The Parade of the Idiots

In the wake of the SCOTUS ruling that upheld most of the Affordable Care Act, the parade of the (Republican) idiots has predictable started. It's hard to keep track of what everybody said, but I think it was Marco Rubio from Florida who said that if your state doesn't provide subsidized health care you can move to one that does. (And I suppose you can bill Sen. Rubio for the expenses.) I mean, really... Only an imbecile would make a technically factually accurate statement that shows a complete lack of empathy for the fate of millions of people who are struggling to make ends meet and living paycheck to paycheck.

Incidentally, guys like Rubio should realize that they give their creationist beliefs a bad name: there appears to be nothing intelligently designed in an ignorant, heartless, power-hungry Republican politician.

Chief Corporate Justice Roberts Saves ACA's Ass.

I expected no less: The corporate-friendly court found a way to preserve the ton of money that will flow into the coffers of health insurers starting in 2014. Remember, no cost controls. So everybody "wins", but in particular CIGNA, AETNA, UHC, etc. do.

Explain This

Libertarians, Republicans, and heartless curmudgeons need to explain to me why it is not acceptable to have a society in which some people are "wards of the state" but it is perfectly fine for people to be chained to their employer(s).


Case in point:

Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans file bankruptcy because they cannot afford their medical bills. Thousands more are locked into jobs their [sic] hate because they cannot risk losing their employer-provided health insurance while they have a preexisting condition. (Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Jun 27, 2012 at 10:12 pm)

So: It is socialism, hence unacceptable, for the State to provide health care services to residents who pay taxes (presumably for the privilege of maintaining the most bloated military in the world). It is the triumph of liberty when people are turned into indentured servants, chained to their employer(s) because they have medical conditions which would be too costly to manage without the benefit of health insurance provided by a corporation that enjoys rates unknown and unavailable to individuals


This is the philosophy of those, like Mitt Romney, who advise everyone to go and create a business, be successful, while failing to mention that it's often the self-starters who are barred by prohibitive costs from participating in the health insurance market. (And imagine what kind of idiot it takes to propose a society where everybody should pursue the ambition of being a tycoon or small business owner: Who would work for these entrepreneurs? No one, because according to idiots like candidate Romney we should all strive to be independent business people. Oh, and corporations are people.)


May a giant dick fall from the sky and jail-rape these idiots. 

It Won't Matter Anyway

In about 12 hours we are going to find out whether the right-wing Supreme Court of the United States is going to declare the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, either the whole mess of it or only the individual mandate clause. It won't matter, not that much anyway.


The currently-sitting Supreme Court is remarkable only for the adherence to ideology of many of its Justices. But regardless of ideology, the Nine are all smart people. They know that if the law is declared unconstitutional, many will decry a judicial coup d'etat. That would be bad for politics. In a functioning democracy, the appearance of fairness is essential to the preservation of the system. If the Supreme Court issued a ruling that according to most impartial constitutional scholars is untenable, how long will it be before even the illusion of fairness is shattered and people rise against the system, which incidentally is working better and better for the rich and powerful? Besides, the Supreme Court has a pretty well-established history of deference toward Congress (or so I hear), and chances that it will pit its judgment so overtly against the will of Congress are slim (but don't underestimate the power of ideology). There is no need for the Court to expose its partisanship so blatantly.  


Since the Citizens United ruling, money has ruled our elections in ways that would have been unthinkable only 2 years ago. Almost invariably, the candidate who has raised the most money has won the election (or the recall election, in the case of Gov. Walker of Wisconsin), and chances are that sooner or later we will again have a fully Republican Congress and a Republican president in the White House. Once that happens, the Republican Party will be able to do its donors' dirty laundry without the need for the Supreme Court to further tarnish its already compromised reputation. 


That's why tomorrow's ruling matters little. Republicans (and too many Democrats) don't care if people are healthy or sick, dead or alive; they only care about protecting the interests of the corporations. So if the Affordable Care Act stands, they will just find a way to make it as costly for individuals as they can. With the added advantage that the law's name will offer perfect cover for the fact that their goal is to gouge every last penny and drop of blood from the people of the USA. And if it is struck down, well, too bad, but they will make lemonade with lemons.
In spite of its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't guarantee real affordability, only make-believe affordability. As I explained in another post, affordability is not an absolute concept. If you have unlimited discretionary income, everything is affordable. If you live paycheck to paycheck, what percentage of that paycheck should go to "affordable" health care? 5%? 10%? 15%? 


My employer covers about 50% of my medical insurance, so I end up paying only 5% of my salary toward coverage for my wife and myself. But there's a catch: If I decided to quit, or if my employment were terminated, COBRA would only cover me for 18 months at a cost I could not afford. (There is no way I could afford a payment of several hundred dollars a month, in addition to my other bills.) Moreover, since I suffer from two chronic conditions, and need medication and regular doctor visits for each of them, I can't really take the gamble of changing employers because of pre-existing condition clauses. True, the ACA would make denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions unlawful, but it does not set an "affordable" limit on the premium  an insurance company may impose for covering me. In essence, pre-existing conditions are only a thing of the past as far as the letter of the law goes; but the reality is that the spirit of the law makes no provision for affordability of coverage. 


Think about it: Even if the predominantly right-wing court decided to let the law stand, their main constituency (corporations, which have been consistent winners with the Roberts Court) cannot lose. If the law is struck down, things go back to as they were before the bill was signed into law by President Obama, which is bad for common folk. If the law is allowed to stand, insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals win because they get 30 million new customers as the individual mandate becomes the law of the land in 2014, and because there are no meaningful cost controls in the law. And the Supreme Court could appear to have taken no stand in the matter, which is the opposite of what they have done ever since the Bush v Gore ruling in 2000.


As always, it's a win-win for the corporate sponsors of our Republic-in-name-only. What the Supreme Court announces on Thursday won't matter. Not that much anyway.

Good News

Young Americans are losing...

Their loss, everybody's gain.

America Is Too Young To Die? WTF?!?

"If you are desperately concerned about the fate of America, and believe Obama is undermining our Constitutional Republic through his authoritarianism, please, for God's sake, pray and contribute to the Romney campaign.

America is too young die."

Really, Doug, get a hold of yourself. These pleas reek of paranoia. Oh, yes, I'd like some money, too. Wanna contribute to The Daily Fuel? Jeebus!

Scattered Thoughts

Thoughts are scattered because life is a bit of a mess these days. Hence the long, long silence between posts.

However, here are a few considerations that are interesting to me:

- In the mouths of certain conservative politicians and Supreme Court Justices, the phrase "States Right" is a gigantic piece of bullshit. Read the following post on the topic, States' rights only count when we feel like it, by Hunter on Daily Kos. (And since I am not writing much these days, make a note to yourselves to follow Hunter's posts on the Daily Kos with devotion: They are goldmines of wisdom dressed with the right amounts of humor and disbelief.)

- Douglas Groothuis's blog on electing Mitt Romney is the expected ragbag of misinformed opinions, laden with hatred and deprived of true substance. When I visit it I don't know whether I should laugh at him or cry at the thought of the harm he is doing to the minds of the people who read him with devotion (but maybe if you see wisdom in Groothuis's political views your mind has already passed the point of no return).

- You should try to adjust your goals in life around what you are passionate about. In other words, do what you are passionate about and build a lifestyle that will allow you to continue doing it, cutting superfluous habits if necessary. If you do the opposite, i.e. pick a career based on what its earnings will  enable you to afford, you are doomed to fall into a life of misery sooner or later.

10-4.

A Tax Revolt

Few things make my blood boil like the notion that it is statist for a government to provide health care for its citizens but that it is okay for the government to create an environment in which citizens can purchase "affordable" health care.

No one should have no faith in the definition of what is affordable given from people who have already shown that affordability is the last thing on their minds when it comes to education (college tuition and interest rates, school vouchers, charter schools all come to mind), medicines for senior citizens (Medicare Part D), alternatives to Social Security (there is no lack of studies that show that the administrative costs of private retirement funds far exceed those of Social Security), just to cite a few examples.

What is affordable, when it comes to health care? The average American family is already expected to spend 17% of its annual income on health care, and costs have been rising steadily at triple the rate of inflation for the last 20 years. In Massachusetts, then Gov. Romney introduced a state health care plan that mandates that each resident purchase private insurance lest it should be subject to a penalty (Congress then went on to copy the Massachusetts plan in 2010--a plan, may I add, of extremely dubious constitutionality).

What has happened to the cost of health care in Massachusetts since the passage of "Romney care" in 2006? Up until two years ago, when Democratic governor Deval Patrick decided to tackle the issue of health care costs, they had been rising at a rate of 17%! Now the rate of increase has dropped to an average of 2%, but in the meantime the people of the state have been forced to swallow premium increases that can easily break a family's budget. If history is any indication, isn't that what we should expect from those who are claiming that affordable care ought to be the goal that Congress should help bring about?

