« Phoenix 101: The Seventies | Main | What next? »

November 05, 2014

Comments

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

It is clear the right wing activist US Supreme Court will rule against the ACA. Does anyone think review has been accepted just so the US Supreme Court can let the US Court of Appeals know in writing that their undivided rulings in favor of upholding subsidies throughout the US is the right one?

A bifurcation of subsidy and non-subsidy states will brighten the dividing line in the Cold Civil War between Red and Blue. Unless the activist Supreme Court totally repeals all provisions of the ACA in non-subsidy states, those states will have individual insurance markets like New York had from the 1990's until enactment of the ACA. With prohibitions against insurance denying coverage for those individuals with pre-existing conditions and policy standards that actually had to provide coverage when people became ill, the New York individual market priced itself out of the market for all but the most desperate. 1 or 2 in 1000 eligible for the insurance bought it.

Now the right wing revolutionaries of the Republican Party will count on Obama lifting the other provisions in the non-subsidy state to revert back to the old, broken model the ACA has attempted to remedy. They themselves as true revolutionaries could not care less about the harm inflicted on humans in furtherance of their right wing march. Obama the moderate will cave, like most Democrats would, still not accepting this is a Red/Blue war winner take all.

I wish I were wrong.

Paul Krugman in this morning's Times is must-reading. If you live in Arizona, watch out. Elections have consequences and higher insurance premiums for you might be one of them. And if that's the case, thank your sociopathic Republican Party: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/opinion/paul-krugman-the-latest-frivolous-attack-on-obamacare.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I have a slightly dirty feeling after this weekend's marathon debate with a right-wing zealot. Is he worse than most? No. He's actually better. For one thing, he doesn't dismiss outright the need for health-care reform. His sui generis solution is absurd, but I'll give him credit for at least thinking a solution is necessary. On climate change, he doesn't mock the science so much as minimize its import. Still, for a Republican, that's much better than average. I vaguely wanted to reward this effort with something like a head pat.

But the problem is as obvious as it is obnoxious. No matter how well-meaning you are, you live in a nation where, if you take politics and governance seriously, you're either pulling for one team or the other. In this case, our zealot is pulling for a team of utter socipaths, making excuses for them, nitpicking the opposition (Six Demcoratic Senators!), and essentially obfuscating the actual terrain in order to make his team of sociopaths look better than they are. What good would a head pat do?

This election is going to have momentous consequences and it's going to come from a political party radicalized to the point of sabotaging the public good for political sport. I know what some of you are thinking: I'm the real zealot. Both parties do it! You always talk like this because you're shrill. The truth is in the middle!

To which I respond: bullshit. The truth wasn't in the middle during the Civil War. It wasn't in the middle during WWII. It wasn't in the middle during the epic struggle for civil rights. The truth isn't in the middle here. You either call this bullshit by name or you lose your moral agency. I despise the cowardice of the False Equivalency as much if not more so than the Republicans themselves. We're in a crisis. It's time to bear witness to this evil.

Soleri:

At least 22 differences:

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2012/08/romneycare_vs_obamacare_which.html

Look. I can actually understand your predicament. You, most of the nitwits that post here, the nutjobs over at Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, and Rachel Maddow bleat on about all the horrors of the GOP. You all post about obstructionism, and nihilism, and all the other isms, especially racism. And you pat yourselves on the back- yeah, we got it right, nice job Paul, you get 'em Rachel, brillant point Soleri, love that Obama, the horrors of white rich people, gated communities, more choo choos, yeah, he's got a phone and a pen, atta boy Holder, nice work Nancy, go get em Harry.


And then someone like me strolls along and says (and then documents!!) well, maybe some of those preconceived ideas aren't accurate. Maybe there are differences in GOP healthcare reform proposals and Obamacare, and maybe the GOP has made proposals. And maybe Harry Reid is an obstructionist in that he refuses votes on 1500 Senate amendments, about 1/2 of them by Democrats. And when Republicans supported a very limited application of cap and trade 24 years ago as part of a pretty sweeping bipartisan bill on pollution, well, gee, maybe that doesn't mean they're committed to cap and trade every time it pops up in any application.

And when that happens, guys like you are a combination of Homer Simpson and Charlie Cheswick from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. You stop for a second, a couple of brain neurons fire, and then you just tune it out and say, well, they're still obstructionist racist sociopath nihilists bird brain. Play, record. Rinse, repeat.

And here's the icing on the cake. Romney signed the bill but vetoed a handful of provisions (that's called a line item veto). Those vetoes were overriden by the Massachusetts legislature.

That anyone would want to intelligently discuss Obamacare vs Romneycare without knowing that boggles my mind.

Well, at least it used to.......

What's next, Homer??


Beware of sophisticated cause trolls. (Not Cause Troll, who is always welcome).

INPHX, I'll ask you one more time what those extremely important vetoes of Romney concerned and how they made Romneycare so radically different than Obamacare. You don't know, but in your parrotlike way, you will keep bringing them up as if it were the linchpin of an airtight argument. Self-flattery seems to work, at least in your overactive imagination. But if those policy differences were that important, you might actually know what they were. Just sayin....

Your cap-and-trade non-argument seems to center around the phenomenon of Democrats behaving like a governing party while Republicans are incapable of the same. Now pollution is a serious issue, and it's a wonderful thing when Republicans and Democrats could join hand in a common effort to alleviate its scourge 20-some years ago. And guess what? It worked. So when Democrats asked to apply the same Republican policy for a significantly worse threat, one might think that your party would want to reprise that Kumbaya moment of yesteryear. But no! And why would that be? Ah, yes. "The science isn't settled", "We have to wait until all the facts are in", "Global warming is the greatest hoax of all time", and "Earth stopped warming in 1998". Now, you might ask who could be so stupid as to think that the propaganda apparatus of Big Oil carries more authority that the collective research of all the world's climate scientists. You know the answer: your know-nothing, corporate-stooge, Republican party.

Aside from that, you remain a tribalist of Guns, God and Jeebus. It's your Republican Party, after all. I didn't tell you to make it Neo-Confederate, all white, and generally stupid. You don't have anyone smart on your side like Rachel Maddow but you do have fetching blondes like Laura Ingraham, Megyn Kelley, Ann Coulter, and the other shrieking banshees of right-wing "thought".

Thank you to all that participated in this most recent Talton blog. I thoroughly enjoyed the action.

Soleri:

At least 23 diffences:

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2012/08/romneycare_vs_obamacare_which.html

Romney had a line item veto. He signed the bill subject to his vetoes which were overriden. To think that you would come to a discussion about Romneycare without that knowledge just enforces that you have no interest in investigation. If Daily Kos says its so, well, that's good enough for you.

I understand why you have trouble with my posts. You, lots of the other posters on this blog, Krugman, the clowns over at Daily Kos and Mother Jones, Rachel Maddow, and a lot of the other lunatic left have these preconceived ideas and stereotypes about all things GOP. And then you post sbout them and everyone pats each other on the back. Great article, Paul. You're right again, Nancy. Go get those Republicans, Harry. Atta way, Daily Kos. Nice work, Rogue- they really are all racists nihilists other ists and lots of isms.

And then someone like me comes along and points out, well, there are differences in healthcare proposals. And the GOP did indeed have a plan. And gosh, Harry Reid kept 1500 amendments from coming to the Senate floor- maybe he's an obstructionist. And a limited cap and trade bipartisan agreement 24 years ago just might not mean the GOP would have to be committed to all things cap and trade anytime. And maybe, just maybe, it actually takes two for obstruction to succeed.

Your reaction?

A combination of Homer Simpson and Charlie Cheswick from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. A couple of brain neurons fire for a second or two, and then it's right back to old rich white men racist non serious sociopath nihilists. Play, record. Rinse, repeat.

I read the Krugman article earlier.

It is so typical of the inability to communicate in this country and that no one even pretends to have any objectivity or show any ability to actually analyze an issue.

Just in case former Enron advisor and VA recommender Paul Krugman missed it, a handful of federal judges disagree with his "view". But they must be idiots. And Krugman is suddenly an expert on Constitutional Law, I guess.

Here's a pretty good analysis with links supporing both arguments:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/17/debating-halbig-and-ppaca-implementation/


So, here's what we have.

Soleri posts a single article outlining a single view. But there's no counterview, there's no attempt at balance, there's no inclusion of other views. Just more racism sociopath nihilism.

This is a deep, deep constitutional issue. I respect both sides and acknowledge that a lot of judges have endorsed both sides. And Federal Circuit courts have split on their decisions.

I have spent enough time reading both sides to understand that Krugman's attempt to "analyze" the issue embarrasses the idea of Cliff Notes.

And Soleri's single, narrow, one size fits all endorsement of the Krugmeister embarrases him.

Nice analysis, Homer.

INPHX, this is my last post in this thread since it's clearly run out of steam. You're pretty much reduced now to your rhetorical tricks of the trade. You will not (or more likely, cannot) answer my question why Romney's vetos were so salient in explaining supposedly important differences between his health plan and Obamacare. You hide your card in a torrent of drool-specked verbiage, apparently in the hope no one will notice that omission. Believe me, no one cares except me, and I do notice. As far as your link about the 23 difference between Obamacare and Romneycare, I'm not sure what you want to show with that. The article was quite instructive. Yes, there are specific differences, some favoring Romney's and others favoring Obama's plan. But those differences are all ones of shaded degree, not basic policy. The individual mandate, the regulation of health insurance companies (which you oppose in Obama's plan but apparently not in Romney's), and subsidies are the main policy components in both laws. This policy came from the right and worked. You should take some pride in that right-wingers used to be sane and that our Kenyan-Marxist thug president signed the national version of that into law. Say it out loud: we were sane once and I'm proud!

@INPHX: I hope you have learned your lesson. It’s pointless to get into it with Soleri. He’s a smart guy and has a lot of good ideas – but discussing an issue is like wrestling with pigs.

Let’s look at the evolution of one aspect of your “debate”:
It start’s something like: it wasn’t really Obamacare it was Romneycare. Ergo, it was really a GOP plan. But the GOP voted, almost to a man against it. So it wasn’t really a vote against the plan, it was against Obama – ergo – nothing but a bunch of nihilist, racist, sociopaths; and so are you.

You’ve started to dip into the climate issue. Again, I say, stay away and if you must, stick a single issue. I’d recommend the “science is settled” issue.

You’ll find that this is a very illuminating site. But just chill. I admit to having way too many brewskies and wading in on things on things I shouldn’t have. You’re best off just sitting on the sidelines and reading. There are a lot of things you can weigh in on (e.g. why does Phoenix suck?) without a lot of the BS.

Or you can grow very thick skin.

P.S. Way to go ASU with win over Notre Dame. I’ve been a somewhat admirer of the program from the Frank Krush days (or something like that) in the 60’s. Tough-ass team who would play anybody-anywhere.

@INPHX: I hope you have learned your lesson. It’s pointless to get into it with Soleri. He’s a smart guy and has a lot of good ideas – but discussing an issue is like wrestling with pigs. Let’s look at the evolution of one aspect of your “debate”:

It start’s something like: it wasn’t really Obamacare it was Romneycare. Ergo, it was really a GOP plan. But the GOP voted, almost to a man against it. So it wasn’t really a vote against the plan, it was against Obama – ergo – nothing but a bunch of nihilist, racist, sociopaths; and so are you.

You’ve started to dip into the climate
issue. Again, I say, stay away and if you must, stick a single issue. I’d recommend the “science is settled” issue.

You’ll find that this is a very illuminating site. But just chill. I admit to having way too many brewskies and wading in on things on things I shouldn’t have. You’re best off just sitting on the sidelines and reading.

There are a lot of things you can weigh in on (e.g. why does Phoenix suck?) without a lot of the BS.

Or you can grow very thick skin.

P.S. Way to go ASU with win over Notre Dame. I’ve been a somewhat admirer of
the program from the Frank Krush days (or something like that) in the 60’s. Tough-ass team who would play anybody-anywhere.

INPHX won that round, in my opinion. Way to go guy.

Jonathan Gruber was interviewed by PBS Frontline. “He [Gruber] was involved in the development of Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan -- aka "Romneycare" -- as well as the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare."”

I think Gruber is on the money when he said, “This is not a federal takeover. There is a huge role for states in implementing health care reform. There are all these lies that opponents just realized they could put out there, and it was a complicated enough bill that they could get away with it. And it's unfortunate that it has worked out that way. ...”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/the-frontline-interview-jonathan-gruber/#seg13

Terry Dudas there U going being judge and jury again. Cant believe you still live in Baja Arizona.

Believe it, Cal.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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