« Phoenix 101: What went wrong | Main | District 4 »

November 01, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks, Jon. As a cancer patient,and patient advocate, it's been appalling to see "shoddy, lazy or driven by politics" content from journalists and "news personalities" and bloggers pretending to be journalists, as the content has been spread through social media into online patient groups and passed on as "facts." These actions harm and alarm people who already have enormous challenges in understanding, navigating and paying for health care. Much of the "sound bite" coverage has shown disregard for people who already are patients or at some point will be living with a serious or chronic condition. This is shameful on many levels.

One book I cannot recommend enough is Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind in which he explains the common undemocratic strain running though reactionaries from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin.

And while there's nothing inherently wrong with bipartisanship - it's simply a process by which things can be accomplished and those things can be good or bad or neutral - I do wish people would stop fetishizing it based on the period of time in the mid-20th century when "both sides worked together" to pass momentous things like Civil Rights Acts and Medicare. The reason for the bipartisanship was that reactionaries were more evenly distributed between the parties, with the Dixiecrats in the Dems and John Birchers in the GOP. (There's more complexity to it than that but it's the gist of what was going on.) Today the radical reactionaries have a comfortable home in the GOP. Which is why trying to compromise with them is usually a waste of time if not actually insane.

Rogue, you give Republicans too much credit. The Republican Party deserves none and s.....cks.

ACA with its glitches is a vast improvement over the pre -existing conditions era. It places some power in the hands of the individual insured but asks some effort from the individual to navigate the soon to be improved website and have a basic understanding of coverage options. Not rocket science, but given the spoon fed mentality regarding health care in the US, it is not surprising the change is creating anxiety even though ACA provides opportunity for those who have had to obtain insurance for themselves directly.

I'm sorry...cannot really respond...well...yes I can..
PRIOR "SHUTDOWN"...the last deal the House sent to the Senate was FULL FUNDING, but a Delay in the ACA for Citizens, like was given to big business and others.
It's "NO NEGOTIATIONS" Reid who wouldn't even bring it up for a vote..it's REID who is most responsible for the "SHUTDOWN"...and, while we are at it, the shutdown was NOT as bad as the White House made it...Many things Obama "shutdown" were funded...he just wanted America to hurt and try to do as much damage to the GOP as he could...and it worked, for a while.
Fast forward a couple weeks...TOTAL FAILURE of the web site the Administration had over 3 years to build...NO TESTING of this "no bid" contract to a foreign company with a proven failure rate...(remember, we found out Canada hired them for their Health Care site and it NEVER worked, so they were FIRED by Canada..(and the story of Vallarie Jarrett's daughter being a higher up in that Company??).. Maybe that's why a no bid, failure company got the job.
And now?? MANY Democrat Senators (up for reelection) are calling for a longer delay for the ACA?.. They (President Failure Obama) has delayed the signing up til March 31 next year.
And yes...the GOP never liked this "LAW", but remember...the GOP was not invited to participate in the law, and NONE voted for it. It's a total Democratic law that is not working..
Yes..."you have to pass this Bill to know what is in it"....Problem is, when they passed it, THEY didn't know what was in it.
It will be far from an AFFORDABLE CARE ACT by the time ALL the fees and taxes kick in.
CONGRESS should pass NO law that doesn't apply to them equally.. They are exempt from showing financially that they should get a subsidy , like we are...they gave themselves a 72% subsidy! no matter what their income! and most are millionaires.
Having aid all that, Jon, I'll wait and see who wants to start the name calling after they read my opinion.

And this is for Doñna...

Remember how much the Democrats alienated the GOP..From 2009 til 2012 they had total control of the House, Senate and Executive branch of our Government, and ALWAYS let the GOP know that.
Now that the GOP controls the House, REID et all don't like it and result to name calling constantly.
Just wait...times are a changin

This report just in...(and it's FEAR of not getting re-elected)???

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) may regret doubling down on Obamacare earlier this summer as she suddenly realizes that her support for unpopular law will likely come back to haunt her next year in her re-election bid.

Politico reported yesterday that Landrieu would introduce a measure that would allow Americans to keep their health insurance coverage amid a flurry of reports documenting that hundreds of thousands of people have been told that they will lose their plans because of Obamacare. A similar measure has already been introduced by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).

“The promise was made, and it should be kept,” said Landrieu via Politico. “And it was our understanding when we voted for that bill that people when they have insurance could keep with what they had. So I’m going to be working on that fix.”

Jon, et all..
This is a long read that I'm attaching that was written by a well respected attorney/professor of Constitutional Law that sheds more light on the ACA debacle....

Interesting that this was written in 2012:\The Truth About Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
The Truth About the Health Care Bills

The Truth About the Health Care Bills*- Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated*into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea.
This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.” If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly (First published in June 2012)Retired attorney,Constitutional Law InstructorCarrollton, Texas
- See more at: http://www.lindseywilliams.net/the-t....FJGRfnbV.dpuf
Like · · Share
Lauri Kraft likes this.

Skip, what did the Democrats do that was so different than the Republican-controlled houses under Bush? The Republicans find themselves in this mess, because people (even Republicans) need a functional government. My way or the highway doesn't work (unless of course you're building a freeway and your brother-in-law/family/spouse owns a construction company and then its doable). Landrieu will lose because she is the problem with both parties -- she is beholden to corporations and the wealthy. If Brewer wasn't restricted, she would win the governorship handily even after her "double-down". And those flurry of "reports" are the usual propoganda and lies -- its too soon to know.

Really, I was hoping for a single-payer system. I could retire in a few years if such a thing existed but if its not around the corner, I'll have to work 16 more years (until I'm 71 - ugh!) so my wife will have coverage under Medicare too! I'd much rather see a younger person take my place and make a good living rather than burning myself out because there is no medical relief (other than death, and boy oh boy, that's gonna cost ya' too).

HAAAAAA..sorry about that late retirement date...I highly recommend retirement!
I am fortunate, as I have some VA Healthcare, Medicare, and I still pay for my secondary insurance through my former employer (I am retired)..
I will wait and see with the ACA, but I do think there is more bad than good there...time and Constitutional tests will tell.
Good luck to you...
I read now that NBC, a strong supporter of Obama and the ACA are now VERY displeased with their new MUCH HIGHER insurance rates..


This "Skip" gent must kinda like reading his stuff. Seems premature to pronounce ACA as DOA. I have a friend in the middle of this fracas and it is clear that the Obama administration resembles the gang who couldn't shoot straight, but am brought down to reality by reading Time's "Bitter Pill", which would be a good primer for us all.

Skip can comment to his heart's content. His comments are welcome.

You know how there are times when a single action or comment can say a whole lot about the nature of someone or something?

This caught my eye today and it says everything about the state of mind of this state of ours.

There was a readers poll in the White Mountain Independent, a "newspaper" in Show Low.

The subject is the upcoming vote to provide fund over-rides for the school district up there.

I'm going to type the choice which was selected by 61 % of the respondents:


That statement defines Arizona better than anything else I've ever read.

It is illogical, delusional and show that these people, the majority, have no concept of the connection between service desired and how those services are supposed to be paid for.

You all know that I hate government over-reach, but Lord, I understand the connection between our responsibility to society as a whole to pay our fair share for the betterment of this and future generations. It's the cost of living in a society.

What's scarier, the fact they don't want to pay their way, or that they don't even understand the concept itself.

I can vouch for Skip. He's good people. We disagree on politics. I welcome all viewpoints here.

Skip, you are a star! Thanks for taking this socialist mob on.

The socialists I can deal with. The out and out communists drive me crazy with their naïve view of the world.

White Mountain Apache Tribe!!!

You are, sadly, pretty much right on. The Greedy Old Pricks have pretty much ruined our political system starting with smile and a wink Reagan to the current day snarl and sneer crowd.

ACA will make it easier for you to retire before Medicare. Target your income to maximize the subsidy. It is surprisingly generous. The greatest restraint for pre -Medicare retirement were pre -existing conditions which ACA prohibits.

Do the numbers don't listen to the crowd noise. The website will be working well enough soon for you to do so.

Are there any Americans who bother to count before they start to rant?

The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

Free abortions are not happening under the ACA, Skip. Which is too bad since women are people and abortion is legitimate health care. Women pay taxes, health insurance premiums, and work at jobs where health insurance is often part of our compensation. Denying us coverage for a procedure that 1/3 of women of us avail ourselves of and (as several employers are currently demanding) contraception which 98% of us use in our lifetimes is nothing short of gender discrimination and borderline sexual harassment.

And considering how "abortion" is being thrown around to describe medications and treatments that don't even end pregnancies, i.e. emergency contraception and IUDs, the claim that providers and conservative taxpayers are being "forced" into performing abortions is getting increasingly farcical. There are lots of things the government does that I don't approve of, yet I still have to support them via my taxes. For some reason, reactionaries have enjoyed special consideration for their creepy obsession with punishing sluts. It needs to stop because it is really harming public health.

The only thing I can take issue with is the assertion that healthcare is a basic human right. I'm all for people having access to affordable care, but the utopian ideal ignores the truth that healthcare costs money. That means someone has to pay for it. So where does the money come from?

The underlying issue is the cost of healthcare. We're only talking about this issue because it isn't affordable any more. Logically if costs continues to increase faster than incomes, it will eventually become unaffordable to anyone, even the federal government.

In my ideal world, health insurance would work the same as auto or home insurance. You pay for leaky faucets and broken alternators out of your pocket. We think nothing of that. If someone totals your car or a tornado tears off your roof, though, you have the ability to recover from the disaster. I'd prefer to pay for checkups and broken bones myself, but have insurance for catastrophic maladies that would otherwise break me financially.

I don't see a way to get there from here, though, because even a broken bone is too expensive to pay for out of pocket.

I'd really like to see the issue of cost control addressed. Arguing about who pays misses the point.

Time's "Bitter Pill" issue is a keeper because it pulls back the curtains on the inner workings of hospital charges and big pharma and big insurers. I'm trying to become a better student here because I certainly am not an authority! Sorry 'bout the big web address . . . .


Hear, hear Donna Gratehouse! I support everything you said in your last post, but I especially enjoyed:
"For some reason, reactionaries have enjoyed special consideration for their creepy obsession with punishing sluts. It needs to stop because it is really harming public health."

Thank you

Left a note to Chris Thomas on the previous thread.

How many?
8 billon?
I told you!!!!!

Jon on "Republican" legislation is supported and added too in the October 21 issue of the New Yorker article, Talk of the Town, comment, "Impeach Obama".


I happen to share your apparent concern about the creeping, or perhaps ggalloping, march to authoritarianism in America. What I don't understand is why righties continually cite pooling of health care risk as Exhibit A for looming fascisim. Two presidents in a row have claimed for themselves the power to indefinitely detain or kill Americans, with no due process whatsoever. That's not so different than a king sending peasants to the tower. The NSA appears to be recording all of our communications. The fourth amendment right to privacy barely exists.

Since we have numerous examples of manifested authoritariansim here today, I don't understand why Exhibit A for righties concerned about degradation of the bill of rights is a bill that mandates pooling of health care risk. Or why righties have a fetish about the free speech rights of corporations, creatures of the state that enjoy limited liability and perpetual existence. Honestly, I don't get it.

We are, indeed, in grave danger of losing even more of our liberty. But health care reform should be among the least of our worries.

Skip -- "The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession."

Another part of the ACTUAL bill (as interpreted by some guy I know) was that the afterbirth of late term abortions would be processed and sold to pizzerias as a sort of ersatz pepperoni topping -- to defray the costs of all the FREE STUFF.

You could look it up!

side note -- 'Dick' sounds an awful lot a paid RNC troll. Like David Frum, David Brooks and sometimes even Charles Krautthammer, he develops a seemingly reasonable tone before lurching off into Konservative Krazy.

We have a lot of them in Seattle. You guys at Rogue should be glad you've attracted one of the better ones.

If you were a farmer and you had a hen house with fox problems, you would not invite the fox to come up with rules on how to deal with the problem.

That is what Obama did by inviting the health carriers to write the law.

Instead of a 2,000 page abomination of a bill, they, congress, could have passed a two paragraph bill stating the following:

No American citizen shall be denied health insurance coverage for any reason.

No American citizen shall be charged more than 5% of their gross annual income for health insurance coverage.

That's it. problem solved.

The health insurance carriers would then be told to deal with it or get out of the business.

You would be amazed at how creative the carriers would have been at attacking the problem from an actuarial approach. They would now have the largest risk pool available to them ever. They would have made it work.

Instead, government stuck its ignorant, corrupt, ham-fisted hand into the mix and screwed everything up.

It will take trillions to try to fix the problem. Guess who will get the trillions?

The fox.

Reb -- "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

Why not just have government sponsored single-payer insurance -- like Medicare? Also, it's good to keep in mind that Obamacare was passed to make sure that uninsured Americans had a better shot at obtaining affordable insurance, not to create an awesome website.

The Fourth Branch of Government - Corruption.

And the reason for government, is?

What the "right wing nuts" in Idaho think about liberals and commies and animals and particularly non white folks,


Who supports SNAP cuts?


Who supports SNAP cuts?

By and large, Christians. BTW, 900,000 veterans are among those getting SNAP cuts. The Republican War on the Poor inflicts collateral damage on the very people keeping the plutocrats safe from the guillotines.

The only thing I can take issue with is the assertion that healthcare is a basic human right. I'm all for people having access to affordable care, but the utopian ideal ignores the truth that healthcare costs money. That means someone has to pay for it. So where does the money come from?

The underlying issue is the cost of healthcare. We're only talking about this issue because it isn't affordable any more. Logically if costs continues to increase faster than incomes, it will eventually become unaffordable to anyone, even the federal government.

Oh hey, Guy, I love how you think "humans" come out of nowhere. And they fold your t-shirts at The Gap and they remodel your house and they pick your produce and whatnot and then magically disappear! Isn't that nice? Why should you trouble your beautiful mind about how they get their health care, amirite?

Who supports SNAP cuts? No one who has seen people fighting over food in developing countries.

Drug testing for SNAP eligibilty. Give drug addicts additional incentives to commit crime?

What jmav said.

After Skip listed his gub'ment bennies, he's more of a socialist than any of the other proles here.

A side bar to who is not getting food stamps:
For those of you that recall my post's on "Zuni Enigma" by by Yaw Davis, there is more support for her theory's in a new book. "Who Discovered America" by Gavin Menzies and Ian Hudson.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz