Death of a Mandate: Why Health Care Reform in America is Over

The title of the post is wrong. "Health Care Reform" wasn't present in the bill in question. The bill was a flawed effort to tweak the conduct of health insurance companies.



With the exception of Switzerland, every industrialized nation has grown up from the 1800s style of health care and placed the operation of the industry under the auspices of each nation's population - democratically elected governments. Ours has exceptionally higher costs and rampant abuses because the various service and le@ch organizations that control it have no incentive or reason to change from money-extraction goals to sensible societal goals.



Our medical outcomes are measurably worse than those other nations as well - but again there is no incentive for the le@ches to change anything. And on top of that, the majority of our personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills.



Ours is the only nation whose population is too weak, immature, selfish, and easily spooked to tackle the health care problem head on. This bill is case in point. "It's a vital first step!" was what I remember people opining when denouncing my predictions that the useful provisions of the ACA would never go into effect.



Well, the sad fact is that truly reforming health care requires FAR, FAR more than tinkering and tweaking in small steps. It requires a definitive, bold, scary jump into the cold pool.



Here in the "home of the brave," we stand quaking at the pool steps...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Five Hypocrites and One Bad Plan

Wrong.



Your blind devotion is so strong that you can't even see past the illogic of your question.



Reconciliation is used for bills that will require modifications to or make a substantial impact on the Federal budget. To qualify, certain committees in the House have to perform studies to assess this impact. At least one of those committees did that work.



The public option would require huge changes to the Federal budget. There's no question that the public option would qualify for reconiliation - the only debated reconciliation pieces were surrounding the NON-public-option versions because elements such as pre-existing conditions and exchanges don't have any direct budgetary impact.



In fact, you can answer your own groundless challenge by going back to news articles from that period and re-reading about the debates on using reconciliation - there was angst over this because the funding for uninsured would go through reconciliation but the fallout of a reconciliation run for funding would threaten regulations on private insurers.



So perhaps you're confusing that junky, compromised mess that got passed didn't completely qualify for reconciliation with versions that did. On that front, there has been plenty of documented debate for you to find ways to avoid.



But your point is that Obama was helplessly without votes. And the fact is that he didn't try to get good policy adopted because he wanted republican love. Unfortunately for us all, wherever he goes, Obama is the weakest man in the room.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Five Hypocrites and One Bad Plan

All you have to support that opinion is the word of rahm emanuel - a man who deserves as much trust and confidence as mitt romney.



The undeniable fact is that he ran the issue through the proper channels which qualified the legislation for a reconciliation vote in the Senate (something he needed to do with the bush tax cut matter, but failed to accomplish). The bill with the public option flew through the House.



So the TRUTH that you can't stand - and I can see why - is that Obama QUIT on the matter because his greatest loyalty is to the idealism of bipartisanship. If the republicans can't be brought around to love a policy - no matter how good it may be - Obama will give up on it.



And because of that misplaced and reprehensible fealty to an impossible, facetious concept given the state of the republican party, thousands more will go needlessly bankrupt, suffer, and die every year.



Face the truth - Obama would rather have a back-slappy, smirky photo shoot with boehner than impose legislative policy that has been proved a success around the world, but offends the republicans.
About Health Care Reform
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Paul Clement Calls for Tax Hike in Supreme Court Arguments Against Obamacare

I'm not sure I understand how for-profit health insurance is legal, much less Constitutional. It's really the only essential service in the nation and it's lightly regulated at best in most states.



I can put up solar panels to generate electricity, I can grow some food, water is still plentiful, I can walk or bike to work. Despite the US Solicitor's pathetic handling of the question about cemeteries as a vital service that you don't know you need until you need it, my body can be disposed of without impacting my neighbors without a cemetery. I don't ever require a cemetery.



But I can't expect to live very long if I can't access health care.



The only other required service is public safety. And that is paid for by taxes which don't directly and proportionately correspond to their actual utilization. This concept seems to have ubiquitous general support. If private police armies were allowed and licensed, very few people would support it for very obvious reasons - especially since there is no real accountability... just like with health insurance companies.



We need leaders to use their powers to change the way we think about health care. No one on the right will do so. And the current administration is too feeble to lead on any issue - because the right wingers foment negative media responses and they're too fragile to take a punch and fight back.



In the meantime, we'll just keep going bankrupt when medical emergencies hit. Disgraceful.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Turn Left? The Lack of Right-Wing Comedians

Respectfully disagree.



