Jon Stewart at The Daily Show does a fine job of staying ahead of McCaughey. Her arguments are not very robust and neither are Stewart's but he is a comedian. His arguments are more than sufficient to handle McCaughey's fear based misrepresentations.
McCaughey does come off as awfully condescending. Throwing out that she has a Phd and saying about Stewart, "Isn't he cute" as he is making his point (I think she did this twice. Perhap one time she called him funny not cute).
McCaughey sounds very disingenuous and came across as a paranoid. Stewart is an incredibly patient man. You can read the McCaughey "plan" to cover the uninsured it is not very clear or detailed. as Stewart points out the math doesn't quite work out.
"But with the experiment looming, some opponents seem to be doubting their own convictions. I contacted three serious conservative thinkers who have written extensively about the dangers of allowing gay marriage and asked them to make simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators—marriage rates, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, child poverty, you name it.""Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states."
Gallagher:
"In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way."
So what. How would these people have expressed their views prior to the state allowing gay marriage? Perhaps this minority's views are wrong and the invisible pressure of the majority's views should silence them. If they really want to express their views about marriage they should continue to marry people of the opposite gender.
Gallagher:
"Public schools will teach about gay marriage."
Do schools teach about marriage now. I really don't know or remember being taught about marriage.
Gallagher:
"Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accommodated in any way."
Again do they teach marriage? I'll assume they do teach it for the sack of this exercise. In the lesson on marriage wouldn't gay marriage be a part added the lesson on straight marriage. Do lessons on marriage currently teach about heterosexuality? If they do teach heterosexuality in schools now and people can learn to be gay or straight why do we have so many homosexuals? There must be schools teaching homosexuality for many years. What about the gay married couples who don't want "traditional" marriage taught? Perhaps we should stop teaching about marriage.
Gallagher:
"Religious institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married)."
Is there no distinction between civil marriage and a religious marriage. Any legal action against a church or other religious institution to force the services for which they don't agree is not acceptable, but is this really a concern. I have a straight cousin that was denied marriage services in a church because they had not fulfilled all the sacramental rights required for marriage. The rights of straight people to marry is a long standing matter but my cousin did not sue the church, why would gay people? Even if people did sue I think a court would throw out the case quickly. I would assume over time there would be churches and other institutions that will begin offering service to gay couples for simple economic reasons.
Gallagher:
"Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline."
I am not sure if this bad in itself. I do understand the ideal state being a mother and father but how does that translate to gays would make bad parents. If it is because they will raise gay children just stop now.
So Gallagher really doesn't give any predictions as to how gay marriage will change society beyond the tired statements of her irrational fears. She is correct that "a project to document institutional change should be done in a serious way." I look forward to her serious predictions on this matter.
All I want to know is how do we determine if acceptance of gay marriage is ending civilization or if society's norms are just progressing in a neutral way?
Sphere: Related Content
Opponents of same sex marriage offer, uninvited, grand scale predictions about the perils that gay marriage will visit upon our society. We know them all. It would be the end of civilization, monogamy will be abandoned and people will marry dogs if gay get married. If any of those things happen it will be because of many reasons I would not pin it on gay marriage.
Before we get to these extreme results what would be some discernible benchmarks to show that these predictions may be true not just bigoted hyperbole. Well Steve Chapman at Reason had the brilliant idea to ask the gay marriage doomsayers exactly that question. With six states have essentially experiments in gay marriage what would the signs that the end of civilization is coming or that monogamy is being abandoned.
"But with the experiment looming, some opponents seem to be doubting their own convictions. I contacted three serious conservative thinkers who have written extensively about the dangers of allowing gay marriage and asked them to make simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators—marriage rates, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, child poverty, you name it.""Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states."
Of course proponents of gay marriage had no problem saying that there would be no impact on the course of civilization. At least none that will be noticeable by statistics.
Chapman:
"In a few years, we won't have to rely on such forecasts, because the facts will be there for all to see. And they should settle the issue once and for all.
But I have a strong suspicion that both sides of the debate are right. The supporters of same-sex marriage are right in predicting that it will have no bad side effects. And the opponents are right not to make predictions."
It seems the tone of the agriculture town halls are more civil than those for health care. The respective stories for each are also more imaginative and pleasant. Ria Misra at Politics Daily:
"On Wednesday at the Iowa State Fair, a group of farmers gathered from all over the state. Walking straight past the 1,000-pound squash, a 600-pound butter sculpture of a cow and the stand selling fried Milky Way bars, the farmers sat down to detail some of the problems they were facing to their former governor."
But the two town halls intersect. Misra:
"It's not just the lack of insurance that's troubling farmers. Vilsack estimated that the out-of-pocket costs for people living in rural communities was about $1,000 more per year than their urban counterparts pay. 'Rural America really comes out at the short end of a very long stick under the current health care system,' he said."
You would think that Iowa's senior Senator would be talking about the health care plight of Iowan farmer's.
Sphere: Related Content
"The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel)."
And this:
"'As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains (Undue influence,' Aug. 8): the government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of 'living wills and durable powers of attorney ... and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families' on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.
Significantly, Lane adds that, 'The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).'
But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are 'purely voluntary.' In response, Lane - who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter - advises us:
'To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.''"
And this:
"I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will - as some of the current bills seem to imply - have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?"
What the hell does that mean? Here is a letter to the editor of the St Cloud Times in Minnesota:
Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are like-minded conservative women. They are standing strong against the breakdown in America’s culture and government today. They challenge the sophistication that looks down from self-constructed Towers of Babel at the spontaneity of good common sense and grassroots wisdom. Advertisement
When Palin and Bachmann say “beware,” sophistication laughs. This kind of reaction is a syndrome that goes back to the time of Noah.
Noah built a huge ship on land where there was no body of water. People laughed. In the end, he and his family survived a huge environmental disaster while the others did not.
Today, liberalism is a cultural and governmental disaster. It is now eating itself alive by vastly increasing the national debt with no end in sight. Authentic restraint is above the “pay grade” of liberals in both political parties.
Now is the time for conservative women to face the breakdown for the sake of a breakthrough. Liberal women, including Bachmann’s opponent for the next election, are a major part of the breakdown.
Without common-sense restraint, liberalism leads to tyranny. Liberals are noticeably adept at doing whatever they want while trying to control others. Lack of me-control naturally projects itself into you-control. Beware, then, of liberalism and its sinister impulse to take over everything and everyone.
Those who see a straight-line connection between “lawful” killing of babies in the womb and terminating elders approaching the tomb know something about logic. Logical consistency does its thing no matter how much sophistication laughs at it. If such an atrocity as abortion is “health care,” what else, logically and lawfully, can be called “health care?”
Conservative women like Palin and Bachmann refuse to give this logic of liberalism its “go ahead.” They represent the wisdom of authentically human culture and government.
I appreciate his acknowledgement of the scarcity of medical care.His basic economics is correct that as demand rises prices will likely rise as well.The assumption misses the possibility that there is already demand for and consumption of medical care by the currently uninsured that helps to drives medical cost up.It is not as if the uninsured will be entering the market for health care for the first time.They will enter it in a more efficient method as opposed to the emergency room door.
As Stossel agrees with most reasonable people that the government is not actively trying to kill people with “death panels” so why is rationing an issue.Why shouldn't scarce resources be rationed or prioritized?We currently try to ration medical resources such as vaccines.We prioritize older people and younger people to be vaccinated for flu primarily because we have a scarcity of vaccines and some people are more vulnerable.
As it has been pointed out before is insurance company rationing more desirable?
The market place for medical services for people with insurance is weird.Stossel is correct that there is a "principal-agent problem." As you enter the doctor’s examination room are you the consumer of the medical services.I don’t think so.You are the consumer of health insurance but the insurance company is the consumer of the health care since they are the ones paying the doctor. Or at least that is what Stossel leads to believe.I think he is correct but why would a government payer make this problem worse.
I now that Stossel’s concern is for self-determination. Does the current health insurance structure give people the opportunity for self-determination after the purchase of the policy?Does a public option do any less?For real self-determinative system we would need to undo all insurance and make health care fee for service. You only get it if you can pay for it.
"After being besieged by protesters at meetings across his home state of Iowa, Grassley said he has concluded that the public has rejected the far-reaching proposals Democrats have put on the table, viewing them as overly expensive precursors to ''a government takeover of health care.'"
Grassley has made himself redundant by saying that the people have rejected the current health care proposals. The Post story reports Grassley as saying:
"Calls for reform are 'not quite as loud as people that say we ought to slow down or don't do anything,' he said. 'And I've got to listen to my people.'"
Grassley has joined Bachmann in not understanding his job.
"I think it's worth mentioning that the Grassley theory of 'the public' is pretty much the exact opposite of how American democracy is supposed to function. Famously, public representatives are supposed to distinguish between the 'vicious arts' of faction (Madison's words) and the 'permanent and aggregate interests of the community' (Hamilton's). Of course, it might be the case that protestors laying seige to Fort Grassley actually represent the aggregate interests of the public. But you won't find evidence for that conclusion at a townhall meeting.
On the other hand, there's a pretty interesting question about the nature of democracy here: Formal democracy measures only the number of preferences (tallying votes), and not the intensity of preferences (like passionate townhall protests) or the quality of preferences (like the opinion of some group of philosopher kings). But I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Senator Grassley is not asking those rich philosophical quesitons."
Clarke is correct Grassley is not pursuing any grand philosophical goal. He is playing politics and not doing his job.
The Boston Globe reports that Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has begun conversations to modify the state succession law to ensure that Mass. has two senators.
Hopefully the Mass. legislature can make this change quickly. This announcement from Kennedy does sound as if he plans to step down when the law is changed if he does not die before then.
Unfortunately the Globe reports that there may not be any political will to change the law.
"It is not within our power as members of Congress, it’s not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, for us to design and create a national takeover of health care. Nor is it within our ability to be able to delegate that responsibility to the executive."
Bachmann is wrong about the congressional authority. What can promote the general welfare of the people more than health care. Article I section 8 if the US Constitution says:
"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
"Bachmann, however, is wrong about both the contents of the health care plan and the requirements of the Constitution. There is nothing in any of the health care bills under consideration which resembles a 'national takeover of health care.' Conservatives like to use this language when referring to the public health option. Like other insurers, the public option would collect premiums from people who choose to buy into it, and then spend those premiums to insure these participants.
Had Bachmann bothered to read Article I of the Constitution before going on Fox, she would have learned that Congress has the power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" and to 'provide for….the general welfare of the United States.' Rather than itemizing specific subject matters, such as health care, which Congress is allowed to spend money on, the framers chose instead to give Congress a broad mandate to spend money in ways that promote the 'general welfare.'"
On another issue of our form of government. In the video Sean Hannity says a congressman will vote for health care reform even if some of his constituents don't want him to. Hannity goes to say that he always thought that the job of a congressman was to represent his district. I know that this is a common thought and an understandable one, but it is not true by the constitution or by other founding documents.
Article I does not go into detail that a representative is simply a proxy for his constituents or what method should be utilized for deciding how to vote on legislation. James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10 was concerned with the power of factions to influence laws and how to control for faction whether they be a majority faction of minority faction. Madison understands that the problem of faction can not be removed for society. He writes:
"CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS"
He continued:
"The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
Madison believes that the representatives are not the proxies for the people but a filter for the public's views that may be more consonant "to the public good" than the voice of the people themselves. It can debated whether the current health care proposals are for the public good but it is does not debatable that congress can pass reform legislation even if a faction of constituents are against it.
The constitution limits the power of the branches of government to the delimited areas but doe it also limit the power of the populous in the process of legislating? It seems that the founders wanted it that way. Maybe Hannity should get a copies of both documents and share them with Representative Bachmann.
A digression:
In going back to the Federalist Paper #10 this evening I came across this line:
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?"
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Dems plan to split the health care bill in two pieces. They hope to handle the controversial stuff first then pass it through reconciliation.
The Journal reports:
"Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but certain budget-related measures can pass with 51 votes through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation.
In recent days, Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure, congressional aides said. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain.
Other parts of the Democratic plan would be put to a separate vote in the Senate, including most of the insurance regulations that have been central to Mr. Obama's health-care message.
That bill would likely set new rules for insurers, such as requiring they accept anyone, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. This portion of the health-care overhaul has already drawn some Republican support and wouldn't involve new spending, leading Democratic leaders to believe they could clear the 60-vote hurdle."
"I know that there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are a some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness. I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth.''
The administration seems to be getting back to its massive organizing skill. The Times:
"Organizing for America, the president's political organization based at the Democratic National Committee, is trying to rally its members. Last week about 60,000 volunteers sent messages to lawmakers, urging them to support Obama's health care agenda.
Obama plans Thursday to promote his plans in a conference call and online address to supporters that could draw huge numbers of listeners. He also will speak with Philadelphia-based radio talk show host Michael Smerconish, who will broadcast from the White House."
Michael Steele's doesn't let new information in or the truth out. As Republicans across the country, including stalwarts at the National Review, are announcing their shunning of the "death panel" claims Michale Steele continues to straddle both sides. The Mind of Steele said on MSNBC about "death panel" claims:
"Some characterize it as unfortunate. Others characterize it as a reflection of what they think and what they feel. That comes from some place and is something that’s out there in the grassroots of America, not just Republicans.”
His response to Joe Scarborough asking is Steele believes there will be "death panels":
“It may or may not be. I don’t know. We don’t know what the bill is. But there’s clearly an attempt by at least the House members to put in place a structure that causes concern for the American people in respect to end of life decisions. I think that’s a legitimate point. You don’t have to call it death panels if you don’t want to. You can call it a panel. I call it rationing.”
Is this guy really this disconnected from the reality of his party?
"During a hearing in San Francisco, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ordered lawyers on both sides of the case to gear up quickly for the trial, which foes of California's same-sex marriage ban hope will be the first step in getting the legal fight over gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Backed by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and prominent lawyer David Boies, two same-sex couples sued in federal court this past spring to overturn Proposition 8, approved by voters in fall 2008 to restore California's ban on gay marriage. The lawsuit maintains Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples by denying them the equal right to marry, and marks what is likely to be the first crucial legal test in the federal courts over the issue.
The California Supreme Court this past spring upheld Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, but the justices left intact an estimated 18,000 gay marriages that took place last year before voters approved the measure by 52 to 48 percent. Those weddings took place after the state Supreme Court struck down the state's previous laws banning same-sex marriage."
In an odd twist the judge in this trial made comments about the state lack of a defense in this case:
"Walker took a swipe at Schwarzenegger's position at the conclusion of today's hearing, saying, 'I must say I'm surprised at the governor's position in this case. ... This is a matter of some importance to the people of the state.'"
"Mr. Olson, who is not a regular churchgoer, began to elaborate on his view that religious beliefs were insufficient legal justification for government to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage."
I would assert that religion is not a basis for any legal judgment, in as far as you can remove those ideas from your thought process.
Two quotes from the profile that shows the stupidity of the idea that people, even those with well defined ideologies, should be ruled by monolithic sets of ideas:
"Last month, at a Federalist Society lunch, Mr. Olson delivered his annual roundup of the Supreme Court term. He was greeted warmly, but there was palpable discomfort over the marriage case. Not a single person mentioned it to him, save for an oblique ribbing by David Bossie, whom Mr. Olson is representing in a case involving his scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton. After pecking Ms. Olson on the cheek, Mr. Bossie told her husband, “I’m not going to kiss you, even though apparently you wouldn’t mind.”
William Bradford Reynolds, another Reagan-era colleague, said later that while Mr. Olson presented a thoughtful case, 'He’s taking a more assertive view of how one should interpret the Constitution than you would normally expect Ted to take.'"
Jill Lawrence at Politics Daily posits that perhaps the current spot that the health care debate is at may be a part of the master Obama Strategy. She Writes:
"I were formulating strategy at the White House, I would be thinking it's way too early to play hardball about anything, especially the public insurance proposal that has inflamed both liberals (who insist on having it) and conservatives (who insist it must be dumped)."
Is it better to play "hardball" at the crunch time or in the beginning getting the ducks lined up and ready to quack in unison?
She writes:
"But health reform has many more complexities and congressional phases than the Senate's one-shot authorization of a war. My view – to be honest, my hope – is that Obama is deliberately keeping people guessing as the delicate process unfolds. Princeton scholar Fred Greenstein, author of 'The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush," told me that's a definite possibility. He called Obama 'a constructive political chameleon' who is making 'studious use of ambiguity.'"
I like to read about these awesome theories of political maneuverings that seem dramatic but unrealistic. The idea that using the slow legislative policy to your advantage to get a bill through the senate and then try to get a few defectors from the right side of the aisle seems awfully speculative. A strategy that depends on moving at least two republican senators along with eight conservative democrats is long odds.
If there is some amount of confidence that a plan with the public option can get one or two safe republican senator supporters the administration should pursue that option but you still need to get all eight democrat swing senators. Five of the senators are up for election over the next three years, three in 2010 and two in 2012. I think it is very unlikely to get all five of these senators to support a bill.
Perhaps a better strategy is to get Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd to retire to acquire two functional democrat votes. It only makes the road easier.
Sphere: Related Content
"The big litmus test, though, will be who Crist appoints as a placeholder to serve out the rest of retiring Senator Mel Martinez's term. The odds are overwhelming that Crist's pick will cast a vote on a major climate bill in the Senate later this year. Environmental groups are already pressuring Crist to appoint someone who reflects his views on energy and global warming. But, of course, if Crist appoints a green Republican who votes for a climate bill, he risks the wrath of the GOP base in next year's primaries. So what's it going to be."
Just like Glenn Beck, anything for a dollar. Here is a Beck episode condensed to ten minutes. He implies that he does not think eugenics is coming but goes on to inform us what eugenics is with what is essentially film of the genre that you will see in an old school sex ed classes.
I believe that if the three guys sitting with Beck at the beginning had said they thought eugenics was coming Beck would have went that way.
He cries.
When will Murdoch cut this guy loose?
Beck hasn't tweeted in four days, perhaps he is looking for a new job.
Sphere: Related Content
"Despite the fact that many of his fellow Republicans say otherwise, including fellow Iowan and U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, Latham said so-called 'death panels' are not in the bill. The provision in question deals with funding for voluntary end-of-life planning, he said.
You also won’t find any mention of abortion, he said. An advertising campaign paid for by anti-abortion groups says a lack of specifics on abortion in the bill will end with taxpayer dollars being spent on abortions.
The bill that has been passed by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee stipulates that the only abortion services that could be paid for with government funds would be those in which the mother’s life was endangered or in cases of rape or incest.
'There is nothing in the bill one way or another,' Latham said, later adding that while there have been amendments in committee that would specifically prohibit it, those were voted down."
"'It’s really just a distraction,' said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of 'The Medical Malpractice Myth.' 'If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.'
Insurance costs about $50-$60 billion a year, Baker estimates. As for what’s often called 'defensive medicine,' 'there’s really no good study that’s been able to put a number on that,' said Baker.
Krauthammer cited a study by the Massachusetts Medical Society that found that five out of six doctors said they ordered additional tests, procedures and referrals to protect themselves from lawsuits. He also relies on a much-criticized study from the libertarian Pacific Research Institute on the civil justice system to conclude that 'defensive medicine' wastes more than $200 billion a year."
Baker is skeptical, and makes the point that “defensive medicine” is not the same thing as wasteful medicine. “Like defensive driving, some defensive medicine is good,” he said. “To change behavior. When you drill down those studies, you see that what it means is, doctors are more careful with patient records. They spend more time with the patient. They’re more careful to say hello and goodbye to the patient. That’s good.
Other health economists agree that 'defensive medicine' is not the main driver of costs, and malpractice liability reform is not a panacea."
OK I like this Barney Frank performance. It is a Friar's Club routine, but it does not help the Democrat's cause. Maybe it helps in Massachusetts but this video will be played all over the country.
The only question that needs to be answered in why wasn't this the strategy all along? Did the President really think that he would get cooperation from a significant amount of Republicans in congress to pass a reform bill?
This seems like it was a massive miscalculation from the administration and leaders in congress. Democrats have giving too much space on the health care stage in their attempt at bipartisanship. Accordingly, they have amplified the voices of opposition with the ubiquity of "death panel" and other ridiculousness. The path back to controlling the debate will not be as easy as it seems. This seemingly simple change in strategy will not turn the heads of suspicious people in the districts of the blue dogs. Looking at the MSNBC/WSJ poll the President's recent town halls have not seemed to have any impact on voters attitude toward the President's goals in reforming health care. The majority of respondents in the poll identified themselves as democrats but the level of support for President Obama's performance of health care is the same as July. Also the the number of people who think the President's plan is a good idea is even with July.
Matt Yglesias at Think Progress posits that perhaps the past few months on health care have been a calculated plan from the Democrats to give the Republicans just enough rope for which hang themselves. Perhaps, but what is the counterweight on that rope, it may be the cornerstone of the President's reform, the public option.
Sphere: Related Content
Conor Clarke writes about the how the media is using the term "death panel."
Clarke writes:
"The Wall Street Journal, for instance, will no longer publish something saying the administration or Congress is proposing actual, bona fide death panels. Because, well, no one is proposing them. Instead, the Journal publishes an Orwellian short story -- fiction on the Journal op-ed page! -- about a man standing before some hypothetical future death panel, being deprived of life saving care."
"Forty-five percent think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly.
That also is untrue: The provision in the House legislation that critics have seized on — raising the specter of 'death panels' or euthanasia — would simply allow Medicare to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, if the patient wishes."
The poll provides interesting insight in other areas, worth the read.
Sphere: Related Content
Earlier this summer Larry Summers claimed that the economic situation was improving because fewer people were searching for the term economic depression in Google. This a questionable form of economic analysis but fun to talk about.
The SF Chronicle reports:
"R.J. Pittman, director of product management at Google, said it was flattering that Summers cited Google's search data as an informal survey on consumer confidence, but added that the information should not be seen as factual or fully representative. Still, he said, Google sees potential in products like Google Trends."
"The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That's what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic."
He wants to move the Palestinians. Where? Isn't that how all this started?
"The most depressing aspects of McCarthy's career were not just the excesses of the man himself but the refusal of others -- mainly his fellow Republicans -- to either rein him in or defend his victims. Now we are seeing something similar with Palin. Say what you will about any of the health-care proposals, not one of them suggests a 'death panel' empowered to withhold medical services from the aged or those with disabilities. To suggest that one exists is reprehensible. To state it outright is either boldly demagogic or just plain loopy."
Police Officers in Baltimore staged a raid on a boat to help a man propose marriage to his girlfriend. What type person hatches a scheme like this and what type of woman says yes to this sort of proposal, maybe one that is afraid of being shot.
I hope the officers have to pay for their stupidity. Not with their jobs but the cost should be severe and high.
Sphere: Related Content
"It was bad enough during the original controversy, when most of the news media—and in the age of "the image" at that—refused to show the cartoons out of simple fear. But now the rot has gone a serious degree further into the fabric. Now we have to say that the mayhem we fear is also our fault, if not indeed our direct responsibility. This is the worst sort of masochism, and it involves inverting the honest meaning of our language as well as what might hitherto have been thought of as our concept of moral responsibility."
"A new wrinkle in the dispute over his birth – and whether he is eligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born" citizen – appeared today when Obama's official MySpace page declared his age is 52, thus placing his birth year at 1957 instead of 1961 as has been claimed.
That would mean he would have been born during the archipelago's time as a territory of the U.S., the islands' status from about 1900 until statehood in 1959."
Now the story will be he was not born in Kenya but in Hawaii but it was not a state. So he can't be president.
The artist, Firas Alkhateeb, says "'In terms of domestic policy, I don't think he's really doing much good for the country right now,' he said. 'We don't have to 'hero worship' the guy.'"
But he also says, "'I abstained from voting in November,' he wrote in an e-mail. 'Living in Illinois, my vote means close to nothing as there was no chance Obama would not win the state.' If he had to choose a politician to support, Alkhateeb said, it would be Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich."
It is an interesting look at this young guy but try to figure him. Obama is not doing any good he would rather have Kucinich.
Sphere: Related Content
"The death of American political discourse notwithstanding, let's be clear about the larger debate: no matter what Democrats propose, Republicans are going to reject it, even if they've already signaled support for the same idea. Consistency and honesty are irrelevant -- the goal is to defeat health care reform, no matter what's in the bill."
"finding themselves unable to defend the plan against her indictment, Democrats have backed down and withdrawn their 'end-of-life counseling' boards."
We need to understand that the village nut will occasionally, OK usually, get things twisted, wrong and backward, such as facts and logic. It is much easier to throw ludicrous statements and lies around than it is to disprove a negative. Since the bill does not mention "death panels" even once it is nearly impossible to prove where HR 3200 says "death panels" won't occur. This is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam or an appeal to ignorance. Defined:
the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true.
If you want to read more about fallacies click here . For those of you that prefer your explanations of logical fallacies in video form here you go:
McCarthy throws a new charge on the "death panel" claim. He writes:
"the Obamacare proposal has a remedy for 'a society as litigious as ours': it systematically cuts off access to the courts so that the decisions of the executive branch are final. The bill is designed to insure against litigation pressure to spend more rather than treat less."
I did not see this in the bill, but I admit I have not read HR 3200 fully. But I am certain McCarthy nor Palin have either. Perhaps it is easier to throw out lies than to gather facts but it surely makes you look stupid. If any body knows anything about this claim please let me know.
I wonder how the editors of the National Review feel about McCarthy's "dissent." I would not expect them to be angered at the act of "dissent" but at the shocking stupidity of the arguments.
The administration has called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. A statement from the President said:
"Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law."
The National Review has this pointless attack on Michelle Obama titled "A Woman of Substance." I can't see the purpose. It does show Benjamin Zycher's arrogance, attitude toward race and his opinion of women.
This tells us more about Zycher than it does about Michelle Obama.
It boggles my mind that someone would believe that Princeton and Harvard would admit and then graduate someone that is stupid only because they are black.
Perhaps it is an attempt to stoke the fears of some groups that do not like the fact of a black president.
Finally an acknowledgment from the right that medical care resources are scarce and "some constraint has to limit this treatment." While I agree that the "rationing" inherent in price in some markets for goods is an acceptable outcome. I don't believe that this is a method of allocating vital medical resources.
The National Review editorial while announcing that it recognizes the scarcity problem fails to give the thought needed to alleviate the problem of scarcity and how to allocate the resources. Beyond their pronouncement of the free liberalized market they do not offer arguments in which to have a discussion. The free market is less an argument than a philosophical position. At best, I can take from the essay that the markets for flat screen televisions and organs are similar enough that outcomes based purely on individuals price elasticity for medical care is optimal for our society. To put it simple, I think the National Review is saying some people are able to pay and others are not and that is the way it is.
They write:
"The trade-offs should be made, as much as possible, by the people who are most affected by them. Liberalizing health markets, by reducing the obstacles that governments have placed in the way of the development of a large market in individually purchased insurance, is a practical method of facilitating that decentralized choice for all but the most indigent. But nobody should be under any illusions that the trade-offs can be wished away."
It is hard to reconcile their argument that trade offs in care need to be made but should be made by those "who are most affected by them." What does that mean? Who are the people most affected? Is it patients and/or family? Is it doctors? What happens if an indigent person requires an organ transplant at the same time as a person with financial means and insurance? In the liberalized market place is this a "no brainer" question regardless of prognosis, the least price sensitive person gets the organ or will it be more complicated than that? It is inherently more complicated.? I wish the NR addressed this issue as such.
The editorial is incomplete and unclear. But what is clear in their argument I don't like. I'm with David Brooks, I am in favor of "death panels."
Sphere: Related Content
"in order for a public option to pass, it probably requires the support of: 1. A majority of the Senate Finance Committee; 2. A majority of the Senate overall. ...and these two things are highly correlated; it is likely that either both are true or neither are."
"Whole Foods is consistently ranked among the most employee-friendly places to work in the service industry. In fact, Whole Foods treats employees a hell of a lot better than most liberal activist groups do. The company has strict environmental and humane animal treatment standards about how its food is grown and raised. The company buys local. The store near me is hosting a local tasting event for its regional vendors. Last I saw, the company’s lowest wage earners make $13.15 per hour. They also get to vote on what type of health insurance they want. And they all get health insurance. The company is also constantly raising money for various philanthropic causes. When I was there today, they were taking donations for a school lunch program. In short, Whole Foods is everything leftists talk about when they talk about 'corporate responsibility.'"
"A probability of 1 in 10 million is tiny but, as discussed by Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan (2007), can provide a rational reason for voting; in this perspective, a vote is like a lottery ticket with a 1 in 10 million chance of winning, but the payoff is the chance to change national policy and improve (one hopes) the lives of hundreds of millions, compared to the alternative if the other candidate were to win. Different voters have different opinions about which candidate is desirable, but many can feel that their preference is not only better for them personally but for millions of others. (On the other hand, for voters in states such as New York, California, and Texas where the probability of a decisive vote is closer to 1 in a billion, any reasons for voting must go beyond the any instrumental rationality.)"
It makes my lottery ticket purchases seem more rational than my voting in New York. OK, not really.
It is interesting research and worth reading. If you don't have access through a university library you may have to pay for the report.
Sphere: Related Content
Well they should not be, The CATO Institute has released a report claiming that their is a large economic benefit in naturalizing illegal immigrants. While xenophobic walls on our border is expensive with little value to economic growth. It is a interesting report and thankfully not very long.
I have no doubt that removing the current barriers that prevent consumers from purchasing insurance in a nation wide market will increase competition and will reduce costs for some time. So I can say with confidence that Gingrich is right on this point but unfortunately is he wrong on many others. Mostly due to ignoring the issues and concerns of consumer's and the benefit of the larger community.
As it does seems wrong for a single man to pay for the very unlikely need for pregnancy coverage Gingrich ignores the constraints of purchasing insurance for small businesses, the providers of most insurance in the country. Gingrich writes:
"One key proposal is to mandate an 'essential benefit package' for every private insurance policy sold in the United States. Currently, individuals and employers usually make these coverage decisions. This legislation creates a new federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee that would decide instead. For example, if you are a single male with no children, the legislation still requires you to have maternity benefits and well-baby and well-child care coverage. You don't want or don't need that coverage? Sorry, you have to pay for it anyway."
Currently employers do not cater insurance options to individual employees based on their demographic characteristics. To do so may be unnecessarily expensive. In my previous job I had coverage for pregnancy for ten years and never used it until I got married then had a baby with my wife. So to claim that a man would not have opportunity to utilize child birth coverage is not entirely correct. Perhaps an al a carte option of insurance was available many men would choose to not have this coverage, but products bundling is more efficient for both consumer and the firm.
Gingrich's prescription for health care ignores the unpleasant fact of scarcity. Medical resources are not infinite. The problems of scarcity is a conversation that needs to happen. We have only so many vaccines, beds, organs and pieces of equipment and what is the appropriate way of allocating those resources. A well defined metric for prioritizing the uses of these resources seems very appropriate, but the conversation needs to be frank. It is easy to acknowledge the coldness or even callousness of Ezekiel Emanuel's conclusions of his research but it should be the beginning of the discussion of how much we value life.
The question of how we value of life should not be limited to whether we withhold treatment from an individual but expanded to how we use the resources available. Withholding an organ from one person is only a factor in the equation of what is the value of life, not the answer. That factor is held against the factors of the prognosis and potential quality of life of other people in relation to the person not receiving the organ or other medical resource. To leave this sensitive and emotional decision entirely to market forces or family decisions will create poor outcomes. Government panels should not make these decisions either but doctors should be empowered to calculate the prognosis and potential future quality of life against the value of the resources and life. There is an extreme risk of adverse selection if we don't find acceptable answers to this question. What is the opportunity cost of medical treatment if prognosis is poor?
Sphere: Related Content
"Of course, the fall of America probably won't come to pass for any single, isolated reason. A nation as powerful, cohesive, and enduring as the United States won't go down easy—the death of the United States will be the consequence of a bunch of different stressors converging at once. What are those stressors going to be? Will America go down as part of a worldwide collapse, or will we perish as the rest of the globe flourishes? You can take a stab at answering all those questions with our 'Choose Your Own Apocalypse' tool. (Note: While many of the factors here represent a threat to the entirety of human civilization, the title of this feature should not imply that the end of America is equivalent to the end of the world. We're not that self-obsessed—'Choose Your Own Apocalypse' just has a nice ring to it.)"
Klein: "Our system is expensive in part because we've refused to choose, because we've refused to answer some of these questions, like how we deal with end-of-life care, or what minimum benefits should be guaranteed to every American. But isn't not answering those questions a sort of answer, too?"
Emanuel:"Yeah. You can't avoid these questions. Even if you don't provide an overt justification for them, you end up making decisions. Sometimes those aren't good decisions, or they're decisions you regret. We had a big controversy in the United States when there were a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a "God committee" to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."
One pet peeve about the Wash Post. At the of this story they have a link to the full interview. It is only one more question. And a throw away question at that, not a big deal just annoying.
Sphere: Related Content
Should a blogger be able to call for the death of people. I would say not. If it is wrongs for Glenn Beck to desire to poison Nancy Pelosi it is wrong for a blogger to write:
"'Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed,' Turner wrote on his blog on June 2, according to the FBI. 'Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.'
The next day, Turner posted photographs of the appellate judges and a map showing the Chicago courthouse where they work, noting the placement of 'anti-truck bomb barriers.' When an FBI agent appeared at the door of his New Jersey home, Turner said he meant no harm.'"
"Despite longstanding fears about how the public would react to women coming home in coffins, Americans have responded to their deaths and injuries no differently than to those of male casualties, analysts say. That is a reflection of changing social mores but also a result of the growing number of women — more than 356,000 today — who serve in the armed forces, including the Reserves and the National Guard, 16 percent of the total."
This seems like an odd front for which to fight for equality, but finally women are equal to men in death at war.
Sphere: Related Content