Additionally, there is no absolute measure of affordability. What is affordable for one individual or family can be completely out of reach for another. The measure of health care shouldn't be its affordability, but its quality and the coverage it provides. Is a premium affordable if it covers only catastrophic events but it forces the insured to pay for everything else out-of-pocket, or if it comes with high deductibles and co-pays? Is it affordable for someone who is already struggling to make ends meet to pay for rent or a mortgage, his children's education, car insurance, gas, food, clothes, perhaps the care of a parent or both, to be forced to pay for something deemed to be affordable by someone else who has no idea of a person's financial situation?

Again, what is affordable for someone who has taken a 10% cut in salary to keep his job, or who has seen a negative rate of increase in his salary for ten years, while everything else around him has gotten more expensive, a common situation for many in the United States?

And why on earth is it okay for a government to spend as much on its military as the next 23 countries combined, without providing a minimum of health care services for its citizens, and then have the gall to force them to purchase a product it may not be able to afford? Cut defense spending to an acceptable level, then return the money that has been cut where it belongs, the pockets of middle-class Americans, then come back with a definition of what constitutes affordable health care, and we'll start a conversation. Until then, come April 15th, Americans should take its patriots as an example and conscientiously object to paying taxes.

Why He, A Principled-Conservative, Bible-Believing Protestant, and Counter-cult Expert, Will Vote for Mitt Romney

As the election season approaches, the Constructive Curmudgeon regales us with the reasons why he, a principled blah blah blah, will vote for Willard Mitt Romney in the November elections. The real reasons? The Curmudgeon enthusiastically welcomed Sarah Palin as the VP candidate of the last Republican presidential ticket, he supported Michele Bachmann this time around. In other words, in spite of all claims of logic in support of his choices, the guy votes Republican because he hates Democrats, which he is entitled to.

He'd never vote for a Democrat, like I would never vote for a Republican, and he rationalizes his distaste for Democrats and cloaks it in a smokescreen of alleged good reasons when, in fact, he offers really none (unless you consider lines like "the alternative to Romney is [...] the end of America as it was founded and as we know it" an example of a good reason, in which case you have bigger problems than agreeing with the Curmudgeon.

If the choice were between a Democrat and an orangutan in Republican garb, the Curmudgeon would come up with a list of "good" reasons why the orangutan would make a better president for America. Lucky for him, many Republicans reason just as well as orangutans do.

(P.S. If you want to read his official reasons, complete with factual inaccuracies and simply made up stuff like [Obama supports] "the federal takeover of health care, leading to rationing, inefficiency, and a loss of personal freedom. You will be paying for abortions. Some would rather go to jail than do this", "A growing and perhaps insurmountable debt, mortgaging our future, and making us like Greece", and the completely fantastic "Further evisceration of our military and cut backs in military benefits" you can read the whole sorry post here.)

You've Got To Wonder About Some Congressional Districts

How do idiots like Allen West (R-FL) get elected? When a district contains enough idiots like him to elect him, I guess, and when the good people who might prevent him from winning a seat don't vote.

Anyway, here's West's latest nugget of idiocy. In any case, better red than [being represented by] West.

Greed vs. Life

Hunter at Daily Kos gives a very typically pitiless and accurate take down of the conservatives' arguments against universal health care, in which he unmasks the freedom vs.socialism/government argument for a what it really is: an argument for greed over life.

You can read Hunter's whole impeccable argument, Steve King is still a rotten human being by clicking the link. But a few excerpts bear highlighting:

The freedom of the healthy, it is presumed, will be abridged if they are taxed even a penny to pay for the less healthy. The freedom of the decently well off will be compromised, it is argued straight-out, we consider it a national interest to care for people those "well off" individuals deem it unnecessary to care for. 

[...] The future potential of a need for health care among all living humans would seem to be a self-evident premise, and existing federal law provides that they will be cared for in emergency situations, whether they have preemptively "entered into" that commerce or not. The hospitals and other institutions responsible for that care are already actively engaged in—and mandated to— provide that commerce. There's no opt-out there. There is no citizen who does not benefit from that explicit federal guarantee of some very basic level of care, even if they, like Mr. King's Randian supermen, never actually need to partake of it. They are in that commerce. They benefit from it.

[...] The conservative argument is that there is no underlying right to health care, there is no obligation to provide citizens with that care, and that establishing a tax or fine or program to provide that care is in fact the true infringement of rights and freedoms, as some people might be put out by it. This argument is considered implausible in nearly all other aspects of government: There is no opt-out of defense spending, if you do not wish to pay for it. There is no little box to check if you do not want your tax dollars to go towards transportation spending, or infrastructure improvements, or courthouses, or police forces, or fire prevention efforts. These are decided legal issues. The notion that the rights of a certain small subset of the greedy and amoral are being wounded by requiring them to partake of a federal program to insure all others would seemingly be a rather asinine proposition. For millennial conservatism, however, it is not. 

[...] The "right" not to be taxed is being weighed against the "right" of poorer or less fortunate citizens to live, and the outcome of that question is honestly being presumed as debatable, even though there are precious few other contexts in which you could debate the question and not be considered, for lack of a better phrase, a goddamn monster. 

 Read the rest of it. It's well worth it.

Blood Boils Again, I'm Afraid

Every country has horror stories that affect the lives of its citizens. The United States, of course, is no exception, except in the minds of rabid Repuglycans (not Republicans, mind you, although the distinction is getting quite pointless) and Tea Partiers who take any criticism of the nation as the evil work of Commie infiltrates. On the contrary, recognizing one's shortcomings is the only way to eliminating them, which is why so much that is good in this country has been going so badly, so fast. Denial, Egypt, etc.

Tonight, I had the misfortune/good fortune of watching a special presentation of PBS's Frontline that featured two such horror stories.

The first one covered cases in which the forensic pathology and prosecutorial apparatuses of this nation combine in a frightening frenzy to create crimes when there is none. Prominently featured was the case of a quite likeable fellow, Ernie Lopez, who spent close to 10 years in prison for a crime he almost certainly did not commit: the rape and murder of a 6-month old infant he baby-sat. You can watch the original investigation, The Child Cases, on Frontline's web site.

The other story followed the intersection of for-profit online universities (with a lowercase U) with the lives of veterans who attend them in hope of rebuilding their lives after serving the nation. The waste of money is unthinkable, as is the damage done to the lives of men and women who have sacrificed their lives, and their families', in service to the nation. You can watch this episode too, Educating Sgt. Pantzke, on Frontline's web site.

If your blood is not boiling after you have viewed this stories, check your pulse. If it is, do something about it.

Some Republicans' Idea of Democracy Very Much Resembles Dictatorship

A chilling report broadcast by Rachel Maddow  tonight shows the Republican-led Michigan legislature put laws into immediate effect, a practice that requires a 2/3 majority and that should presumably be reserved for emergency situations, not by roll-call but by a simple show of hands (actually, by asking representatives in favor of the resolution to stand).

The legislature which was seated in January 2011 passed 546 of 566 laws with immediate effect. You can watch how long it takes the speaker of the Michigan House to determine that a 2/3 majority exists for the immediate effect resolution in the video below. And then you may shudder.

---

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If Broccoli Were Like Health Insurance...

If broccoli were like health insurance, in cartoon form. What a country, eh?

Hunter Hits Another Bulls' Eye

That'd be Hunter over at Daily Kos, and his latest bull's eye is his post about this week's Supreme Court Kabuki Theater job.

You can read it here.

Broccoli, Vile Weed! (And Even Viler Justices)

There's a famed episode of Seinfeld where Jerry, in order to save a friend's job who works at Kenny Rogers' Roasters, accepts to switch apartments with Kramer, who had started a protest against the restaurant in an attempt to put it out of business so he could resume a regular sleeping schedule (the restaurant's red neon sign prevented Kramer from catching a good night's sleep).

Later in the show, though, Jerry discovers that in spite of the protest, Kramer (and Newman) has become addicted to the chicken, and figures out that Kramer would not have the guts to resume his ploy to put the restaurant out of business even if he had to go back to his apartment. Jerry finds out because he meets Newman at Kenny Rogers' and the clerk who hands Newman the order says "Oh, don't forget your broccoli." Jerry says "Broccoli? You wouldn't eat broccoli if it were deep-covered in chocolate sauce!" Newman's half-heartedly responds "I love broccoli!", so Jerry exhorts him to have some broccoli, then. Newman does and proceeds to spit it out after almost choking on it and exclaims "Vile weed!". That's how Jerry uncovers Kramer's ruse and forces Kramer to switch back apartments.

This week's health care arguments in front of the Supreme Court reminded me of that episode, because broccoli was a central plot twist in the Seinfeld episode and was also a central argument in Justice Scalia's opposition to the Affordable Healthcare Act. Scalia, whose antics are legendary and whose intelligence and rhetorical abilities are obviously greatly overrated, contended that allowing one government mandate (the individual mandate to purchase health care or pay a tax penalty) might lead to another (the government's hypothetical mandate to all Americans to purchase broccoli).

Paul Krugman was one of many commentators who pointed out that Scalia's argument is disingenuous because one American's failure to purchase broccoli does not have any effect on another American's ability to purchase the vegetable or on its affordability. Justice Scalia is a sure vote in the pocket of the Act's opponents, no doubt. His clumsy rhetoric and his inability (or unwillingness) to understand the difference that goes between the grocery market and the health care market.

But where Don Verrilli, Solicitor General of the United States, caught a lot of flack in the mainstream media for his fumbling defense of the ACA's individual mandate requirement, Justice Scalia caught almost none for his pedestrian offense against logic and his attack against the Act's pivotal requirement. This difference in treatment is another example, in case one was needed, of the ridiculous job that the MSM does in informing the American public about the content of the issues. No wonder so many Americans are confused and think that both sides are equally guilty for the country's failures.

Perhaps, as Newman says in the Kenny Rogers' Roasters episode, broccoli is a vile weed. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind, however, that Justice Scalia's presumed defense of individual liberty in the name of broccoli is very vile weed.

Now That The Health Care Arguments Have Been Heard, Let The Arguments Begin

For the insatiably masochistic, like me, here are a couple interesting posts about this week's SCOTUS hearings on health care.
The Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act, and the Slippery Slope (by Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago)
No Surprise: The Supreme Court Is Hostile To Health Care (by Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA)

Start From Scratch

I said it before and I will say it again: The best thing that the Supreme Court could do for all of us is shoot down the individual mandate that is that foundation of the Affordable Healthcare Act. In saying it I know that I will draw the ire of many, many of whom I sincerely respect.

As you know, I am no libertarian and no conservative, but I do believe that the Affordable Healthcare Act is a total screw up of the promise of health care for all, brought about by a weak President and Democratic majority. It was a half-assed, half-hearted attempt to make health care accessible to all Americans without pissing off the insurance industry and the medical-hospital complex too much. It was never, in spite of the name, an attempt to make health care more affordable. If it had been, cost meaningful controls would have been part of the law. They are not. The closest the law gets to some form of cost control is to mandate that insurance companies must spend 80 cents on the dollar on health care, which is no cost control at all, because it does nothing to prevent costs from rising at the rate they have been and beyond.

At this point, the best thing that can happen is for the Supreme Court to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional. Send the whole law back to the drawing board, and let the states deal with creating a universal health care system for its residents. That's how universal, single-payer health care started in Canada. That's probably what it will take over here.

If Obama and the Democrats had really wanted to make health care affordable and accessible to all Americans, all they had to do was to open enrollment in Medicare to all Americans who wanted to enroll. If you want to achieve the goal of bringing the USA up to the same level of humanization as all advanced countries, it should be a piece of cake to do it for the country that constantly, and unjustifiably, calls itself the number one in the world. If you wanted to have every American citizen and legal resident covered by a universal health care system, do it through taxation: slash the military budget, and redirect that money to provide your people with what most other civilized countries regard as a basic human right.

Anything short of that is a hoax. The President and too many Democrats viewed health care reform not as a goal in itself, but as a means of currying and keeping political favor. Let them deal with the consequences. And apologize to all who will suffer because of their short-sightedness.

Paul Volcker on Obama

Paul Volcker says that claims that Obama is a socialist have "no connection to reality". Of course they don't.

I understand why Repuglycans try to paint President Obama as a socialist. After all, they have also played the "show us the birth certificate" card for three years before finally giving in to being ridiculed for it.

What I don't understand is how anyone who is not a shill for the Repuglycan Party can seriously believe that the president is a socialist. I guess it comes down to most Republican voters holding a Manichaean worldview that divides the world into good ("those who see the world like we do") and evil (everybody else).

I feel sorry for them. And for the rest of us.

Fox Double Standard

Jon Stewart's classic takedown of the douches at Fox News Channel.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook