home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:19:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

My preview of today SCOTUS oral argument on the mandate.

Open Thread.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Looking at A Different Self-Defense Shooting Case >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by the capstan on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    "...the most beloved first lady ever."
    Maybe it's just that I have been alive a bit longer than you, but I doubt that!  In my lifetime, Eleanor was legendary, really, with her newspaper column and the jokes about her turning up to check on conditions in the mine--or the chicken house, or the assembly line.  And then there was Mamie--or Jackie and her whisper of a voice.

    And Nancy was not any too mainstream (any more than Jane), what with her astrology.
    .

    Most beloved among (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:35:15 AM EST
    conservatives, I think is what's meant.

    Parent
    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:23:14 PM EST
    And not for anything she really did..."Just say no".

    She is the wife of the conservative movements FDR and the idea of Hanoi Jane playing her in a movie will set their hair on fire.  

    Parent

    I'm curious how many (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 10:00:11 PM EST
    people who actually went to Vietnam call her "Hanoi Jane". It seems to me that most of that
    comes mainly from people who got exemptions for things like 'rectal cysts'..

    Parent
    The main experience I had (none / 0) (#140)
    by Zorba on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    with Vietnam Vets is with a number of vets who were members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.  (One of whom was a paraplegic in a wheelchair.)  They, and their experiences in the war, were the main reason I got involved in the anti-Vietnam War protests in the first place.  None of them had a problem with "Hanoi Jane."  

    Parent
    It's the armchair warriors (none / 0) (#141)
    by shoephone on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 05:44:00 PM EST
    who refer to her that way. No one I know who served in Vietnam does, or did.

    Parent
    Okay, now that's funny (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    Seriously.  Don't you think that's funny?  

    Parent
    I do (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    unlike most conservatives I really don't get worked up when Hollywood puts out it's political garbage.

    Like I said before love the art not the artist.  If it's so offensive to you then use the power of the purse and rent a John Wayne movie.

    Parent

    My two favorite things that I read today (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sj on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    1.  Who knew that the Queen of England had a mischievous side?

    2.  Distributors of "Bully" gave up on the MPAA.  What are the implications of that?


    Liz the Wedding Crasher, huh? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    Really, a shocking report, as she didn't RSVP.

    Parent
    The Weinsteins make more money (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:41:23 PM EST
    due to mthe publicity of their victimhood.

    Parent
    ::shakes head:: (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    Really?  That's what you're worried about?

    Parent
    Worried? ::shakes head:: (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    Whatever gave you that idea?

    It's a marketing tactic, nothing more nothing less.

    Parent

    It was more that I was (none / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:11:08 PM EST
    wondering if schools would be allowed to show it.

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    Go Liz! (Betty?)

    Dancin' Queen! ;-)

    Parent

    D12 hatched this afternoon. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    Mom seems a little tired.  View here

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:19:49 PM EST
    Time to start spending too much of my day watching the babies :)

    Parent
    One thing (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    One thing I hear over and over again from the pro-mandate side is that "everyone will enter the healthcare market eventually".

    True.

    But not everyone will have a need to enter the health insurance market.  Thus the mandate DOES require entering a market.  Entering the market is not automatic.

    It is amazing to me that people don't get the very obvious difference between health insurance and health care.  I guess it's a sign of the fact that most people don't pay for their own health insurance.

    To those of us outside of that fortunate realm, buying health insurance PRECLUDES buying health care in a lot of cases. It definitely does for me.  Making people enter that market if they can't afford it is going to be a disaster.  Just watch and see.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Rupe on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 09:15:48 PM EST
    I had to cancel my health insurance because I couldn't afford the medication I take (which is not covered) and pay the premium.  Not to mention the fact they increased my rate by 12% from the previous year, and that my sh!tty policy didn't even cover mental health care, was 50% coinsurance and had a 5K deductible...all for the affordable $200/month.  I'm 26, that's ridiculous.

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 07:24:15 AM EST
    think people really understand the insurance market unless they've been in the individual insurance market. When you are paying for an individual policy, you see how bad insurance really is. Actually now that we have employer paid insurance though it hasn't changed my mind about the whole insurance problem.

    Parent
    Is it (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 07:40:56 AM EST
    an oversimplification to say that if Obama had pursued the "public option" and not caved to the private insurance industry, we would not be going through this morass at the SCOTUS - and we might all have the health care to which we should be entitled?

    Or - am I just a "whining" "professional leftist"?

    Is it an oversimplification? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Edger on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:10:12 AM EST
    Not really, although I think it's more that it's more that he and his shills lie - sorry, 'mis-speak' ;-) - in their seeming welcoming of him being branded a "caver".

    His shills especially seem to think it is a positive for him to to be seen as weak and powerless in the face of republican monsters under the bed and in his closet, I can only assume that they expect it somehow generates sympathy votes, or something.

    I do not think he caves. And I do not think he is weak, or powerless.

    When someone continually and repeatedly goes along on everything with someone else whom they 'claim' to be opposing, it's not 'caving'.

    It's the plan. The INTENTIONAL plan.

    Parent

    Good question...except (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 08:02:26 AM EST
    Because the votes weren't there in Congress, the question really isn't applicable.  Short:  A President can want something well & mightily, but where legislation & votes are concerned--especially in those contentious classic areas such as restructuring our health care system --if you don't have the votes you don't have the votes.  In this example, review the machinations in the Senate & the positions of Nelson, Lieberman, etc., people whose personal interests were not particularly vulnerable to any arm twisting.

    Parent
    Since (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 08:09:14 AM EST
    he didn't try, and didn't use what have been described as his lofty powers of rhetoric, we don't know what a vote might have been in Congress. And if he had tried, and it was defeated, he could have used the negative votes as a hammer against those voting against it during the next election cycle. You now, he could have kept trying. He could have been, you know, a leader.

    Did you read or hear what Obama himself had to say about the futility of a "mandate" when he was running against H. Clinton for the nomination?

    But the bottom line is, he didn't even try for it.

    Parent

    The reason (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 08:29:20 AM EST
    there weren't the votes was because Obama did not even really explain the law and it let the GOP define the law instead of anyone else. Obama has a serious inability to explain policy to the voters.

    Parent
    That lame excuse (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by sj on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    "the votes weren't there".  Hardly surprising when the policy wasn't advocated at all. When single payer advocates were actually removed from the Senate hearing.  You seriously think Democrat Max Baucus did that all on his own without some sort of signal from the brand new Democratic President?  

    It's quite true that the President can want something "well & mightily" etc. etc.  But that has no  bearing on the single payer issue.  Because it was clear as glass to anyone who actually did care about SP that he did not want it "well and mightily".

    Parent

    The "he didn't even try" routine (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:36:47 PM EST
    Doesn't really hold water nor anything else.  My response is placed here, sj, as a furtherance of whatever excuse or reality there may be.  iMO, where I think yourself and some others miss the point iinvolves some kind of notion that the arm twisting style of others (such as LBJ) in a time long ago can work in a country as divided as we have become.  To the contrary--other than in certain hyped national security matters so hyped by the media & elsewhere--the old mystique of the American President has steadily diminished since Watergate in the domestic arena.  See, e.g., the yelling of "you lie" during a State of the Union Address before Congress.  Nope...Senators, in particular, are more responsive to their own localized needs than Presidential persuasion.  If Obama, knowing this, persisted in trying to push reluctant/non-gettable Senators public into an area where they would not go...my view is that he would have unnecessarily damaged his own party AND gained nothing in return.

    The closest we got, IMO, was the brief period that it looked like expanding-Medicare-for-all was on the table as a real possibility before it was knifed by the gentleman from the home state of the corporate healthcare system , Connecticut's Lieberman.  Even today we still see national polling showing--over & over--a resistance to the government control of healthcare.  Why?  I suspect it has to do with the historical concept of "individualism" in the US.  Remember the ill-fated reality of the Clintons' single payer plan.... Remember a lot of the past proposals...  I'm sure that President Obama took the earlier rejections to heart--as well as the late Senator Kennedy's advocacy for healthcare compromise after learning the same bitter lesson.  

    It is important to remember most that the multiple levels of what was going on, what could be crafted to meet a timid Congress' wants, what would not frighten the American public as the dreaded "big government" (recall the silly, yet heartfelt, cry to "keep your government hands off my Medicare"...these levels do not all appear on the surface.  The President is not, nor could any President be expected to be, a one man educator for society, because we are talking deep-seated fears by significant segments of Americans who can be conned to vote at odds with their own interests etc. etc.  Not an excuse...just a reality that offers limited opportunities for threading the healthcare needle.

    President Obama clearly did what he had to do in providing for passage of healthcare reform legislation ... A feat which so many others attempted & failed in the political maelstrom that such subject sets off.

    I hope some of the ACA will survive the more & more demonstrably political Supremes.  The human beings who have been helped by ObamaCare & now stand to lose that help are many.  And, as I'll keep saying, the likelihood that anything else will or can be crafted to replace that is exceedingly small In our very polarized posture today.  Without the art of compromise, we are left with little more than handwringing.  But then, we'll see soon enough.

    Parent

    Well, when you take single-payer (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    off the table and deny its proponents a seat at any table in any of the three branches of government, I think it could actually be said that it's worse that "he didn't even try:" he actively tried to silence it.  and succeeded; another mission accomplished, eh?

    The late emergence of the "public option" was, in my opinion, just another political ploy designed to quiet the rumbles from within the base.  You know as well as I do that the behind-the-scenes message to insurance and Big Pharma was, "no worries, guys - I'm just throwing these whiners a bone for them to chew on for a while - and while they're busy with that, we can just get back to figuring out how to make your bottom line fatter than ever."

    Yeah, I'm sure you know no such thing.

    Which is why I probably won't be successful in asking you if you could please stop referring to this as "healthcare" reform?  This was always and ever an insurance bill.


    Parent

    Well...it has been the only real attempt (none / 0) (#125)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:24:13 PM EST
    at health care reform in my lifetime. It has been a long wait.

    Parent
    What about "care" did this legislation (none / 0) (#133)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 08:53:02 PM EST
    reform?

    Nothing.

    It was all about insurance, christine.  It mandated that everyone had to have insurance - well, everyone except those who were exempt, and that is, surprisingly enough, a lot of people; it kept in place what has always been a barrier to care: the insurance industry.

    I truly do not know why someone who is clearly quite intelligent doesn't seem to be able to grasp that.

    David Dayen and HuffPo:

    But because of the way in which the US health care system works - and because Obamacare by and large did not mess with that system - the mandate will only come into play for 2-5% of the total population.

    Just 2 percent of the U.S. population would be subject to the aspect of health care reform at the center of a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court this week -- the individual mandate, a study released Monday by the Urban Institute found. The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.

    Including those who are subject to the mandate, but would get subsidies, increases the total number of people affected to 5 percent of the population, according to the Urban Institute, a non-partisan policy research organization based in Washington, D.C. (Some of those subject to the mandate who get subsidies would still need to dig into their pocket to cover the difference.)

    Now, as the US system evolves, and more companies drop health insurance and pay the employer mandate penalty - which is oddly not part of this challenge - perhaps that 2-5% number expands. But that's all we're talking about here.

    Mandate or no mandate, there will still be millions without insurance, and most importantly, millions without access to affordable health care.

    That doesn't sound like "reform" to me.

    Parent

    As became clearer (none / 0) (#135)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    during the SCt arguments this past week, the challengers tried to wall off insurance from care so as to obscure any "limiting principle." The Solicitor, meanwhile, stressed the connection between accessibility & delivery of health care. The more that one views the ACA's design to expand insurance coverage to near universality, the clearer the recognition that the insurance reform itself is inextricably connected with, promotes, & results in access to broader preventive & necessary healthcare.  Indeed, there is a nexus.

    Look, my preference would have been to expand Medicare for all (or some such similar approach.) After Lieberman effectively knifed that, my dream turned to what could be accomplished.  It seemed that one of roughly three things could have resulted when the matter was first presented this time around: Total, universal coverage & care via a single provider (probably a Medicare-type model), the usual nothing as we have witnessed from generation to generation, or the mid-course that would incorporate the longtime American model of private industry providers with government-strengthened regulation.  Obamacare is the mid-course.

    It may be that where important differences between progressive individuals have resulted comes down to--in practice--the question about judgement-call.  Given the jagged history of attempting any reform in the healthcare/health insurance arena for so many years and given the repeated examples of the public's oft-times negative emotional reactions about "big government" (irrational tho it may be) taking over and given the obvious brouhaha in Congress as the issue was being introduced, I accept the President's decision that this was the legislative choice that could be achieved.  And, we both know the rest of the argument, Anne...the argument about whether the incremental gains methodically being put in place nationally now via ACA benefit enough people now (& later) so as to be worthwhile in the interim.  I think that the insurance gains directly translate into very real healthcare gains for significant numbers of people even before the full development set for 2014...real, measured, systematic development.

    Believe me when I say in sadness that the prospect of an extremely political  5-to-4 SCt decision (ala a replication of the Lochner Era) bringing us back to "square one" again in this healthcare fight leaves me somewhat drained this weekend.  Drained, even as I wonder what the Republican House will or, more likely, NOT propose as an acceptable healthcare "replacement" for the country.  I suspect that neither of us will hold our breath.

    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:33:59 AM EST
    I hope your neck feels better soon.  Twisting it at such an angle in order to see something acceptable to you must be exceedingly painful.

    Parent
    Thanks for your concern, sj (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    But, the writing flowed from my long-held & deep feelings about the need for healthcare.  In many ways, it is the public issue that I have cared about most throughout my life. I'm always hopeful that our society will move forward...and, so, my neck feels just fine.

    Parent
    Oh good (none / 0) (#128)
    by sj on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    my neck feels just fine.

    I'm happy to hear it.  Those pearls need a place to hang.

    Maybe they're even keeping your neck safe as you continue to conflate health insurance with health care.

    Parent

    Since you seem fixated on jewels (none / 0) (#129)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 05:45:52 PM EST
     perhaps you can lend me one of your strands.

    As for conflation: High-falutin word, say what! Lets just say that the good of Obamacare/ACA far outweighs what we have now...and offers lots more if left to develop.  Thanks again.

    Parent

    Dahling (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by sj on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 06:17:23 PM EST
    I live in no fragrance/no jewel zone.  Else I would gladly ask to share yours as I have none of my own.  No tea here, either, though I'd gladly share a shot or two.  That might even be fun.  

    And conflation is "High-falutin?"  I think more of us middle/working class types have familiarity with it than you think.  Many of us certainly know it when we see it.  

    However, just in case you're right and someone is wondering.

    In all seriousness, the truth is, I think words are important.  And we should all strive to be as accurate and clear, or descriptive and poetic as we possibly can.  We should do the absolute best we can do with the vocabulary we have.  That doesn't always mean use the biggest word: one can obfuscate just as easily that way.

    Sometimes I succeed.  Sometimes I don't.  But conflation is the logical fallacy that I typically spot the quickest.  On issues of importance to me, that is.


    Parent

    Wanted to note a related comment (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    which I made a few minutes ago in response to Anne. The matter is related somewhat to "conflation" sj and words.  My words deal with the clear nexus between the vastly expanded insurance coverage under the ACA and the direct-line access to real preventive & necessary healthcare that the statutory requirements would provide. IMO and in the opinion of the law's proponents, that connection/nexus is what separates the Congressional action from mere regulation of an industry...that connection between universal coverage with its increased access to healthcare delivery (as supported by insurance reform) results in the real delivery of healthcare to real individuals. It is not theory...the healthcare delivery system is already happening in opening up & enhancing free preventive healthcare, dismantling the preexistin conditions impediments of the past, etc.  My use of the term healthcare reform--when measured against the healthcare deliverables already happening--is not out-of-line, IMO.

    Actually, sj, I understand the importance of being attentive to word usage in terms of precision & definition.  Apart from my Sunday indulgence in NYT crossword puzzles, I moan from time to time about careless modern language practices...e.g., casually transforming nouns to verbs resumbles the fingernail-on-blackboard image.  So...I appreciate your remarks when my language usage suffers from imprecision & vagueness.

    Parent

    I'll grant you the nexus (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by sj on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    between expanded coverage and access to health care.  However that does not equate to health care reform IMO. IM strong O, in fact.  Health care reform would included managed costs, and universal access.  There should not be such crippling costs for urgent and emergent care for the uninsured.  There shouldn't be any "uninsured".  As long as for-profit health insurance is the primary delivery vehicle, profit will be the primary corporate directive.  Health care should be the primary directive.  

    An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured when ACA is fully enacted.  That is not universal coverage.  And calling it such does not make it so.  And as near as I can tell you are saying there will be universal coverage.  Correct me if I misread you.

    Show me universal access and I will jump for joy at health care reform.  We are not there and don't expect to be there. Sometimes there really is a distinction without a difference.  ACA and health care reform is not such a case.

    Speaking of word usage, my teeth are set on edge when I hear someone casually say "same difference" when they have actually misspoken (not that you have ever said it, I'm just saying).  

    Parent

    On universal coverage (none / 0) (#138)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:19:31 PM EST
    Yes...you are correct that the definition of universal is not met. For the most part, I have tried to reference "near universal."  It is important, as you suggest, to get that definition right; and, so, my statement & contention is that the ACA moves us very significantly in the direction & to the reality of "near universality."  I accept that movement...for now.

    Parent
    During the campaign Obama said he (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    like the idea of single payer but didn't see it as a feasible next step. Instead he touted a system that resembles the ACA that was passed.

    But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system.

    "Why not single payer? People don't have time to wait," Obama said. "They need relief now. So my attitude is let's build up the system we got, let's make it more efficient, we may be over time--as we make the system more efficient and everybody's covered--decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively."

    source


    Parent
    I'd forgotten about that (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by sj on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    "Why not single payer? People don't have time to wait," Obama said. "They need relief now.

    Medicare was brought live in year.  With old, outdated computer technology.

    ACA doesn't go into full effect until 2014.  That's more efficient, I guess.

    Parent

    It's sad to say but, compared to the last couple (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 03:26:01 PM EST
    decades or so in Washington, 1965 was like a golden age of legislative simplicity.

    These days you can't get the House to pass a bill approving of puppies as proper pets for orphans if minorities or the poor happen to like puppies, and you can't get the Senate to vote on whether to vote on voting to vote on discussing whether to vote on their own version of the puppy approval bill.

    Then when the compromise bill restricting the approval of puppies to those that meow and use the litter box passes via procedural overrides, SCOTUS will knock it down because the framers didn't mention puppies once, ever, so having them as pets isn't constitutional - unless the lobbying firm one of the justices' wives works for gets the puppy approval marketing contract, then all bets are off.

    Yep, 1965. Good times.

    Parent

    Yeah, not to mention (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    just so lickity-split because people need relief now and don't have time to wait.

    Parent
    That doesn't even (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    make any sense on its own terms.

    Parent
    The ACA finally passed by (none / 0) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    reconciliation. Senate vote: 56 to 43.  House 220 to 207).  

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#130)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 05:51:03 PM EST
    I mean no one brought the Clinton Healthcare Plan before the Supreme Court or challenged the privatization of Social Security.

    Parent
    Shaping up as 5-4 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:49:03 AM EST
    Kennedy will be the swing vote.

    He asked tough questions but we'll see when the states take to the podium.

    For what it's worth here is the (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:59:31 AM EST
    argument against the mandate

    Parent
    That's what the interim updates (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    on SCOTUSBlog are saying, too, to my surprise.

    Parent
    Toobin et al (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    on CNN are reporting the whole thing was an utter train wreck for the admin. side, with the court vividly divided between left and right.  Toobin actually thought Roberts was showing more open-mindedness about the mandate than Kennedy.

    Toobin also says Solicitor General Verrilli was a disaster, seemed rattled, nervous, unprepared, didn't even have a good answer for the inevitable "broccoli" question.

    Parent

    Lyle Denniston (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    (who is not a lawyer) is more charitable in his assessment of SG Verilli.

    Parent
    This is a complicated case and, in my view, (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    reading the tea leaves from the Justices' questions at this point is just that, reading the tea leaves.  Indeed, Justice Thomas asks no questions, but we can generally tell which way he will decide.   And, the Supreme Court has not always taken the arguments made before it to heart and has even decided on matters actually not before it by either side.  

    Citizens United was extremely broad in scope considering it all started with the showing of "Hillary".  And, if determined to use tea leaves, it would not be unreasonable to (a) consider the possibility of grandstanding by the rightist Justices and (b) incorporate the notion that this is not just a legal case, but also, a political one (cf. Bush v Gore).

    Parent

    I guess DK doesn't agree with the president? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:56:43 AM EST
    Obama against the mandate

    The flip side of conservatives ... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:21:51 AM EST
    ... (Romney, Gingrich, Dole, Heritage Foundation, etc.) who were for the individual mandate, ...

    ... before they were against it.

    Parent

    It's not a mandate anymore... (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:22:39 AM EST
    it's a health insurance tax incentive. Or something, I don't know, I need a new newspeak dictionary as much as you do Slado:)

    I'd love for someone to explain to me the difference between "do this or we will fine you" and "do this or we will raise your taxes" or "do this or we will take away your tax break".  Whateva ya call it, at the end of the day Joe Blow is coughing up extra cash to Uncle Sam because he didn't get in bed with an insurance company, no?

    And using that same logic, don't we already have a mortgage mandate?  If you get in bed with BofA and get a mortgage, you get a tax break.  Decide to rent or pay in full in cash for a crib?  Taxman says that'll cost extra.

    One thing I am confident the government has the constitutional right to do is raise taxes to pay for medical care for its citizens should they become ill and can't afford treatment...whats the reason we can't just do that again?

    Parent

    We do (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    Yes, we do already have a mortgage mandate, which is one of the better arguments I've heard, seen, and made about why the medical insurance mandate (notice I didn't say healthcare mandate) is probably constitutional.

    But it's a tax increase, even if they don't want to say so because it's politically expedient not to say so.  And the way to avoid it is to buy medical (not health) insurance.  Just as people who can't afford to buy a house have to pay the mortgage tax, people who can't afford to buy insurance have to pay the insurance tax.  It's discriminatory toward people who are sitting on the cusp of poverty without actually being there.  And because of that, it's a travesty of epic magnitude.  But I think it's going to hold, sad to say.

    I agree with your last comment.  If we couldn't have a full on public option, it would have been awesome to extend a program like medicare to people who have been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  Medicare is currently a mecca of people with pre-existing conditions.  Adding a few more folks who are younger would likely have been less expensive than this...even with the new tax they're implementing!!! and it would have sacrificed the lives and livelihoods of far fewer people.  

    Of course, keep programs like insuring youngers until they're 26, etc.  But throw the rest out.

    Parent

    Good point... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    about the "cusp of poverty"...it's all well and good to say we won't punish those who can't afford it, but if you're using the official federal poverty level to gauge who can afford it, well thats an empty promise if I ever heard one.  The poverty level is ridiculously low to the point of being comedic....it's obviously set by people who haven't done their own grocery shopping in 20 years.

    Parent
    And a good point because (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:16:17 PM EST
    the parallel would be, then, to drop the minimum percentage of income required to deduct medical costs.

    Instead, set it up like the mortgage deduction -- those who pay for health insurance get the break, those who don't pay for health insurance don't get the break and pay more in taxes.

    Parent

    Actually,the will to do anything (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:28:25 PM EST
    In the all-consuming, contentious area of health care at the national level may disappear for a generation or so if the whole (or most of the whole) of ACA falls.  Think about the practical effect of the ACA loss interns of the present Congressional setup...ESP the demonstrated antipathy toward expansion of federal power so evident among a significant portion of the populace & hinted at today from the questions of key Supreme Court players.  The fact that so many are misinformed about the nature of the legislation to begin with is also a good predictor that the next several Congresses--repeating history--won't touch it with that mighty 10 foot pole.  (See HuffPo blip now about Sen. McConnell indicating that he would be in no hurry to replace ObamaCare with anything other than a bit & piece here & there.  The realities of the Congress.)

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:00:07 PM EST
    But that wasn't my point, nor does it address it at all, really.

    Parent
    I understand (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    Your point is interesting.  My point was only to suggest--in my downer reaction to the take of the day--that the Congress might respond to nothing with nothing...no restructuring, no innovations as to the health care cost dilemma, "no nothing."

    Parent
    Yeah but removing the pre-existing conditions ban (none / 0) (#131)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    without implementing a mandate creates a huge free-rider problem.

    Parent
    The difference (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    is you have a choice to buy a home or rent.

    You have a choice to buy a car or take the bus.

    You don't have a choice under this law of living in this country without insurance (unless you count suicide or moving to another country).

    That for us on the libertarian side is the constitutional question.  Can the government force you to buy something you could do without, not that it's a good idea to go without but you could.

    This in our view is a huge expansion of the federal mandate.  It is much more direct then favorable tax laws etc... in that you still have a choice, be it a good one or not.  

    You don't have to get married, you don't have to give to charity, you don't have to etc...  

    Under the mandate you don't have a choice.   Die, move or pay the tax/penalty/fine.

    That's the question that was hammered home by Kennedy.   The liberal justices IMHO gave pretty pathetic passes.   Why?  Because as I said yesterday they believe in a living breathing constitution where it is perfectly acceptable to continually and gradually expand the role of the Federal government.

    3 or 4 justices don't share that view and possibly 2 of them do with limits.

    The constitutional question is does the mandate puss the expansion too far and too fast.

    Sounds like 5 justices think it does.

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    You buying a car or getting married really doesn't affect ME. On the other hand, you not being covered DOES affect me because you will inevitably, unless you are in an extreme minority (survivalist, religion ), you will partake of the healthcare system at some point,  forcing me and everyone else to subsidize you and pay higher costs for our own care.

    Parent
    Point taken (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    However I will refer to Justice Kennedy...

    Here the government is saying the federal government has a duty to tell citizens it must act," Kennedy said. That changes the relationship between the government and the person "in a fundamental way.

    While I can see your point it is really a question of does the end justify the means?

    Why not just give a tax incentive to buy insurance?  As Ezra points out in his blog this would have totally gotten around this issue.

    For us on the libertarian side it is not that this particular mandate would be bad, I mean I have insurance after all, but that once this is approved by the court there is new and crystal clear precedent that the government (mainly congress) can compel you to buy something if it's in the common good.

    There are other ways to the same place and for us on the small government side this was an unnecessary step that overstepped the powers of congress.

    Parent

    I don't necessarily disagree (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    But the only way this works is to have everyone covered.  If you didn't have to buy insurance, then healthy people would only buy it when they got sick, thus increasing the costs to them and to everyone else.  You need healthy people in the pool to level out the costs.

    And with the CBO predicting (worst case scenario) that up to 20 million more people could lose their employer-sponsored insurance, in addition to the 35+ million that already don't have insurance, you are talking about a lot of people.

    Parent

    Which is exactly why... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    single payer was the way to go...everybody pays 100 dollars a year more in taxes, or whatever amount it takes to cover the nation's doctor bills, and the government pays the provider of care if you get sick.  If ya don't like it find and pay for your own care, it won't be the first time you paid taxes for a government service you don't use.

    My only concern with that is it opens the door for more government intrusion into our lives for the sake of keeping the national medical bill down...a prohibition of cheeseburgers for the "common good", or some nonsense like that could come of it.  Though I guess such intrusions are nothing new regardless.

    Parent

    "The National Medical Bill" (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:34:49 PM EST
    Is something like 1/6 of the entire US economy.

    Prohibition of cheeseburgers isn't even in the same universe for comparison.

    Parent

    How does Canada do it then? (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    They've proved it possible, though not without it's own set of problems.

    Parent
    Who is going to invade Canada?? (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    They have a much smaller military budget, for one, because no one would dare try something against them because of their proximity to the US.  They also have one-tenth the population.

    Parent
    And one-tenth the taxpayers... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    if the only obstacles are the military industrial complex, defending other countries for free, and Romney's tax rate then we really have no obstacles...we're just not interested.

    Parent
    That may be true (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    But the reality is, we DO have the military we have, we ARE engaged in "wars" (whatever that is), WE were actually attacked on our soil in 9/11 - (you can argue the merits of our foreign policy since then, but that isn't the point), and here we are. We also spend 1.8% more of GDP than Canada (2007) on old age & survivors' benefits than Canada does, we spend slightly more on education, 6% more on health care, (and they collect 7.1% more in taxes as compared to GDP than we do).

    Could we do away with some other expenses to pay for health care?  Absolutely.  The problem is, getting people to agree what we can do without.

    Parent

    I've often wondered that (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sj on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:20:40 PM EST
    The problem is, getting people to agree what we can do without.
    Well, kind of.  I've actually wondered what our national priorities would look like if we, the actual tax payers, could designate where our tax dollars would be spent.

    For example, my priorities would be to keep the SS and Medicare deductions.  Put $$ currently spent on Health Insurance into national single payer system and divide my actual taxes into the following buckets.

    1.  Free daycare for "welfare" mothers
    2.  Public transportation innovation
    3.  Green technology research
    4.  National Endowment for the Arts
    5.  Public works
    6.  Funding of public education -- to include higher education
    7.  Foot/bicycle/horse/auto police patrol.
    8.  OSHA
    9.  Federal and State regulatory agencies

    More or less.  See what is NOT on there?  DOD, militarized police, bank bailouts, NSA, DHS, TIA.  All kinds of expensive stuff.

    In theory, some taxpayers would be devoted to things that I don't care about, and our national priorities would be met.  Yes/no?

    Parent

    I like your list (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:31:09 PM EST
    But some taxpayers would want things like faith-based education, more military, more cops, less foreign aid, lowrr taxes, eliminate the Department of Education, etc.

    But I think for most we could find some middle ground.

    Problem is, states get money and jobs for those entrenched things like military bases and politicians keep getting elected for bringing home the bacon.

    Parent

    I pointed this out to a Republican friend once (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:34:04 PM EST
    When she told me that some people have moral objections against paying for abortions.  I told her some peopke have moral objections against paying for bombs and airplanes. Even though her husband is an Air Force officer, she stopped and stared and finally agreed with me.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:44:57 PM EST
    like a lot of our other problems, we're our own worst enemy.

    Parent
    Canada can do it (none / 0) (#68)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    because the SERVICES cost less.  We focus on the demand, but supply is the issue also.  Nonetheless, Canada is having issues controlling costs just like everyone else.  Their system is different, not necessarily better.  You also can be sure all the folks that work in the health care industry won't sign off on a pay-cut (not to mention the inevitable damage to the economy, as a whole swarth of service jobs disappear).

    We are all part of the Ponzi scheme to one degree or another.

    Parent

    I hear you too... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:42:34 PM EST
    Ponzi scheme...nice analogy.

    The financial system nearly collapses in 2008, indicating major systemic problems.  What do we do?  Double-down on that system....push the problem down the road.

    The healthcare system has major systemic problems, what do we do?  Double-down on that system...push the problem down the road.

    I don't pretend to have any answers, maybe the hard truth is the best we can do is stall the day of real reckoning, I don't know...but I think we really lack more than anything, like Dadler always says, is imagination.  We get married to a way of doing things regardless if it is the best way of doing things, unable to imagine a better way and give it a shot.

    Parent

    Of course it does. (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    Because, inevitably (to use your word) not getting married means fewer children, and if I do I'm probably gonna skip paying the freight for them... Same for cars... If I don't buy one the car company loses which effects the economy which effects me...

    So yes, NOT buying something affects us all.

    The question is, does the government have the right to make us buy something "for the common good?" And if so, what is the common good and when will we have a definitive list?

    Let me see..... But a new Volt or pay a $1000 fine.... Buy 2% milk or pay a $10 fine....

    Parent

    You don't need to get married to have children :) (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:35:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Did you miss?? (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:52:15 PM EST
    and if I do I'm probably gonna skip paying the freight for them


    Parent
    Maybe I'm missing something... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:43:20 PM EST
    you still have a choice with ACA...buy insurance or pay more taxes/pay a fine/pick todays term for more money going from your pocket to the government.

    I share that libertarian concern my friend...I'm serious in my concern that it could set a precedent for a bank account mandate, or a 401k mandate.

    Parent

    I was listening to NPR this morning, (none / 0) (#26)
    by itscookin on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:46:29 PM EST
    and heard that one of the judges asked, "Since everybody dies, would it follow that the government could require everyone to purchase funeral insurance?" I live across the street from a funeral home, and there is a great deal of difference in the obvious expense some people go to bury their loved ones vs others who keep it simple. How big is the funeral services lobby? Would insurance enough to cover a pine box and/or a cremation be sufficient? Or we would we be required to have enough insurance to cover a horse-drawn carriage, a bronze casket, and a 12 piece band?

    Parent
    Big difference there (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    The cost to the government if no one pays to pick up your body and dispose of it is a finite cost of few hundred to have it cremated or buried in a pauper's field, depending on where you live.

    The cost to the government of paying your emergency room bills for the rest of your life is considerably greater.

    Parent

    What is the price point where the government (none / 0) (#74)
    by itscookin on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    can mandate that I make a purchase? Cremation w/o any other services cost @$2000 in my neck of the woods. No further maintenance required so it's the cheapest choice. It's OK with you if I stick you with the bill for that. How about special education for my kids? Should there be a point where I'm expected to cover some of the cost of that myself or is OK for taxpayers without any children to pay the thousands of extra dollars a year to educate my kids? Should parents be required to buy "education insurance" just in case they have a child with special needs. Those bills can equal any catastrophic health bill.

    Parent
    One example (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 06:15:51 AM EST
    In Oregon, state creations cost the state $450.00, not 2000.00 (as with most thing, consumers in the free market pay a big markup).

    Here is a link, to a NY Times story, but in case it is behind a firewall, here is the quote:

    Financing in Oregon comes from fees paid to register the deaths with the state. The state legislature in June voted to raise the filing fee for death certificates to $20 from $7, to help offset the increased costs of state cremations, which cost $450.

    Your analogy of special ed education is a much better one than the one the justice put forward. I don't pretend to know the answer of what the price point should be. I just wish the justice had used a better analogy - one that it took less than 5 minutes of thought and research to answer.

    Parent

    I'd be willing to bet that lame (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 06:18:18 AM EST
    analogy came from a Tea Party briefing,

    Parent
    I understand the point you're trying to make (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by sj on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:01:43 AM EST
    But I wanted to say for the record:
    is OK for taxpayers without any children to pay the thousands of extra dollars a year to educate my kids?
    Absolutely.  The "thousands of dollars" hyperbole notwithstanding, absolutely.  A well educated populace benefits the entire community.

    Parent
    And special ed (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:40:37 PM EST
    keeps, I would bet, a fair number of people from ending up as large consumers of safety net services and/or institutionalization.  Better not just for the kid and his/her parents, but for all of our pocketbooks in the long run.

    Parent
    For one thing, those (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    are entirely state responsibilities.  And that means that, yes, your state could mandate such insurance.  Generally, though, states help to pay for these things through fees and taxes, meaning everybody pays a little bit of the cost.

    Parent
    there are financial incentives (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    from the government if you buy a house vs. rent.  Just like if you buy insurance vs. you don't.  It's not like they are throwing you in jail.

    If you don't buy a house, you are paying the mortgage tax.  If you don't get married, you are paying a single tax.  That's how it works.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    but you still have a choice.

    Act as the government would like you to act and get a handout.   Don't and you don't get the break.

    For some it doesn't make financial sense to buy a house or get married so it's not a hard choice at all.

    That is a big difference between do want or we'll fine you.  

    I suppose the only other way to make the same point would be to make it illegal or against the law to not have insurance.   Rather then have the government tax you.

    And as president Obama said in 2008 many, many times the mandate is not really enforceable anyway so why bother?

    Parent

    it's not any different (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    to me if I am paying more to the government for not having a house, or if I am paying more to the government for not having insurance.

    Call it a fine or a tax or whatever you want, it's the same money out of my pocket to the same people.

    I get that you are trying to differentiate between the government giving you money to do something vs taking your money if you don't do something, but in reality there is no actual difference, since the amount they can take from you to begin with is arbitrary and can change whenever.

    Parent

    There is no difference if you (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:46:45 PM EST
    where going to do it anyway.

    There is a huge difference if it's not in your interest to do so.

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 07:18:21 AM EST
    get why conservatives don't like this law. The ones here in GA have been complaining forever about all these people who don't have insurance and buy big screen TVs instead of buying insurance. Of course, same said conservatives always seem to have the VA or some other government program that pays THEIR insurance. Here comes something that ends the "freeloading" and is something that the GOP itself even proposed in 1994 as a solution to our crisis and they are screaming about how horrible it is.  I find the ignorance of conservatives to amazing on this and a lot of other subjects. I even said this to conservative friends and all I got was a blank stare back at me.

    This whole debate has proven to me that the GOP really has no ideological compass and they are bankrupt and bereft of ideas. They are just a bunch of knee-jerkers who are against something because Obama is for it.

    George W. Bush expanded Medicare and they said nothing about it.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#92)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 08:12:40 AM EST
    Of course, same said conservatives always seem to have the VA or some other government program that pays THEIR insurance.

    Why would the VA provide conservatives THEIR insurance?

    Parent

    Because some (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 08:26:49 AM EST
    of them are veterans and get health care from the VA. Two of the biggest ones that I know that are yelling about this law got their healthcare from the VA one even getting a heart bypass totally gratis from the government. So in essence it's kind of like it's okay for them to get this stuff, just not "other people". I guess conservatives consider themselves to be "special" and extra deserving of this kind of stuff. One was even yelling because Bill Clinton started making them pay a small premium a year. What a bunch of whiners.

    Parent
    So the conservatives just show (none / 0) (#101)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    up to the VA and demand healthcare and get it? Or do they have to perform a service, or some other duty in order to earn the care?  Are You also implying  "progressives" can't do the same thing at the VA?  

    Parent
    Never said (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    progressives don't get health care from the VA. I'm just saying that conservatives are against any health care reform and are screaming wrongly about people getting "free insurance". It's the hypocrisy silly. If they actually had to be in the individual insurance market, they would be singing a different story. It's another example of conservatives screaming about how they got theirs and could care less about the rest of the country that is in fact paying for their healthcare while many of the people paying for the VA have no access to healthcare.

    Parent
    How is the VA free? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    Did not the people who receive the care from the VA provide a service to the gov't?  Was there not a contract between the gov't and those evil conservatives who receive the care?  You make it sound as if those people who receive care from the VA have done nothing but clomp on in and demand it.  

    Parent
    And what (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 02:07:17 PM EST
    about the tax payers that have funded it for them? That's my point. They seem to think that it's okay for the tax payers to support their medical costs. But they don't want to pay for anybody else's medical care.

    I don't begrudge them the coverage but the hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

    Conservatives: It's okay for the tax payers to pay for MY insurance but I certainly don't want to pay for anybody else to have coverage like I do.

    Parent

    That was not your point: (none / 0) (#116)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    Two of the biggest ones that I know that are yelling about this law got their healthcare from the VA one even getting a heart bypass totally gratis from the government.

    You think these two guys did nothing to earn the healthcare they are receiving from the VA.  The answer is for the taxpayers to get out of the VA business, I guess.  

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 02:33:36 PM EST
    but they seem to like their "government insurance" and I'm sure they would be squealing like stuck pigs if they had to go into the individual market for insurance.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    you completely missed my point. Their point is that they don't want the ACA but yet are getting their healthcare "free". Maybe they should just recuse themselves from these kind of arguments. They don't like Medicare either. I get tired of the "I'm so special" argument from conservatives.

    Parent
    They are not getting their healthcare for free (none / 0) (#119)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    They provided the gov't a service and healthcare is part of the contract for that service.  

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    because Bill Clinton made them pay a small annual premium and they are whining about that. You would think that the people that served our country would be a little tougher when it came to this kind of stuff.

    So you now agree that we can't get rid of Social Security or Medicare because people have been paying for the contract with their salary deductions?

    And again, it's the hypocrisy.


    Parent

    Where on earth did I ever say (none / 0) (#124)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 05:28:26 PM EST
    we can get rid of SS or medicare?  Can you find anywhere I ever said that?  Projecting again?  As for the hypocrisy you keep talking about, You blathered about someone you know getting an operation "Totally Gratis". Now lets get back to that statement....

    Parent
    Do you have a problem with Union (none / 0) (#103)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 11:16:45 AM EST
    members getting their healthcare paid for as part of a contract?

    Parent
    Are they (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 11:27:43 AM EST
    against other people getting health insurance?

    Parent
    some are, some aren't (none / 0) (#113)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:53:37 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    Do you have a problem with Union (none / 0) (#103)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 11:16:45 AM EST

    members getting their healthcare paid for as part of a contract?

    No, nope, nyet, nein.  Speaking for myself only.


    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:22:53 PM EST
    That's the way they should have approached it. We're raising everyone's taxes by $1000/yr.  If you have insurance, because you're fortunate enough to have a job or otherwise be able to afford insurance, you get $1000 deduction.

    Of course, they'd all lose their jobs for that.  As they should.


    Parent

    Seems that we are compelled, forced , (none / 0) (#37)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    And even mandated to pay into Social Security (with few exceptions.). How different is Social Security?

    Parent
    If you don't work and don't get paid (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:36:45 PM EST
    then you don't pay.

    You have a choice to work or not.

    Parent

    You do? (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    Break down the no work option for me pal...I am very interested! ;)

    Parent
    Kdog, I didn't say you get to eat.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:30:51 PM EST
    but really... do the homeless pay FICA??

    BTW - You don't pay FICA on SocSec payments...

    You do pay FIT based on your income level

    Parent

    the homeless unemployed (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    won't be paying for the health insurance mandate either.

    Parent
    Spouses can opt out (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 05:24:06 PM EST
    One breadwinner, one person paying in.  Kids don't pay in.  But kids and spouses will have to have insurance.

    Parent
    "The Butler" (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    A future movie, "The Butler," a story on Eugene Allen, the White House butler from 1952 to 1986 from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan, provides a smile for the day.

    Director Lee Daniels has chosen Jane Fonda to play Nancy Reagan.

    Dear lord (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    I can only imagine how my conservative brethren will be up in arms about that one.

    I try to live by the model "love the art, not the artist" but needless to say many on the right will be upset to find out that Commie Jane is playing the most beloved first lady ever.

    Let the fireworks begin.

    Parent

    the most beloved by who? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    6% of the population?

    You need to get out more, my friend.

    Parent

    She is not one of my favorites (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    I'm simply pointing out the inevitable hulla balloh.

    See Reagan movie with BS husband, see Clinton movie blaming him for Bin Laden, etc...

    No Card Carrying member of the Reagan Army is going to go see a movie where Jane Fonda plays his wife.

    I will if the reviews are good because I'm so open minded.   Some of my conservative brethren will not.

    Parent

    Who cares what they think? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    Seriously. They're in love with the cartoon version of the Reagans. Reality is not their strong suit.

    And honestly, the Vietnam War ended 37 years ago this coming month. And speaking as someone who lost his father there, when it comes to Jane Fonda, I have no problem telling the wingers to either get over it, or take their whining someplace else.

    Speaking of which, we're going to Vietnam in June. I can't wait.

    Parent

    We're all commie Janes now (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    Afghanistan and Iraq, a decade plus in, are turning many former chickenhawks into "peaceniks."

    Parent
    That's actually (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:33:57 AM EST
    perfect casting.  That's a movie I may want to see.

    Parent
    you mean because Jane and Nancy (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:06:13 PM EST
    have both had about the same amount of 'work done'?

    Parent
    No, actually (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:40:33 PM EST
    I mean because of the slightly brittle and guarded personalities of both women, plus the fact that Jane Fonda is a terrific actress in the right part.

    Parent
    More in the Trayvon Martin case (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    Last week his mother filed trademark applications to protect his name.

    According to TMZ:

    Sybrina Fulton is seeking trademarks for "I Am Trayvon" and "Justice for Trayvon" so that the phrases can be placed on digital products like CDs and DVDs.

    Her lawyer said she is not doing this for profit.

    She's entitled even if she did (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    Seems to me the overwhelming motivation here is horror at seeing sharks making money off of her son's death.

    Parent
    And Martin's family is going to Congress. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    BUt isn't this a matter of FL law?  States' rights?

    Parent
    They want Civil Rights violations charged (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:03:04 PM EST


    Parent
    I am anti-mandate (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    That said, I have to wonder why Verrilli was appointed to argue the administration's side.  Weren't there better or at least, more competent advocates?

    One has to wonder if the administration also wants the mandate overturned.  Judging by how things turned out today, you have to wonder.

    Have you listened to the audio or (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:36:07 PM EST
    Read today's transcript?  Initially, Toobin's alarm was quite troubling...but, maybe we should let tomorrow play out, etc.

    Parent
    I read (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    parts of the transcript. Mr. V(sp) was intimidated, I think.

    Parent
    He's the solicitor general (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    Arguing SC case is his primary job.  And FWIW, he apparently did reasonably well in the lower courts where he argued, so his bad performance today seems to have come as something of a shock to court-watchers like Toobin.

    But I haven't heard/read a lot of other opinions about what went down today, and I wouldn't want to rely solely on Toobin's interpretation.

    Parent

    Many of the (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    other opinions from today say that the mandate is in trouble.

    Parent
    site violator (none / 0) (#41)
    by the capstan on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 01:36:02 PM EST


    zimmerman's attorney flees interview ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 10:00:49 AM EST
    ... with Lawrence O'Donnell.

    Wouldn't you? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 01:50:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 05:23:12 PM EST
    Seriously, though ... he should never have agreed to go on in the first place if he wasn't going to follow through.  Makes it look like he's afraid of tough questions.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#142)
    by Euro News Magazine on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:33:13 AM EST
    Euro News
    Fırsat

    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 141 comments (141 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment