213 replies to this topic

[Jim Ohara]

It'd be a hell of an October surprise.

[Sean Murphy]

With all this talk about the Supreme Court and Obamacare, I think I've finally figured out the Republican plan for health care that would actually work. I call it the "let me die" amendment. They don't want the individual mandate because they say the govment can't tell them what to buy, fair enough. But we can't let them participate in our health system if they aren't paying their fair share into it when they can afford to do so, right? So what this would say is, if you want insurance, you can have it. There will be subsidies to help people afford it if they can't, but it's their choice whether to take it or not. If they choose not to, then they have to carry on their person a card that identifies them as ineligible for medical treatment of any kind without paying in advance.

If they ever do end up in the hospital they would have this card checked, and would receive no treatment, carried out of the building in whatever state they were found. If they are missing their card and cannot express their desire not to be treated by medical science, and are thus treated, then they have to pay back their medical bills, in full, within the month (or take out a loan to pay it off). Medical bills would not be eligible for bankruptcy protection, if you can't pay them off then you serve jail time. If they are conscious when admitted and fail to disclose that they have chosen to die then it would be insurance fraud, and they would be charged as such.

I've heard variations of this approach before and the "principled conservative" response has been that it still has the government interferring with people's private lives. We don't require people who aren't going to drive to sign up with the government saying they won't be purchasing car insurance, why should we with health insurance? It is all a crock - these are the same people who want the government to have a role in certain fundamentally private issues as well as increased barriers to exercising one's right to vote - and it all comes down to they don't want to be forced to help someone else out. But there you have it...

[Jim Ohara]

It's clear that Republicans have done a 180 on the individual mandate simply because Obama applied it. I don't buy into the rhetoric of 'let them die', except for the most extreme wings of the party (Ron Paul supporters for one). This is mostly politics at this point. No-one wants to leave Americans to die after car accidents because they don't have insurance - in fact I don't know of any cases where anything like that happened.

It's pretty sad though that the GOP have to oppose Obama so much that they're opposing their own idea. I don't understand how they can't see they're making their own noose here.

[Ogul]

No-one wants to leave Americans to die after car accidents because they don't have insurance - in fact I don't know of any cases where anything like that happened.

Well it doesn't happen currently because there's a federal law that says that doctors HAVE to treat people, insurance or not. Republicans will actually bring that up as a reason why they don't need insurance. The problem with that is that when it happens the costs of their treatment get passed on to the rest of us, which is grossly irresponsible behavior on their part. This is why there needs to be a "let them die" amendment. If they don't want health care, then they need to pay the price. Bare in mind, this would entirely be an issue of choice, if you can't afford health care, it would be provided for you, nobody would lack health care because they couldn't afford it, only because they refuse to accept government handouts. If you have the principles to avoid government health care when you're healthy then you should have the principles to avoid it when you're bleeding out or have cancer.

[Robert B]

If the mandate is thrown out, and I think it will be, I wonder if we're ever going to get meaningful reform. People are overwhelmingly in favor of a lot of the benefits of this reform bill but they narrowly oppose the means by which those benefits will be funded (the mandate).

In other words....and I hope you're sitting down for this.....people want all the good stuff but don't want to pay for it. Even if it means the price of insurance, care, and drugs continue to skyrocket so we'll be paying more and more anyway (even more than if the mandate had gone through).

But if this is thrown out it will be very difficult for either party to find ways to fund future reform, and to stem the tide of the debt we're racking up at an alarming rate (and which this reform bill would help begin to slow). I don't know if the mandate is unconstitutional or not. That's way above my pay grade and for all I know it might be, and they might be making the correct legal decision to throw it out. But if so it's looking like that will be a devastating decision for the financial future of America and its citizens.

[Ricardo_C]

In other words....and I hope you're sitting down for this.....people want all the good stuff but don't want to pay for it.

That's it in a nutshell. Americans want free socialism, pretty much. The nanny state is awesome as long as it's not ME paying for it.

[Adam Wednesdays]

NYC Department of education wants to ban the word "dinosaurs" from standardized tests.

Their justification? The word "dinosaur" calls to mind other no-no words, like "evolution" (also on the proposed list of forbidden words), which could offend test-takers who might not necessarily believe in evolution. Or... dinosaurs?
The fear, according to this report from CBS New York, is that certain words and topics could make students "feel unpleasant" while they're taking city-issued tests. Other words on the prospective ban-list include: "Halloween" (suggests paganism), "birthday" (insensitive to Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't celebrate birthdays), "dancing" (but not "ballet," which the city has evidently made an exception for), "video games" and "rap music."

Check out the complete list of words that could soon become forbidden on NYC tests over on CBS news.

Are we sure that Mayan Apocalypse isn't coming? Because I'd kind of welcome it at this point.

[Chris D]

NYC Department of education wants to ban the word "dinosaurs" from standardized tests.





Are we sure that Mayan Apocalypse isn't coming? Because I'd kind of welcome it at this point.

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. It's no wonder US public education is on a downward slide, with people like this in charge. If I ever have kids I'm either going to have to get them into a good private school or home school them if this trend continues.

I am a bit curious as to how they determined that the word "dinosaur" makes students feel uncomfortable. Everyone I've ever know ever has pretty much thought dinosaurs were cool. The other words (and the reasons for potentially banning them) are equally ridiculous. How is it that these people, when unemployment is still so high, aren't part of the unemployed? Because they sound too stupid to actually deserve jobs.

[Jim Ohara]

It's not a banned list - it's a list of guidelines on what to put in school tests. Teachers can still use all those words if they want. It's the education equivalent of saying don't stick a knife in an electrical outlet. But saying that doesn't get web hits.

If the mandate is thrown out, and I think it will be, I wonder if we're ever going to get meaningful reform. People are overwhelmingly in favor of a lot of the benefits of this reform bill but they narrowly oppose the means by which those benefits will be funded (the mandate).

I won't miss the mandate. It's the capitulation to the insurance companies, but it won't stand in the way of the insurance exchange, not right to refuse, no upper limit and the other reforms. It's just amazing that Republicans are calling for freeloaders to be able to take advantage of the system. The same people who made demons of welfare moms. The party has really lost their way.

There's 40 million people who don't have health insurance. With the under 26 plan and the medicare for all below a certain earnings threshold that'll take away maybe half. If the rest were putting in $1500 a year (which is around what the fine would be) that's only $30 billion a year, which isn't so awful given a $3 trillion dollar budget. So it'll be added to the government cost and the deficit will rise. Taxes will have to increase and cuts made elsewhere. Sorry America, but that's the price of freedom. And I can see the point that you should be able to not buy insurance, and that your taxes should cover emergency treatment. Sure it sucks, but society has sucky people and paying taxes to cover their shit is part of the cost of putting up with them. No different for paying for cops or the military.

I blame the media entirely for this mess though. They desperately need a horse race, so they're making this decision a referendum on Obama, with those CNN twats stirring up the fire. In part because the media now fails to educate the public, but instead needs the conflict to get anyone to watch. All this trouble to sell adverts to the 300,000 people who watch CNN at any given time. If people really understood what the GOP were trying to reverse here they'd be marching with pitchforks and burning torches.

It'd be terrible for Romney though if HCR becomes the central issue once again. He's he going to campaign when the law he fought for and passed (as worked) in the past was against the constitution? Makes him look like an idiot.

[David Meadows]

Well it doesn't happen currently because there's a federal law that says that doctors HAVE to treat people, insurance or not. Republicans will actually bring that up as a reason why they don't need insurance. The problem with that is that when it happens the costs of their treatment get passed on to the rest of us, which is grossly irresponsible behavior on their part. This is why there needs to be a "let them die" amendment.

I understand your reasoning, but I think you're overlooking an option.

You know how if you can't pay in a resturant they make you do the dishes...?

[Ogul]

I understand your reasoning, but I think you're overlooking an option.

You know how if you can't pay in a resturant they make you do the dishes...?

Well, that's sort of what the "if you do get treated and can't pay the bills then you go to jail" part is meant to cover. Now maybe there could be a part to that which would make it easier to pay off that debt via work, but medical bills typically run into the tens or hundreds of thousands, especially for catastrophic injury, so paying it off through grunt labor would not be reasonable. Even working as a full time orderly or something they couldn't expect to pay off more than $30-40K per year, and that's assuming they're capable of it.

[Sean Murphy]

It'd be terrible for Romney though if HCR becomes the central issue once again. He's he going to campaign when the law he fought for and passed (as worked) in the past was against the constitution? Makes him look like an idiot.

So far he has successfully skated by the issue by a) claiming there are fundamental differences between his bill and Obama's (although any side-by-side comparison makes it clear that Obama's camp based their bill on Romney's; b) differentiating between a state solution and a 50-state solution (although when Wisconsin or NJ come up ways to attack unions they quickly become a model for federal legislation); and c) making no attempt to defend the specifics of his bill while repeatedly denouncing Obamacare.

It is the last point that is working best for him. As long as he is in the crowd with pitchfork in hand, chanting about the evils of an individual mandate while hiding his own legislative history, he'll do fine. Republicans aren't against the ideas of Obamacare - someone from the Heritage Foundation was on the stage with Mitt when he signed his bill - so much as they just hate Democrats and Obama in particular.

[Mike]

The Scott Walker recall vote looks as if it will go ahead.

[Johnny Henning]

Interesting radio spot about how much of a politician's job is raising money versus, you know, doing anything they were elected to do, and how it really isn't their fault.

Senator by day, Telemarketer by night

We think of lawmakers having one job: making laws. But there's a second job most lawmakers have to do. And it's a big job.

"I think most Americans would be shocked — not surprised, but shocked — if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money," says Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin. "And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money."

And this second job — the raising-money job — doesn't happen in the nice congressional offices, with the rugs on the floor and landscape paintings on the wall. That would be against the rules.

So senators and congressmen go across the street to private rooms in nongovernmental buildings, where they make call after call, asking people for money.

In other words, most of our lawmakers are moonlighting as telemarketers...

The fundraising never stops, because everyone needs money to run for re-election. In the House, the candidate with more money wins in 9 out of 10 races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. In the Senate, it's 8 out of 10.

It's not uncommon for congressmen to average three or four hours moonlighting as telemarketers. One lawmaker told me if it was the end of the quarter and he really needed to make his numbers, he'd be there all day long.

I don't think about it much, but whenever a president or candidate for the office makes an appearance 9 times out of 10, it's a fundraiser, and that's only when we see them.

[Carlos Mancilla II]

Is Santorum done yet or what?

[Todd Gross]

Is Santorum done yet or what?

Yes, but he refuses to accept it.

[Robert B]

Is Santorum done yet or what?

This is the video that's circulating today. I'm not sure he's trying to say what it sounds like he's trying to say, but it doesn't look particualrly good.

[Jim Ohara]

I've been saying for years, it's just like Blazing Saddles.

Santorum is in an interesting place. This is clearly the peak of his political career, and his end is coming - it's just a matter of time. So I want to see how he drags things out, and what his end game is (no doubt he wants a TV show of some kind). Palin must be fuming as it seems he's stolen her place in the press. I wonder if she'll do anything to get attention once again - maybe make a stink at the convention or something.

[Jim Ohara]

Somebody made me a video:

[David Chapman]

I've been saying for years, it's just like Blazing Saddles.

"What did he say?"

"He said Obama's re-election is near!"