Monty Python is hilarious while rarely ever speaking to power. The key is "truth". For something to be funny, it has to have a degree of truth or plausibility to it. That's what has made the likes of Pryor, Carlin, Chappelle, Stewart, et. al. so much more intensely funny. It's what also makes a joke about a 190 pound speaker eating two turkeys much more funny when the comedian is over 300 pounds. And it's what makes your micro-bio hilarious.



Not ironically, coulter fans howl at her comments/"jokes" because, to them, her words are the truth.



The "to power" part really isn't important.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Turn Left? The Lack of Right-Wing Comedians

I believe points 2, 3, and 4 are really insignificant.



I think the part you miss is the most cogent. The funniest people in comedy are able to - consciously or unconsciously - detach themselves from situations and conditions (i.e. break free from the 'normal,' acceptable world view), deeply analyze those situations and conditions, and then finally present an assembly of the inherent, observed absurdities in some comedic form (skits [Daily Show, Chappelle], stand-up [Carlin], movies).



The key is being able to look hard at behaviors and situations - sometimes your own - in an intensely honest, critical way. The fact is that this sort of exercise and introspection are generally anathema to very right wing conservatives. Their opinions are always correct, no matter how many immutable facts prove otherwise.



Moreover, conservative minds intentionally slipstream events that are consistent with their opinions. They seek events or activities that align with their opinions. The ability to consider viewpoints or perspectives that aren't their own is almost non-existent, making it hard to create characters that are different than they are (except for implausible caricatures) or assess how/why people might respond in certain ways to different stimuli. An amount of empathy and understanding of human "differences" is missing.



Fact is that conservatives are just not wired to be funny - proof is in every "joke" from malkin and coulter.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Voters Have Two Candidates, No Choice

I've previously written in agreement with the observation that the republicans have been able to accomplish things during Obama's administration that they wouldn't have been able to do under a republican administration.



So I'm with you on this 100%.



Prior to reading "Confidence Men," I suspected that Obama was a fraudulent character. But the evidence chronicled in the book makes it clear that he is, from a personality perspective, the equivalent of an ice-cream-holding toddler sitting in a stroller surrounded by teenaged petty thieves. He is hopelessly incapable of dealing with the forces that are running this nation into ruin.



And the only thing sadder than that are the legions of hapless apologists who continuously proclaim his genius and superiority... the king's clothes are dazzlingly beautiful...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Voters Have Two Candidates, No Choice

With word finally emerging from the secret deals negotiated last summer between Obama and the republicans, it's quite possible - if not probable - that Medicare and SS will be on the chopping block if Obama is re-elected.



To me, the man is less trustworthy than republican politicians. At least I know what the republicans are going to do to me and my family - not that what they want to do is ever good (I'm not a millionaire, so I'm obviously of no value to republican society). But at least they've got a vision and stick to it.



Obama talks vision and then walks some surreal "master negotiator" walk. This administration is beyond disappointing. It's been a major blockade on the road toward a civil and functional society and economy. The administration is reprehensibly incompetent.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Voters Have Two Candidates, No Choice

In the Illinois 10th district (no incumbent Dem), avowed progressive Ilya Sheyman challenged the republican-supporting 'blue dog' establishment candidate. Although Obama refused to endorse anyone in the race, the clarity of the decision wasn't tough at all.



Obama supporters decry how nothing is Obama's fault - it's all because of blue dogs (in the first two years) and republicans and blue dogs (now). Well, now with a last minute mailer from Sheyman's opponent that featured a photo of the President on it, there is an establishment blue dog on the ballot for the 2012 general election in IL-10. I could tolerate some of the apologist claims that Obama is a victim of bad voting, but not when the man can make a difference and ask voters to send him no more bluedogs. He failed to take a stand (as usual) and promote a promising candidate.



So when I see the headline for this article, I take it a little differently than some. I think both candidates are too far below the line to be worthy of a vote. Obama's well-documented and demonstrated lack of courage and conviction - and feverish devotion to legislation that must be tainted with horrible republican policy - prove that the decision is, as optomist1 put it, 'a choice between death by arsenic poisoning or gunshot.'



The only elections that matter in 2012 are for Congress. The White House will be a failure no matter which of the two terrible and undeserving options get elected.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011

Deal-breaker?



A much better question in light of your extraordinary interpretation of events is, what did the President need to expose here?



My response was to your suggestion that the President engineered this elaborate negotiation to expose the republicans. The point of my "rant" is that the entire world already knows what the republicans want to do.



Under dubya, they tried to privatize social security. The "ryan plan" introduced in the House not too long ago proposed to convert Medicare to a voucher program. All the republican talking heads blather non-stop about how we have to cut "entitlement spending" in every public and broadcast forum available. These activities ran over and over on the "cable news" channels.



So where is the mystery? What part of the republican agenda has been the slightest bit unknown, unclear, and - for that matter, BRAGGED about adnauseum - by the republicans such that the President felt a series of secret, behind closed doors negotiations was going to reveal in a special way?



The answer is, "nothing." There was absolutely, positively, inarguably NOTHING new or unknown about what the republicans want to do in those negotiations.



That is why your premise is just completely groundless. It requires a total suppression of logic to entertain it without laughing. NO leader deserves this sort of blind faith.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011

Illogical. The point is that the only thing that the republicans will allow to get done are THEIR demands. If the only thing the republicans will let you "get done" are things that are disgraced, debunked, irrational republican policies, then the best thing to do is NOT to agree to those wrong-headed policies.



Confront them and propose your own. But that's not what this feeble President does. To him, confrontation is worse than giving the republicans what they want. He truly believes that there are no right or wrong economic policy answers. He incorrectly feels that if there are people on opposite sides of an issue, then the middle ground is where the correct answer is.



So he respects the republicans and their policies in general. It's the only reasonable explanation for his actions. For example, his embracing the belief that the deficit is more important than economic growth helps prove it. There is NO ECONOMY on this planet that has used austerity or tax cuts to get out of a recession/depression in modern times - none. But he engages in this right wing dishonesty anyway.



And people desperate to believe in unicorns still think he's in their corner.



A Democrat's grand bipartisan agreement to implement bad republican policies is a sellout by any objective measure and reflects poorly on the President's trustworthiness and ability to lead.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011

Yes, admitting to an agreement to roll back Medicare and Social Security is a brilliant strategy to prove how you are protecting valuable programs from secretly destructive republicans.



It's genius - PURE genius - because, prior to that time in 2011, NO republican on earth said anything about wanting to roll back Medicare and Social Security and lowering taxes on the wealthy. No republican would DARE suggest anything like that. None!



So in this mysterious fog, the President's deft actions exposed their insidious plans!

------------------

Seriously - you believe that garbage?!? Please tell me you are being sarcastic because it's the most ridiculous bowl of nonsense anyone could possibly dream up!
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011

There's no way you can still pull out these sad, withering, defenses of indefensible acts such as that shown in the NY Magazine piece - if you had actually read the article.



You're position is no more intellectual than a despondent parent attempting to make excuses for an indignant, drug-addicted child ("He's very stressed!"). Pure emotion, no reason, no facts.



Here is a fact: the President and his staff is incompetent. They are incapable of dealing effectively with the teapokes and republicans and the media.



Another fact: there is NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Republicans Aren't Mentioning the Real Cause of Rising Prices at the Gas Pump

Don't know what you mean by isolationist, but it's probably too much for 250 words.



In the meantime, you can "think" about what Obama is by his sporadic sermons and actions - or you can get one of the two books that go into detail about what happened during certain meetings, negotiations, and around Obama during his campaign and while in office. Getting corroborated facts on a topic would help "educate," right?



He's only a pragmatist if you believe an underdog team going into the 2nd quarter of the Super Bowl is pragmatic by forfeiting a game when they're 7 points ahead.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Republicans Aren't Mentioning the Real Cause of Rising Prices at the Gas Pump

That's the best question of the day. Why not indeed.



If you haven't done so already, pick up "Confidence Men" by Ron Suskind, which documents a great deal of the Obama administration's first year plus in office.



Before I read the book, I was of the opinion that the President was actually a true conservative. But now that I have seen the facts, it's really that the President has absolutely no convictions worth fighting for, has a great understanding of the causes and effects of many of our problems (a trait that gnaws at me the most - he knows better!), is malleable on any issue, and is afraid of taking an action that ends up going badly (better to do nothing about a system that's broken than to do something and inadvertently break it more). Simply put, he is not up to the challenge of the office.



(Of course, the others currently running for office are defective in their own ways...)



One book spoiler - Reich was on the Obama campaign's economic advisory team in 2008. Then the election happened and what did we get? If it were a movie, it'd be called something like, "Clinton Returns: Let's Make a Deal!"
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

At Last, Some Decency on Wall Street

That's not very cogent to the point I made, but whatever.



Saying Obama is 'no prince of light' is not even close. He may be generally likable, but do yourself a favor and grab the Ron Suskind book on the Obama campaign and early term called "Confidence Men." The things you correctly excoriate dubya for are no different than the actions of the Obama administration.



Benny Bernanke is a back-room dealing, free market ideologue, wall street crony - and dubya appointee. Why did Obama re-appoint such a man who was nominated/appointed by such a terrible president? And wouldn't a President who appoints such a terribly malfeasant person to another term at such a critical post also be fair game for some very unflattering adjectives?



dubya's deregulation effort adds up to nothing when compared to clinton's Glass-Steagall repeal. It's not even a fair comparison. GLBA and clinton-era bars on regulation of derivatives are the pillars of the 2008 meltdown. Period. Raygun may have been the point man for the norquist movement, but the biggest achievement for wall street excess came with bill clinton's signature.



At least I knew what dubya was when he came in. It was clear. Obama was bait and switch.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

At Last, Some Decency on Wall Street

OK, please accept my apologies for being presumptive of your point.



I see more clearly what you're saying. However, I will at least play devil's advocate on this matter.



I've not known many people in their early or mid-30s who have experienced even modest income windfalls (much less massive windfalls) to be particularly introspective about HOW they arrived at that economic position. Have you?



What I've seen are people who shift gears and become more hostile to non-rich - and certainly to the entities whose activities enabled the wealth accumulation. I don't hear about nor see people in their 30s look out their mansion windows, realize they have all they could ever need, and say, "I'm done with this."



You hear confessions from folks who have lived long enough - into their 60s or so - to see family members destroyed by corporations or actions of others that are identical to those they've practiced. That triggers the ultimate epiphany that leads to a confession.



Maybe you're right. We'll never know, I guess. But this seems like a rare event for someone in their 30s.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

At Last, Some Decency on Wall Street

I can see that when the facts stare straight in your face, the best you can do is throw a 'he was popular' as a counter. Totally irrelevant and illogical.



You can blindly worship clinton as long as you want. But to do so you have to ignore the facts that the man accelerated bank deregulation by gutting what was one of the most important (proved even more clearly in recent years) legislation of the last century - Glass-Steagall. He and his staff lauded it and he happily signed it.



You also have to ignore the fact that he slashed capital gains rates late in his second term, which have, once the wealthy figured out how to exploit them to the maximum, helped starve our nation of needed tax revenue. When dubya whined that his deficit was due to clinton, he was partially right. Of course, all the right wingers loved the idea of slashing capital gains rates, but it had huge long term effects to the economy and government.



Ignore also the fact that he helped accelerate the off-shoring of American jobs with NAFTA.



No matter how you cut it, all you have are superficial, 'things were ducky when bub was in office' to rely on. Anyone working back then knew the economy was riding an unsustainable, inflating bubble. The policies, promotional statements, personnel appointments, and all their long term impacts are a mountain of empirical evidence that crushes your inaccurate and nostalgic perception.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

At Last, Some Decency on Wall Street

If the dot-bomb buildup hadn't been in full force during his administration, delivering good economic "growth" to the nation, bill clinton would be THE most reviled President of the last 30 years. His "accomplishments" may not be as grating as illegal wars, but he man signed - and made brag-worthy - some of the most horrible legislation in our history.



In fact, his opposition of Obama is one of the key factors in my donations and effort in supporting the President's 2008 election. Of course, the knife in my back was Obama's hiring of all the reptilian former clinton administration cronies as soon as the election was over, effectively guaranteeing more wall street excess for an indefinite period.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Santorum Strategy

If you think it's far-fetched, then you need to get around a little more. It's spot on.



Of course, you can feel free to argue about how large the segment of society is that responds to the message. Is it 20%? 30%? 50%? My bet is that overall, it's around 30% with concentrations varying by cultural geographic lines.



The core republican voters who are self-proclaimed "moral majority," stalwart Christian enthusiasts, and seen sometimes commenting here with deep vocabularies (and other demonstrations of solid 'book knowledge') yet utterly incapable of exercising the most fundamental scientific methods or even basic application of logic when "debating" political matters.



You've seen them. You just haven't recognized the common denominator.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jay Inslee, Washington Congressman, Resigning To Focus On Gubernatorial Campaign

LOLW, I've been elected to local office and worked with republicans as minority member (and later as majority and chair). You don't need to tell me about what kind of friends republican politicians make.



