home

Monday Morning Open Thread

Busy day.

This is an Open Thread.

< Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | How to Reason With Joe Lieberman: Reconciliation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    HR 3962 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:51:50 AM EST
    Take this with a grain of salt, since Dick Morris wrote it, but it certainly is worth paying attention to.  (I can't bring up the text of the bill - it crashes my computer)

    I'm sure kdog will weigh in, but what do you think?

    The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation reported that the House version of the healthcare bill specifies that those who don't buy health insurance and do not pay the fine of about 2.5 percent of their income for failing to do so can face a penalty of up to five years in prison!

    The bill describes the penalties as follows:

    • Section 7203 -- misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

    • Section 7201 -- felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years." [page 3]

    That anyone should face prison for not buying health insurance is simply incredible.

    And how much will the stay-out-of-jail insurance cost? The Joint Committee noted that "according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the lowest-cost family non-group plan under HR 3862 [the Pelosi bill] would cost $15,000 by 2016."

    Obama's bill only provides subsidies to help pay this enormous sum after families making about $45,000 have paid 8 percent of their income for insurance and after those earning a household income of about $65,000 have kicked in 12 percent.

    The Joint Committee on Taxation noted that while the Senate Finance Committee version of the bill did not include criminal penalties, "The House Democrats' bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail."

    Remember that simply buying catastrophic insurance, which may be all the young uninsured family needs, does not constitute having adequate insurance under the Obama bill. It has to be total, all-inclusive insurance for one to avoid the penalties in the legislation.



    If this is true (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by robert72 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    those without insurance will be afraid to go to the ER for fear of the fines.

    Parent
    Just what I was thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    some poor slob hovering just above the income threshold suffering in pain out of fear of the fins or cage...same as they do know out of fear of a whopping bill...some reform.

    Parent
    Dick Morris is a skilled (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    liar who has been on a huge anti-health care reform crusade for the last year for purely partisan political reasons.  Do not ever believe one single word he says.  It's always twisted and spun and manipulated.

    Did you know he put out a book -- before anybody had put together any kind of plan -- on health care reform titled "Catastrophe!"  That's pretty much all you need to know about how seriously to take what he says.

    Parent

    Maybe (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:20:38 AM EST
    Dick Morris is a skilled liar

    But then again, so is every member of Congress and the President of the United States. So what's your point?

    Like I said, I can't open the text of the bill, but if what he writes is in those sections (barring anything he left out), I'm just curious as to how that would be done - we have overcrowded jails already.

    Parent

    My point is that Morris (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:44:42 AM EST
    is a skilled liar.  What's your point?  Anybody who takes what he says seriously is a... well, you fill in the blank.  I'm constrained by TL policy on language.

    Parent
    But about the sources cited (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    I have done some checking, and it does appear to be what the joint committee on taxation said and what the CBO said and what the bill says.

    So take the Morris analysis out of it.  Do we continue to ignore the other sources?  Are they all liars not to be trusted, too?

    Parent

    And again (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    So is every member of Congress and the President.  Why should we believe Obama and Pelosi who tell us how wonderful this bill is?  Frankly, anyone who takes them seriously is just as...well as what you said about Morris.

    Morris is a hack - but that doesn't mean he didn't ask a question worth getting an answer to.

    Parent

    Whips and Chains for Progress. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    What a novel idea!

    Instead of providing universal healthcare the way those decadent commie terrorist-loving Canadians and French do, we can do it in a way that exults our true puritan values. Simply punish and fine people if they don't buy it!
    Brilliant.

    I think, however, there is room for improvement.

    Sure, prison terms are a good idea and very helpful - but wouldn't it be great to bring back stocks so that people who don't buy what we want them to buy can be on public display where they can be taunted and spat upon?

    We could even hire public taunters and spitters to provide this valuable service for those unable to personally participate.

    Get me my flag pin. It's a great day for reform.


    Parent

    Only in America... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    could "healthcare reform" include criminalization.

    Parent
    Is that the part (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by sj on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    that makes it a "uniquely American solution"?

    Parent
    How does this (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by coast on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:25:04 AM EST
    reconcile with not raising taxes.  Also, since this will be enforced through reporting to the IRS, what about those who currently have no reporting obligation due to their income level.  Will they now be saddled with the burden of filing simply to report whether they have insurance or not?

    Parent
    5 years? (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:23:13 AM EST
    Simply outrageous...and I'm sure my boy Alex Jones agrees.  

    Parent
    Jack Balkin (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:40:20 AM EST
    says that's cr@p:

    If you don't want to pay your taxes, the government will punish you, not because you object to buying health insurance, but because the government doesn't like it whenever you don't pay your taxes. It also doesn't like it when people don't pay their taxes because they object to the government's defense spending.


    Parent
    Hilarious Fact From Balkin (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:59:50 AM EST
    "You are exempted from the tax if you already have qualifying health insurance from your employer, if you receive benefits from Medicare or Medicaid, if you are a dependent, if you are overseas, and if you have religious [sic] objections."

    Religious objections???  Absolutely hilarious.  "Sorry, Judge.  My religion prohibits me from buying private health insurance because my religion is being a little single payer advocate."

    Parent

    I suspect (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    the exemption refers to the Amish, who have always had some sort of religious objection to buying insurance.

    Parent
    I belong to the Stupak is the anti-Christ (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:58:46 AM EST
    religion.

    Parent
    But this actually makes some sense (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:03:10 AM EST
    re Christian Scientists.

    Not that their stance on medical care makes sense to me, but from that worldview, why have to buy insurance to cover health care you won't use because of your religious objections to it?

    Parent

    The brightside... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:07:29 AM EST
    is the religous loophole..."get lost taxman, I'm Amish...see, no buttons".

    Parent
    Yep. I'm urban Amish (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    so does that count?

    Btw, kdog, you're spot on here today in several comments.

    Parent

    I'm growing... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    a beard just in case...depending on what the Senate does, I'm preparing to cancel my insurance...I'll take the 25 bucks a week or so employee portion and give to doctors without borders or something...I might have to pay taxes but I don't have to pay the insurance man...as long as I'm Amish:)

    Parent
    Balkin... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:59:56 AM EST
    is spinning it his way, the same as the anti-mandaters are spinning it theirs...bottom line, you will get fined/taxed extra for not being insured, and if you don't pay the fine you might just find yourself in a 6'x8'.

    And for what?  So the insurance companies get taken care of?

    Parent

    I think his point is pretty iron clad (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:06:17 AM EST
    You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow and which taxes you pay.

    Parent
    Tell me about it... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:10:54 AM EST
    He who has the gold makes the rules...thats why I cringe every time the central planners propose a new law...this one is certainly cringe-worthy.

    Parent
    You vote, right? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    It's your government too. Ask Ben Masel about getting policy people to pay attention to you.

    Parent
    Yeah I vote... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:25:29 AM EST
    I've got time to waste one Tuesday a year...and that's exactly what I'm doing...wasting time.

    In theory its our government...in practice its really a corporate protection racket.

    Parent

    Where you this calm (2.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:26:42 AM EST
    when Bush and the Repubs were in charged?

    Parent
    Of course not (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:31:14 AM EST
    They were pursuing a dangerous policy I disagreed with. Obama is not.

    Parent
    I think this is overstated (none / 0) (#120)
    by hookfan on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    Obama is continuing several of Bush's policies that are dangerous. Lack of government transparency, state's secrets doctrine, Patriot act continuation, lack of regulatory reform especially in finances,etc. We are still in Iraq, floundering in Afghanistan. . .

    Parent
    If G-Dub... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    and a Repub congress proposed a tax increase/fine/whatevayoucallit on the uninsured we'd be screaming bloody murder.

    Parent
    Quck question (none / 0) (#32)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    Did you support mandates when Hillary was advocating for them?

    Parent
    Hillary's proposed mandates (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    did not have fines or criminal penalties attached to them.

    This begged the question of how do you enforce mandates if you have no punishment mechanism, but nonetheless they didn't have 'em.

    FTR, I didn't oppose mandates then and I don't oppose them in theory now.  It's just, if you're going to have a mandate, you've got to provide a government-run program that creates serious and real competition with the private insurers.  I see mandates, but don't see real and serious competition with private insurers.

    If I'm wrong, please educate me.

    Parent

    To my mind ... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:52:07 AM EST
    mandates make sense in a universal system.  But the farther you get from universal the less sense they make.

    Parent
    Hell no... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    anti-mandate from day one...there's gotta be a better way than making criminals out of the working class hovering just above the poverty threshold, or increasing their taxes, depending on your preferred spin.

    Parent
    Me? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    I'm not necessarily against the mandates - I think Hillary was right to begin (Obama jumped on the bandwagon way later). Mandates, in theory, are the only way this will work.  But I think they need to be honest with people (tough sell, I know) and tell them these things.  What I foresee happening is we get to 2013, everybody's happy and in love again as we plan Obama's second coronation, er, inauguration, and then people wake up and WHAM!  all these weird things kick in.  I see our courts tied up in challenges, more people filing for bankruptcy while their lives get put on hold because of the financial mess they will now be in between having to purchase a plan (or not and being fined), and the legal fees incurred to fight the penalites.

    I think "liberals" who want to pooh-pooh any concerns or criticims of this monstrousity are doing a huge disfavor to the people, and frankly, are no better than Republicans who questioned our patriotism after 9/11 - they are of the same ilk.

    Parent

    Execution over issue activism (none / 0) (#55)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    The anti war activist wants to point to the Iraq war and say "all war is wrong."

    the pro war issue advocate points to ww2.

    Etc.  I think people would be right to be concerned about how mandates are implemented by a president who has no real track record on anything.

    I'm pro-mandates, in theory.   Living without health insurance is as irresponsible as driving without car insurance.   At least that's how people should be thinking about it.

    Parent

    Correction (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by hookfan on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    Living without adequate health care is irresponsible. Health insurance is another issue.
    Currently, forcing purchase of health insurance that doesn't cover actual health care needs (oh, like women's needs) is irresponsible.

    Parent
    That's a legitimate criticism (none / 0) (#132)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:17:02 PM EST
    Of how things are being implemented.  A mandate correctly implemented with a plan that doesn't discriminate, maybe you'd have problem with that, who knows?

    Parent
    The point here is the punishment (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    for not abiding by the mandates -- whether the punishment is in line with the "crime."

    I am mandated to abide by a lot of laws that do not come with a punishment of such a high fine and prison time.

    Parent

    OK Cream, what enforcement method (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    do you propose? Did you really think there wouldn't be one?

    Parent
    One less onerous (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:36:16 AM EST
    and not involving prison time.

    Okay, now what do you propose?

    Parent

    Fine is too high (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    I would think that most of those without health care insurance are in that position because they can't afford it rather than that they are irresponsible or reckless. If you can't afford insurance how can you afford a $25,000 fine?

    Imprisoning someone because they are unable to pay brings us right back to the Dicken's era of debtors prison. I would have hoped we had seen the last of those days.

    Parent

    Exactly. I have some (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    readings on the poorhouses of the late 19th century to share for anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

    Parent
    Well, to be fair, the ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    $25,000 is the largest potential fine for not paying the initial fine of 2.5% of income.

    Parent
    I'm fine with this language (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:40:45 AM EST
    I would prefer that the fine automatically enroll you in the public plan, but that seems unlikely.

    Not paying your taxes comes with penalties.

    Parent

    It just doesn't read to me (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    like something that would come from the Democratic Party.  It sounds like something from the Republican Party.  But then, I'm in a state that just loves to incarcerate, with the highest proportion of the African American male population in prison of any state in the country.  So I can see up close and personal just how destructive that is to all of society in so many ways.

    Maybe these clauses will allow the rest of the country to be educated by seeing the effects.  And that's not all bad -- except for the ones incarcerated as educational tools for the better off.

    Parent

    This is nothing (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by standingup on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    but another scare tactic from the Republicans.  See the entire letter from Tom Barthold, Chief of Staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, in response to Rep. Dave Camp's (R-MI) inquiry on enforcement and penalties with regards to the individual mandate of the house bill.  

    The bottom line is that criminal penalties are rarely pursued and usually only after attempts through civil proceedings have failed.  The harshest prosecution would involve criminal penalties under Sections 7203 and 7201 of the IRS code.  And this, directly from the primary source instead of the cherry picked info from biased sources that jbindc continues to attempt to use here:

    The IRS attempts to collect most unpaid liabilities through the civil procedures described above. A number of factors distinguish civil from criminal penalties, in addition to the potential for incarceration if found guilty of a crime. Unlike the standard in civil cases, successful criminal prosecution requires that the government bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the offense. Most criminal offenses require proof that the offense was willful, which is a degree of culpability greater than that required in a civil penalty cases. For example, a prosecution for willful failure to pay under section 7203 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt both that the taxpayer intentionally violated a known legal duty and that the taxpayer had the ability to pay.  In contrast, in applying the civil penalty for failure to pay under section 6651, the burden is on the taxpayer: the penalty applies unless the taxpayer can establish reasonable cause and lack of willful neglect with respect to his failure to pay.  (emphasis added)

    I believe it is very unlikely we would see a high number of criminal prosecutions as enforcement of the individual mandate.  And I honestly can't understand why the commenters here even give a second of attention to the disingenuous information jbindc continues to post.  

    Parent

    Oh, gosh, okay then (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    as long it's not gonna be a high level of prosecutions.  

    What level would be okay with you?  How many ought to face fines and imprisonment (and lawyers bills and losing jobs if they have them to cope with all the court dates and out-of-court meetings and more) that would be acceptable for a "liberal" law?

    Parent

    Did you even take (none / 0) (#134)
    by standingup on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:02:25 AM EST
    the time or make an effort to read the letter or any other material about the enforcement of the individual mandate?  There are exemptions, exceptions and waivers to help protect those in hardship situations.  There are several civil penalties that do not require representation by an attorney or hearings or imprisonment.  But why look at everything when you can focus on the most unlikely scenario?  

    I would hope we see very few people criminally prosecuted.  I am more concerned with good policy than "liberal" law.  I am not happy at all with the current bill but I am not going to fall for the tactics of a group of hypocritical Republicans trying to frighten people.  Those same Republicans have no issues with incarceration when it comes to blue collar crime.  

    Parent

    I'm not sure (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    Why positing a question is "disinformation".  I posted Barthold's handwritten response to Ensign's inquiry (the letter was authenticated by the JCT).

    And yet you didn't say anything that disagreed with me - how many people, by virtue of not being able to afford insurance are going to "willfully fail" to not have it?  Ergo - their violation would satisfy that element of the crime.

    And since you use Barthold, as did I, where he says the same thing, I want to thank for agreeing and making my exact point.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#133)
    by standingup on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:29:15 PM EST
    and you conveniently linked to a response that did not fully cover the topic of enforcement and penalties.  Again, no surprise from you there.  

    And I don't agree with your assertion that not being able to afford insurance will be a violation sufficient for criminal prosecution.  You ignore the exceptions, waivers, exemptions and the current practice of collection through civil procedures.  

    Parent

    Do you have much experience with (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:41:44 AM EST
    legislative enforcement language? It seems to me that you can drive a Mack truck through this.

    Parent
    Yes, actually, I do (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    and too much experience in the courts.  And what I learned is that, yes, you can manage to drive your Mack through a lot and find loopholes with the help of a good lawyer.

    But because I could not always afford a lawyer, and ended up in front of some bad judges and court commissioners and such, I got run over by your Mack truck too many times.  And I was in a better position, if broke at that point, than a lot of people who never can come back from being run over.

    Parent

    Therefore what? (none / 0) (#97)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    If you weaken enforcement so much that it can't be applied, then the mandate is meaningless. And now we're back to talking about whether the mandate is a good idea.

    Parent
    Of course it can be applied (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:26:52 PM EST
    without imprisonment or crippling fines.  Look around you at all the people who pay reasonable fines -- or sometimes just interest on, say, unpaid taxes -- and learn their lesson.  And get to stay out of prison and continue to work and be able to pay for health insurance, among other things.

    Parent
    If I get a speeding ticket? (none / 0) (#53)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    And the fine is 180 bucks but I don't show up to court and get another fine of 400 bucks, did I just get fined 580 bucks for going 8 mph over the speed limit?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    Yes, that's true - and what's the penalty if you don't pay your taxes - you can go to jail.

    Thom Bartold, Chief of Staff to the Joint Committee on Taxation also said this in a handwritten note to Sen. Ensign when he asked this same question (based on the Senate Finance Bill at the time), but it talks about the same section of the IRS code.

    It's still a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine and up to one year in jail.

    Parent

    I really don't get the complaint (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:39:45 AM EST
    You get punished for not complying with government regulations that apply to you. If what you want is libertarian anarchy, give Somalia a shot.

    Parent
    Hyperbole (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    much?

    The point was, people are going to be shocked when they find that they could possibly face fines and criminal prosecution for not buying health insurance.  I think that's a salient point that needs to be reasonably discussed so everyone (not just those who spend all day reading blogs) knows what's going on.  And I think when someone tries to discuss it, dismissing it with just a "oh that really won't happen - only stupid people buy into that" is glib and frankly, dangerous.  We need to have these discussions NOW - while there may be still some time to change it.

    Parent

    I'm not going to relitigate the individual mandate (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    We've been through the issue at TL over and over again.

    Parent
    Didn't know we were in court (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:56:09 AM EST
    pfft (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    Ah (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:26:46 AM EST
    Between hyperbole and the strawberries - the sign when one has to resort to primative tactics because one can no longer hold an adult conversation.

    Really - Why are you so on board with the "better than nothing" argument?  No, sometimes nothing is better than garbage.

    Parent

    It is not my problem (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    that you didn't know (or forgot) that we spent a year discussing the individual mandate here. Most of us decided long ago that it was a good policy. I respect those who disagree. But harping on the enforcement mechanism when what you really want to do is have a new debate over the underlying policy is not very "adult" in my opinion.

    Parent
    But for a lot of people ... (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    the use of mandates hinge upon adequate subsidies and a strong public option.

    Parent
    I don't disagree with that at all (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    I just consider that to be orthogonal to the enforcement mechanism.

    Parent
    Definition: (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    My real concern is ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:14:49 AM EST
    the people who find that the only solution financially for them is to pay the fine, and it in essence becomes a new regressive tax.

    I can understand a manageable cost of coverage and a largish fine for noncompliance.  But the reverse seems very odd to me.

    Fines for nonpayment of taxes are larger than what you'd pay if you paid your taxes in full and on time.  Thus giving you a financial impetus to avoid them.

    But if the fine for noncompliance is 2.5% of income, then aren't there some people who would find the fine the only option they could a afford?

    Parent

    Now we're talking substance (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    In my ideal wold, actual inability to pay should be a defense. But it has to be because you needed to pay for food, clothes, housing, and so forth. Not because you bought a TV or something. In any case, the fine should be automatically applied to public plan premiums (you should be enrolled by default).

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    because a T.V. is absolutely inessential in today's world.  How about the internet?  Should you have to buy insurance if it makes you unable to afford internet access?  Or what if you have to choose between braces for your kids and a health insurance premium?  Or a car insurance premium and a health insurance premium?

    Who are YOU to say what a good use of anybody's money is?  Thank you,  Ronald Reagan.  "OMG!  All the poor peoples are avoiding their responsibilities and buying Teeeee Veeeeeees!!! They must. be. stopped!!!!!"

    Parent

    Ok, then we can allow no defenses (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    and you just get garnished no matter what. It's funny, usually people on the right are the ones who arerighteously indignant about tax collection.

    Parent
    Except (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    This isn't really about mere tax collection.  You and Balkin just like that spin.

    Frankly, given the abuses in the welfare system, I'm not eager to have yet another government agency decide whether you've spent your money on something essential or inessential.  Pretty soon poor peoples' sole occupation will be waiting in lines to get exemptions from paying things they can't afford because they don't have jobs because they're standing in lines all day.

    Parent

    When (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:20:37 PM EST
    I was a kid, my mother and I were on Welfare and BTD's favorite example of a success story...Medicaid.

    My mother was so afraid of DSHS, she wouldn't let us accept a bag of apples from my Grandmother's apple tree....even though we could afford no vegetables or fruit.

    People on government programs run in abject terror from the government.  I can't imagine giving people only slightly better off financially the same levels of abject teror.

    Parent

    Ever get called up for jury duty? (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    Get a parking ticket? Get a speeding ticket?

    I do no believer that these are serious objections, in all honestly.

    Parent

    If a television is ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    essential to your business you can write it off on your taxes.  We already have this right.

    I work in the entertainment industry so writing that stuff off is a no-brainer.  But there are a lot of business where I can see owning a television (even two, one as a back-up) as a legitimate business expense.

    The same goes for ISP costs, cell phones, etc..

    Where this might apply to this debate is whether subsidy rates are determined by gross or taxable income.  And, frankly, I've never been clear about that.

    Parent

    All good questions (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    probably best directed at Charlie Rangel.

    Parent
    Hardy har har ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    Except (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by hookfan on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    those on the left are not usually so gung-ho about  taxing the working class and turning the poor into felons. 2.5% of upper middle class income does not have the same burden as 2.5% of the working poor's income upon the recipient's options.
      It's strange to me that a bill supposedly designed to help "the needy" will in actual practice result in endangering working class poor women with felony charges if they obtain an unwanted pregnancy. If they pay for abortion or prenatal needs, they won't be able to afford the fines.
       Some Camel you've got there! I didn't know the price for it's nose in the tent will be continued dead bodies of poor women (documented or not).
       But something (the camel's nose) is worth more than nothing (the health and lives of lower class women).

    Parent
    This is odd ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:38:40 PM EST
    your defense of the policy is something that isn't part of the policy.

    Parent
    You're correct. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    That's not your problem. . . .

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:15:53 AM EST
    As I said before upthread I don't have a problem with mandates, in theory.  But, I think things have changed now since now it's actually passed in a bill, as opposed to some ethereal concept in a campaign. Does that mean we aren't allowed to talk about it again now that it actually has a chance to affect people?


    Parent
    What would ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    constitute "willful felony evasion"?  Because usually in the law words like that mean something more significant than just someone not feeling like paying.

    Isn't it usually something akin to attempts to defraud?

    Parent

    Somalia (none / 0) (#80)
    by Samuel on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:39:23 AM EST
    What Balkin actually says (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    is this:

    If you are not exempted, and you don't purchase health insurance, you just pay a higher tax. You don't go to jail.

    Now, if you refuse to pay your taxes, the government will fine you in the same way that it does whenever you refuse to pay your taxes. Prison is also a possibility for the most determined tax cheats, although generally speaking prison terms are reserved for the most egregious violations of the tax laws.

    So, yes, you can de facto go to jail for not buying health insurance, it's just de jure because you didn't pay the higher tax imposed on you because you didn't buy health insurance.

    The failure to buy health insurance is the root cause, really.  Let's not pussy foot around the penalty issue and parse it out like the lawyers some of us are.  It's going to read to average joe/jane american as going to jail for not buying insurance.  Deal with it.  Don't try to parse it away.

    Parent

    Or like the lawyers . . . (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Spamlet on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    . . . some of us won't be for a few more years.

    Let's not pussy foot around the penalty issue and parse it out like the lawyers some of us are.


    Parent
    Your comment is probably going to be deleted (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    for language, but I really think you're being disingenuous. Why is punishment for not paying a healthcare tax any more objectionable than punishment for not paying sales tax?

    You could say that you object to being forced to give money to a private company, and I agree that that's Not Good. But this version of the bill includes a public option.

    Parent

    Yeesh (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    Your comment is probably going to be deleted for language

    Thank you, Mr. Comment Police, officer, sir.

    Parent

    No. It's about what happens (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:58:55 AM EST
    when my comment ends up orphaned at the bottom of the page. I don't really care about your language.

    Parent
    It's because of the law blog filters (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:59:41 AM EST
    it's not because of anyone's personal preference.

    This site can't be linked to if it contains certain words, that's why you're supposed to use * or something when you say things like pu$$y.

    Parent

    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    I didn't think that would target the filters.  I apologize to andgarden for the snark.

    Parent
    It seems to me (none / 0) (#89)
    by Spamlet on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:47:59 AM EST
    that this version of the public option is orthogonal to the public good.

    Parent
    That's a different discussion entirely (none / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    I also happen to disagree.

    Parent
    Withdraw my objection, Your Honor (none / 0) (#100)
    by Spamlet on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    Who's Jack Balkin? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:47:00 AM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:48:50 AM EST
    If you're serious, this guy.

    Parent
    How is that incredible? (none / 0) (#130)
    by roy on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:59:44 PM EST
    Funding of most government programs or mandates is enforced by threat of imprisonment.  It's usually tax evasion instead of being overtly tied to the funded program, so HCR criminal penalties would be unusual only in their honesty.

    Don't want to fund the war in Iraq or stem cell research?  Reduce your taxes proportionately.  Go to prison.  The IRS and courts may try to levy penalties and fines first, but that's just another form of funding.  If you actually succeed in not funding it, you'll be prosecuted.

    An insurance mandate is no different.  Even if the Senate bills says "fine" or "garnish" instead, that action must be backed by threat of imprisonment.  Note I haven't actually read the Senate bill; I am not Congress's clipping service.

    Those who support an insurance mandate should face the fact that they support imprisonment for people who choose not to buy insurance.


    Parent

    yes and (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by hookfan on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    let's be clear that the overwhelming majority of those who choose to not purchase insurance are very likely to be the poor or lower working class who choose to purchase something else--like paying for medical services for their actual reproductive health needs.
       Let's also be clear that the focus thus is directed toward those irresponsible poor who don't adequately support the insurance industry's financial desires, and away from the insurance industry's continuous jacking up premium prices, or using fraud as an excuse for effective rescission.
       By the way, I've not seen any clear definition or guidelines for what would constitute exorbitant or unjustifiable premium increases either. So I fully anticipate that those who effectively fall into the category of the irresponsible poor will likely grow rather quickly-- especially for those who are vulnerable to the vicissitudes of our not so great jobless recovery.
       Maybe the jobless can use their unemployment money to fund the health insurance industries CEO's bonuses and million dollar yearly salaries. After all one won't go to jail for not purchasing food or making payments on one's mortgage or rent.
       Behold the future of the Democratic Party: persecution of the poor, especially poor women, on behalf of the insurance industry. Yeah. That's really something to cheer.

    Parent
    Why can't a liberal claim he'll filibuster (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by magster on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:38:47 AM EST
    HCR if it doesn't have a public option to counteract Joe Lieberman?  As long as the progressives are mute while Lieberman throws his tantrum, we all know the trigger will be shoved down our throats.

    Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:20:18 AM EST
    Not claiming a filibuster but was "repeatedly noncommital" about supporting the Democrats on procedural votes on the health care bill.

    With a pronounced independent streak to match his political alignment, Bernie Sanders of Vermont may be another headache for Democrats trying to cobble together 60 votes for healthcare reform in the coming weeks.

    At a time when most attention is being paid to the Senate's other, more well-known Independent, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, it is Sanders who could end up playing spoiler for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). As Reid struggles to find 60 votes that will unite on procedural votes, his party's centrists are pulling the healthcare bill politically rightward while Sanders is staking out a far-left position.

    Asked if he will support Democrats on procedural votes once the healthcare bill hits the Senate floor, Sanders was repeatedly noncommital, twice telling The Hill that he intends to push for a bill that includes a government-run, public-option insurance component and refusing to guarantee his support on cloture votes.

    "All I'll say for now is that I want the strongest public option possible in the bill," Sanders said. "Beyond that, we're going to have to look at what develops."

    Pressed further, Sanders's office also offered no guarantees.

    "He is pleased that Sen. Reid has said that the bill will include a public option and he looks forward to seeing the detailed legislation," said a Sanders spokesman.

    Sanders caucuses with Democrats, and usually falls in line with the party's philosophy. But like Lieberman, he can stray on a whim -- and on healthcare, his insistence on a public option may force Reid to reach out for another Republican vote even if all other Democrats support procedural votes.



    Parent
    Enough talk... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    of congressional losers...lets talk about a champion...anybody see Zenyatta in the Classic?  What a horse, what a horse...almost couldn't believe my eyes down the stretch.  I hope we get to see her crush Rachel Alexandra in a battle of the super-fillys..and as long as its a 1 1/16 race or longer, Zenyatta will crush her imo.

    Was talking to my great uncle about the race...he said in his 80+ years she's the best filly he's ever seen, and after Secretariat maybe the best racehorse period.

    I think that was her last race (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    Here's a link to the race and it's extended so you can see all the after stuff. I've watched the race several times and I cheer each and every time. Just freakin' amazing.

    Parent
    How did I miss that? (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:07:12 AM EST
    Googling around it looks her owners will retire her undefeated...I hope they reconsider, that would be so sad for the sport, if understandable for the owners...she'll make them a pretty penny breeding.

    Parent
    Didn't they start her career later? (none / 0) (#70)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    I'd love to see her race more and she seems built to handle racing well, but on the flip side, if anything happened to her . . . .

    She's got the good life ahead of her now, that's for sure :)

    Parent

    They did... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:48:14 AM EST
    she didn't race as a 2 year old, started at age 3.

    She's definitely got more run in her. One of my favorites, a gelding named Evening Attire, raced till age 10...if Zenyatta was sterile she'd be crushing them for years to come, barring injury.

    Parent

    She may be built for it and (none / 0) (#91)
    by sallywally on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:49:25 AM EST
    if she is nearly as strong, physically and in her bones, as Secretariat (not much chance of that,I'd bet) I'd love to see her race again. But after Four Belles (?) and Barbaro, I don't think I could stand it if anything happened to her. I'd like to see all her races on video and let her play in the fields for the rest of her life.

    I couldn't stand those two breakdowns and can't watch any live races ever again....

    Parent

    I know where you're coming from... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    I can't look at the Belmont infield without thinking of the great champion Ruffian and her tragic demise.  But isn't also sad to take a champion out of the game before his/her time?

    It's no easy call, to be sure, but I think champions like Zenyatta want to be on the track.  And as long as they are sound thats where champions belong.

    Parent

    She is a beast! (none / 0) (#69)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:27:11 AM EST
    Thanks for this link!

    The Perfect Horse.

    Parent

    Isn't she stunning? (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    Have you seen this helmet cam workout?

    Parent
    Better than Winning Colors??? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    Sacrilege my friend.

    Parent
    Winning Colors was awesome... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    but its hard to argue with undefeated and a win in the Classic...W.C. didn't do much as a 4 year old.

    Parent
    Can we talk about... (none / 0) (#71)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    ...what losers those New Yawk Football Giants are?  Snatching defeat from what should have been a win over the hated Chargers and that tool Philip Rivers.  Gaw.  

    Or, the Hawkeyes losing on my birthday weekend?!?  Way to ruin the celebration!

    Parent

    Sorry about Iowa bro... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    If they had known it was your birthday I'm sure they woulda played better:)

    I thought Eli was the tool, albeit a Super Bowl Champion tool...Rivers was willing to play for whoever drafted him:)

    And if I had to choose a QB from those two I'd take Rivers in a heartbeat:)

    Parent

    Please read Sam Stein's column (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    re HCR, House bill, Stupak amendment, and Senate bills, including similar amendments.  Please read each link in Stein's column.

    Ladies, we have been asleep at the wheel.

    McCaskill, who portrays herself as pro-choice, opines the Senate can probably live w/a Stupak-esque amendment.

    Sen. Snowe voted against similar amendments in committee.

    Sam Stein

    Query:  why did female pro-choice members of House of Representatives vote for health care reform bill Sat. but now say they will vote against final bill if it contains Stupak amendment?  Who are they kidding?  Or am I missing something?

    Especially this line (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:17:25 PM EST
    Already on Monday there is ample indication that it will be considered. Leadership aides, for one, are not tamping down reports that a handful of conservative Democrats are preparing to introduce legislation that would mirror Stupak's.


    Parent
    I love how Degette says (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by coast on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:31:20 PM EST
    that women are going to "realize" what was passed.  Makes me wonder what else we are going to "realize" is in this bill?

    Parent
    Sold us out for chicken change (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Ellie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    This summed up Obama's Best Speech Evah to the House on His Legacy:

    "He thanked all the chairs [of the committees involved in developing the health care bill]," said Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y). "He thanked all leadership and he mentioned specifically John Dingell."

    By the meeting's end, the vast majority of the attending lawmakers seemed confident of health care reform's passage -- though certainly there is the potential for flare-ups as the abortion amendment introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) comes to consideration.

    "We are feeling pretty optimistic that we can defeat this," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a primary opponent of the amendment.

    "Democracy is not pretty but it works," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), another opponent of the Stupak amendment. "I was here in 1993 when the ship went down," she said, referencing the Clinton administration's failed attempt to pass health reform. "This thing isn't going down."

    Ooh, flare-ups! Ya think??? Thanks, Great Leader of Men and Defender of Women!

    If the best the House Dems could do was sell off the equal treatment of women's health to pass this piece of cr@p by a couple of measly votes, I'm thrilled at the thought of this (IMO irreconcilable) "thing" dying in the Senate.

    And R.I.P. too to future Dem scaremongering of women that if we don't support their pointless @sses, we'll lose abortion access and all other reproductive rights. I was sick of that cr@p six elections ago. (The list of RW gifts the current Dem majority has already enshrined in quick order is too long and disgusting to repeat.)

    Any final twinges of conscience for dumping these useless windbags is gone, too. My choice not to support Dems anymore, vote for them, fund-raise for them and GOTV for them was sealed on the weekend.

    Needless to say, I am NOT now prepared to die young/er for their vanity too, which is the fate for women this POS ensures by reducing our health to a petty annoyance that might have "the potential for flare-ups".

    If anyone's left in the party who can read the writing on the wall, their takeaway should be to treat women's health with equal respect or health "reform" dies, period.

    TMI: Owing to personal commitments (work, family, location decisions) this year, I was going to be a spectator on teh awesome OpRahma admin's Hope Ya Got (Spare) Change movement.

    Now I'll now apply whatever juice is left in my batt to nuking this vanity-"legacy".

    No Stupak language (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by waldenpond on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    41 House Dems have pledged to vote against a final bill with Stupak language in it.  The Plum Line

    Hard to get excited about HCR (none / 0) (#1)
    by FUMRBush on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:49:18 AM EST
    Public option in 2013?  Coat-hanger abortions?  WTF.  Starting to think I should listen to Alex Jones and give up intelligent thought.

    It isn't over yet (none / 0) (#4)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:35:04 AM EST
    "Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage".

    I'm beginning to think that all the turmoil over HCR for the last six months will end up being for naught. As the bill continues to be watered down and sabotaged by special interests, there won't be enough left in it to satisfy anyone.

    In the end the insurance industry and Republicans will have achieved their goal. Nothing will be done.

    They're all in it together. (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:02:15 AM EST
    It's not only the insurance industry and the Republicans who will have achieved their goal.

    There has been practically no leadership on the part of Obama.
    And with the exception of a few members of the House - notably Kucinich - nobody has been talking about the kind of bill that would be comprehensive and universal.

    A few months ago, Obama referred to the "public option" as but a "sliver" of the healthcare package. The public option, already a watered-down version of what we really need, single-payer, is the heart and soul of healthcare reform. If Obama can call it a sliver, I can call him useless.

    So - yeah it's Republicans caving to the insurance industry and the big drug companies - but it's also democrats who and been bought - including the man at the top - Mr. O.

    Parent

    Off-the-wall idea (I know) ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by prittfumes on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    but what if the president really would prefer that there be no bill at all? Then he can give a major speech asking America to strenghten his hand in both houses in 2010 so he can get it done.

    Parent
    I don't think it's off the wall (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:08:02 AM EST
    as it also has been discussed that, if provisions are challenged in court and found to be un-Constitutional . . . repeat the 1930s.  The White House would say it tried, and Congress tried, but that third branch stopped them.  (The difference being that I don't think that FDR was plotting it to turn out that way but really wanted real reform.)

    And conveniently, of course (for this line of thinking, if inconveniently for the public that needs real reform and now), it could be another reason why provisions don't go into effect until 2013, leaving time for a court challenge . . . and a ruling that could come down in time to cancel the bill -- but after the election in 2012.

    Parent

    And caving to the Catholic church. (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    Wondering if one of those mtgs. with the Pres. at the WH was with repres. of the Catholic church?

    Parent
    technical question (none / 0) (#27)
    by kenosharick on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:40:52 AM EST
    If, and I have my doubts, HCR passes the senate, when it comes back from conference, will it need 50 or 60 votes to pass?

    Cool map (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    shows the shifting electorate since 1960 - and shows how fickle we are.

    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    with these maps is that they don't show which of the electorate stayed home, which skews the shift.

    If Democrats are p*ssed about this health insurance mess, they'll stay home in 2012.  20 years from now a map like this will say the country "veered right".

    Interesting map, but it really doesn't give any feel for what really happened in those time periods.

    Parent

    And that's the conundrum (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Spamlet on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    When Democrats stay home, the country does "veer right." And these days when Democrats go to the polls, the country also "veers right," in terms of policy.

    Parent
    The thing to do is still go the polls (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    and vote on some parts of the ballot.  And vote Dem/liberal on those parts of the ballot.  That confounds the simplistic conclusion that people were shifting right or were too lazy or apathetic to go to the polls and vote Dem/liberal.  They just opted out of a part of the process that appeared corrupt or un-Democratic or fill-in-the-blank.

    Parent
    Do the due (voting liberal where possible) (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ellie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    ... on the ballot/measure, and/or write in a more liberal alternative elsewhere on the ballot, depending on region and circumstances.

    If staying home, have a paper trail of that (and why) with a letter to your local rag, CC'd to the partei. Post commentaries on media sites

    Mnemonic Device:SLOG IT! BLOG IT! FLOG IT! :-D

    Parent

    In Rivers defense... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    he does play for Norv Turner, which is like starting behind the 8-ball:)

    The bad news is... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    you got a computer virus...the really bad news is the FBI is at your door to pinch you for child pron.

    Kill your computer (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 01:34:08 PM EST
    Or be careful about ruffling the feathers of those with a penchant for Nixonian dirty tricks.

    I saw this coming.

    Parent

    Certainly... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:36:23 PM EST
    not new for law enforcement to be used as a weapon by citizens to take out an adversary...and law enforcement is happy to oblige...a collar is a collar.

    Parent