weekend alone).

And he earns a third gold star for addressing Health Care Reform on the first work day after the weekend Senate vote to allow a formal debate.

This ability to combine striking contrasts, to advance to the core of a major issue, and to offer more informative details about real-time events with a slight sprinkle of humor is the diet that keeps readers connected to a vibrant world of human events.

Adam of CA.

Huffman should go back to growing corn in Ohio! You have two strikes against you before you start:

Your a lawyer!
Your a teacher? A Union Sap!

How many "Pap Smears" have you survived? Picking on Sarah is not a good choice for you.

Field dressing a Moose is much more complicated than your life has been!

Go Sarah!!

Kevin - you are funny guy. But this column stinks. Its confusing and I don't get it.... I am lost in this column. I love satire and off the wall humor. Maureen Dowd in NY Times does a great job. If you are trying to be a Maureen Dowd, then you are going to lose. I don't know where you stand and what is our take away for this other then you are frustrated at not watching another football game.

The buzzer sounds.

You lose.

First, if you are going to poke fun at the intellectual rigor of Sarah Palin, why do you use her as a foil for your arguments? Why not take on someone from National Review Online if you really are looking for a leading conservative intellectual? Clearly the joke is on you, as you can not do anything but frothe over the designated DNC frothee. You sir, like Palin, lack the intellectual strength to rationally debate this subject.

This weak tactic of elevating someone to a 'leading' position who is clearly and obviously not a leading intellectual, only to have a soft target to knock down, and therefore imply incorrectly the entire conservative intellectual arena is devoid of ideas is deplorable. You could have risen to the challenge. Instead you lowered the bar to something you could leap over.

Rationing of health care is a reality when you add more people to the pool and do not identify politically realistic ways of paying for it. Already Medicaid and Medicare underpay doctors for services received. They only pay around 80% of what the procedure costs, putting 120% of the cost on private insurance. As you dry up private insurance by a Chinese debt bankrolled public option, you dry up the revenue sources for doctors to live with the 80% payouts they get from Medicaid and Medicare.

There are two views on how to reign in costs. One is to surrender liberty to the all powerful Federal government and trust they will, as a monopoly, give you the same quality care as is out there now. Another employs the idea that free market competition is the solution, and get rid of 3rd party payment schemes, and have the customer with a real interest in achieving cost savings.

I like the free market. I saw how the Soviet Union fared when they controlled it all. I do not need to try the socialist experiment here to know it will fail.

You have lost this last leg, and the remaining question is will the liberal readers of the Washington Post vote you through on your liberal pedigree. I hope not.

Huffman needs to leave the incisive and satarical writing to the pros.

I feel like it was "off the street" night at a stand up comic club.

Guess who I have already voted for?

Kevin, I was lost through most of this. What were you trying to say, where were you going, what was real, what was sarcasm? I thought you were starting to bring it together near the end, then you waffled again.

Probably agree with you on some points, not on others, but I’m not sure. How can that be?

Note it is not possible to use the words Sarah Palin and Facebook in the same opening sentence and be a Great Pundit.

This was the first pundit contestant essays I've read and I thought it was fine. Better yet, the subject is something I'm interested in - how can conservatives not understand or ignore the need for fiscal responsibility in health care? I believe there are a lot of fiscally conservative moderates out there asking this same question.

My only complaint was the gratuitous "you betcha". It's an overdone, tired cliche.

I think what Mr. Huffman is saying is that he is a Conservative and as such he understands the need for reform but sees members of his party spouting ridiculous statements that don't reflect well on their "conservativism".

As an example - "pulling the plug on grandma" - being conservative would be the belief that when grandma gets old and her body wears out, ALL measures should NOT be taken to keep her alive - dying is a natural part of life. She should instead be allowed to die with dignity at home with her loved ones. This country speeds 30% of our healthcare monies trying to keep people who have lived beyond their "natural" lifespans alive - 10's of thousands dollars to extend their lives for 2 weeks - 2 months? Why?

If you are 93 years old - someone should tell the medical professionals NOT to insert a pacemaker into your chest to keep your heart beating - and YES, we should consider the cost of doing such a thing. But alas, it is very PC to say we should do everything to keep them alive - just not practical.

I'm really stunned by the folks who seem to be able to write a reasonably coherent straightforward sentence, yet who seem totally incapable of recognizing satire -- not sarcasm, satire. It's a literary form, folks. Look it up.

Less startling, but more ironically amusing, are the incoherent numbskulls who can barely form a sentence, who sign on to bash the writing.

I think this is one of Kevin's best efforts to date.

Peter Angelos was spot on about firing Froomkin and bringing us this contest. Pathetic.
Anybody but Broder.

After attempting to read this muddled humor/politics/opinion piece, I had no idea what he was trying to say. Actually, after the first graf I just didn't care. Awful, so awful.
Of course, if he is a liberal, I'm sure he'll get the job, although I haven't yet read the other finalist, so if he/she is evern more liberal, then it's likely he/she will get the job, no matter how bad the writing.

Excellent article. It's thoughtful, interesting, and a winner. His writing style is friendly and accessible, too. He gets my vote.

Health-care debate in conservative principles.Is this where you are educationed an trained or this is an outsider giving an opinion.

How much knowledge does an outsider have that is likely to make any sense based on the fact he has no education in the field that he is giving an opinion. I prefer people who are qualified giving an opinion instead of know nothing with there know nothing information. This does not stop someone unqualified from giving an opinion. Only how valued is such an opinion?

As say this as a medical researcher on AIDS and also someone experienced on the financial area of medicine. Giving an opinion on a health-care bill that has not been completed seems premature. As a matter of fact when the bill is passed and put into practise will we have a idea of our opinion on it since it takes time and practise to make judgments.

We have that problem in the case of drugs as we can't be sure about the end results until after a certain time that it is in practise.
But, if, or or, does not work in the field of medicine.

Noted we have not yet passed a health-care bill maybe because congress is mostly filled with lawyers that don't understand this complex field. And congress listens to too many unqualified people.

What is this, old home week for the other 4780 losing contestants? Where have you been till now? Those of us who stayed to watch have missed your wise counsel.

Hats off to reggerman1 for your reasonable take, also JBritt who has commented throughout.

I thought it was funny. Even had my grumpy
spouse reading, early a.m., over my shoulder.

The savvy reader will care less about which of your friends have procreated than
what your ex-wife is doing. Considering what I'm reading elsewhere in this and other newspapers, a sly reference would have pleased me very much. Below the belt? What else are you here for?

Ouch. These comments are harsh.

Kevin, you are my favorite to win this contest based on your past work; that said, trying to weed through the thick sarcasm and forced quips in this piece was confusing and ultimately muddled your point on healthcare. For your final piece, this should have been much stronger, clearer and (remember, you're not a pundit yet, you still have to play a bit nice to win the votes) a little less polarizing.

Good luck and I hope this single column doesn't take you down.

After attempting to read this muddled humor/politics/opinion piece, I had no idea what he was trying to say. Actually, after the first graf I just didn't care. Awful, so awful.
Of course, if he is a liberal, I'm sure he'll get the job, although I haven't yet read the other finalist, so if he/she is evern more liberal, then it's likely he/she will get the job, no matter how bad the writing.

Kevin says he's confused. Perhaps that's why I was confused.

Kevin didn't follow basic rules for good essays. He should have done a lead in, stated his position, offered evidence, and concluded by stating his position.

However, I really don't know what Kevin's position was or is. He wondered around all over the map. Plus, its clear Kevin doesn't understand economics and therefore hasn't formulated his ideas well.

So, in general, I think WP should hire Kevin. He'd be an asset to your team.

I am going to plea for a little sympathy for both these finalists. As one of the 4800 initial contestants I struggled to say something timely yet fresh ONCE. Zeba and Kevin are being asked to do it REPEATEDLY, but without the support and connections that professional pundits enjoy. I am going to review their bodies of work, rather than just this final entry, and then cast my vote accordingly. Thank goodness this journalistic Bataan Death March is coming to an end.

I don't particularly like his "tongue in cheek" way of writing but he is correct that everyone is totally confused about the contents of the Healthcare Reform bill. Emotions and politics are driving most of the debate instead of facts.

An old cheap shot at Republican Pres. Ford was that he couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. Ha, ha.

Update: A liberal pundit who can't watch football and bash Sarah Palin at the same time. Ha.

This article is so seriously flawed that I can't begin to criticize it. Huffman is a finalist in this contest? Really? Surely you jest! I didn't like Khan's final article either. I thought the writing was sophomoric and incomplete. But if I had to chose between the two, Khan wins hands down. Huffman writes: "Clearly Palin, as the leading conservative intellect, would be eager to embrace rational cost-control measures". The term "conservative intellect" is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned and to attach Sarah Palin's name to intellect is like attaching Alaska to the tropics. Huffman makes other unsupported assumptions. He says, "like most patriotic Americans, I am highly annoyed by political correctness". Really? In the article he cites admiration for data driven approaches but where is the data that supports his opinion that most "patriotic Americans" are annoyed by political correctness. He says, "I don't need some overly PC politician telling me we shouldn't talk about death". Exactly who is he refering to? It's your nutty tea party folks who are talking about "death panels" and consider the need to discuss "end of life issues" unnecessary. It's right wing politicians like Phil Gingrey and John Boehner who went all out to support the hysterical tea partiers. Huffman says he "was fired up to reanchor the health-care debate in conservative principles". This is part of the problem. Instead of thinking about what is necessary and expedient, some people like Huffman need to see every issue colored by the lens of some pre-conceived ideology, no matter how flawed it may be.

I could go on the criticize the content and logic of this article ad infinitum but I'll stop here to briefly comment on the writing style itself. In a word, muddled. His main point is what? He states that he lost track of what he is supposed to be angry about but I was just lost (in an dense rhetorical forest of non-sense). Some commenters here implied that Huffman was using sarcism but it wasn't apparent to me whether he was serious or sarcastic. His writing is too muddled to tell. Yes, I concur with one critic who questioned how this clumsy, ineffectual writer became a finalist.

"It's not shocking that when Americans pay out of pocket for only about 12 percent of total medical costs, they tend to consume more services, even when it makes little sense."

Not shocking, just wrong. Patients are not, to a large extent, the decision makers for health care. Doctors are, in the first instance, the gatekeepers. Stop by the local MRI clinic and tell them you are in the mood for a quick scan. Without a prescription, nothing. Guess who is writing the prescription, the physician, who has a financial incentive (as well as a medical, philosophical and moral incentive)to examine you, read the report and see you for follow-ups. Maybe physician behavior has something to do with the costs. Physicians are, of course, only one gatekeeper. The other is the private insurance carrier who will spare no effort making the physician (or her staff) provide evidence suitable for a Ph.D. dissertation before approving that MRI. While this tempers the consumption, driven by the doctor, it substitutes insurance company income motivation for the doctor's motivation. So, despite all the howling by the "I hate guvment" crowd, the government as a gatekeeper is not so bad (look up Medicare for more detail). All of that said, this debate is irrelevant. No one is proposing that the government in existing or proposed legislation or rulemaking reduce mammography. Guess that makes it perfect fodder for Palin and the usual suspects

Ignoring Huffman's incredibly self-centered and rather uninspired writing style, I would like to address the merits of the article.

Conservatives only disregard the "costs" of medical procedures such as mammograms and pap smears when the government will be determining which procedures are "cost-effective" and which are not.

So eager is Huffman to attack the alleged hypocrisy of these Republicans that he completely overlooks (perhaps intentionally) the theoretical and philosophical foundations of their criticism: that the government should not play God in people's lives by determining what medical procedures are worthwhile, who should receive them, and when they should be performed.

It is for that exact reason that conservatives have proposed an alternative Health Care Reform plan that includes privatized solutions such as transparency in costs, the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, and tort reform - all private sector, free market efforts to combat rising health care costs.

So, before declaring anyone's views on something as important as health care reform hypocritical, perhaps Huffman should have spent a few more hours away from football to actually try to understand the real basis for Republican criticism of this dangerous bill.

For starters, dont look to Palin for facts, that's not the world she lives in and worse still, the more outrageous and ridiculous her claims r the better cause the "factonistas" r just harrassing this poor old pitbull with lipstick.

Yeah sorry didn't like this column and besides attacking Sarah Palin using you betcha became too lamestream.....

I thought that originality was one of the factors used to evaluate contestants.

We’ve heard every one of these sarcastic Caribou Barbie cheap shots ad nauseam. Find a more credible source than the late night talk shows boy.

You kicked out Dan Froomkin.
Now you bring in a bunch of hacks and expect us to be happy?

You should pay me to read these people.

Tell Sarah Palin to Concentrate on the Following Government Run-Socialized Medicines, Before she tries to Address, Health Care Reform, especially since her State is the Largest Per Capita, that Depends on, Windfall Profit Tax, Medi-Caid, Medi-Care and Various other Government Funds, are being Doled Out to Sarah Palin's Beloved..

Welfare State, known as Alaska.

"Government Run, Single Payer Planned-Socialized Medicines"

Listed Below....

1. Windfall Profit Taxes

2. Medi-Care

3. Medi-Caid

4. DOD:Department Of Defense

5. VA:Hospitals

6. SCHP

7. Indian Health Services

Tell Palin, to Get Rid of them all, Since Republican Presidents Reagan 8 Yrs, Bush Sr 4 Yrs and Bush Jr. 8 Yrs Never, Ended these so called..

"Government Run-Socialist Medicine"

Her Followers call it "Socialized Medicine"

[[HA]]

Kevin Huffman is halfway to serious here. He'd have done better to drop the Palin reference -- it may be just me, but Sarah Palin is boring -- and ending the column with a reference to his own feelings is a little bit boomerish of him. Also, sarcasm works better if it is occasional and specific than if, as here, it is used as a kind of general backdrop for everything in a column.

Having said that, I'll say also that Huffman makes a serious point about costs and health care, one that many experienced pundits never get around to. Good for him. Double good for him to point out that Republicans complain about costs -- aka spending too much -- in the big picture while attacking efforts to cut costs whenever attention is turned to details. Huffman's style here might not have been mine, but he says something worth listening to.

Palin Lives in a Welfare State where being on the Dole, Medi-Caid, Medi-Care & Windfall Profit Tax is [[King]]

So Plain is Hardly an Authority on Health Care Cost, when her Tax Consumes Per Capita More Dole Money than States in the Lower 38.

Alaska Per Capita..

High Teen Pregnancy.

High Drop Out Rates

High Illiteracy Rates

High Domestic Violence

High % Of Rape

High Divorce Rates

Alcoholism

Illegal Drug Addiction

High Murder Rates

Big Earmark and Pork Barrell Spending and Again, their Beloved ..

"Windfall Profit Tax"

Sarah Plain Lovers call it "Socialism"

Reality: Alaska has it all Per Capita, but Most of All, its a Big Welfare State.

Really poor writing.

I am really rather shocked that Mr. Huffman is a finalist. I find his writing style suitable for perhaps an Ultimate Fighting fan blog, or maybe for providing restaurant recommendations in Akron.

But as a serious pundit? No way. Simplistic arguments geared to simpletons, not WaPo readers.

you can't seriously be considering giving this bozo space on the WaPo masthead. His writing sucks!!! Bring bank Dan Froomkin or get Glen Greenwald or any number of seriour writer/bloggers that have huge bodies of work and know how to write and articulate an idea.

Again, this guys style and writing suck.