It is ALL of our duty to demand that ALL politicians shoot straight and respect the voters by campaigning intelligently and with some credibility. It seems that even Dems like Inslee are having some trouble with that.



Governors, sadly, aren't very powerful these days - especially in light of the recession where the Federal response has been so completely insufficient. The national economy - Washington's, Pennsylvania's, and every other state's - are so intertwined and interdependent that the only tools available to improve one state is going to be at the cost of another state (unless governors have gained the power to place tariffs on imports when I wasn't looking).



So to run for office, suggesting that you will revive a state's economy upon election is more than disingenuous.



An example: We ran a Dem campaign against an r who promised to help the elderly by reducing their taxes. However, the municipal taxes on the elderly were only around $40 average a year. What impact could he have really made?!?



Hence my conclusion that this man is campaigning like a republican. And I wouldn't be so excited about it if I were in Washington.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Four Lies About America's Energy "Crisis"

I'm not being snarky at you. It's that I abhor these criminals....



Oil company refrain[/lie]: "All we make is a small fixed percentage. We buy at market prices and process oil."



Simple math: if oil is $50 per barrel and at the end of the day an oil company makes $10 in profit from the processing and sale of that barrel's related products, then if oil is $100 per barrel, the company makes $20 in profit.



The conclusion no one on the Free Market Theory side wants to face: if an oil company can make more money when the price of oil is high, they do NOT want to do anything that will push oil (nor gas and other derived products) prices down. Since they own the refineries, more refineries, as you state, could help relieve stress in the system and lead to lower prices.



Lower prices * smaller raw profit tallies = no new refineries.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jay Inslee, Washington Congressman, Resigning To Focus On Gubernatorial Campaign

Look, overall, I'm fine with Jay Inslee's performance in Congress.



But I just can't stand these insufferable statements like the one from his resignation. Jay, you're really going to create a new economy in Washington state? Without seceding from the United States, how is that possible. The state can't enter into trade agreements, print money, or much of anything else that has a significant impact on the economy.



So if that statement means you're going to set up tax incentive plans that reward industries to come to your state, you may want to see how sensationally that's been working in the Carolinas and Alabama in particular.... coming soon, lots of moderate-paying jobs with a huge dependence on Federal subsidies because the tax giveaways are never offset by taxes collected by the "little people" (btw- a very republican strategy).



Point is, Governors CAN do a great deal about the future of residents. For example, improve education funding fairness, health care, elder care, transportation, agriculture, and control poor development patterns. To skip right past those (at least, there was nothing quoted here, so if the article's focus on just the comment about state "jobs plan" in the announcement was unfairly attributed, I will eat my words) things where you CAN make a difference and talk about jobs where you really CAN'T make much of a difference isn't what I'd call a great coming out.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Marcy Kaptur Beats Dennis Kucinich In Ohio 9th District Primary

The neutering of Congress and Federal government continues. Dem voters are clearly just as prone to voting for integrity-challenged campaigners as anyone else.



Maybe we will get ourselves a full republican majority sworn in next year and our subsequent economic meltdown can begin to shake people out of their victorian impressions of how this system works.



Seems our only real hope for change is to experience our nation in total ruin - voters tend to believe any fantasy they can in order to pretend the cliff ahead isn't real.



Dennis, thanks for continuously trying to help us turn away from the cliff.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Let Israel Be Israel

Dear Mr. Blackwell,



If your wishes are met, we will bomb Iran. That will endanger more American (and other) lives here and elsewhere. Using your justification logic to bomb Iran, shouldn't you expect personal, dire consequences?



I mean, you call for illegal pre-emptive strikes under the guise of vital safety and security concerns. But a widening war and the resultant material costs to the government (economic downturns, lost jobs, increased travel risks, family members in military put in harm's way while violating international law, and potential need to move more troops in the region) DIRECTLY endanger thousands, if not millions of Americans. Of course you know this, right?



However, aren't those Americans endangered by the actions you demand, by a direct, simple, straight-line extension of YOUR logic, justified to take illegal pre-emptive "strikes" against YOU?! Of course you know this. That's why you consider yourself a patriot, right?



But you're not a patriot. No, when you get right down to it, you and your buds are just a forehead tattoo away from being Charles Manson. Oh, I guess you dress better than Manson, too - I want to give credit where it's due....



Best regards,

timm0
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost