by Ugh
Some comments on the midterm post have delved into the ACA and what's going on at SCOTUS and the state itself. I was going to write a post on this but haven't had time. So, take any angle you want on the ACA, no need to respond to the below.
Proponents of the view that the ACA permits tax credits for those who purchase insurance on the federally run exchanges – despite statutory language arguably to the contrary – are quick to point out that more than 4 million people have obtained health insurance through the federal exchange and a decision denying the credits puts those policies at risk and thus people's lives. I'm wondering whether this should matter to SCOTUS.
Let's try a different hypothetical, suppose PharmaCo develops a life saving treatment and patents it. Six months after granting the patent the PTO reverses course and revokes the patent because the subject matter is not patentable under PTO regulations. PharmaCo sues and loses in the district and circuit courts under deference to PTO regulations interpreting (in their view) an ambiguous state, and sappeals to SCOTUS. During this time, the treatment has become widely and cheaply available and is currently credited with saving 100,000 lives. Further, the treatment must be administered on a monthly basis and those who stop have perished.
PharmaCo's argument at SCOTUS is that the PTO regulations are inconsistent with the statute and its treatment is patentable subject matter. Further, PharmaCo has announced its intention (that we all believe will be carried through), should it win at SCOTUS, to raise the price of the treatment by 10,000%, such that only 1,000 of the 100,000 people can afford to continue treatment, putting 99,000 people at risk of death. Should SCOTUS care about that when determining whether the statute is ambiguous?
I'd say it should. We're not talking about constitutional principles here, such that there may be some great issue at stake, we're talking about what the statute says/means/etc. Further, we have the view of the agency charged with administering and enforcing (at least part of) the statute with relevant expertise. So, why not take the impact into account when deciding the case? Or if you don't like that approach, concur in the result only?
My view is that SCOTUS upholds the credits 5-4, with Roberts again pissing off the right. Heck, you might even see a 7-2. Or at least I hope.
Scott Lemieux has been eviscerating the pro ACA “trooferism” over at LG&M. The SCOTUS granting cert in King merely underscores what is been widely known since Bush v. Gore, that the current SC majority are simply unelected conservative partisans.
Not that I am opposed to that, just that they are the wrong partisans 🙂
Scott Lemieux has been eviscerating the pro ACA “trooferism” over at LG&M. The SCOTUS granting cert in King merely underscores what is been widely known since Bush v. Gore, that the current SC majority are simply unelected conservative partisans.
Not that I am opposed to that, just that they are the wrong partisans 🙂
Scott Lemieux has been eviscerating the pro ACA “trooferism” over at LG&M. The SCOTUS granting cert in King merely underscores what is been widely known since Bush v. Gore, that the current SC majority are simply unelected conservative partisans.
Not that I am opposed to that, just that they are the wrong partisans 🙂
I read Lemieux, no more partisan reading of the law than his. When people say that the legislature just couldn’t have meant what the law says, then its just a deep desire for that to be true. It seems to me it was an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange, they figured that the subsidies would be a big enough hammer, along with Medicaid money. When that didn’t work they’ve been backpedaling ever since.
I read Lemieux, no more partisan reading of the law than his. When people say that the legislature just couldn’t have meant what the law says, then its just a deep desire for that to be true. It seems to me it was an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange, they figured that the subsidies would be a big enough hammer, along with Medicaid money. When that didn’t work they’ve been backpedaling ever since.
I read Lemieux, no more partisan reading of the law than his. When people say that the legislature just couldn’t have meant what the law says, then its just a deep desire for that to be true. It seems to me it was an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange, they figured that the subsidies would be a big enough hammer, along with Medicaid money. When that didn’t work they’ve been backpedaling ever since.
In a perfect world, the Supreme Court could just objectively evaluate the legal/constitutional merits of the cases that come before it. What Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, referred to as “calling balls and strikes.” If it was doing that consistently, then there wouldn’t be any real strong case for them considering anything else. And, after all, in the case Ugh posits there would be nothing to keep Congress from revising the law to keep the company from causing massive deaths.
But that isn’t what happens in practice. The Court usually has some kind of tightly reasoned justification for the conclusion they reach. But all lawyers are trained to argue either side of any case — because they are supposed to represent one side as best they can, regardless of its merits. And all of the Justices are trained as lawyers, so they can do that.
As a result, many of them frequently appear to start from the conclusion that they want, and craft an argument/justification to support it. Their arguments, as someone noted on a prior thread, are tightly crafted. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have anything real behind them.
Once you accept that the Justices are reaching their conclusion independent of the merits of the actual case, it is far easier to accept that they might consider factors like how many peoples’ lives would be seriously impacted by their decision.
In this specific case, I would offer up a differen possibile outcome. If the ACA’s subsidy gets voided for policies coming thru the Federal exchange, what will happen? As Ugh notes, several million people, mostly in states with Republican administrations, will suddenly lose their policy, or at least see their premium shoot up. And what will their reaction be to that? I suggest that they will be very unhappy. And will take it out on the party which forced them into that situation.
Which might make the conservative Justices decide that they don’t want to let that result come to pass. And, if they are the partisans that Bobby called them, they (or at least some of them) might decide that protecting their party is more important than protecting their philosophical principles in thus specific case. Which might mean the ACA gets a large vote in its favor. Just a thought.
In a perfect world, the Supreme Court could just objectively evaluate the legal/constitutional merits of the cases that come before it. What Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, referred to as “calling balls and strikes.” If it was doing that consistently, then there wouldn’t be any real strong case for them considering anything else. And, after all, in the case Ugh posits there would be nothing to keep Congress from revising the law to keep the company from causing massive deaths.
But that isn’t what happens in practice. The Court usually has some kind of tightly reasoned justification for the conclusion they reach. But all lawyers are trained to argue either side of any case — because they are supposed to represent one side as best they can, regardless of its merits. And all of the Justices are trained as lawyers, so they can do that.
As a result, many of them frequently appear to start from the conclusion that they want, and craft an argument/justification to support it. Their arguments, as someone noted on a prior thread, are tightly crafted. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have anything real behind them.
Once you accept that the Justices are reaching their conclusion independent of the merits of the actual case, it is far easier to accept that they might consider factors like how many peoples’ lives would be seriously impacted by their decision.
In this specific case, I would offer up a differen possibile outcome. If the ACA’s subsidy gets voided for policies coming thru the Federal exchange, what will happen? As Ugh notes, several million people, mostly in states with Republican administrations, will suddenly lose their policy, or at least see their premium shoot up. And what will their reaction be to that? I suggest that they will be very unhappy. And will take it out on the party which forced them into that situation.
Which might make the conservative Justices decide that they don’t want to let that result come to pass. And, if they are the partisans that Bobby called them, they (or at least some of them) might decide that protecting their party is more important than protecting their philosophical principles in thus specific case. Which might mean the ACA gets a large vote in its favor. Just a thought.
In a perfect world, the Supreme Court could just objectively evaluate the legal/constitutional merits of the cases that come before it. What Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, referred to as “calling balls and strikes.” If it was doing that consistently, then there wouldn’t be any real strong case for them considering anything else. And, after all, in the case Ugh posits there would be nothing to keep Congress from revising the law to keep the company from causing massive deaths.
But that isn’t what happens in practice. The Court usually has some kind of tightly reasoned justification for the conclusion they reach. But all lawyers are trained to argue either side of any case — because they are supposed to represent one side as best they can, regardless of its merits. And all of the Justices are trained as lawyers, so they can do that.
As a result, many of them frequently appear to start from the conclusion that they want, and craft an argument/justification to support it. Their arguments, as someone noted on a prior thread, are tightly crafted. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they have anything real behind them.
Once you accept that the Justices are reaching their conclusion independent of the merits of the actual case, it is far easier to accept that they might consider factors like how many peoples’ lives would be seriously impacted by their decision.
In this specific case, I would offer up a differen possibile outcome. If the ACA’s subsidy gets voided for policies coming thru the Federal exchange, what will happen? As Ugh notes, several million people, mostly in states with Republican administrations, will suddenly lose their policy, or at least see their premium shoot up. And what will their reaction be to that? I suggest that they will be very unhappy. And will take it out on the party which forced them into that situation.
Which might make the conservative Justices decide that they don’t want to let that result come to pass. And, if they are the partisans that Bobby called them, they (or at least some of them) might decide that protecting their party is more important than protecting their philosophical principles in thus specific case. Which might mean the ACA gets a large vote in its favor. Just a thought.
When people say that the legislature just couldn’t have meant what the law says, then its just a deep desire for that to be true.
What the law “says” is that federal exchanges are meant to be available to those in states where the states have decided to not set up an exchange. But of course, how could you know that, lost as you are amidst those “2,000 pages” of closely written text?
The horror.
As several observers have noted, all you need in this case to rebut the conserva-whacko reasoning is quote the very words of the “fearsome four” assholes in their Sebilius dissent.
They have no shame.
When people say that the legislature just couldn’t have meant what the law says, then its just a deep desire for that to be true.
What the law “says” is that federal exchanges are meant to be available to those in states where the states have decided to not set up an exchange. But of course, how could you know that, lost as you are amidst those “2,000 pages” of closely written text?
The horror.
As several observers have noted, all you need in this case to rebut the conserva-whacko reasoning is quote the very words of the “fearsome four” assholes in their Sebilius dissent.
They have no shame.
When people say that the legislature just couldn’t have meant what the law says, then its just a deep desire for that to be true.
What the law “says” is that federal exchanges are meant to be available to those in states where the states have decided to not set up an exchange. But of course, how could you know that, lost as you are amidst those “2,000 pages” of closely written text?
The horror.
As several observers have noted, all you need in this case to rebut the conserva-whacko reasoning is quote the very words of the “fearsome four” assholes in their Sebilius dissent.
They have no shame.
I wonder how the CBO would score it. Subsidies are one of the costs of the ACA, so a right-wing ruling by SCOTUS would make the Act’s cost/benefit projection better, wouldn’t it? The GOP line that Obamacare will bankrupt the government would immediately sound just that much sillier.
Not that the Republicans-for-life on The Court would ever let that influence them. If it says “Moops” on the card, then that’s that.
–TP
I wonder how the CBO would score it. Subsidies are one of the costs of the ACA, so a right-wing ruling by SCOTUS would make the Act’s cost/benefit projection better, wouldn’t it? The GOP line that Obamacare will bankrupt the government would immediately sound just that much sillier.
Not that the Republicans-for-life on The Court would ever let that influence them. If it says “Moops” on the card, then that’s that.
–TP
I wonder how the CBO would score it. Subsidies are one of the costs of the ACA, so a right-wing ruling by SCOTUS would make the Act’s cost/benefit projection better, wouldn’t it? The GOP line that Obamacare will bankrupt the government would immediately sound just that much sillier.
Not that the Republicans-for-life on The Court would ever let that influence them. If it says “Moops” on the card, then that’s that.
–TP
Based on my liberal opinion that voters, esp. but not exclusively on the Right, are gullible idiots, I would not exclude the possibility that SCOTUS gutting the ACA will be successfully blamed on Obama and the Democrats.
Exhibit A: “Before Obamacare there never was Ebola in America.”
If to run on that (or at least seriously considering that) will not get you laughed (at best) out of town, the I see no problem at all to feed the base with “SCOTUS decision proves that Obama wanted to kill you in your sleep (and give your money to [enter enemy du jour here])”.
—
As for the philosophical question. The old ideal is FIAT JUSTITIA ET PEREAT MUNDUS, justice be served even if the world goes to Hell as a result. Unfortunately these days it seems to get translated as ‘Judicial Fiat. And You may go to hell!’. In theory judges/justices are not supposed to care about results but to stick to the letter however absurd the results may be. But the assumption therein is that letter and intent don’t differ. Definitely not a given.
Based on my liberal opinion that voters, esp. but not exclusively on the Right, are gullible idiots, I would not exclude the possibility that SCOTUS gutting the ACA will be successfully blamed on Obama and the Democrats.
Exhibit A: “Before Obamacare there never was Ebola in America.”
If to run on that (or at least seriously considering that) will not get you laughed (at best) out of town, the I see no problem at all to feed the base with “SCOTUS decision proves that Obama wanted to kill you in your sleep (and give your money to [enter enemy du jour here])”.
—
As for the philosophical question. The old ideal is FIAT JUSTITIA ET PEREAT MUNDUS, justice be served even if the world goes to Hell as a result. Unfortunately these days it seems to get translated as ‘Judicial Fiat. And You may go to hell!’. In theory judges/justices are not supposed to care about results but to stick to the letter however absurd the results may be. But the assumption therein is that letter and intent don’t differ. Definitely not a given.
Based on my liberal opinion that voters, esp. but not exclusively on the Right, are gullible idiots, I would not exclude the possibility that SCOTUS gutting the ACA will be successfully blamed on Obama and the Democrats.
Exhibit A: “Before Obamacare there never was Ebola in America.”
If to run on that (or at least seriously considering that) will not get you laughed (at best) out of town, the I see no problem at all to feed the base with “SCOTUS decision proves that Obama wanted to kill you in your sleep (and give your money to [enter enemy du jour here])”.
—
As for the philosophical question. The old ideal is FIAT JUSTITIA ET PEREAT MUNDUS, justice be served even if the world goes to Hell as a result. Unfortunately these days it seems to get translated as ‘Judicial Fiat. And You may go to hell!’. In theory judges/justices are not supposed to care about results but to stick to the letter however absurd the results may be. But the assumption therein is that letter and intent don’t differ. Definitely not a given.
How accurate is Thinkprogress’ analysis, O Lawyern? Is there any reason to disagree with David Roberts’ description of the case as “postmodern conservatism”? IAreallyNAL
How accurate is Thinkprogress’ analysis, O Lawyern? Is there any reason to disagree with David Roberts’ description of the case as “postmodern conservatism”? IAreallyNAL
How accurate is Thinkprogress’ analysis, O Lawyern? Is there any reason to disagree with David Roberts’ description of the case as “postmodern conservatism”? IAreallyNAL
Just for the record. It was Nick Muzin, the deputy chief of staff for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that during the campaign came up with:
Just for the record. It was Nick Muzin, the deputy chief of staff for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that during the campaign came up with:
Just for the record. It was Nick Muzin, the deputy chief of staff for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that during the campaign came up with:
Nick Muzin is also flat out wrong. There was an outbreak of Ebola Reston in a Virginia primate quarantine facility in 1989, and later at one in Texas in 1996. Fortunately that strain looks to be pretty harmless to humans. While lots of monkeys died, the three workers at the first facility who tested positive for antibodies never showed signs of illness.
Nick Muzin is also flat out wrong. There was an outbreak of Ebola Reston in a Virginia primate quarantine facility in 1989, and later at one in Texas in 1996. Fortunately that strain looks to be pretty harmless to humans. While lots of monkeys died, the three workers at the first facility who tested positive for antibodies never showed signs of illness.
Nick Muzin is also flat out wrong. There was an outbreak of Ebola Reston in a Virginia primate quarantine facility in 1989, and later at one in Texas in 1996. Fortunately that strain looks to be pretty harmless to humans. While lots of monkeys died, the three workers at the first facility who tested positive for antibodies never showed signs of illness.
Actually, we are talking about constitutional principles here. And, you know what?
If you don’t follow them even when you don’t like the result, they’re not “principles”. They’re just helpful hints, or general guidelines, or something else.
Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome.
This law doesn’t say what you’d like it to say. It hasn’t said a lot of things you’d like it to have said. But it still said them.
And, yeah, every thing it says is the Democrats’ fault, because you own the ACA completely, you passed it without one Republican vote. And nobody is obligated to pretend it’s a good law, and doesn’t have really damaging provisions, just because you don’t want to take the blame for what you passed.
Actually, we are talking about constitutional principles here. And, you know what?
If you don’t follow them even when you don’t like the result, they’re not “principles”. They’re just helpful hints, or general guidelines, or something else.
Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome.
This law doesn’t say what you’d like it to say. It hasn’t said a lot of things you’d like it to have said. But it still said them.
And, yeah, every thing it says is the Democrats’ fault, because you own the ACA completely, you passed it without one Republican vote. And nobody is obligated to pretend it’s a good law, and doesn’t have really damaging provisions, just because you don’t want to take the blame for what you passed.
Actually, we are talking about constitutional principles here. And, you know what?
If you don’t follow them even when you don’t like the result, they’re not “principles”. They’re just helpful hints, or general guidelines, or something else.
Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome.
This law doesn’t say what you’d like it to say. It hasn’t said a lot of things you’d like it to have said. But it still said them.
And, yeah, every thing it says is the Democrats’ fault, because you own the ACA completely, you passed it without one Republican vote. And nobody is obligated to pretend it’s a good law, and doesn’t have really damaging provisions, just because you don’t want to take the blame for what you passed.
They passed a Republican law with no Republican votes and got blamed by Republicans for it. The standard conclusion Dem congresscritters (and the ‘liberal’ media) draw from that is that they have to out-Republicanize the Republicans next time even more. Dems = worthless (for the most part), GOPsters = insane and/or evil (or walking targets for party ‘friends’). Libertarians = in most cases a mere disguise for dyed in the wool GOPsters still on the rise through the ranks (small-l libertarians that are not part of the 1% are a negligible quantity in actual politics and mainly serve as the kind of dupes that praise themsleves as non-dupeable). Actual liberals are at least aware that their voices don’t count where it counts (some Greens excepted).
They passed a Republican law with no Republican votes and got blamed by Republicans for it. The standard conclusion Dem congresscritters (and the ‘liberal’ media) draw from that is that they have to out-Republicanize the Republicans next time even more. Dems = worthless (for the most part), GOPsters = insane and/or evil (or walking targets for party ‘friends’). Libertarians = in most cases a mere disguise for dyed in the wool GOPsters still on the rise through the ranks (small-l libertarians that are not part of the 1% are a negligible quantity in actual politics and mainly serve as the kind of dupes that praise themsleves as non-dupeable). Actual liberals are at least aware that their voices don’t count where it counts (some Greens excepted).
They passed a Republican law with no Republican votes and got blamed by Republicans for it. The standard conclusion Dem congresscritters (and the ‘liberal’ media) draw from that is that they have to out-Republicanize the Republicans next time even more. Dems = worthless (for the most part), GOPsters = insane and/or evil (or walking targets for party ‘friends’). Libertarians = in most cases a mere disguise for dyed in the wool GOPsters still on the rise through the ranks (small-l libertarians that are not part of the 1% are a negligible quantity in actual politics and mainly serve as the kind of dupes that praise themsleves as non-dupeable). Actual liberals are at least aware that their voices don’t count where it counts (some Greens excepted).
Actually, we are talking about constitutional principles here.
Actually, what are the constitutional principles at stake here?
It seems to me it was an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange, they figured that the subsidies would be a big enough hammer, along with Medicaid money.
This analysis is as reasonable as any other that I’ve seen.
If so, well played on the part of the states. They’ve sent the big “f**** you” to uncle.
Brett says all of us lefties will just have to live with the result of how the law was written. In turn, I say that all of the folks in the states that felt like flipping the bird to the feds will now get to live with the results of that.
Enjoy your sh*t sandwich. Make sure you have some of those delicious “principles” on the side.
Actually, we are talking about constitutional principles here.
Actually, what are the constitutional principles at stake here?
It seems to me it was an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange, they figured that the subsidies would be a big enough hammer, along with Medicaid money.
This analysis is as reasonable as any other that I’ve seen.
If so, well played on the part of the states. They’ve sent the big “f**** you” to uncle.
Brett says all of us lefties will just have to live with the result of how the law was written. In turn, I say that all of the folks in the states that felt like flipping the bird to the feds will now get to live with the results of that.
Enjoy your sh*t sandwich. Make sure you have some of those delicious “principles” on the side.
Actually, we are talking about constitutional principles here.
Actually, what are the constitutional principles at stake here?
It seems to me it was an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange, they figured that the subsidies would be a big enough hammer, along with Medicaid money.
This analysis is as reasonable as any other that I’ve seen.
If so, well played on the part of the states. They’ve sent the big “f**** you” to uncle.
Brett says all of us lefties will just have to live with the result of how the law was written. In turn, I say that all of the folks in the states that felt like flipping the bird to the feds will now get to live with the results of that.
Enjoy your sh*t sandwich. Make sure you have some of those delicious “principles” on the side.
Brett: “Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome”
Like tossing away the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment in the Sheldon Voting Rights case?
The Roberts court has earned their reputation as lawless disingenuous hacks. Go ahead and try to defend them. Or you can just “flounce” once again.
Brett: “Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome”
Like tossing away the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment in the Sheldon Voting Rights case?
The Roberts court has earned their reputation as lawless disingenuous hacks. Go ahead and try to defend them. Or you can just “flounce” once again.
Brett: “Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome”
Like tossing away the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment in the Sheldon Voting Rights case?
The Roberts court has earned their reputation as lawless disingenuous hacks. Go ahead and try to defend them. Or you can just “flounce” once again.
“Like tossing away the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment in the Sheldon Voting Rights case?”
So, are you agreeing with Brett by saying they shouldn’t have done this? Or is this ok as long as they throw other clauses away also, as you see fit?
“Like tossing away the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment in the Sheldon Voting Rights case?”
So, are you agreeing with Brett by saying they shouldn’t have done this? Or is this ok as long as they throw other clauses away also, as you see fit?
“Like tossing away the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment in the Sheldon Voting Rights case?”
So, are you agreeing with Brett by saying they shouldn’t have done this? Or is this ok as long as they throw other clauses away also, as you see fit?
Proponents of the view that the ACA permits tax credits for those who purchase insurance on the federally run exchanges – despite statutory language arguably to the contrary
along with plenty of language to support credits from federal exchanges – along with the actions and statements of agencies and individuals involved in the writing and implementation, along with the interpretation of the members of the very same Supreme Court that’s taken this matter up.
what’s the assertion, that everyone was tricked into setting up federal exchanges with subsidies/credits? that all the language supporting those subsidies is wrong and only the ambiguous text is right?
it’s nonsensical.
Proponents of the view that the ACA permits tax credits for those who purchase insurance on the federally run exchanges – despite statutory language arguably to the contrary
along with plenty of language to support credits from federal exchanges – along with the actions and statements of agencies and individuals involved in the writing and implementation, along with the interpretation of the members of the very same Supreme Court that’s taken this matter up.
what’s the assertion, that everyone was tricked into setting up federal exchanges with subsidies/credits? that all the language supporting those subsidies is wrong and only the ambiguous text is right?
it’s nonsensical.
Proponents of the view that the ACA permits tax credits for those who purchase insurance on the federally run exchanges – despite statutory language arguably to the contrary
along with plenty of language to support credits from federal exchanges – along with the actions and statements of agencies and individuals involved in the writing and implementation, along with the interpretation of the members of the very same Supreme Court that’s taken this matter up.
what’s the assertion, that everyone was tricked into setting up federal exchanges with subsidies/credits? that all the language supporting those subsidies is wrong and only the ambiguous text is right?
it’s nonsensical.
The assertion is that the language was completely unambiguous and the executive branch implemented it, like every other piece of the ACA, however Sebelius and Obama felt like on any given day.
The assertion is that the language was completely unambiguous and the executive branch implemented it, like every other piece of the ACA, however Sebelius and Obama felt like on any given day.
The assertion is that the language was completely unambiguous and the executive branch implemented it, like every other piece of the ACA, however Sebelius and Obama felt like on any given day.
IIRC, In Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS used the impact as part of their justification (we need to know the next President RIGHT NOW! Counting the votes would take TO LONG!).
Brett: “Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome.”:
Shelby v. DoJ – Equal dignity of the states means, laws passed by an overwhelming majority are unconstitutional. [Only applies to laws right-wingers don’t like]
Hobby Lobby – reverse piercing of the corporate veil allowed, corporations have the religious beliefs of their stockholders. [Only applies to religious beliefs right-wingers like]
IIRC, In Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS used the impact as part of their justification (we need to know the next President RIGHT NOW! Counting the votes would take TO LONG!).
Brett: “Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome.”:
Shelby v. DoJ – Equal dignity of the states means, laws passed by an overwhelming majority are unconstitutional. [Only applies to laws right-wingers don’t like]
Hobby Lobby – reverse piercing of the corporate veil allowed, corporations have the religious beliefs of their stockholders. [Only applies to religious beliefs right-wingers like]
IIRC, In Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS used the impact as part of their justification (we need to know the next President RIGHT NOW! Counting the votes would take TO LONG!).
Brett: “Here’s the thing: You throw away the rule of law in one case, because you like the result in that case of throwing it away, you’ve thrown it away period. You don’t get to have the rule of law only when you like the outcome.”:
Shelby v. DoJ – Equal dignity of the states means, laws passed by an overwhelming majority are unconstitutional. [Only applies to laws right-wingers don’t like]
Hobby Lobby – reverse piercing of the corporate veil allowed, corporations have the religious beliefs of their stockholders. [Only applies to religious beliefs right-wingers like]
When you reach your deductible limit, and I hope you don’t have occasion to, you may send Obama and Sebelius thank you notes to show your appreciation that they were in the giving vein on whatever day that was.
I can understand that you don’t have a dog in this hunt since you don’t receive the subsidy, but approximately six million (is that a coincidence?) other Americans, many of whom do not have a 401K funds to fall back on to cover the entire premium and deductibles, will have their dogs put to sleep, even the ones who believe the Constitution is a literal suicide pact, but what the hell, I’ll join the ACA exchange.
You were provided choice, which you exercised.
At least say thank you before you retire to your laughably uncompromised principles.
Then I’ll say “You’re welcome.”
One thing great about Brett is that, as far as I can gather from his statements here over the years, is that he pays cash for his medical care, though maybe now he has insurance through his job, at least I hope so.
Lucky about those preexisting condition clauses in the ACA, though I read them to mean: mine, not Brett’s, ambiguity being what it is.
What his family is going to do when he turns down Medicare and they have to tell the doctor that the money has plum run out so the catheters have to yanked out without an anesthetic is a compromised principle for another day.
When you reach your deductible limit, and I hope you don’t have occasion to, you may send Obama and Sebelius thank you notes to show your appreciation that they were in the giving vein on whatever day that was.
I can understand that you don’t have a dog in this hunt since you don’t receive the subsidy, but approximately six million (is that a coincidence?) other Americans, many of whom do not have a 401K funds to fall back on to cover the entire premium and deductibles, will have their dogs put to sleep, even the ones who believe the Constitution is a literal suicide pact, but what the hell, I’ll join the ACA exchange.
You were provided choice, which you exercised.
At least say thank you before you retire to your laughably uncompromised principles.
Then I’ll say “You’re welcome.”
One thing great about Brett is that, as far as I can gather from his statements here over the years, is that he pays cash for his medical care, though maybe now he has insurance through his job, at least I hope so.
Lucky about those preexisting condition clauses in the ACA, though I read them to mean: mine, not Brett’s, ambiguity being what it is.
What his family is going to do when he turns down Medicare and they have to tell the doctor that the money has plum run out so the catheters have to yanked out without an anesthetic is a compromised principle for another day.
When you reach your deductible limit, and I hope you don’t have occasion to, you may send Obama and Sebelius thank you notes to show your appreciation that they were in the giving vein on whatever day that was.
I can understand that you don’t have a dog in this hunt since you don’t receive the subsidy, but approximately six million (is that a coincidence?) other Americans, many of whom do not have a 401K funds to fall back on to cover the entire premium and deductibles, will have their dogs put to sleep, even the ones who believe the Constitution is a literal suicide pact, but what the hell, I’ll join the ACA exchange.
You were provided choice, which you exercised.
At least say thank you before you retire to your laughably uncompromised principles.
Then I’ll say “You’re welcome.”
One thing great about Brett is that, as far as I can gather from his statements here over the years, is that he pays cash for his medical care, though maybe now he has insurance through his job, at least I hope so.
Lucky about those preexisting condition clauses in the ACA, though I read them to mean: mine, not Brett’s, ambiguity being what it is.
What his family is going to do when he turns down Medicare and they have to tell the doctor that the money has plum run out so the catheters have to yanked out without an anesthetic is a compromised principle for another day.
Let’s look at it this way: with the subsidies for the federal exchange, 4 million people have signed up for insurance through the federal exchange, helping fulfill a goal of the statute to provide health insurance/care to broader swath of the populace than had been the case without the ACA.
Without the subsidies, some large % of those 4 million (more than half? most? i haven’t seen any estimates) will lose their insurance, frustrating one of the purposes of the law, and at a minimum make it significantly less effective.
So, is it likely that Congress did or did not intend to have the subsidies available to those on the federal exchange?
Let’s look at it this way: with the subsidies for the federal exchange, 4 million people have signed up for insurance through the federal exchange, helping fulfill a goal of the statute to provide health insurance/care to broader swath of the populace than had been the case without the ACA.
Without the subsidies, some large % of those 4 million (more than half? most? i haven’t seen any estimates) will lose their insurance, frustrating one of the purposes of the law, and at a minimum make it significantly less effective.
So, is it likely that Congress did or did not intend to have the subsidies available to those on the federal exchange?
Let’s look at it this way: with the subsidies for the federal exchange, 4 million people have signed up for insurance through the federal exchange, helping fulfill a goal of the statute to provide health insurance/care to broader swath of the populace than had been the case without the ACA.
Without the subsidies, some large % of those 4 million (more than half? most? i haven’t seen any estimates) will lose their insurance, frustrating one of the purposes of the law, and at a minimum make it significantly less effective.
So, is it likely that Congress did or did not intend to have the subsidies available to those on the federal exchange?
It is probably worth noting at some point that the vast majority of bills (excluding feel-good bills, like those that name something after a politician or congratulating a consitutent on something) are passed with misleading bits. Not to mention special paragraphs put in only to gain the vote of a particular legislator.
Anybody who is getting hysterical about things that were misrepresented in the passing of the ACA is merely demonstrating that he doesn’t have a clue how legislation gets passed. (Or knows, and is flat out lying to make his particular political point.)
Similarly, laws routinely have ambiguities in them. One of the things that the executive does (at the Federal and at the state level) is figure out what the murky wording means in practice so they can implement it. Every President does it. Every Governor does it. Again, those who are getting hysterical are merely demonstrating that they don’t know how the government actually works. (Or, I suppose, they know but think it ought to work differently. Yet have no record of when that actually happened. Or demonstration that it could work.)
It is probably worth noting at some point that the vast majority of bills (excluding feel-good bills, like those that name something after a politician or congratulating a consitutent on something) are passed with misleading bits. Not to mention special paragraphs put in only to gain the vote of a particular legislator.
Anybody who is getting hysterical about things that were misrepresented in the passing of the ACA is merely demonstrating that he doesn’t have a clue how legislation gets passed. (Or knows, and is flat out lying to make his particular political point.)
Similarly, laws routinely have ambiguities in them. One of the things that the executive does (at the Federal and at the state level) is figure out what the murky wording means in practice so they can implement it. Every President does it. Every Governor does it. Again, those who are getting hysterical are merely demonstrating that they don’t know how the government actually works. (Or, I suppose, they know but think it ought to work differently. Yet have no record of when that actually happened. Or demonstration that it could work.)
It is probably worth noting at some point that the vast majority of bills (excluding feel-good bills, like those that name something after a politician or congratulating a consitutent on something) are passed with misleading bits. Not to mention special paragraphs put in only to gain the vote of a particular legislator.
Anybody who is getting hysterical about things that were misrepresented in the passing of the ACA is merely demonstrating that he doesn’t have a clue how legislation gets passed. (Or knows, and is flat out lying to make his particular political point.)
Similarly, laws routinely have ambiguities in them. One of the things that the executive does (at the Federal and at the state level) is figure out what the murky wording means in practice so they can implement it. Every President does it. Every Governor does it. Again, those who are getting hysterical are merely demonstrating that they don’t know how the government actually works. (Or, I suppose, they know but think it ought to work differently. Yet have no record of when that actually happened. Or demonstration that it could work.)
Moreover, since we are talking about interpreting a statute, the fact that it’s plausible or not completely irrational that Congress would have made “an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange” doesn’t really matter.
If we were analyzing whether the statute was constitutional under a rational basis standard of review, then that sort of analysis of the purpose of the provisions would pass muster. But that’s not what we are talking about or what SCOTUS will be writing about.
I half expect Roberts to write an opinion that the language in the statute is a case of “scrivener’s error” on the part of Congress and defer to the agency’s interpretation; with the four “liberals” agreeing with the result and joining in a separate opinion with a different analysis; and the four remaining justices dissenting.
Moreover, since we are talking about interpreting a statute, the fact that it’s plausible or not completely irrational that Congress would have made “an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange” doesn’t really matter.
If we were analyzing whether the statute was constitutional under a rational basis standard of review, then that sort of analysis of the purpose of the provisions would pass muster. But that’s not what we are talking about or what SCOTUS will be writing about.
I half expect Roberts to write an opinion that the language in the statute is a case of “scrivener’s error” on the part of Congress and defer to the agency’s interpretation; with the four “liberals” agreeing with the result and joining in a separate opinion with a different analysis; and the four remaining justices dissenting.
Moreover, since we are talking about interpreting a statute, the fact that it’s plausible or not completely irrational that Congress would have made “an intentional attempt to force all the states to set up an exchange” doesn’t really matter.
If we were analyzing whether the statute was constitutional under a rational basis standard of review, then that sort of analysis of the purpose of the provisions would pass muster. But that’s not what we are talking about or what SCOTUS will be writing about.
I half expect Roberts to write an opinion that the language in the statute is a case of “scrivener’s error” on the part of Congress and defer to the agency’s interpretation; with the four “liberals” agreeing with the result and joining in a separate opinion with a different analysis; and the four remaining justices dissenting.
The assertion is that the language was completely unambiguous and the executive branch implemented it, like every other piece of the ACA, however Sebelius and Obama felt like on any given day.
the reason this is absurd is that many many other actors have been involved in this besides the dread Obama and his evil lacky Sebelius. there were insurance companies, the IRS, Congress, SCOTUS, dozens of states, and the hordes of lawyers attached to each. none of them agree with this ridiculous mis-reading. only wingnuts who want the law to be undone read it this way. and it took them six years to come up with this angle. the law’s text has been available for years now and nobody has interpreted that clause to mean what you’re asserting it means now – not insurance companies, not SCOTUS, not Congress, not the IRS, nobody.
but now it’s supposed to be plainly obvious?
BS
The assertion is that the language was completely unambiguous and the executive branch implemented it, like every other piece of the ACA, however Sebelius and Obama felt like on any given day.
the reason this is absurd is that many many other actors have been involved in this besides the dread Obama and his evil lacky Sebelius. there were insurance companies, the IRS, Congress, SCOTUS, dozens of states, and the hordes of lawyers attached to each. none of them agree with this ridiculous mis-reading. only wingnuts who want the law to be undone read it this way. and it took them six years to come up with this angle. the law’s text has been available for years now and nobody has interpreted that clause to mean what you’re asserting it means now – not insurance companies, not SCOTUS, not Congress, not the IRS, nobody.
but now it’s supposed to be plainly obvious?
BS
The assertion is that the language was completely unambiguous and the executive branch implemented it, like every other piece of the ACA, however Sebelius and Obama felt like on any given day.
the reason this is absurd is that many many other actors have been involved in this besides the dread Obama and his evil lacky Sebelius. there were insurance companies, the IRS, Congress, SCOTUS, dozens of states, and the hordes of lawyers attached to each. none of them agree with this ridiculous mis-reading. only wingnuts who want the law to be undone read it this way. and it took them six years to come up with this angle. the law’s text has been available for years now and nobody has interpreted that clause to mean what you’re asserting it means now – not insurance companies, not SCOTUS, not Congress, not the IRS, nobody.
but now it’s supposed to be plainly obvious?
BS
That is: Roberts writes an opinion saying the statutory language is unambiguous but only because Congress fncked up so it’s okay to fix it/interpret as including subsidies on the federal exchange; the leftie 4 says it’s ambiguous and thus defer to the agency interpretation; and the rightie 4 say its unambiguous, specifically intended by Congress (citing who knows what for that proposition), and thus not subject to fixing.
That is: Roberts writes an opinion saying the statutory language is unambiguous but only because Congress fncked up so it’s okay to fix it/interpret as including subsidies on the federal exchange; the leftie 4 says it’s ambiguous and thus defer to the agency interpretation; and the rightie 4 say its unambiguous, specifically intended by Congress (citing who knows what for that proposition), and thus not subject to fixing.
That is: Roberts writes an opinion saying the statutory language is unambiguous but only because Congress fncked up so it’s okay to fix it/interpret as including subsidies on the federal exchange; the leftie 4 says it’s ambiguous and thus defer to the agency interpretation; and the rightie 4 say its unambiguous, specifically intended by Congress (citing who knows what for that proposition), and thus not subject to fixing.
My husband, an attorney, and I were talking about this a couple of days ago. His take is that the conservative majority will say that the language is ambiguous and send this back to Congress to be “fixed.” And you know what the likelihood of that is. So the subsidies will be off the table, the law will not be fixed, and neither the conservatives on the court nor conservative politicians will take blame for the mess that results. From the conservatives’ perspective, this is a win-win-win result.
My husband, an attorney, and I were talking about this a couple of days ago. His take is that the conservative majority will say that the language is ambiguous and send this back to Congress to be “fixed.” And you know what the likelihood of that is. So the subsidies will be off the table, the law will not be fixed, and neither the conservatives on the court nor conservative politicians will take blame for the mess that results. From the conservatives’ perspective, this is a win-win-win result.
My husband, an attorney, and I were talking about this a couple of days ago. His take is that the conservative majority will say that the language is ambiguous and send this back to Congress to be “fixed.” And you know what the likelihood of that is. So the subsidies will be off the table, the law will not be fixed, and neither the conservatives on the court nor conservative politicians will take blame for the mess that results. From the conservatives’ perspective, this is a win-win-win result.
wj: “It is probably worth noting at some point that the vast majority of bills (excluding feel-good bills, like those that name something after a politician or congratulating a consitutent on something) are passed with misleading bits. Not to mention special paragraphs put in only to gain the vote of a particular legislator. ”
The joke is that the only bills without typos or strange stuff will be the shorter ones, but the shorter ones give the executive branch more leeway. – you know, like the AUMF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists#Text_of_the_AUMF
As close to a blank check for war as ever given to a President. Pasting the text from that link into Word gives an estimated count of 334.
This has probably costs billions of $$ per word.
wj: “It is probably worth noting at some point that the vast majority of bills (excluding feel-good bills, like those that name something after a politician or congratulating a consitutent on something) are passed with misleading bits. Not to mention special paragraphs put in only to gain the vote of a particular legislator. ”
The joke is that the only bills without typos or strange stuff will be the shorter ones, but the shorter ones give the executive branch more leeway. – you know, like the AUMF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists#Text_of_the_AUMF
As close to a blank check for war as ever given to a President. Pasting the text from that link into Word gives an estimated count of 334.
This has probably costs billions of $$ per word.
wj: “It is probably worth noting at some point that the vast majority of bills (excluding feel-good bills, like those that name something after a politician or congratulating a consitutent on something) are passed with misleading bits. Not to mention special paragraphs put in only to gain the vote of a particular legislator. ”
The joke is that the only bills without typos or strange stuff will be the shorter ones, but the shorter ones give the executive branch more leeway. – you know, like the AUMF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists#Text_of_the_AUMF
As close to a blank check for war as ever given to a President. Pasting the text from that link into Word gives an estimated count of 334.
This has probably costs billions of $$ per word.
The always-worth-reading Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting thesis that she writes about in TNR, about the lack of diversity, in terms of privilege rather than race and gender, on the current Supreme Court. I’m wondering if any of them have ever been concerned about health insurance.
The always-worth-reading Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting thesis that she writes about in TNR, about the lack of diversity, in terms of privilege rather than race and gender, on the current Supreme Court. I’m wondering if any of them have ever been concerned about health insurance.
The always-worth-reading Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting thesis that she writes about in TNR, about the lack of diversity, in terms of privilege rather than race and gender, on the current Supreme Court. I’m wondering if any of them have ever been concerned about health insurance.
Could someone check the Republican spelling of Speech — M-O-N-E-Y —- while we’re at it?
That’s gotta be a typo.
Even undisclosed political donations, issuing forth from no identifiable mouth, are speech.
Course, voting, for millions, unable to produce the proper ID and/or not able to travel for miles to vote, is not speech, according to the same geniuses.
In Texas, a gun permit is speech.
I’m working on a legal theory that combines the First and Second Amendments so that bullets will be considered protected speech.
Could someone check the Republican spelling of Speech — M-O-N-E-Y —- while we’re at it?
That’s gotta be a typo.
Even undisclosed political donations, issuing forth from no identifiable mouth, are speech.
Course, voting, for millions, unable to produce the proper ID and/or not able to travel for miles to vote, is not speech, according to the same geniuses.
In Texas, a gun permit is speech.
I’m working on a legal theory that combines the First and Second Amendments so that bullets will be considered protected speech.
Could someone check the Republican spelling of Speech — M-O-N-E-Y —- while we’re at it?
That’s gotta be a typo.
Even undisclosed political donations, issuing forth from no identifiable mouth, are speech.
Course, voting, for millions, unable to produce the proper ID and/or not able to travel for miles to vote, is not speech, according to the same geniuses.
In Texas, a gun permit is speech.
I’m working on a legal theory that combines the First and Second Amendments so that bullets will be considered protected speech.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.context? we don’t need no freaking context.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.context? we don’t need no freaking context.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.context? we don’t need no freaking context.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/just-ask-what-kind-of-health-benefits-do-the-supreme-court-justices-receive/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/just-ask-what-kind-of-health-benefits-do-the-supreme-court-justices-receive/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/just-ask-what-kind-of-health-benefits-do-the-supreme-court-justices-receive/
Cleek, it is always amusing to ask one of the gun enthusiasts what his interpretation of that initial phrase is. Not try and give him a reading to argue with. Just ask him cold what it means, and what it’s implications for the rest of the amendment is.
My experience is that they find it a serious challenge. Except, of course, for those who have never heard that it is included.
Cleek, it is always amusing to ask one of the gun enthusiasts what his interpretation of that initial phrase is. Not try and give him a reading to argue with. Just ask him cold what it means, and what it’s implications for the rest of the amendment is.
My experience is that they find it a serious challenge. Except, of course, for those who have never heard that it is included.
Cleek, it is always amusing to ask one of the gun enthusiasts what his interpretation of that initial phrase is. Not try and give him a reading to argue with. Just ask him cold what it means, and what it’s implications for the rest of the amendment is.
My experience is that they find it a serious challenge. Except, of course, for those who have never heard that it is included.
The market, it has spoken:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_11/after_all_the_yellingobamacare052927.php
The market, it has spoken:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_11/after_all_the_yellingobamacare052927.php
The market, it has spoken:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_11/after_all_the_yellingobamacare052927.php
Count-me-in: “Even undisclosed political donations, issuing forth from no identifiable mouth, are speech.
Course, voting, for millions, unable to produce the proper ID and/or not able to travel for miles to vote, is not speech, according to the same geniuses.
In Texas, a gun permit is speech.
I’m working on a legal theory that combines the First and Second Amendments so that bullets will be considered protected speech.”
Nice contrast.
Count-me-in: “Even undisclosed political donations, issuing forth from no identifiable mouth, are speech.
Course, voting, for millions, unable to produce the proper ID and/or not able to travel for miles to vote, is not speech, according to the same geniuses.
In Texas, a gun permit is speech.
I’m working on a legal theory that combines the First and Second Amendments so that bullets will be considered protected speech.”
Nice contrast.
Count-me-in: “Even undisclosed political donations, issuing forth from no identifiable mouth, are speech.
Course, voting, for millions, unable to produce the proper ID and/or not able to travel for miles to vote, is not speech, according to the same geniuses.
In Texas, a gun permit is speech.
I’m working on a legal theory that combines the First and Second Amendments so that bullets will be considered protected speech.”
Nice contrast.
Bullets as speech; I’m late to the party again.
Let the Republican pig-filth speak through his 728 caliber mouth:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/open-carry-demonstrator-fondles-his-gun.html
Bullets as speech; I’m late to the party again.
Let the Republican pig-filth speak through his 728 caliber mouth:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/open-carry-demonstrator-fondles-his-gun.html
Bullets as speech; I’m late to the party again.
Let the Republican pig-filth speak through his 728 caliber mouth:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/open-carry-demonstrator-fondles-his-gun.html
I’m happy to own the ACA.
How are you going to punish me?
Guess who owns the murders THAT bullet-head in the video is going to commit against innocent people.
Every single Republican and Libertarian in this country.
Think how I’m going to punish you.
I’m happy to own the ACA.
How are you going to punish me?
Guess who owns the murders THAT bullet-head in the video is going to commit against innocent people.
Every single Republican and Libertarian in this country.
Think how I’m going to punish you.
I’m happy to own the ACA.
How are you going to punish me?
Guess who owns the murders THAT bullet-head in the video is going to commit against innocent people.
Every single Republican and Libertarian in this country.
Think how I’m going to punish you.
There are no constitutional principles at stake here. Brett, Marty, and apparently a bunch of SC justices totally ignore well established rules of statutory construction in this instance in pursuit of their partisan goals. Apparently now “words mean what they mean..so STFU” but not so much in Shelby where despite the clear and unambiguous language of the 15th Amendment, John Roberts pulled an entirely new “principle” out of his ass.
Clearly, all that matters to the conservative “movement” is their Will To Power, and little else. To be lectured on “absolute principles” or “the rule of law” by a movement conservative is to witness first hand the lawless moral relativism they so readily claim to abhor.
There are no constitutional principles at stake here. Brett, Marty, and apparently a bunch of SC justices totally ignore well established rules of statutory construction in this instance in pursuit of their partisan goals. Apparently now “words mean what they mean..so STFU” but not so much in Shelby where despite the clear and unambiguous language of the 15th Amendment, John Roberts pulled an entirely new “principle” out of his ass.
Clearly, all that matters to the conservative “movement” is their Will To Power, and little else. To be lectured on “absolute principles” or “the rule of law” by a movement conservative is to witness first hand the lawless moral relativism they so readily claim to abhor.
There are no constitutional principles at stake here. Brett, Marty, and apparently a bunch of SC justices totally ignore well established rules of statutory construction in this instance in pursuit of their partisan goals. Apparently now “words mean what they mean..so STFU” but not so much in Shelby where despite the clear and unambiguous language of the 15th Amendment, John Roberts pulled an entirely new “principle” out of his ass.
Clearly, all that matters to the conservative “movement” is their Will To Power, and little else. To be lectured on “absolute principles” or “the rule of law” by a movement conservative is to witness first hand the lawless moral relativism they so readily claim to abhor.
Scalia:
The statute excludes only merchandise “of foreign manufacture,” which the majority says might mean “manufactured by a foreigner” rather than “manufactured in a foreign country.” I think not. Words, like syllables, acquire meaning not in isolation but within their context. While looking up the separate word “foreign” in a dictionary might produce the reading the majority suggests, that approach would also interpret the phrase “I have a foreign object in my eye” as referring, perhaps, to something from Italy. The phrase “of foreign manufacture” is a common usage, well understood to mean “manufactured abroad.”
Scalia:
The meaning of terms on the statute books ought to be determined, not on the basis of which meaning can be shown to have been understood by a larger handful of the Members of Congress; but rather on the basis of which meaning is (1) most in accord with context and ordinary usage, and thus most likely to have been understood by the whole Congress which voted on the words of the statute (not to mention the citizens subject to it), and (2) most compatible with the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated-a compatibility which, by a benign fiction, we assume Congress always has in mind.
Scalia:
“I have been willing, in the case of civil statutes, to acknowledge a doctrine of ‘scrivener’s error’ that permits a court to give an unusual (though not unheard of) meaning to a word which, if given its normal meaning, would produce an absurd and arguably unconstitutional result”
Scalia:
“We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result. Our task is to give some alternative meaning to the word “defendant” in Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) that avoids this consequence; and then to determine whether Rule 609(a)(1) excludes the operation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403.”
Any of these bolded statements could be relied upon to hold that the ACA permits subsidies on the federal exchange. Will Scalia go there?
Scalia:
The statute excludes only merchandise “of foreign manufacture,” which the majority says might mean “manufactured by a foreigner” rather than “manufactured in a foreign country.” I think not. Words, like syllables, acquire meaning not in isolation but within their context. While looking up the separate word “foreign” in a dictionary might produce the reading the majority suggests, that approach would also interpret the phrase “I have a foreign object in my eye” as referring, perhaps, to something from Italy. The phrase “of foreign manufacture” is a common usage, well understood to mean “manufactured abroad.”
Scalia:
The meaning of terms on the statute books ought to be determined, not on the basis of which meaning can be shown to have been understood by a larger handful of the Members of Congress; but rather on the basis of which meaning is (1) most in accord with context and ordinary usage, and thus most likely to have been understood by the whole Congress which voted on the words of the statute (not to mention the citizens subject to it), and (2) most compatible with the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated-a compatibility which, by a benign fiction, we assume Congress always has in mind.
Scalia:
“I have been willing, in the case of civil statutes, to acknowledge a doctrine of ‘scrivener’s error’ that permits a court to give an unusual (though not unheard of) meaning to a word which, if given its normal meaning, would produce an absurd and arguably unconstitutional result”
Scalia:
“We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result. Our task is to give some alternative meaning to the word “defendant” in Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) that avoids this consequence; and then to determine whether Rule 609(a)(1) excludes the operation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403.”
Any of these bolded statements could be relied upon to hold that the ACA permits subsidies on the federal exchange. Will Scalia go there?
Scalia:
The statute excludes only merchandise “of foreign manufacture,” which the majority says might mean “manufactured by a foreigner” rather than “manufactured in a foreign country.” I think not. Words, like syllables, acquire meaning not in isolation but within their context. While looking up the separate word “foreign” in a dictionary might produce the reading the majority suggests, that approach would also interpret the phrase “I have a foreign object in my eye” as referring, perhaps, to something from Italy. The phrase “of foreign manufacture” is a common usage, well understood to mean “manufactured abroad.”
Scalia:
The meaning of terms on the statute books ought to be determined, not on the basis of which meaning can be shown to have been understood by a larger handful of the Members of Congress; but rather on the basis of which meaning is (1) most in accord with context and ordinary usage, and thus most likely to have been understood by the whole Congress which voted on the words of the statute (not to mention the citizens subject to it), and (2) most compatible with the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated-a compatibility which, by a benign fiction, we assume Congress always has in mind.
Scalia:
“I have been willing, in the case of civil statutes, to acknowledge a doctrine of ‘scrivener’s error’ that permits a court to give an unusual (though not unheard of) meaning to a word which, if given its normal meaning, would produce an absurd and arguably unconstitutional result”
Scalia:
“We are confronted here with a statute which, if interpreted literally, produces an absurd, and perhaps unconstitutional, result. Our task is to give some alternative meaning to the word “defendant” in Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) that avoids this consequence; and then to determine whether Rule 609(a)(1) excludes the operation of Federal Rule of Evidence 403.”
Any of these bolded statements could be relied upon to hold that the ACA permits subsidies on the federal exchange. Will Scalia go there?
Will Scalia go there?
Most likely.
What an asshole.
Will Scalia go there?
Most likely.
What an asshole.
Will Scalia go there?
Most likely.
What an asshole.
Now Bobby, his jurisprudence may well be asinine.
But from all reports Scalia and Justice Ginsberg and their families spend weekends hanging out at their various backyard BBQs and otherwise socializing. So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought.
Now Bobby, his jurisprudence may well be asinine.
But from all reports Scalia and Justice Ginsberg and their families spend weekends hanging out at their various backyard BBQs and otherwise socializing. So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought.
Now Bobby, his jurisprudence may well be asinine.
But from all reports Scalia and Justice Ginsberg and their families spend weekends hanging out at their various backyard BBQs and otherwise socializing. So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought.
“So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought. ”
Actually, he does. He apparently really cares about the 4th and 5th Amendments. However, I don’t know if he still cares when major issues beloved by the right are at stake in a case.
“So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought. ”
Actually, he does. He apparently really cares about the 4th and 5th Amendments. However, I don’t know if he still cares when major issues beloved by the right are at stake in a case.
“So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought. ”
Actually, he does. He apparently really cares about the 4th and 5th Amendments. However, I don’t know if he still cares when major issues beloved by the right are at stake in a case.
wj: “But from all reports Scalia and Justice Ginsberg and their families spend weekends hanging out at their various backyard BBQs and otherwise socializing. So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought. ”
BTW, the elites hanging out together, even if some of them are truly despicable, is a standard feature of DC, NYC, and probably just about everywhere. The fact that somebody’s colleagues likes them doesn’t contradict that somebody being truly evil; it might just mean that that somebody doesn’t f*ck over other elites, just peons.
wj: “But from all reports Scalia and Justice Ginsberg and their families spend weekends hanging out at their various backyard BBQs and otherwise socializing. So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought. ”
BTW, the elites hanging out together, even if some of them are truly despicable, is a standard feature of DC, NYC, and probably just about everywhere. The fact that somebody’s colleagues likes them doesn’t contradict that somebody being truly evil; it might just mean that that somebody doesn’t f*ck over other elites, just peons.
wj: “But from all reports Scalia and Justice Ginsberg and their families spend weekends hanging out at their various backyard BBQs and otherwise socializing. So perhaps he personally has some redeeming features. Just a thought. ”
BTW, the elites hanging out together, even if some of them are truly despicable, is a standard feature of DC, NYC, and probably just about everywhere. The fact that somebody’s colleagues likes them doesn’t contradict that somebody being truly evil; it might just mean that that somebody doesn’t f*ck over other elites, just peons.
wj,
Yes, some assholes can be personally charming, kind, and generous.
The human species is infinitely varied, and that makes it fun most of the time, or at least never dull. John D. Rockefeller handed out shiny new dimes to total strangers. I’m sure Bill Buckley could be a charming host on his yacht, or helped little old ladies across the street at times. Andrew Breitbart most likely loved his kids and pets, and was loved in return…might have even had a friend or two.
But when people with power and/or influence use that power to push public policies on the rest of us that work to feather their own nests and/or needlessly and cruelly harm many innocent people who lack their resources or talent….well, then they are simply assholes in my book.
wj,
Yes, some assholes can be personally charming, kind, and generous.
The human species is infinitely varied, and that makes it fun most of the time, or at least never dull. John D. Rockefeller handed out shiny new dimes to total strangers. I’m sure Bill Buckley could be a charming host on his yacht, or helped little old ladies across the street at times. Andrew Breitbart most likely loved his kids and pets, and was loved in return…might have even had a friend or two.
But when people with power and/or influence use that power to push public policies on the rest of us that work to feather their own nests and/or needlessly and cruelly harm many innocent people who lack their resources or talent….well, then they are simply assholes in my book.
wj,
Yes, some assholes can be personally charming, kind, and generous.
The human species is infinitely varied, and that makes it fun most of the time, or at least never dull. John D. Rockefeller handed out shiny new dimes to total strangers. I’m sure Bill Buckley could be a charming host on his yacht, or helped little old ladies across the street at times. Andrew Breitbart most likely loved his kids and pets, and was loved in return…might have even had a friend or two.
But when people with power and/or influence use that power to push public policies on the rest of us that work to feather their own nests and/or needlessly and cruelly harm many innocent people who lack their resources or talent….well, then they are simply assholes in my book.
Say it ain’t so.
Joe Dimaggio was an absolutely miserable prick to his fans and the public at large, and in most of his personal life.
He treated the rookie Mickey Mantle like a beggar.
Professionally, of course, on the field, he was nearly faultless.
Say it ain’t so.
Joe Dimaggio was an absolutely miserable prick to his fans and the public at large, and in most of his personal life.
He treated the rookie Mickey Mantle like a beggar.
Professionally, of course, on the field, he was nearly faultless.
Say it ain’t so.
Joe Dimaggio was an absolutely miserable prick to his fans and the public at large, and in most of his personal life.
He treated the rookie Mickey Mantle like a beggar.
Professionally, of course, on the field, he was nearly faultless.
BTW, the elites hanging out together…
Indeed.
BTW, the elites hanging out together…
Indeed.
BTW, the elites hanging out together…
Indeed.
So I have a question about this whole exchange business.
Suppose a state legislature says, in effect,
“We love this whole Obamacare business, but rather than spend the money to set up an exchange, we want our residents to use the federal exchange.”
So then why wouldn’t the federal exchange be the one “established by the state?” Or would it?
So I have a question about this whole exchange business.
Suppose a state legislature says, in effect,
“We love this whole Obamacare business, but rather than spend the money to set up an exchange, we want our residents to use the federal exchange.”
So then why wouldn’t the federal exchange be the one “established by the state?” Or would it?
So I have a question about this whole exchange business.
Suppose a state legislature says, in effect,
“We love this whole Obamacare business, but rather than spend the money to set up an exchange, we want our residents to use the federal exchange.”
So then why wouldn’t the federal exchange be the one “established by the state?” Or would it?
Totally agree, bobbyp. That article is a must-read.
Totally agree, bobbyp. That article is a must-read.
Totally agree, bobbyp. That article is a must-read.
byomtov:
there’s about a dozen states that did the medicaid expansion part of ACA, but didn’t set up their own exchanges, exactly as your hypothesis.
For some (low population or low density) states, it makes more sense to have a larger organization do the heavy lifting. In fact, IIRC the ACA includes words to the effect of possibly having “multi-state compacts” handling exchanges. And having states contract with private companies to set up exchanges.
byomtov:
there’s about a dozen states that did the medicaid expansion part of ACA, but didn’t set up their own exchanges, exactly as your hypothesis.
For some (low population or low density) states, it makes more sense to have a larger organization do the heavy lifting. In fact, IIRC the ACA includes words to the effect of possibly having “multi-state compacts” handling exchanges. And having states contract with private companies to set up exchanges.
byomtov:
there’s about a dozen states that did the medicaid expansion part of ACA, but didn’t set up their own exchanges, exactly as your hypothesis.
For some (low population or low density) states, it makes more sense to have a larger organization do the heavy lifting. In fact, IIRC the ACA includes words to the effect of possibly having “multi-state compacts” handling exchanges. And having states contract with private companies to set up exchanges.
“context? we don’t need no freaking context.”
Sure, we need context. The amendment is clear that “the people” have the right, not “the militia”. But, what sort of arms is it a right to?
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons. As Tench Coxe said, “every terrible implement of the soldier”. Not to “every mildly disturbing implement of the hunter”.
Opponents of the RKBA are always asking to put the right in context, but be careful what you ask for. You’d like it even less if it were put in context.
“context? we don’t need no freaking context.”
Sure, we need context. The amendment is clear that “the people” have the right, not “the militia”. But, what sort of arms is it a right to?
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons. As Tench Coxe said, “every terrible implement of the soldier”. Not to “every mildly disturbing implement of the hunter”.
Opponents of the RKBA are always asking to put the right in context, but be careful what you ask for. You’d like it even less if it were put in context.
“context? we don’t need no freaking context.”
Sure, we need context. The amendment is clear that “the people” have the right, not “the militia”. But, what sort of arms is it a right to?
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons. As Tench Coxe said, “every terrible implement of the soldier”. Not to “every mildly disturbing implement of the hunter”.
Opponents of the RKBA are always asking to put the right in context, but be careful what you ask for. You’d like it even less if it were put in context.
“So then why wouldn’t the federal exchange be the one “established by the state?” Or would it?”
It would. All they’d have to say is, “We hereby delegate establishing our state exchange to the federal government”, or something to that effect. I would think that would be perfectly sufficient.
The problem, of course, is a lot of states didn’t do this, because they didn’t want any part of the ACA, and saw no reason to jump through hoops, even convenient ones, to further a law they hoped would end up repealed or struck down.
“So then why wouldn’t the federal exchange be the one “established by the state?” Or would it?”
It would. All they’d have to say is, “We hereby delegate establishing our state exchange to the federal government”, or something to that effect. I would think that would be perfectly sufficient.
The problem, of course, is a lot of states didn’t do this, because they didn’t want any part of the ACA, and saw no reason to jump through hoops, even convenient ones, to further a law they hoped would end up repealed or struck down.
“So then why wouldn’t the federal exchange be the one “established by the state?” Or would it?”
It would. All they’d have to say is, “We hereby delegate establishing our state exchange to the federal government”, or something to that effect. I would think that would be perfectly sufficient.
The problem, of course, is a lot of states didn’t do this, because they didn’t want any part of the ACA, and saw no reason to jump through hoops, even convenient ones, to further a law they hoped would end up repealed or struck down.
Brett Bellmore is characteristically rhetorically overwrought and factually mistaken. There certainly was a Republican vote for Obamacare -one Joseph Cao, a Republican congressman from Louisiana, who voted his Catholic conscience.
Facts matter.
Brett Bellmore is characteristically rhetorically overwrought and factually mistaken. There certainly was a Republican vote for Obamacare -one Joseph Cao, a Republican congressman from Louisiana, who voted his Catholic conscience.
Facts matter.
Brett Bellmore is characteristically rhetorically overwrought and factually mistaken. There certainly was a Republican vote for Obamacare -one Joseph Cao, a Republican congressman from Louisiana, who voted his Catholic conscience.
Facts matter.
Brett: … a lot of states didn’t do this, because they didn’t want any part of the ACA …
Strictly speaking, a lot of state governments didn’t. Brett implicitly assumes that state governments speak for their citizenry, which of course the federal government doesn’t, as Brett will tell you at the drop of a hatpin, let alone a hat.
Actually, let me rephrase that: Brett implies; I can’t be sure what he “implicitly assumes”. For all I know, he assumes that Bill Kristol was right.
As for driving around with a .50 caliber machine gun swivel-mounted on the roof of his pick-up truck (leaving room for the anti-aircraft missile launcher mounted in the bed), I agree that if the 2nd Amendment means anything it means Brett has the right to do that. And so do I, and so does The Count. Sane people might seek to interpret the 2nd Amendment so it doesn’t mean anything so bonkers, but sane people have no respect for The Rule of Law.
–TP
Brett: … a lot of states didn’t do this, because they didn’t want any part of the ACA …
Strictly speaking, a lot of state governments didn’t. Brett implicitly assumes that state governments speak for their citizenry, which of course the federal government doesn’t, as Brett will tell you at the drop of a hatpin, let alone a hat.
Actually, let me rephrase that: Brett implies; I can’t be sure what he “implicitly assumes”. For all I know, he assumes that Bill Kristol was right.
As for driving around with a .50 caliber machine gun swivel-mounted on the roof of his pick-up truck (leaving room for the anti-aircraft missile launcher mounted in the bed), I agree that if the 2nd Amendment means anything it means Brett has the right to do that. And so do I, and so does The Count. Sane people might seek to interpret the 2nd Amendment so it doesn’t mean anything so bonkers, but sane people have no respect for The Rule of Law.
–TP
Brett: … a lot of states didn’t do this, because they didn’t want any part of the ACA …
Strictly speaking, a lot of state governments didn’t. Brett implicitly assumes that state governments speak for their citizenry, which of course the federal government doesn’t, as Brett will tell you at the drop of a hatpin, let alone a hat.
Actually, let me rephrase that: Brett implies; I can’t be sure what he “implicitly assumes”. For all I know, he assumes that Bill Kristol was right.
As for driving around with a .50 caliber machine gun swivel-mounted on the roof of his pick-up truck (leaving room for the anti-aircraft missile launcher mounted in the bed), I agree that if the 2nd Amendment means anything it means Brett has the right to do that. And so do I, and so does The Count. Sane people might seek to interpret the 2nd Amendment so it doesn’t mean anything so bonkers, but sane people have no respect for The Rule of Law.
–TP
Shorter Brett: you really need the full context for the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment? Useless verbiage, ignorable.
Is there any reason that we should consider Brett’s arguments as anything but standard GOP intellectual dishonesty?
Shorter Brett: you really need the full context for the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment? Useless verbiage, ignorable.
Is there any reason that we should consider Brett’s arguments as anything but standard GOP intellectual dishonesty?
Shorter Brett: you really need the full context for the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd clause of the 15th Amendment? Useless verbiage, ignorable.
Is there any reason that we should consider Brett’s arguments as anything but standard GOP intellectual dishonesty?
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons.
OMFG. it does no such thing.
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons.
OMFG. it does no such thing.
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons.
OMFG. it does no such thing.
OMFG. scratch my last.
yes, i’ll agree that those are the weapons it grants a right to. though what those weapons are is not defined.
that first clause does more than that, though.
OMFG. scratch my last.
yes, i’ll agree that those are the weapons it grants a right to. though what those weapons are is not defined.
that first clause does more than that, though.
OMFG. scratch my last.
yes, i’ll agree that those are the weapons it grants a right to. though what those weapons are is not defined.
that first clause does more than that, though.
The key word in the 15th, sect. II is obviously ‘appropriate’. And we have learned that any legislation that is not 100% bipartisan (i.e. no one worth talking of (or to)* is objecting) is by definition inappropriate. On the other hand, if any liberals are for it, this is reason enough to object, thus making it inappropriate.
*real victims are (also per definition) not worth.
The key word in the 15th, sect. II is obviously ‘appropriate’. And we have learned that any legislation that is not 100% bipartisan (i.e. no one worth talking of (or to)* is objecting) is by definition inappropriate. On the other hand, if any liberals are for it, this is reason enough to object, thus making it inappropriate.
*real victims are (also per definition) not worth.
The key word in the 15th, sect. II is obviously ‘appropriate’. And we have learned that any legislation that is not 100% bipartisan (i.e. no one worth talking of (or to)* is objecting) is by definition inappropriate. On the other hand, if any liberals are for it, this is reason enough to object, thus making it inappropriate.
*real victims are (also per definition) not worth.
Brett,
All they’d have to say is, “We hereby delegate establishing our state exchange to the federal government”, or something to that effect. I would think that would be perfectly sufficient.
Ok. That’s sort of what I fought, but wasn’t sure.
So you are saying, first:
That the state legislatures who didn’t do this either were happy to have their residents lose the tax break, just so they could throw a pointless tantrum about ACA,
Or,
They assumed that the tax break would be available regardless, which means that they read the act the same way the Administration does.
And second:
That the effect of a ruling for the plaintiffs could be easily obviated by state legislatures taking five minutes to pass something klike what you describe.
Now, if a legislature though the tax break wold be available regardless, it will surely pass your proposal and solve the problem effortlessly.
What are we to think of those that don’t? That they hate ACA on principle enough to deny their residents a tax break, or that they hate the residents who use the exchanges?
Brett,
All they’d have to say is, “We hereby delegate establishing our state exchange to the federal government”, or something to that effect. I would think that would be perfectly sufficient.
Ok. That’s sort of what I fought, but wasn’t sure.
So you are saying, first:
That the state legislatures who didn’t do this either were happy to have their residents lose the tax break, just so they could throw a pointless tantrum about ACA,
Or,
They assumed that the tax break would be available regardless, which means that they read the act the same way the Administration does.
And second:
That the effect of a ruling for the plaintiffs could be easily obviated by state legislatures taking five minutes to pass something klike what you describe.
Now, if a legislature though the tax break wold be available regardless, it will surely pass your proposal and solve the problem effortlessly.
What are we to think of those that don’t? That they hate ACA on principle enough to deny their residents a tax break, or that they hate the residents who use the exchanges?
Brett,
All they’d have to say is, “We hereby delegate establishing our state exchange to the federal government”, or something to that effect. I would think that would be perfectly sufficient.
Ok. That’s sort of what I fought, but wasn’t sure.
So you are saying, first:
That the state legislatures who didn’t do this either were happy to have their residents lose the tax break, just so they could throw a pointless tantrum about ACA,
Or,
They assumed that the tax break would be available regardless, which means that they read the act the same way the Administration does.
And second:
That the effect of a ruling for the plaintiffs could be easily obviated by state legislatures taking five minutes to pass something klike what you describe.
Now, if a legislature though the tax break wold be available regardless, it will surely pass your proposal and solve the problem effortlessly.
What are we to think of those that don’t? That they hate ACA on principle enough to deny their residents a tax break, or that they hate the residents who use the exchanges?
Harmut, yeah, guess I should have seen that coming.
When Dubya/Cheney “normalized” torture, was there any reason to think that it would be confined to humans, and not extended to the language?
That “appropriate” legislation was passed by overwhelming (>90%) bipartisan majorities, in multiple congressional bills over the decades. So ipso facto INappropriate.
At least according to “Rule of Law, Bitchez” Roberts.
Harmut, yeah, guess I should have seen that coming.
When Dubya/Cheney “normalized” torture, was there any reason to think that it would be confined to humans, and not extended to the language?
That “appropriate” legislation was passed by overwhelming (>90%) bipartisan majorities, in multiple congressional bills over the decades. So ipso facto INappropriate.
At least according to “Rule of Law, Bitchez” Roberts.
Harmut, yeah, guess I should have seen that coming.
When Dubya/Cheney “normalized” torture, was there any reason to think that it would be confined to humans, and not extended to the language?
That “appropriate” legislation was passed by overwhelming (>90%) bipartisan majorities, in multiple congressional bills over the decades. So ipso facto INappropriate.
At least according to “Rule of Law, Bitchez” Roberts.
While we’re looking at the torture of language, let’s take a bit more context. Because context is not just the words around the quote. It’s the times of the quote and what people then meant by those words in the world in which they actually lived.
Yes, Brett, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to “the people.” But it also talks of the “militia”. Not, one actually suspects, because of concern about what kinds of weapons would be involved. But because it gave context — since, at that time and place, “militia” routinely meant all able bodied free men (who were not already members of the regular military). And it speaks specifically about regulating that militia . . . which would reasonably include its weapons.
So, reading the complete context, the 2nd Amendment actually authorized gun control regulations. You may think that would be a terrible idea, of course. But it doesn’t really conflict with the meaning of the words at the time they were written.
While we’re looking at the torture of language, let’s take a bit more context. Because context is not just the words around the quote. It’s the times of the quote and what people then meant by those words in the world in which they actually lived.
Yes, Brett, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to “the people.” But it also talks of the “militia”. Not, one actually suspects, because of concern about what kinds of weapons would be involved. But because it gave context — since, at that time and place, “militia” routinely meant all able bodied free men (who were not already members of the regular military). And it speaks specifically about regulating that militia . . . which would reasonably include its weapons.
So, reading the complete context, the 2nd Amendment actually authorized gun control regulations. You may think that would be a terrible idea, of course. But it doesn’t really conflict with the meaning of the words at the time they were written.
While we’re looking at the torture of language, let’s take a bit more context. Because context is not just the words around the quote. It’s the times of the quote and what people then meant by those words in the world in which they actually lived.
Yes, Brett, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to “the people.” But it also talks of the “militia”. Not, one actually suspects, because of concern about what kinds of weapons would be involved. But because it gave context — since, at that time and place, “militia” routinely meant all able bodied free men (who were not already members of the regular military). And it speaks specifically about regulating that militia . . . which would reasonably include its weapons.
So, reading the complete context, the 2nd Amendment actually authorized gun control regulations. You may think that would be a terrible idea, of course. But it doesn’t really conflict with the meaning of the words at the time they were written.
Indeed, iirc the argument was that the mere fact of it being overwhelmingly supported was proof that the guys were not really acting out of their own free will but under duress since nothing could get that much support naturally. They were just shaking in fear of the personal consequences for themselves, if they had dared to oppose.
Time to revoke equal rights for women too since the legislators (all married at the time, I presume) voted for them only out of fear of their spouses. Cf. some Swiss cantons and their hard fight over votes for women during my lifetime (I was born in 1973) where the same argument got used to delegitimize the movement (and for quite some time successfully).
Indeed, iirc the argument was that the mere fact of it being overwhelmingly supported was proof that the guys were not really acting out of their own free will but under duress since nothing could get that much support naturally. They were just shaking in fear of the personal consequences for themselves, if they had dared to oppose.
Time to revoke equal rights for women too since the legislators (all married at the time, I presume) voted for them only out of fear of their spouses. Cf. some Swiss cantons and their hard fight over votes for women during my lifetime (I was born in 1973) where the same argument got used to delegitimize the movement (and for quite some time successfully).
Indeed, iirc the argument was that the mere fact of it being overwhelmingly supported was proof that the guys were not really acting out of their own free will but under duress since nothing could get that much support naturally. They were just shaking in fear of the personal consequences for themselves, if they had dared to oppose.
Time to revoke equal rights for women too since the legislators (all married at the time, I presume) voted for them only out of fear of their spouses. Cf. some Swiss cantons and their hard fight over votes for women during my lifetime (I was born in 1973) where the same argument got used to delegitimize the movement (and for quite some time successfully).
“It’s the times of the quote and what people then meant by those words in the world in which they actually lived.”
“So, reading the complete context, the 2nd Amendment actually authorized gun control regulations.”
The second statement doesn’t hold with the first statement. At the time the Second Amendment was written, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” had the same meaning as “A properly equipped and trained Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”.
“It’s the times of the quote and what people then meant by those words in the world in which they actually lived.”
“So, reading the complete context, the 2nd Amendment actually authorized gun control regulations.”
The second statement doesn’t hold with the first statement. At the time the Second Amendment was written, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” had the same meaning as “A properly equipped and trained Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”.
“It’s the times of the quote and what people then meant by those words in the world in which they actually lived.”
“So, reading the complete context, the 2nd Amendment actually authorized gun control regulations.”
The second statement doesn’t hold with the first statement. At the time the Second Amendment was written, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…” had the same meaning as “A properly equipped and trained Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”.
You can sort of see the reason why the concern with a ‘well-regulated’ militia; the militias that participated in the Revolutionary War had not covered themselves in glory, exactly.
The War of 1812, even more so.
So the facts in evidence was that a militia wasn’t necessary to the security of a free state, but was likely to get a free state beaten by a professional army and have it’s executive mansion captured, looted, and burned.
In these much later times of abundant couch potatoes, I think that a citizen militia could actually do some good: regular training, be part of a local organization, march a few miles with pack every six months, or NO GUNS FOR YOU. Sort of like Scouting for adults.
You can sort of see the reason why the concern with a ‘well-regulated’ militia; the militias that participated in the Revolutionary War had not covered themselves in glory, exactly.
The War of 1812, even more so.
So the facts in evidence was that a militia wasn’t necessary to the security of a free state, but was likely to get a free state beaten by a professional army and have it’s executive mansion captured, looted, and burned.
In these much later times of abundant couch potatoes, I think that a citizen militia could actually do some good: regular training, be part of a local organization, march a few miles with pack every six months, or NO GUNS FOR YOU. Sort of like Scouting for adults.
You can sort of see the reason why the concern with a ‘well-regulated’ militia; the militias that participated in the Revolutionary War had not covered themselves in glory, exactly.
The War of 1812, even more so.
So the facts in evidence was that a militia wasn’t necessary to the security of a free state, but was likely to get a free state beaten by a professional army and have it’s executive mansion captured, looted, and burned.
In these much later times of abundant couch potatoes, I think that a citizen militia could actually do some good: regular training, be part of a local organization, march a few miles with pack every six months, or NO GUNS FOR YOU. Sort of like Scouting for adults.
Charles,
“Regulated”=”properly equipped and trained” is almost surely correct, since the Framers spoke the King’s English of the 18th century. What do you think they understood by “and trained”?
Incidentally, Americans speak American English now. They are not the same people as their two-centuries-dead ancestors. Just saying.
–TP
Charles,
“Regulated”=”properly equipped and trained” is almost surely correct, since the Framers spoke the King’s English of the 18th century. What do you think they understood by “and trained”?
Incidentally, Americans speak American English now. They are not the same people as their two-centuries-dead ancestors. Just saying.
–TP
Charles,
“Regulated”=”properly equipped and trained” is almost surely correct, since the Framers spoke the King’s English of the 18th century. What do you think they understood by “and trained”?
Incidentally, Americans speak American English now. They are not the same people as their two-centuries-dead ancestors. Just saying.
–TP
“just so they could throw a pointless tantrum about ACA,”
Here,though no one focuses on it, is the core different. If you define all opposition ad a pointless tantrum you win the argument in your mind, demean all opposers are childish, and repeal as murder. But it isn’t a tantrum, it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before, just different ones. Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives. A tax that forces everyone to pay makes poor people poorer. There are lots of problems in the writing and implementation of the law.
“just so they could throw a pointless tantrum about ACA,”
Here,though no one focuses on it, is the core different. If you define all opposition ad a pointless tantrum you win the argument in your mind, demean all opposers are childish, and repeal as murder. But it isn’t a tantrum, it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before, just different ones. Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives. A tax that forces everyone to pay makes poor people poorer. There are lots of problems in the writing and implementation of the law.
“just so they could throw a pointless tantrum about ACA,”
Here,though no one focuses on it, is the core different. If you define all opposition ad a pointless tantrum you win the argument in your mind, demean all opposers are childish, and repeal as murder. But it isn’t a tantrum, it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before, just different ones. Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives. A tax that forces everyone to pay makes poor people poorer. There are lots of problems in the writing and implementation of the law.
A tax that forces everyone to pay makes poor people poorer.
An assertion that never comes up when graduated income vs. “flat tax” is under discussion. This claim also neatly elides the fact that the cost of the insurance is subsidized at lower income levels.
Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives.
Even the “crappiest” plans available under the ACA are superior to the crappy ones hocked to the gullible prior to the ACA passage. See caps. See pre-existing conditions.
Here is a string of assertions for you:
Having no insurance kills people.
The ACA provides a mechanism for the uninsured to obtain health insurance at reasonable, low, or even free cost depending on income.
Therefore, taking this insurance away from those who now have health insurance where before they did not will result in unnecessary deaths.
Unnecessary deaths = murder.
..it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before, just different ones.
Perhaps you could take a few minutes and back up this “belief” with some kind of citation or fact?
A tax that forces everyone to pay makes poor people poorer.
An assertion that never comes up when graduated income vs. “flat tax” is under discussion. This claim also neatly elides the fact that the cost of the insurance is subsidized at lower income levels.
Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives.
Even the “crappiest” plans available under the ACA are superior to the crappy ones hocked to the gullible prior to the ACA passage. See caps. See pre-existing conditions.
Here is a string of assertions for you:
Having no insurance kills people.
The ACA provides a mechanism for the uninsured to obtain health insurance at reasonable, low, or even free cost depending on income.
Therefore, taking this insurance away from those who now have health insurance where before they did not will result in unnecessary deaths.
Unnecessary deaths = murder.
..it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before, just different ones.
Perhaps you could take a few minutes and back up this “belief” with some kind of citation or fact?
A tax that forces everyone to pay makes poor people poorer.
An assertion that never comes up when graduated income vs. “flat tax” is under discussion. This claim also neatly elides the fact that the cost of the insurance is subsidized at lower income levels.
Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives.
Even the “crappiest” plans available under the ACA are superior to the crappy ones hocked to the gullible prior to the ACA passage. See caps. See pre-existing conditions.
Here is a string of assertions for you:
Having no insurance kills people.
The ACA provides a mechanism for the uninsured to obtain health insurance at reasonable, low, or even free cost depending on income.
Therefore, taking this insurance away from those who now have health insurance where before they did not will result in unnecessary deaths.
Unnecessary deaths = murder.
..it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before, just different ones.
Perhaps you could take a few minutes and back up this “belief” with some kind of citation or fact?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….that holds a class of people in chattel slavery…..
Context.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….that holds a class of people in chattel slavery…..
Context.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State….that holds a class of people in chattel slavery…..
Context.
it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before
cite?
it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before
cite?
it is an honest and ongoing belief that more people are now dying than before
cite?
Unnecessary deaths happen both ways, 10k deductible insurance is the equivalent of no insurance. And of course, that was the goal for the proponents, having millions of people having crappy insurance so all yall could say stupid, obvious yet completely off point things like that.
Unnecessary deaths happen both ways, 10k deductible insurance is the equivalent of no insurance. And of course, that was the goal for the proponents, having millions of people having crappy insurance so all yall could say stupid, obvious yet completely off point things like that.
Unnecessary deaths happen both ways, 10k deductible insurance is the equivalent of no insurance. And of course, that was the goal for the proponents, having millions of people having crappy insurance so all yall could say stupid, obvious yet completely off point things like that.
Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives.
Marty,
You may not be aware, if you haven’t been there. But insurance has to be pretty crappy indeed (and most of the ACA policies I have seen are not) to be worse than no insurance. Which is what a lot of us were looking at without it. And even crappy insurance saves lives, not to mention cutting down on needless suffering.
For anyone with what insurance companies characterized as a “pre-existing condition” that was what you were looking at. Unless you were both wealthy enough and knowledgable enough to invent a group thru which to get group coverage. Didn’t have to be a big group. Didn’t even have to happen to include entirely people with various pre-existing conditions. As long as it was a group you could get a policy. But not otherwise.
While the law could have been changed at any time, without waiting for the ACA, it never was. And as far as I can see, the finances don’t really work without the mandate. So what is left. Oh yeah — gotta get rid of the “Obamacare” label. Otherwise, we could just pass it again and everybody would be happy.
Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives.
Marty,
You may not be aware, if you haven’t been there. But insurance has to be pretty crappy indeed (and most of the ACA policies I have seen are not) to be worse than no insurance. Which is what a lot of us were looking at without it. And even crappy insurance saves lives, not to mention cutting down on needless suffering.
For anyone with what insurance companies characterized as a “pre-existing condition” that was what you were looking at. Unless you were both wealthy enough and knowledgable enough to invent a group thru which to get group coverage. Didn’t have to be a big group. Didn’t even have to happen to include entirely people with various pre-existing conditions. As long as it was a group you could get a policy. But not otherwise.
While the law could have been changed at any time, without waiting for the ACA, it never was. And as far as I can see, the finances don’t really work without the mandate. So what is left. Oh yeah — gotta get rid of the “Obamacare” label. Otherwise, we could just pass it again and everybody would be happy.
Crappy insurance doesn’t save lives.
Marty,
You may not be aware, if you haven’t been there. But insurance has to be pretty crappy indeed (and most of the ACA policies I have seen are not) to be worse than no insurance. Which is what a lot of us were looking at without it. And even crappy insurance saves lives, not to mention cutting down on needless suffering.
For anyone with what insurance companies characterized as a “pre-existing condition” that was what you were looking at. Unless you were both wealthy enough and knowledgable enough to invent a group thru which to get group coverage. Didn’t have to be a big group. Didn’t even have to happen to include entirely people with various pre-existing conditions. As long as it was a group you could get a policy. But not otherwise.
While the law could have been changed at any time, without waiting for the ACA, it never was. And as far as I can see, the finances don’t really work without the mandate. So what is left. Oh yeah — gotta get rid of the “Obamacare” label. Otherwise, we could just pass it again and everybody would be happy.
i’m pretty sure we’re now supposed to call it Grubercare, since he is the only person whose opinion matters.
i’m pretty sure we’re now supposed to call it Grubercare, since he is the only person whose opinion matters.
i’m pretty sure we’re now supposed to call it Grubercare, since he is the only person whose opinion matters.
Trying to get through the spam filter…we’ll see if it works.
Speaking as someone who doesn’t particularly think the ACA is going to do much to restrain costs, slow grifting of the system, or in general do much of anything long term (and yes, I’d be happy to be wrong):
I’ve spent some time reading various excerpts of the law. Some of the language involving exchanges is unclear.
The law was passed in a rush, under heavy negotiation, and was designed to be complex to get it by “stupid” voters. At some point in the laws design, tax credits were probably targeted to only the state exchanges.
Under those conditions, I really don’t find it surprising that some verbiage is unclear. That old clauses got stuck in and overlooked.
But it seems like there are 3 possibilities:
(1) The text in question plainly contradicts other sections of the statute. In which case, the law should be interpreted in the way that does “the least violence” to the text as a whole.
(2) The text is ambiguous. In that case, the Chevron holding suggests the court should defer to the IRS.
(3) The text doesn’t contradict the IRS’s interpretation, and there is no conflict in the text.
In all cases, I see the ACA being upheld in its current form.
Honestly, I find the IRS’s interpretation of the law reasonable and consistent with much of text, for the reasons outlined here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-the-grant-in-king-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/
I fully expect the court to uphold the statute, greater than 5-4. My personal guess is 8-1, with Thomas dissenting.
If this teaches us anything, its that crafting laws to get around “stupid” voters isn’t particularly intelligent. I don’t care if people are stupid (and in general, I don’t think they are), they still have the right of self-determination. They deserve to have political leaders talk to them like adults, explain the pros, cons, and uncertainties of a bill, and try to follow the will of their constituents.
Trying to get through the spam filter…we’ll see if it works.
Speaking as someone who doesn’t particularly think the ACA is going to do much to restrain costs, slow grifting of the system, or in general do much of anything long term (and yes, I’d be happy to be wrong):
I’ve spent some time reading various excerpts of the law. Some of the language involving exchanges is unclear.
The law was passed in a rush, under heavy negotiation, and was designed to be complex to get it by “stupid” voters. At some point in the laws design, tax credits were probably targeted to only the state exchanges.
Under those conditions, I really don’t find it surprising that some verbiage is unclear. That old clauses got stuck in and overlooked.
But it seems like there are 3 possibilities:
(1) The text in question plainly contradicts other sections of the statute. In which case, the law should be interpreted in the way that does “the least violence” to the text as a whole.
(2) The text is ambiguous. In that case, the Chevron holding suggests the court should defer to the IRS.
(3) The text doesn’t contradict the IRS’s interpretation, and there is no conflict in the text.
In all cases, I see the ACA being upheld in its current form.
Honestly, I find the IRS’s interpretation of the law reasonable and consistent with much of text, for the reasons outlined here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-the-grant-in-king-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/
I fully expect the court to uphold the statute, greater than 5-4. My personal guess is 8-1, with Thomas dissenting.
If this teaches us anything, its that crafting laws to get around “stupid” voters isn’t particularly intelligent. I don’t care if people are stupid (and in general, I don’t think they are), they still have the right of self-determination. They deserve to have political leaders talk to them like adults, explain the pros, cons, and uncertainties of a bill, and try to follow the will of their constituents.
Trying to get through the spam filter…we’ll see if it works.
Speaking as someone who doesn’t particularly think the ACA is going to do much to restrain costs, slow grifting of the system, or in general do much of anything long term (and yes, I’d be happy to be wrong):
I’ve spent some time reading various excerpts of the law. Some of the language involving exchanges is unclear.
The law was passed in a rush, under heavy negotiation, and was designed to be complex to get it by “stupid” voters. At some point in the laws design, tax credits were probably targeted to only the state exchanges.
Under those conditions, I really don’t find it surprising that some verbiage is unclear. That old clauses got stuck in and overlooked.
But it seems like there are 3 possibilities:
(1) The text in question plainly contradicts other sections of the statute. In which case, the law should be interpreted in the way that does “the least violence” to the text as a whole.
(2) The text is ambiguous. In that case, the Chevron holding suggests the court should defer to the IRS.
(3) The text doesn’t contradict the IRS’s interpretation, and there is no conflict in the text.
In all cases, I see the ACA being upheld in its current form.
Honestly, I find the IRS’s interpretation of the law reasonable and consistent with much of text, for the reasons outlined here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-the-grant-in-king-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/
I fully expect the court to uphold the statute, greater than 5-4. My personal guess is 8-1, with Thomas dissenting.
If this teaches us anything, its that crafting laws to get around “stupid” voters isn’t particularly intelligent. I don’t care if people are stupid (and in general, I don’t think they are), they still have the right of self-determination. They deserve to have political leaders talk to them like adults, explain the pros, cons, and uncertainties of a bill, and try to follow the will of their constituents.
Marty,
If you define all opposition ad a pointless tantrum you win the argument in your mind..
But I didn’t do that. Some opposition is reasonable, even if I disagree with it. What is a pointless tantrum is for a stste legislature to refuse to take a trivial step to provide its constituents with a break on their federal income taxes for no reason whatsoever, just as it is pointless to refuse the Medicaid expansion.
I wonder how many of these principled opponents are keeping children under 26 on their policies, or otherwise taking advantage of ACA. I also wonder how many principled opponents of Medicare and Social Security turn it down.
In other words, how many are happy to accept benefits form programs they don’t like, while fighting to deny benfits to others.
Marty,
If you define all opposition ad a pointless tantrum you win the argument in your mind..
But I didn’t do that. Some opposition is reasonable, even if I disagree with it. What is a pointless tantrum is for a stste legislature to refuse to take a trivial step to provide its constituents with a break on their federal income taxes for no reason whatsoever, just as it is pointless to refuse the Medicaid expansion.
I wonder how many of these principled opponents are keeping children under 26 on their policies, or otherwise taking advantage of ACA. I also wonder how many principled opponents of Medicare and Social Security turn it down.
In other words, how many are happy to accept benefits form programs they don’t like, while fighting to deny benfits to others.
Marty,
If you define all opposition ad a pointless tantrum you win the argument in your mind..
But I didn’t do that. Some opposition is reasonable, even if I disagree with it. What is a pointless tantrum is for a stste legislature to refuse to take a trivial step to provide its constituents with a break on their federal income taxes for no reason whatsoever, just as it is pointless to refuse the Medicaid expansion.
I wonder how many of these principled opponents are keeping children under 26 on their policies, or otherwise taking advantage of ACA. I also wonder how many principled opponents of Medicare and Social Security turn it down.
In other words, how many are happy to accept benefits form programs they don’t like, while fighting to deny benfits to others.
Marty,
10k deductible insurance is the equivalent of no insurance.
No. It’s not. And remember, high-deductible plans are a frequent component of GOP proposals. So again, it’s a great idea until Obama does it.
Marty,
10k deductible insurance is the equivalent of no insurance.
No. It’s not. And remember, high-deductible plans are a frequent component of GOP proposals. So again, it’s a great idea until Obama does it.
Marty,
10k deductible insurance is the equivalent of no insurance.
No. It’s not. And remember, high-deductible plans are a frequent component of GOP proposals. So again, it’s a great idea until Obama does it.
Brett, for the last time, no, you cannot have a bazooka.
No matter what Tench Coxe said.
Brett, for the last time, no, you cannot have a bazooka.
No matter what Tench Coxe said.
Brett, for the last time, no, you cannot have a bazooka.
No matter what Tench Coxe said.
The law was passed in a rush, under heavy negotiation, and was designed to be complex to get it by “stupid” voters.
Are you referring to the Congressional Republicans? Because otherwise this is a pretty ignorant slander of those worked their asses off to craft a complex piece of legislation and get it past unanimous GOP opposition (to the very concept) and wavering right-center Dems (cf Joe Lieberman) who held the balance of power.
The law was passed in a rush, under heavy negotiation, and was designed to be complex to get it by “stupid” voters.
Are you referring to the Congressional Republicans? Because otherwise this is a pretty ignorant slander of those worked their asses off to craft a complex piece of legislation and get it past unanimous GOP opposition (to the very concept) and wavering right-center Dems (cf Joe Lieberman) who held the balance of power.
The law was passed in a rush, under heavy negotiation, and was designed to be complex to get it by “stupid” voters.
Are you referring to the Congressional Republicans? Because otherwise this is a pretty ignorant slander of those worked their asses off to craft a complex piece of legislation and get it past unanimous GOP opposition (to the very concept) and wavering right-center Dems (cf Joe Lieberman) who held the balance of power.
The cemeteries are full of people who had health insurance.
I hadda friend who keeled over from a fatal heart attack every April 15 for years.
One thing that steams me about collecting on most life insurance policies is that the upfront deductible is Death.
“just different ones”
I don’t know whether to advise not drinking before noon or to take the habit up myself.
The cemeteries are full of people who had health insurance.
I hadda friend who keeled over from a fatal heart attack every April 15 for years.
One thing that steams me about collecting on most life insurance policies is that the upfront deductible is Death.
“just different ones”
I don’t know whether to advise not drinking before noon or to take the habit up myself.
The cemeteries are full of people who had health insurance.
I hadda friend who keeled over from a fatal heart attack every April 15 for years.
One thing that steams me about collecting on most life insurance policies is that the upfront deductible is Death.
“just different ones”
I don’t know whether to advise not drinking before noon or to take the habit up myself.
It’s not slander, it’s how laws are passed. Especially big ones, involving a lot of sacred oxen to be gored. Which, good or bad, the ACA is.
It’s not slander, it’s how laws are passed. Especially big ones, involving a lot of sacred oxen to be gored. Which, good or bad, the ACA is.
It’s not slander, it’s how laws are passed. Especially big ones, involving a lot of sacred oxen to be gored. Which, good or bad, the ACA is.
My personal guess is 8-1, with Thomas dissenting.
Since apparently at least 4 justices took the highly unusual action to bring this farce of a case before them, an 8-1 vote strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
So I will lay you 10-1 your guess will not turn out to be the case.
It’s not slander, it’s how laws are passed.
Well, yes, it is. Further, the law was never voted on by the voters, stupid or otherwise in order to “get it by them”. You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.
My personal guess is 8-1, with Thomas dissenting.
Since apparently at least 4 justices took the highly unusual action to bring this farce of a case before them, an 8-1 vote strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
So I will lay you 10-1 your guess will not turn out to be the case.
It’s not slander, it’s how laws are passed.
Well, yes, it is. Further, the law was never voted on by the voters, stupid or otherwise in order to “get it by them”. You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.
My personal guess is 8-1, with Thomas dissenting.
Since apparently at least 4 justices took the highly unusual action to bring this farce of a case before them, an 8-1 vote strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
So I will lay you 10-1 your guess will not turn out to be the case.
It’s not slander, it’s how laws are passed.
Well, yes, it is. Further, the law was never voted on by the voters, stupid or otherwise in order to “get it by them”. You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.
That link you provided is a good analysis, Thompson. Thank you.
My prediction is 5-4 vote for plaintiff accompanied by the claim that “it’s no big deal” and Congress is free to “fix” the language at its discretion, an outcome that allows the Court to sidestep responsibility and inflict a serious, if not fatal, blow on the ACA as the GOP Congress would never do any such thing, and will continue the Republican plan for national health care, i.e., nothing.
That link you provided is a good analysis, Thompson. Thank you.
My prediction is 5-4 vote for plaintiff accompanied by the claim that “it’s no big deal” and Congress is free to “fix” the language at its discretion, an outcome that allows the Court to sidestep responsibility and inflict a serious, if not fatal, blow on the ACA as the GOP Congress would never do any such thing, and will continue the Republican plan for national health care, i.e., nothing.
That link you provided is a good analysis, Thompson. Thank you.
My prediction is 5-4 vote for plaintiff accompanied by the claim that “it’s no big deal” and Congress is free to “fix” the language at its discretion, an outcome that allows the Court to sidestep responsibility and inflict a serious, if not fatal, blow on the ACA as the GOP Congress would never do any such thing, and will continue the Republican plan for national health care, i.e., nothing.
OK, I’ll play. I figure 6-3 for the defense, with Roberts only concurring.
In my more conspiracy-mined moments, I wonder if some of those voting to review didn’t figure that having a case pending would get everybody else to hold of for a few months. Thus getting the new system even more thoroughly locked in place. Are Supreme Court justices really that conniving? Hmmm….
OK, I’ll play. I figure 6-3 for the defense, with Roberts only concurring.
In my more conspiracy-mined moments, I wonder if some of those voting to review didn’t figure that having a case pending would get everybody else to hold of for a few months. Thus getting the new system even more thoroughly locked in place. Are Supreme Court justices really that conniving? Hmmm….
OK, I’ll play. I figure 6-3 for the defense, with Roberts only concurring.
In my more conspiracy-mined moments, I wonder if some of those voting to review didn’t figure that having a case pending would get everybody else to hold of for a few months. Thus getting the new system even more thoroughly locked in place. Are Supreme Court justices really that conniving? Hmmm….
Since apparently at least 4 justices took the highly unusual action
I wouldn’t say its *unusual*, sadly. But I don’t think it is necessarily pushed through by the conservative block on the theory that they want to kill the law.
First off, even if that was the case, I find it unlikely Roberts would give his colleagues any illusions about overturning the law as it stands.
Somebody pointed me to this column, and I think it makes a fair point. That is, the court may very well want to head off an extended legal battle and eliminate uncertainty regarding the ACA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/07/why-did-the-court-grant-cert-in-king-v-burwell/
You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.
First off, not rather. I would fully agree with “negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders”
I would further say, many of those “powerful stakeholders” are competing with the best interests of the american people. And that entire process is not facilitated by a deliberative process and transparency.
the law was never voted on by the voters
No, but it was voted on by people that can, in theory, be made to answer to the voters. Public opinion and perception of legislation that people are paying attention to is crucial to getting it passed.
Since apparently at least 4 justices took the highly unusual action
I wouldn’t say its *unusual*, sadly. But I don’t think it is necessarily pushed through by the conservative block on the theory that they want to kill the law.
First off, even if that was the case, I find it unlikely Roberts would give his colleagues any illusions about overturning the law as it stands.
Somebody pointed me to this column, and I think it makes a fair point. That is, the court may very well want to head off an extended legal battle and eliminate uncertainty regarding the ACA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/07/why-did-the-court-grant-cert-in-king-v-burwell/
You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.
First off, not rather. I would fully agree with “negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders”
I would further say, many of those “powerful stakeholders” are competing with the best interests of the american people. And that entire process is not facilitated by a deliberative process and transparency.
the law was never voted on by the voters
No, but it was voted on by people that can, in theory, be made to answer to the voters. Public opinion and perception of legislation that people are paying attention to is crucial to getting it passed.
Since apparently at least 4 justices took the highly unusual action
I wouldn’t say its *unusual*, sadly. But I don’t think it is necessarily pushed through by the conservative block on the theory that they want to kill the law.
First off, even if that was the case, I find it unlikely Roberts would give his colleagues any illusions about overturning the law as it stands.
Somebody pointed me to this column, and I think it makes a fair point. That is, the court may very well want to head off an extended legal battle and eliminate uncertainty regarding the ACA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/07/why-did-the-court-grant-cert-in-king-v-burwell/
You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.
First off, not rather. I would fully agree with “negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders”
I would further say, many of those “powerful stakeholders” are competing with the best interests of the american people. And that entire process is not facilitated by a deliberative process and transparency.
the law was never voted on by the voters
No, but it was voted on by people that can, in theory, be made to answer to the voters. Public opinion and perception of legislation that people are paying attention to is crucial to getting it passed.
bobbyp:
an outcome that allows the Court to sidestep responsibility and inflict a serious
I would agree that would be a highly damaging step for the court to take. Both to the institution, and to the country.
So damaging, that I’m skeptical about the theory of SCOTUS scooping up the case to rip apart the ACA.
bobbyp:
an outcome that allows the Court to sidestep responsibility and inflict a serious
I would agree that would be a highly damaging step for the court to take. Both to the institution, and to the country.
So damaging, that I’m skeptical about the theory of SCOTUS scooping up the case to rip apart the ACA.
bobbyp:
an outcome that allows the Court to sidestep responsibility and inflict a serious
I would agree that would be a highly damaging step for the court to take. Both to the institution, and to the country.
So damaging, that I’m skeptical about the theory of SCOTUS scooping up the case to rip apart the ACA.
the law was never voted on by the voters
name a federal law that has been … ?
the law was never voted on by the voters
name a federal law that has been … ?
the law was never voted on by the voters
name a federal law that has been … ?
The Founders made the ACA deliberately complex, given the deference all must pay to the imaginary and arbitrary borders between all of the 50 states, with 50 different imaginary healthcare markets, and the three branches of the federal government.
The insurance industry make their health insurance products deliberately complex, and if you don’t believe me, read the small print, if you can see it.
The hospitals make medical care deliberately complex and opaque by refusing to offer a detailed price list upfront, and even if they did, count on the bill to show differently, and not less expensive, more expensive.
America’s gift to the world is complexity, the better to allow each of us to anonymously f*ck each other over every chance we get and then each of us, and our corporations, set up a legal thicket of hoops to jump through, waiting periods, mediation boards, and fast talkers to bamboozle any attempt to get to bottom of who f*cked who.
Capitalism and technology feed on complexity by making the simplest tasks of yesteryear an unending time-consuming hurricane of infinite choices, ie, finding the cheapest 16 oz can of tomatoes on any given day at one of 30 grocery outlets, if your wallet can fit the 30 cards inside it to get the lowest price at any given moment, and did you want basil with that.
It’s all in the Constitution.
And if you can’t find it there, Marx will explain it to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RviRADnyFPs
The Founders made the ACA deliberately complex, given the deference all must pay to the imaginary and arbitrary borders between all of the 50 states, with 50 different imaginary healthcare markets, and the three branches of the federal government.
The insurance industry make their health insurance products deliberately complex, and if you don’t believe me, read the small print, if you can see it.
The hospitals make medical care deliberately complex and opaque by refusing to offer a detailed price list upfront, and even if they did, count on the bill to show differently, and not less expensive, more expensive.
America’s gift to the world is complexity, the better to allow each of us to anonymously f*ck each other over every chance we get and then each of us, and our corporations, set up a legal thicket of hoops to jump through, waiting periods, mediation boards, and fast talkers to bamboozle any attempt to get to bottom of who f*cked who.
Capitalism and technology feed on complexity by making the simplest tasks of yesteryear an unending time-consuming hurricane of infinite choices, ie, finding the cheapest 16 oz can of tomatoes on any given day at one of 30 grocery outlets, if your wallet can fit the 30 cards inside it to get the lowest price at any given moment, and did you want basil with that.
It’s all in the Constitution.
And if you can’t find it there, Marx will explain it to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RviRADnyFPs
The Founders made the ACA deliberately complex, given the deference all must pay to the imaginary and arbitrary borders between all of the 50 states, with 50 different imaginary healthcare markets, and the three branches of the federal government.
The insurance industry make their health insurance products deliberately complex, and if you don’t believe me, read the small print, if you can see it.
The hospitals make medical care deliberately complex and opaque by refusing to offer a detailed price list upfront, and even if they did, count on the bill to show differently, and not less expensive, more expensive.
America’s gift to the world is complexity, the better to allow each of us to anonymously f*ck each other over every chance we get and then each of us, and our corporations, set up a legal thicket of hoops to jump through, waiting periods, mediation boards, and fast talkers to bamboozle any attempt to get to bottom of who f*cked who.
Capitalism and technology feed on complexity by making the simplest tasks of yesteryear an unending time-consuming hurricane of infinite choices, ie, finding the cheapest 16 oz can of tomatoes on any given day at one of 30 grocery outlets, if your wallet can fit the 30 cards inside it to get the lowest price at any given moment, and did you want basil with that.
It’s all in the Constitution.
And if you can’t find it there, Marx will explain it to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RviRADnyFPs
“the law was never voted on by the voters”
Who said that? It’s after noon, so you can now claim you’ve had to much to drink as an excuse.
“Brett, for the last time, no, you cannot have a bazooka.”
If we insert language into the ACA, or just read what is there as that instead of tax credits, all state and federal exchange members get a free bazooka, would that bring Brett on board so we can have our stinking health insurance?
Tench Coxe? America’s first gay porn start?
“the law was never voted on by the voters”
Who said that? It’s after noon, so you can now claim you’ve had to much to drink as an excuse.
“Brett, for the last time, no, you cannot have a bazooka.”
If we insert language into the ACA, or just read what is there as that instead of tax credits, all state and federal exchange members get a free bazooka, would that bring Brett on board so we can have our stinking health insurance?
Tench Coxe? America’s first gay porn start?
“the law was never voted on by the voters”
Who said that? It’s after noon, so you can now claim you’ve had to much to drink as an excuse.
“Brett, for the last time, no, you cannot have a bazooka.”
If we insert language into the ACA, or just read what is there as that instead of tax credits, all state and federal exchange members get a free bazooka, would that bring Brett on board so we can have our stinking health insurance?
Tench Coxe? America’s first gay porn start?
Well, I admit I have no idea what the court will do. I don’t think Scott Lemieux does either, I have the ianal excuse. Somewhere upthread, and I admit to being too lazy right now to find it, someone went on about how no one has objected to this “until now”. I suspect noe is pretty quick. Its about 12 months since the first people signed up in an exchange, thus getting a subsidy from the exchange. My guess us you couldn’t legally object until it happened, so that’s a pretty short trip to the Supreme Court.
Well, I admit I have no idea what the court will do. I don’t think Scott Lemieux does either, I have the ianal excuse. Somewhere upthread, and I admit to being too lazy right now to find it, someone went on about how no one has objected to this “until now”. I suspect noe is pretty quick. Its about 12 months since the first people signed up in an exchange, thus getting a subsidy from the exchange. My guess us you couldn’t legally object until it happened, so that’s a pretty short trip to the Supreme Court.
Well, I admit I have no idea what the court will do. I don’t think Scott Lemieux does either, I have the ianal excuse. Somewhere upthread, and I admit to being too lazy right now to find it, someone went on about how no one has objected to this “until now”. I suspect noe is pretty quick. Its about 12 months since the first people signed up in an exchange, thus getting a subsidy from the exchange. My guess us you couldn’t legally object until it happened, so that’s a pretty short trip to the Supreme Court.
Sure, we need context. The amendment is clear that “the people” have the right, not “the militia”. But, what sort of arms is it a right to?
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons. As Tench Coxe said, “every terrible implement of the soldier”. Not to “every mildly disturbing implement of the hunter”.
Oh? So context matters with this? How much light was there between every terrible implement of the soldier and hunting weapons at the time of writing? I suppose you could bring up artillery, but was there enough private ownership of such for that to be a credible interpretation, even before we get into the weeds with the words “bear” and “arms”?
I don’t think your argument is near so strong here as you think, Brett. I strongly question the idea that the 2nd was understood by its writers as authorizing the rabble to own e.g. mortars and cannons any more than it should now be interpreted to authorize random citizens to own e.g. mortars and cannons… or all and sundry other “terrible implements of the soldier”. If you honestly believe the 2nd gives the rights you’re claiming here, then I should be able to freely buy or build cruise missiles, obtain a helicopter gunship, and develop my own stockpile of biological weapons. Somehow, I think you’re going to suddenly find that even “every terrible implement of the soldier” does have a limit as to what can actually fit inside that “every”.
(IIRC, the last time you claimed this, I took a lighter hand and only went so far as to bring up MANPADS and infantry mortars, but even that was enough to get you to respond with resounding silence.)
Sure, we need context. The amendment is clear that “the people” have the right, not “the militia”. But, what sort of arms is it a right to?
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons. As Tench Coxe said, “every terrible implement of the soldier”. Not to “every mildly disturbing implement of the hunter”.
Oh? So context matters with this? How much light was there between every terrible implement of the soldier and hunting weapons at the time of writing? I suppose you could bring up artillery, but was there enough private ownership of such for that to be a credible interpretation, even before we get into the weeds with the words “bear” and “arms”?
I don’t think your argument is near so strong here as you think, Brett. I strongly question the idea that the 2nd was understood by its writers as authorizing the rabble to own e.g. mortars and cannons any more than it should now be interpreted to authorize random citizens to own e.g. mortars and cannons… or all and sundry other “terrible implements of the soldier”. If you honestly believe the 2nd gives the rights you’re claiming here, then I should be able to freely buy or build cruise missiles, obtain a helicopter gunship, and develop my own stockpile of biological weapons. Somehow, I think you’re going to suddenly find that even “every terrible implement of the soldier” does have a limit as to what can actually fit inside that “every”.
(IIRC, the last time you claimed this, I took a lighter hand and only went so far as to bring up MANPADS and infantry mortars, but even that was enough to get you to respond with resounding silence.)
Sure, we need context. The amendment is clear that “the people” have the right, not “the militia”. But, what sort of arms is it a right to?
The context makes it clear, that it is a right to militia weapons. As Tench Coxe said, “every terrible implement of the soldier”. Not to “every mildly disturbing implement of the hunter”.
Oh? So context matters with this? How much light was there between every terrible implement of the soldier and hunting weapons at the time of writing? I suppose you could bring up artillery, but was there enough private ownership of such for that to be a credible interpretation, even before we get into the weeds with the words “bear” and “arms”?
I don’t think your argument is near so strong here as you think, Brett. I strongly question the idea that the 2nd was understood by its writers as authorizing the rabble to own e.g. mortars and cannons any more than it should now be interpreted to authorize random citizens to own e.g. mortars and cannons… or all and sundry other “terrible implements of the soldier”. If you honestly believe the 2nd gives the rights you’re claiming here, then I should be able to freely buy or build cruise missiles, obtain a helicopter gunship, and develop my own stockpile of biological weapons. Somehow, I think you’re going to suddenly find that even “every terrible implement of the soldier” does have a limit as to what can actually fit inside that “every”.
(IIRC, the last time you claimed this, I took a lighter hand and only went so far as to bring up MANPADS and infantry mortars, but even that was enough to get you to respond with resounding silence.)
(In case that last bit was unclear, if you’re not willing to go at least as far as my last paragraph, Brett, the argument you argued above to be brutally devastating really is brutally devastating… to your own argument. Because if we understand that militia arms are to include all man-portable infantry weapons, but you then turn and argue that we must draw arbitrary lines amongst the infantry weapons so as to determine which are and are not permissible for private ownership… well, then, we’ve already established what the inviolate text of the Constitution is, and are now just haggling over price…)
(In case that last bit was unclear, if you’re not willing to go at least as far as my last paragraph, Brett, the argument you argued above to be brutally devastating really is brutally devastating… to your own argument. Because if we understand that militia arms are to include all man-portable infantry weapons, but you then turn and argue that we must draw arbitrary lines amongst the infantry weapons so as to determine which are and are not permissible for private ownership… well, then, we’ve already established what the inviolate text of the Constitution is, and are now just haggling over price…)
(In case that last bit was unclear, if you’re not willing to go at least as far as my last paragraph, Brett, the argument you argued above to be brutally devastating really is brutally devastating… to your own argument. Because if we understand that militia arms are to include all man-portable infantry weapons, but you then turn and argue that we must draw arbitrary lines amongst the infantry weapons so as to determine which are and are not permissible for private ownership… well, then, we’ve already established what the inviolate text of the Constitution is, and are now just haggling over price…)
My weekly periodical and internet reading consists mostly of business news and analysis, which skews mostly conservative, and here’s a columnist for Barron’s Weekly, who despises Obama, nevertheless giving away the Republican pig-filth game in the House of Representatives vis-a-vis the immigration bill from 2010, supported by EVERYONE, but scuttled by the Tea Party vermin.
http://online.barrons.com/articles/boehner-plays-politics-on-immigration-reform-1416024762?mod=BOL_hp_mag
That counts for every piece of legislation Obama has cast a favorable eye towards. The pig-filth have halted governance altogether.
In the House and the Senate.
My weekly periodical and internet reading consists mostly of business news and analysis, which skews mostly conservative, and here’s a columnist for Barron’s Weekly, who despises Obama, nevertheless giving away the Republican pig-filth game in the House of Representatives vis-a-vis the immigration bill from 2010, supported by EVERYONE, but scuttled by the Tea Party vermin.
http://online.barrons.com/articles/boehner-plays-politics-on-immigration-reform-1416024762?mod=BOL_hp_mag
That counts for every piece of legislation Obama has cast a favorable eye towards. The pig-filth have halted governance altogether.
In the House and the Senate.
My weekly periodical and internet reading consists mostly of business news and analysis, which skews mostly conservative, and here’s a columnist for Barron’s Weekly, who despises Obama, nevertheless giving away the Republican pig-filth game in the House of Representatives vis-a-vis the immigration bill from 2010, supported by EVERYONE, but scuttled by the Tea Party vermin.
http://online.barrons.com/articles/boehner-plays-politics-on-immigration-reform-1416024762?mod=BOL_hp_mag
That counts for every piece of legislation Obama has cast a favorable eye towards. The pig-filth have halted governance altogether.
In the House and the Senate.
Who said that? It’s after noon, so you can now claim you’ve had to much to drink as an excuse.
Any port in a storm…
Who said that? It’s after noon, so you can now claim you’ve had to much to drink as an excuse.
Any port in a storm…
Who said that? It’s after noon, so you can now claim you’ve had to much to drink as an excuse.
Any port in a storm…
Somewhere upthread, and I admit to being too lazy right now to find it, someone went on about how no one has objected to this “until now”. I suspect noe is pretty quick. Its about 12 months since the first people signed up in an exchange, thus getting a subsidy from the exchange. My guess us you couldn’t legally object until it happened, so that’s a pretty short trip to the Supreme Court.
Numerous legal objections to sundry aspects of the ACA were raised prior to anyone signing up in an exchange, however. This particular “awfulness” was discovered and objected to only after the previous “awfulnesses” were found wanting.
Somewhere upthread, and I admit to being too lazy right now to find it, someone went on about how no one has objected to this “until now”. I suspect noe is pretty quick. Its about 12 months since the first people signed up in an exchange, thus getting a subsidy from the exchange. My guess us you couldn’t legally object until it happened, so that’s a pretty short trip to the Supreme Court.
Numerous legal objections to sundry aspects of the ACA were raised prior to anyone signing up in an exchange, however. This particular “awfulness” was discovered and objected to only after the previous “awfulnesses” were found wanting.
Somewhere upthread, and I admit to being too lazy right now to find it, someone went on about how no one has objected to this “until now”. I suspect noe is pretty quick. Its about 12 months since the first people signed up in an exchange, thus getting a subsidy from the exchange. My guess us you couldn’t legally object until it happened, so that’s a pretty short trip to the Supreme Court.
Numerous legal objections to sundry aspects of the ACA were raised prior to anyone signing up in an exchange, however. This particular “awfulness” was discovered and objected to only after the previous “awfulnesses” were found wanting.
Thompson: “But it seems like there are 3 possibilities:”
It seems to me there are considerably more than 3 possiblities. Let’s try a fourth:
4) The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute, because “doesn’t work well with” isn’t the same as “contradict”.
“Contradict” is where one thing says “X”, and something else says “Not X”. Not where one thing says “X”, and something else works badly if “X”.
bobbyp: “You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.”
Except that a guy who played an important part in the making of it was caught on tape saying exactly that. That they deliberately made it complicated so that stupid voters wouldn’t pick up on what they were doing.
Thompson: “No, but it was voted on by people that can, in theory, be made to answer to the voters. Public opinion and perception of legislation that people are paying attention to is crucial to getting it passed.”
Not just in theory. Can, and were, which is why if the thing gets struck down by the Court it’s not coming back. The political mortality rate for the people who voted for this beast has been brutal.
Nombrilisme Vide: “Because if we understand that militia arms are to include all man-portable infantry weapons, but you then turn and argue that we must draw arbitrary lines amongst the infantry weapons so as to determine which are and are not permissible for private ownership… well, then, we’ve already established what the inviolate text of the Constitution is, and are now just haggling over price…)”
Now, I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem: Refusing to draw said arbitrary lines. If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
Thompson: “But it seems like there are 3 possibilities:”
It seems to me there are considerably more than 3 possiblities. Let’s try a fourth:
4) The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute, because “doesn’t work well with” isn’t the same as “contradict”.
“Contradict” is where one thing says “X”, and something else says “Not X”. Not where one thing says “X”, and something else works badly if “X”.
bobbyp: “You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.”
Except that a guy who played an important part in the making of it was caught on tape saying exactly that. That they deliberately made it complicated so that stupid voters wouldn’t pick up on what they were doing.
Thompson: “No, but it was voted on by people that can, in theory, be made to answer to the voters. Public opinion and perception of legislation that people are paying attention to is crucial to getting it passed.”
Not just in theory. Can, and were, which is why if the thing gets struck down by the Court it’s not coming back. The political mortality rate for the people who voted for this beast has been brutal.
Nombrilisme Vide: “Because if we understand that militia arms are to include all man-portable infantry weapons, but you then turn and argue that we must draw arbitrary lines amongst the infantry weapons so as to determine which are and are not permissible for private ownership… well, then, we’ve already established what the inviolate text of the Constitution is, and are now just haggling over price…)”
Now, I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem: Refusing to draw said arbitrary lines. If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
Thompson: “But it seems like there are 3 possibilities:”
It seems to me there are considerably more than 3 possiblities. Let’s try a fourth:
4) The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute, because “doesn’t work well with” isn’t the same as “contradict”.
“Contradict” is where one thing says “X”, and something else says “Not X”. Not where one thing says “X”, and something else works badly if “X”.
bobbyp: “You claim the law was made deliberately complex in order to fool some(body), rather than the outcome of negotiations over a highly complex issue with many competing and powerful stakeholders strikes me as implausible in the extreme.”
Except that a guy who played an important part in the making of it was caught on tape saying exactly that. That they deliberately made it complicated so that stupid voters wouldn’t pick up on what they were doing.
Thompson: “No, but it was voted on by people that can, in theory, be made to answer to the voters. Public opinion and perception of legislation that people are paying attention to is crucial to getting it passed.”
Not just in theory. Can, and were, which is why if the thing gets struck down by the Court it’s not coming back. The political mortality rate for the people who voted for this beast has been brutal.
Nombrilisme Vide: “Because if we understand that militia arms are to include all man-portable infantry weapons, but you then turn and argue that we must draw arbitrary lines amongst the infantry weapons so as to determine which are and are not permissible for private ownership… well, then, we’ve already established what the inviolate text of the Constitution is, and are now just haggling over price…)”
Now, I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem: Refusing to draw said arbitrary lines. If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
Of course there is a simple way out (not really*): Adopt the Swiss model and come down like a megaton of bricks on those that violate the militia regulations. Better still, go beyond it and apply it to every citizen, not just male ones. Then it has just to be decided, whether metics are to be militiaed too or not. No service abroad by the militia though, only defense of the country’s territory. That would be originalist.
*i.e. chances = 0, zero, zilch
Of course there is a simple way out (not really*): Adopt the Swiss model and come down like a megaton of bricks on those that violate the militia regulations. Better still, go beyond it and apply it to every citizen, not just male ones. Then it has just to be decided, whether metics are to be militiaed too or not. No service abroad by the militia though, only defense of the country’s territory. That would be originalist.
*i.e. chances = 0, zero, zilch
Of course there is a simple way out (not really*): Adopt the Swiss model and come down like a megaton of bricks on those that violate the militia regulations. Better still, go beyond it and apply it to every citizen, not just male ones. Then it has just to be decided, whether metics are to be militiaed too or not. No service abroad by the militia though, only defense of the country’s territory. That would be originalist.
*i.e. chances = 0, zero, zilch
If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
They could just issue the really expensive weapons to soldiers, leaving the wealthy the only citizens who could afford to own any. That should appeal to the big donors.
(I love these reality-based discussions.)
If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
They could just issue the really expensive weapons to soldiers, leaving the wealthy the only citizens who could afford to own any. That should appeal to the big donors.
(I love these reality-based discussions.)
If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
They could just issue the really expensive weapons to soldiers, leaving the wealthy the only citizens who could afford to own any. That should appeal to the big donors.
(I love these reality-based discussions.)
I’m expecting my car-top mounted cruise missile delivery system via Amazon next week.
Refillable, like a stapler.
Local parking restrictions may interfere, but hey, who is going to mess with me.
The government doesn’t issue these weapons to its soldiers, that I know of:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/master-class/2013/08/bargain-rifles-5-great-bolt-action-deer-guns?src=related&con=outbrain&obref=obnetwork
Sorry, hunters, but you can exchange your deer rifles for grenades down at the armory just in time for ice fishing season.
The government issues healthcare to its soldiers. Ergo (see how I break out the Latin when explaining how simple things be), gimme my healthcare.
Actually, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have the U.S. Army and Marine Corps medic corps in charge of treating all civilian gunshot wounds and fatalities in the United States, and leave local hospital facilities out of it all together, given the provenance and original intent of nearly every weapon we have.
More constitutional. And simple.
Benjamin Franklin, when asked yesterday what he expected from citizens and voters in 2014, exhaled a great plume of 224-year-old, fetid death halitosis and said: “Exponential stupidity, my simple child. Beware the men who begin every sentence with ‘it’s very simple’. Run from them. Now someone shoot me good and dead in both ears so I can’t hear it anymore.”
I’m expecting my car-top mounted cruise missile delivery system via Amazon next week.
Refillable, like a stapler.
Local parking restrictions may interfere, but hey, who is going to mess with me.
The government doesn’t issue these weapons to its soldiers, that I know of:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/master-class/2013/08/bargain-rifles-5-great-bolt-action-deer-guns?src=related&con=outbrain&obref=obnetwork
Sorry, hunters, but you can exchange your deer rifles for grenades down at the armory just in time for ice fishing season.
The government issues healthcare to its soldiers. Ergo (see how I break out the Latin when explaining how simple things be), gimme my healthcare.
Actually, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have the U.S. Army and Marine Corps medic corps in charge of treating all civilian gunshot wounds and fatalities in the United States, and leave local hospital facilities out of it all together, given the provenance and original intent of nearly every weapon we have.
More constitutional. And simple.
Benjamin Franklin, when asked yesterday what he expected from citizens and voters in 2014, exhaled a great plume of 224-year-old, fetid death halitosis and said: “Exponential stupidity, my simple child. Beware the men who begin every sentence with ‘it’s very simple’. Run from them. Now someone shoot me good and dead in both ears so I can’t hear it anymore.”
I’m expecting my car-top mounted cruise missile delivery system via Amazon next week.
Refillable, like a stapler.
Local parking restrictions may interfere, but hey, who is going to mess with me.
The government doesn’t issue these weapons to its soldiers, that I know of:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/master-class/2013/08/bargain-rifles-5-great-bolt-action-deer-guns?src=related&con=outbrain&obref=obnetwork
Sorry, hunters, but you can exchange your deer rifles for grenades down at the armory just in time for ice fishing season.
The government issues healthcare to its soldiers. Ergo (see how I break out the Latin when explaining how simple things be), gimme my healthcare.
Actually, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have the U.S. Army and Marine Corps medic corps in charge of treating all civilian gunshot wounds and fatalities in the United States, and leave local hospital facilities out of it all together, given the provenance and original intent of nearly every weapon we have.
More constitutional. And simple.
Benjamin Franklin, when asked yesterday what he expected from citizens and voters in 2014, exhaled a great plume of 224-year-old, fetid death halitosis and said: “Exponential stupidity, my simple child. Beware the men who begin every sentence with ‘it’s very simple’. Run from them. Now someone shoot me good and dead in both ears so I can’t hear it anymore.”
I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem
Simple, and asinine.
Seriously, does every discussion have to turn into an argument, not just about guns, but about whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every person in the US to have an RPG?
You, Brett, have a highly idiosyncratic understanding of what the 2nd is about. We all know and understand your position. Your point, for whatever it is worth, has been made.
Most of us find it unpersuasive, if not nutty. Not because we’re sheeple blinded by the magical hypnotic mind-bending powers of the liberal brainwashing industry, but because we don’t think it holds up to the most rudimentary analysis.
You’re not going to change our minds, we’re not going to change yours.
If you want a gun, have a gun. Enjoy your hobby. Don’t shoot anyone else, and nobody will have a problem with it.
Can we now skip the next 247 comments and move on to the next topic?
I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem
Simple, and asinine.
Seriously, does every discussion have to turn into an argument, not just about guns, but about whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every person in the US to have an RPG?
You, Brett, have a highly idiosyncratic understanding of what the 2nd is about. We all know and understand your position. Your point, for whatever it is worth, has been made.
Most of us find it unpersuasive, if not nutty. Not because we’re sheeple blinded by the magical hypnotic mind-bending powers of the liberal brainwashing industry, but because we don’t think it holds up to the most rudimentary analysis.
You’re not going to change our minds, we’re not going to change yours.
If you want a gun, have a gun. Enjoy your hobby. Don’t shoot anyone else, and nobody will have a problem with it.
Can we now skip the next 247 comments and move on to the next topic?
I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem
Simple, and asinine.
Seriously, does every discussion have to turn into an argument, not just about guns, but about whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every person in the US to have an RPG?
You, Brett, have a highly idiosyncratic understanding of what the 2nd is about. We all know and understand your position. Your point, for whatever it is worth, has been made.
Most of us find it unpersuasive, if not nutty. Not because we’re sheeple blinded by the magical hypnotic mind-bending powers of the liberal brainwashing industry, but because we don’t think it holds up to the most rudimentary analysis.
You’re not going to change our minds, we’re not going to change yours.
If you want a gun, have a gun. Enjoy your hobby. Don’t shoot anyone else, and nobody will have a problem with it.
Can we now skip the next 247 comments and move on to the next topic?
“You, Brett, have a highly idiosyncratic understanding of what the 2nd is about.”
Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was. And is well enough grounded in history that every other interpretation ends up conspicuously ungrounded.
“You, Brett, have a highly idiosyncratic understanding of what the 2nd is about.”
Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was. And is well enough grounded in history that every other interpretation ends up conspicuously ungrounded.
“You, Brett, have a highly idiosyncratic understanding of what the 2nd is about.”
Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was. And is well enough grounded in history that every other interpretation ends up conspicuously ungrounded.
The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute..
I agree. So why are we having this conversation? If one were to accept your cramped interpretation, then it is reasonable to ask why all that text about setting up federal exchanges if they cannot be used by anybody….something for the residents of Washington DC only?
Except that a guy who played an important part…
utter bullshit.
See also here.
The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute..
I agree. So why are we having this conversation? If one were to accept your cramped interpretation, then it is reasonable to ask why all that text about setting up federal exchanges if they cannot be used by anybody….something for the residents of Washington DC only?
Except that a guy who played an important part…
utter bullshit.
See also here.
The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute..
I agree. So why are we having this conversation? If one were to accept your cramped interpretation, then it is reasonable to ask why all that text about setting up federal exchanges if they cannot be used by anybody….something for the residents of Washington DC only?
Except that a guy who played an important part…
utter bullshit.
See also here.
“then it is reasonable to ask why all that text about setting up federal exchanges if they cannot be used by anybody….something for the residents of Washington DC only?”
Nah, it was a very badly written bill, and could not be put through the usual process of corrective amendments because it only barely made it through on the first pass, and one of it’s supporters lost his seat. So they went ahead and made the really badly written first draft law.
That doesn’t mean this provision, like many of the other provisions the administration has decided to ignore, was somehow ambiguous. It is a largely unambiguous steaming pile, and it is not the job of the courts to turn steaming piles into masterworks. It is the job of the legislature to refrain from subjecting a seventh of the economy to steaming piles.
And, yeah, he had so little to do with it he was better paid than the President for his trivial contribution.
“then it is reasonable to ask why all that text about setting up federal exchanges if they cannot be used by anybody….something for the residents of Washington DC only?”
Nah, it was a very badly written bill, and could not be put through the usual process of corrective amendments because it only barely made it through on the first pass, and one of it’s supporters lost his seat. So they went ahead and made the really badly written first draft law.
That doesn’t mean this provision, like many of the other provisions the administration has decided to ignore, was somehow ambiguous. It is a largely unambiguous steaming pile, and it is not the job of the courts to turn steaming piles into masterworks. It is the job of the legislature to refrain from subjecting a seventh of the economy to steaming piles.
And, yeah, he had so little to do with it he was better paid than the President for his trivial contribution.
“then it is reasonable to ask why all that text about setting up federal exchanges if they cannot be used by anybody….something for the residents of Washington DC only?”
Nah, it was a very badly written bill, and could not be put through the usual process of corrective amendments because it only barely made it through on the first pass, and one of it’s supporters lost his seat. So they went ahead and made the really badly written first draft law.
That doesn’t mean this provision, like many of the other provisions the administration has decided to ignore, was somehow ambiguous. It is a largely unambiguous steaming pile, and it is not the job of the courts to turn steaming piles into masterworks. It is the job of the legislature to refrain from subjecting a seventh of the economy to steaming piles.
And, yeah, he had so little to do with it he was better paid than the President for his trivial contribution.
But Brett, if you have any experience in busioness (and as I recall you do) you are well aware that consultants get massively overpaid all the time. While, mostly, contributing little, other than reams of paper, to actually accomplishing whatever does get accomplished.
Occasionally, a team of consultants actually comes in and gets something done. But an individual? Damn rare, at least in my experience. So why should we assume, simply from this guy’s pay rate, that he had anything much to do with what came out?
But Brett, if you have any experience in busioness (and as I recall you do) you are well aware that consultants get massively overpaid all the time. While, mostly, contributing little, other than reams of paper, to actually accomplishing whatever does get accomplished.
Occasionally, a team of consultants actually comes in and gets something done. But an individual? Damn rare, at least in my experience. So why should we assume, simply from this guy’s pay rate, that he had anything much to do with what came out?
But Brett, if you have any experience in busioness (and as I recall you do) you are well aware that consultants get massively overpaid all the time. While, mostly, contributing little, other than reams of paper, to actually accomplishing whatever does get accomplished.
Occasionally, a team of consultants actually comes in and gets something done. But an individual? Damn rare, at least in my experience. So why should we assume, simply from this guy’s pay rate, that he had anything much to do with what came out?
5-4 against the government.
I think if there more than four votes for deference to the government, the Court would have waited for the en banc opinion in Halbig. They didn’t. And I think every excuse for not waiting — other than that they wanted to invalidate the government’s interpretation of the statute — sounds a lot more like wishful thinking than a serious discussion of how this Court actually works.
I think also that the institutional concerns raised by e.g. Thompson just aren’t playing a role in this nihilistic century. If they invalidate, as I think they will, they’ll simply say that any unfortunate consequences are the result of actions by Congress and by the states. I think there’s actually zero chance that either Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy thinks the Court will pay a price for the ‘tough love’ involved in upholding choices made by Congress and the states.
The only uncertainty I’m entertaining is whether Justice Roberts becomes somehow convinced that allowing subsidies in federal exchange states is good for Big Business.
5-4 against the government.
I think if there more than four votes for deference to the government, the Court would have waited for the en banc opinion in Halbig. They didn’t. And I think every excuse for not waiting — other than that they wanted to invalidate the government’s interpretation of the statute — sounds a lot more like wishful thinking than a serious discussion of how this Court actually works.
I think also that the institutional concerns raised by e.g. Thompson just aren’t playing a role in this nihilistic century. If they invalidate, as I think they will, they’ll simply say that any unfortunate consequences are the result of actions by Congress and by the states. I think there’s actually zero chance that either Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy thinks the Court will pay a price for the ‘tough love’ involved in upholding choices made by Congress and the states.
The only uncertainty I’m entertaining is whether Justice Roberts becomes somehow convinced that allowing subsidies in federal exchange states is good for Big Business.
5-4 against the government.
I think if there more than four votes for deference to the government, the Court would have waited for the en banc opinion in Halbig. They didn’t. And I think every excuse for not waiting — other than that they wanted to invalidate the government’s interpretation of the statute — sounds a lot more like wishful thinking than a serious discussion of how this Court actually works.
I think also that the institutional concerns raised by e.g. Thompson just aren’t playing a role in this nihilistic century. If they invalidate, as I think they will, they’ll simply say that any unfortunate consequences are the result of actions by Congress and by the states. I think there’s actually zero chance that either Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy thinks the Court will pay a price for the ‘tough love’ involved in upholding choices made by Congress and the states.
The only uncertainty I’m entertaining is whether Justice Roberts becomes somehow convinced that allowing subsidies in federal exchange states is good for Big Business.
(I’ve always thought CJ Roberts confirmation testimony should have been ‘I’m just going to call balls and strikes as I see them. Well, actually, I’m going to pick out something like 1% of all pitches to call, and I’m not going to choose randomly, but will instead choose pitches that would tend to allow me to define the strike zone as I think it ought to be defined. For example, I’m not all that concerned with inside pitches that don’t actually hit the batter, so you can expect me to choose mostly outside pitches to call. Maybe a high one once in a while.’)
(I’ve always thought CJ Roberts confirmation testimony should have been ‘I’m just going to call balls and strikes as I see them. Well, actually, I’m going to pick out something like 1% of all pitches to call, and I’m not going to choose randomly, but will instead choose pitches that would tend to allow me to define the strike zone as I think it ought to be defined. For example, I’m not all that concerned with inside pitches that don’t actually hit the batter, so you can expect me to choose mostly outside pitches to call. Maybe a high one once in a while.’)
(I’ve always thought CJ Roberts confirmation testimony should have been ‘I’m just going to call balls and strikes as I see them. Well, actually, I’m going to pick out something like 1% of all pitches to call, and I’m not going to choose randomly, but will instead choose pitches that would tend to allow me to define the strike zone as I think it ought to be defined. For example, I’m not all that concerned with inside pitches that don’t actually hit the batter, so you can expect me to choose mostly outside pitches to call. Maybe a high one once in a while.’)
..you are well aware that consultants get massively overpaid all the time.
Serious question: If true, why?
the Court would have waited for the en banc opinion in Halbig. They didn’t.
Precisely. This was a nakedly political act on the part of zealous partisans who are part of a movement that has no moral compass. They are not “conservatives”. They are radicals.
..you are well aware that consultants get massively overpaid all the time.
Serious question: If true, why?
the Court would have waited for the en banc opinion in Halbig. They didn’t.
Precisely. This was a nakedly political act on the part of zealous partisans who are part of a movement that has no moral compass. They are not “conservatives”. They are radicals.
..you are well aware that consultants get massively overpaid all the time.
Serious question: If true, why?
the Court would have waited for the en banc opinion in Halbig. They didn’t.
Precisely. This was a nakedly political act on the part of zealous partisans who are part of a movement that has no moral compass. They are not “conservatives”. They are radicals.
…and could not be put through the usual process of corrective amendments because it only barely made it through on the first pass.
A claim that: (1) betrays an utter ignorance on how legislation gets through Congress in our current hyper-partisan era; and (2) shows an utter contempt for expending even the barest effort at gaining familiarity with the actual legislative history.
…and could not be put through the usual process of corrective amendments because it only barely made it through on the first pass.
A claim that: (1) betrays an utter ignorance on how legislation gets through Congress in our current hyper-partisan era; and (2) shows an utter contempt for expending even the barest effort at gaining familiarity with the actual legislative history.
…and could not be put through the usual process of corrective amendments because it only barely made it through on the first pass.
A claim that: (1) betrays an utter ignorance on how legislation gets through Congress in our current hyper-partisan era; and (2) shows an utter contempt for expending even the barest effort at gaining familiarity with the actual legislative history.
Why do consultants get massively over-paid?
Well, I have a theory. It’s a combination of two factors. First, executives (or managers generally) get caught with no clue what to do next about some problem — beyond knowing that they have to be seen to be doing something. And they are sufficiently desperate that they will pay an enormous amount (relative to their own income level) for a chance to save their job. (Besides, it’s someone else’s money.) Worst case: they have their job another several months or years, while waiting for the consultant to respond.
Second, the consulting industry has done a brilliant job of getting the idea out there that there are problems that can only be solved with special expertise from outside the organization. To wit: them. Which means that making the case for bringing in consultants is frequently easier than making the case for doing whatever will actually fix the problem. At least until the consultants have blessed the solution you and your staff had already reached long since.
This is not to say that consultants are never the right choice. Just that this is the exception, not the rule. At least in the examples that I have experienced first hand. And discussions with others suggests my experience is not atypical.
Why do consultants get massively over-paid?
Well, I have a theory. It’s a combination of two factors. First, executives (or managers generally) get caught with no clue what to do next about some problem — beyond knowing that they have to be seen to be doing something. And they are sufficiently desperate that they will pay an enormous amount (relative to their own income level) for a chance to save their job. (Besides, it’s someone else’s money.) Worst case: they have their job another several months or years, while waiting for the consultant to respond.
Second, the consulting industry has done a brilliant job of getting the idea out there that there are problems that can only be solved with special expertise from outside the organization. To wit: them. Which means that making the case for bringing in consultants is frequently easier than making the case for doing whatever will actually fix the problem. At least until the consultants have blessed the solution you and your staff had already reached long since.
This is not to say that consultants are never the right choice. Just that this is the exception, not the rule. At least in the examples that I have experienced first hand. And discussions with others suggests my experience is not atypical.
Why do consultants get massively over-paid?
Well, I have a theory. It’s a combination of two factors. First, executives (or managers generally) get caught with no clue what to do next about some problem — beyond knowing that they have to be seen to be doing something. And they are sufficiently desperate that they will pay an enormous amount (relative to their own income level) for a chance to save their job. (Besides, it’s someone else’s money.) Worst case: they have their job another several months or years, while waiting for the consultant to respond.
Second, the consulting industry has done a brilliant job of getting the idea out there that there are problems that can only be solved with special expertise from outside the organization. To wit: them. Which means that making the case for bringing in consultants is frequently easier than making the case for doing whatever will actually fix the problem. At least until the consultants have blessed the solution you and your staff had already reached long since.
This is not to say that consultants are never the right choice. Just that this is the exception, not the rule. At least in the examples that I have experienced first hand. And discussions with others suggests my experience is not atypical.
Brett: Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was.
I don’t know what Russell wishes, but I know this: we libruls would have the same right to the same weapons as Brett, under Brett’s idiotic view of the 2nd Amendment. I don’t know how Civil War Two would come out, but Brett apparently thinks he does.
CharleyCarp: I’ve always thought CJ Roberts confirmation testimony should have been …
Spot on. And it would not surprise me if that was CJR’s testimony in private, to GWB or else he would not have been nominated in the first place.
–TP
Brett: Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was.
I don’t know what Russell wishes, but I know this: we libruls would have the same right to the same weapons as Brett, under Brett’s idiotic view of the 2nd Amendment. I don’t know how Civil War Two would come out, but Brett apparently thinks he does.
CharleyCarp: I’ve always thought CJ Roberts confirmation testimony should have been …
Spot on. And it would not surprise me if that was CJR’s testimony in private, to GWB or else he would not have been nominated in the first place.
–TP
Brett: Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was.
I don’t know what Russell wishes, but I know this: we libruls would have the same right to the same weapons as Brett, under Brett’s idiotic view of the 2nd Amendment. I don’t know how Civil War Two would come out, but Brett apparently thinks he does.
CharleyCarp: I’ve always thought CJ Roberts confirmation testimony should have been …
Spot on. And it would not surprise me if that was CJR’s testimony in private, to GWB or else he would not have been nominated in the first place.
–TP
“[A]t GM, if you see a snake, the first thing you do is go hire a consultant on snakes. Then you get a committee on snakes, and then you discuss it for a couple of years. The most likely course of action is—nothing. You figure, the snake hasn’t bitten anybody yet, so you just let him crawl around on the factory floor. We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it.” —Ross Perot
“[A]t GM, if you see a snake, the first thing you do is go hire a consultant on snakes. Then you get a committee on snakes, and then you discuss it for a couple of years. The most likely course of action is—nothing. You figure, the snake hasn’t bitten anybody yet, so you just let him crawl around on the factory floor. We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it.” —Ross Perot
“[A]t GM, if you see a snake, the first thing you do is go hire a consultant on snakes. Then you get a committee on snakes, and then you discuss it for a couple of years. The most likely course of action is—nothing. You figure, the snake hasn’t bitten anybody yet, so you just let him crawl around on the factory floor. We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it.” —Ross Perot
We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it.
A truism that obviously did not apply at EDS (sold by Perot to the company savagely maligned above)or Perot Systems (sold to Dell and run by his son, another example of the fabled merit system we hear touted so often).
Charts provided upon request.
We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it.
A truism that obviously did not apply at EDS (sold by Perot to the company savagely maligned above)or Perot Systems (sold to Dell and run by his son, another example of the fabled merit system we hear touted so often).
Charts provided upon request.
We need to build an environment where the first guy who sees the snake kills it.
A truism that obviously did not apply at EDS (sold by Perot to the company savagely maligned above)or Perot Systems (sold to Dell and run by his son, another example of the fabled merit system we hear touted so often).
Charts provided upon request.
wj is mostly right about consultants, IMO.
I think the second reason is very common. You know what you want to do, but expect to have a hard time selling it. So you call in “objective outside experts” and set them to work solving the problem, after dropping a few hints as to the solution they should find. Then proudly wave the report around to back up your proposal.
In other words, they are internal marketers.
wj is mostly right about consultants, IMO.
I think the second reason is very common. You know what you want to do, but expect to have a hard time selling it. So you call in “objective outside experts” and set them to work solving the problem, after dropping a few hints as to the solution they should find. Then proudly wave the report around to back up your proposal.
In other words, they are internal marketers.
wj is mostly right about consultants, IMO.
I think the second reason is very common. You know what you want to do, but expect to have a hard time selling it. So you call in “objective outside experts” and set them to work solving the problem, after dropping a few hints as to the solution they should find. Then proudly wave the report around to back up your proposal.
In other words, they are internal marketers.
Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was. And is well enough grounded in history that every other interpretation ends up conspicuously ungrounded.
FIrst, I don’t have a problem.
Second, the belief that the 2nd A grants the right to personal, private ownership of any kind of military weapon is, thankfully, not a commonly held one. So, idiosyncratic.
Lastly, your opinion of the historical weight of your understanding of the 2nd A is, sadly for you, as idiosyncratic as the view itself.
I don’t know how Civil War Two would come out, but Brett apparently thinks he does.
Should Civil War Two break out, Brett will be on the first plane outta here that he can catch.
His own words, not mine.
He is a bold and brave one, our Brett.
Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was. And is well enough grounded in history that every other interpretation ends up conspicuously ungrounded.
FIrst, I don’t have a problem.
Second, the belief that the 2nd A grants the right to personal, private ownership of any kind of military weapon is, thankfully, not a commonly held one. So, idiosyncratic.
Lastly, your opinion of the historical weight of your understanding of the 2nd A is, sadly for you, as idiosyncratic as the view itself.
I don’t know how Civil War Two would come out, but Brett apparently thinks he does.
Should Civil War Two break out, Brett will be on the first plane outta here that he can catch.
His own words, not mine.
He is a bold and brave one, our Brett.
Your problem, Russell, is that my understanding of the 2nd amendment isn’t nearly as idiosyncratic as you wish it was. And is well enough grounded in history that every other interpretation ends up conspicuously ungrounded.
FIrst, I don’t have a problem.
Second, the belief that the 2nd A grants the right to personal, private ownership of any kind of military weapon is, thankfully, not a commonly held one. So, idiosyncratic.
Lastly, your opinion of the historical weight of your understanding of the 2nd A is, sadly for you, as idiosyncratic as the view itself.
I don’t know how Civil War Two would come out, but Brett apparently thinks he does.
Should Civil War Two break out, Brett will be on the first plane outta here that he can catch.
His own words, not mine.
He is a bold and brave one, our Brett.
“Second, the belief that the 2nd A grants the right to personal, private ownership of any kind of military weapon is, thankfully, not a commonly held one. So, idiosyncratic.”
Actually, private citizens *do* own machine guns (even 50 cal), cannons, mortars, tanks with operational weapons systems, etc. etc.
Many of these are private military contractors. Some are just hobbyists.
The fact is that most people don’t want to own any of these or can’t afford to. Another fact is that the overwhelming majority of people that own any kind of weapon don’t – and don’t want to – use it to harm innocent fellow citizens.
You’re far more likely to be killed by medical malpractice – probably utilizing your socialist ACA insurance – or by ODing on a prescription drug, than you are by being shot.
US citizens that own 50 cal.s, and, again these actually exist, are not committing murders. Gun homicide is largely something done by people – usually democrats and minorities (redundancy alert) – with a pre-established criminal and or mental health history.
So the whole, “OMG a swivel mounted 50 cal on a pickup!!!” argument is nothing more than typical liberal panty waist, cry baby, out of touch with reality, cover me in bubble wrap and make my little play ground danger free, hyperbole.
“Second, the belief that the 2nd A grants the right to personal, private ownership of any kind of military weapon is, thankfully, not a commonly held one. So, idiosyncratic.”
Actually, private citizens *do* own machine guns (even 50 cal), cannons, mortars, tanks with operational weapons systems, etc. etc.
Many of these are private military contractors. Some are just hobbyists.
The fact is that most people don’t want to own any of these or can’t afford to. Another fact is that the overwhelming majority of people that own any kind of weapon don’t – and don’t want to – use it to harm innocent fellow citizens.
You’re far more likely to be killed by medical malpractice – probably utilizing your socialist ACA insurance – or by ODing on a prescription drug, than you are by being shot.
US citizens that own 50 cal.s, and, again these actually exist, are not committing murders. Gun homicide is largely something done by people – usually democrats and minorities (redundancy alert) – with a pre-established criminal and or mental health history.
So the whole, “OMG a swivel mounted 50 cal on a pickup!!!” argument is nothing more than typical liberal panty waist, cry baby, out of touch with reality, cover me in bubble wrap and make my little play ground danger free, hyperbole.
“Second, the belief that the 2nd A grants the right to personal, private ownership of any kind of military weapon is, thankfully, not a commonly held one. So, idiosyncratic.”
Actually, private citizens *do* own machine guns (even 50 cal), cannons, mortars, tanks with operational weapons systems, etc. etc.
Many of these are private military contractors. Some are just hobbyists.
The fact is that most people don’t want to own any of these or can’t afford to. Another fact is that the overwhelming majority of people that own any kind of weapon don’t – and don’t want to – use it to harm innocent fellow citizens.
You’re far more likely to be killed by medical malpractice – probably utilizing your socialist ACA insurance – or by ODing on a prescription drug, than you are by being shot.
US citizens that own 50 cal.s, and, again these actually exist, are not committing murders. Gun homicide is largely something done by people – usually democrats and minorities (redundancy alert) – with a pre-established criminal and or mental health history.
So the whole, “OMG a swivel mounted 50 cal on a pickup!!!” argument is nothing more than typical liberal panty waist, cry baby, out of touch with reality, cover me in bubble wrap and make my little play ground danger free, hyperbole.
i for one will not be sad if you ban the above asshole.
i for one will not be sad if you ban the above asshole.
i for one will not be sad if you ban the above asshole.
Actually, private citizens *do* own machine guns (even 50 cal), cannons, mortars, tanks with operational weapons systems, etc. etc.
Fabulous. If that’s your thing, and you have the dough, live it up.
Access to those things is pretty strictly controlled. I.e., your ability to own one is subject to federal regulation.
There is no inalienable right guaranteed under the 2nd A for you to be able to own a 50 caliber machine gun, a mortar, a cannon, or a tank for your private use and entertainment.
Actually, private citizens *do* own machine guns (even 50 cal), cannons, mortars, tanks with operational weapons systems, etc. etc.
Fabulous. If that’s your thing, and you have the dough, live it up.
Access to those things is pretty strictly controlled. I.e., your ability to own one is subject to federal regulation.
There is no inalienable right guaranteed under the 2nd A for you to be able to own a 50 caliber machine gun, a mortar, a cannon, or a tank for your private use and entertainment.
Actually, private citizens *do* own machine guns (even 50 cal), cannons, mortars, tanks with operational weapons systems, etc. etc.
Fabulous. If that’s your thing, and you have the dough, live it up.
Access to those things is pretty strictly controlled. I.e., your ability to own one is subject to federal regulation.
There is no inalienable right guaranteed under the 2nd A for you to be able to own a 50 caliber machine gun, a mortar, a cannon, or a tank for your private use and entertainment.
(Sigh)…I so wanted a minigun…
(Sigh)…I so wanted a minigun…
(Sigh)…I so wanted a minigun…
If that’s your thing, and you have the dough, live it up.
What russell said, and definitely do.
However, if you do something with those things that involves killing people or animals? Hope you get hurt. Badly.
If that’s your thing, and you have the dough, live it up.
What russell said, and definitely do.
However, if you do something with those things that involves killing people or animals? Hope you get hurt. Badly.
If that’s your thing, and you have the dough, live it up.
What russell said, and definitely do.
However, if you do something with those things that involves killing people or animals? Hope you get hurt. Badly.
“There is no inalienable right guaranteed under the 2nd A for you to be able to own a 50 caliber machine gun, a mortar, a cannon, or a tank for your private use and entertainment.”
I disagree. See Brett’s comments. What is for sure is that there is no inalienable right to health care insurance* at all. Nor a host of other entitlements that liberals demand. Yet they demand them all the same.
The 2A gets singled out because…..well because.
* Insurance…..I don’t think that term means what you think it does. With automobile insurance you don’t get your carrier to pay for new tires when the existing ones start to lose their tread. You have to save and but the tires out of pocket. So should it be with health care. This is why a catastrophic coverage makes sense. Save a hundred bucks or so every month for health care needs and you’ll find that you are way ahead of the game, financially. Have catastrophic insurance for those health events that may occur that are well beyond your savings. If this was the common practice, healthcare services would cost a lot less because there would not be the finance mechanism of insurance, divorced from microeconomic decision making processes on the part of the patient and physician. At any rate, “insurance” that pays for everything (any and all services) is not insurance. It’s free medical care. Except, it really isn’t free. Someone has to pay for it. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. The magical liberal mantra voiced as they wander to and fro from their magical money tree.
“There is no inalienable right guaranteed under the 2nd A for you to be able to own a 50 caliber machine gun, a mortar, a cannon, or a tank for your private use and entertainment.”
I disagree. See Brett’s comments. What is for sure is that there is no inalienable right to health care insurance* at all. Nor a host of other entitlements that liberals demand. Yet they demand them all the same.
The 2A gets singled out because…..well because.
* Insurance…..I don’t think that term means what you think it does. With automobile insurance you don’t get your carrier to pay for new tires when the existing ones start to lose their tread. You have to save and but the tires out of pocket. So should it be with health care. This is why a catastrophic coverage makes sense. Save a hundred bucks or so every month for health care needs and you’ll find that you are way ahead of the game, financially. Have catastrophic insurance for those health events that may occur that are well beyond your savings. If this was the common practice, healthcare services would cost a lot less because there would not be the finance mechanism of insurance, divorced from microeconomic decision making processes on the part of the patient and physician. At any rate, “insurance” that pays for everything (any and all services) is not insurance. It’s free medical care. Except, it really isn’t free. Someone has to pay for it. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. The magical liberal mantra voiced as they wander to and fro from their magical money tree.
“There is no inalienable right guaranteed under the 2nd A for you to be able to own a 50 caliber machine gun, a mortar, a cannon, or a tank for your private use and entertainment.”
I disagree. See Brett’s comments. What is for sure is that there is no inalienable right to health care insurance* at all. Nor a host of other entitlements that liberals demand. Yet they demand them all the same.
The 2A gets singled out because…..well because.
* Insurance…..I don’t think that term means what you think it does. With automobile insurance you don’t get your carrier to pay for new tires when the existing ones start to lose their tread. You have to save and but the tires out of pocket. So should it be with health care. This is why a catastrophic coverage makes sense. Save a hundred bucks or so every month for health care needs and you’ll find that you are way ahead of the game, financially. Have catastrophic insurance for those health events that may occur that are well beyond your savings. If this was the common practice, healthcare services would cost a lot less because there would not be the finance mechanism of insurance, divorced from microeconomic decision making processes on the part of the patient and physician. At any rate, “insurance” that pays for everything (any and all services) is not insurance. It’s free medical care. Except, it really isn’t free. Someone has to pay for it. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. The magical liberal mantra voiced as they wander to and fro from their magical money tree.
“Tax and spend” is far too limiting. “Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.
“Tax and spend” is far too limiting. “Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.
“Tax and spend” is far too limiting. “Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.
I disagree. See Brett’s comments.
We’ve all been reading Brett’s comments on this topic for years. They’re not persuasive.
The 2A gets singled out because…..well because.
With the possible exception of the 3rd A., the rights guaranteed in each of the Bill of Rights amendments have been challenged, infringed, and otherwise brought under attack in one way or other.
There is absolutely nothing special about the 2nd in that regard.
What is for sure is that there is no inalienable right to health care insurance* at all.
We agree.
I disagree. See Brett’s comments.
We’ve all been reading Brett’s comments on this topic for years. They’re not persuasive.
The 2A gets singled out because…..well because.
With the possible exception of the 3rd A., the rights guaranteed in each of the Bill of Rights amendments have been challenged, infringed, and otherwise brought under attack in one way or other.
There is absolutely nothing special about the 2nd in that regard.
What is for sure is that there is no inalienable right to health care insurance* at all.
We agree.
I disagree. See Brett’s comments.
We’ve all been reading Brett’s comments on this topic for years. They’re not persuasive.
The 2A gets singled out because…..well because.
With the possible exception of the 3rd A., the rights guaranteed in each of the Bill of Rights amendments have been challenged, infringed, and otherwise brought under attack in one way or other.
There is absolutely nothing special about the 2nd in that regard.
What is for sure is that there is no inalienable right to health care insurance* at all.
We agree.
“Access to those things is pretty strictly controlled. I.e., your ability to own one is subject to federal regulation.”
Point being what, exactly?
The federal government controls – or tries to – just about everything we want access to.
Some people here said that it would be some sort of apocalyptic nightmare if citizens could own anything more than basic hunting guns. Clearly this isn’t the case. People can and do own all sorts of ordnance.
It’s exactly the sort of nonsensical emotional nonsense that liberals are so infamous for…….a man with a hunting rifle with a scope can easily kill more people with 30 rounds than a guy with an M16 and a 30 round magazine. But if you don’t anything about guns and shooting technique you would mistakenly conclude the opposite.
Ditto 30 rounds of 12 gauge 00 buckshot in a close in crowded situation.
And, I just know someone will ask (and display yet more ignorance), sarcastically, of course, why then the military doesn’t use hunting rifles with scopes and shot guns; the military uses volume of fire (from assault rifles and machine guns) to suppress enemy positions. Huge numbers of rounds are expended in fire fights often with very few – if any – resulting casualties. The military does use bolt action scoped rifles to deliver accurate (one shot/one kill) fire o the battle field. Two different applications.
“Access to those things is pretty strictly controlled. I.e., your ability to own one is subject to federal regulation.”
Point being what, exactly?
The federal government controls – or tries to – just about everything we want access to.
Some people here said that it would be some sort of apocalyptic nightmare if citizens could own anything more than basic hunting guns. Clearly this isn’t the case. People can and do own all sorts of ordnance.
It’s exactly the sort of nonsensical emotional nonsense that liberals are so infamous for…….a man with a hunting rifle with a scope can easily kill more people with 30 rounds than a guy with an M16 and a 30 round magazine. But if you don’t anything about guns and shooting technique you would mistakenly conclude the opposite.
Ditto 30 rounds of 12 gauge 00 buckshot in a close in crowded situation.
And, I just know someone will ask (and display yet more ignorance), sarcastically, of course, why then the military doesn’t use hunting rifles with scopes and shot guns; the military uses volume of fire (from assault rifles and machine guns) to suppress enemy positions. Huge numbers of rounds are expended in fire fights often with very few – if any – resulting casualties. The military does use bolt action scoped rifles to deliver accurate (one shot/one kill) fire o the battle field. Two different applications.
“Access to those things is pretty strictly controlled. I.e., your ability to own one is subject to federal regulation.”
Point being what, exactly?
The federal government controls – or tries to – just about everything we want access to.
Some people here said that it would be some sort of apocalyptic nightmare if citizens could own anything more than basic hunting guns. Clearly this isn’t the case. People can and do own all sorts of ordnance.
It’s exactly the sort of nonsensical emotional nonsense that liberals are so infamous for…….a man with a hunting rifle with a scope can easily kill more people with 30 rounds than a guy with an M16 and a 30 round magazine. But if you don’t anything about guns and shooting technique you would mistakenly conclude the opposite.
Ditto 30 rounds of 12 gauge 00 buckshot in a close in crowded situation.
And, I just know someone will ask (and display yet more ignorance), sarcastically, of course, why then the military doesn’t use hunting rifles with scopes and shot guns; the military uses volume of fire (from assault rifles and machine guns) to suppress enemy positions. Huge numbers of rounds are expended in fire fights often with very few – if any – resulting casualties. The military does use bolt action scoped rifles to deliver accurate (one shot/one kill) fire o the battle field. Two different applications.
just sayin’, are you aware that the Constitution allows the government to do some thing which are not guaranteed as rights? So the fact that there is not an enumerated right to health insurance does not, in itself, mean that having the government provide (or, in the case of the ACA, facilitate the provision of) it. And suggesting that it might can only undermine those valid points that you might wish to put forward on the topic.
just sayin’, are you aware that the Constitution allows the government to do some thing which are not guaranteed as rights? So the fact that there is not an enumerated right to health insurance does not, in itself, mean that having the government provide (or, in the case of the ACA, facilitate the provision of) it. And suggesting that it might can only undermine those valid points that you might wish to put forward on the topic.
just sayin’, are you aware that the Constitution allows the government to do some thing which are not guaranteed as rights? So the fact that there is not an enumerated right to health insurance does not, in itself, mean that having the government provide (or, in the case of the ACA, facilitate the provision of) it. And suggesting that it might can only undermine those valid points that you might wish to put forward on the topic.
one more comment…..I go to liberal blogs like the Daily Kos (holding my nose the whole time). Amazing how the concern for safety, law & order, and peaceful interaction evaporates when discussing a liberal cause, like Furgeson. Suddenly it’s all hate and violence. African Americans, according to liberals, have a right to riot, should hunt down officer Wilson and kill him; maybe kill lots of whites. Just read the comments. Hundreds of them in this vein. It’s despicable.
“We’ve all been reading Brett’s comments on this topic for years. They’re not persuasive.”
Of course not to you. You don’t want to be reasonable on this issue. SCOTUS is starting to disagree with you. Several important decisions have come down relatively recently supporting the right to carry handguns where they are currently prohibited.
You want to challenge the Bill the rights? Why not toss out the 3A. Why not the 4th and 5th. Why not just tear up the whole thing and let Obama decide rule of law by executive order depending on his personal and political whims. Hell, let him appoint himself executive for life. After all, the entirety of the of C gets challenged, infringed, etc., right? Why just pick on the 2A?
“”Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.”
Yep. That’s the magical money tree.
one more comment…..I go to liberal blogs like the Daily Kos (holding my nose the whole time). Amazing how the concern for safety, law & order, and peaceful interaction evaporates when discussing a liberal cause, like Furgeson. Suddenly it’s all hate and violence. African Americans, according to liberals, have a right to riot, should hunt down officer Wilson and kill him; maybe kill lots of whites. Just read the comments. Hundreds of them in this vein. It’s despicable.
“We’ve all been reading Brett’s comments on this topic for years. They’re not persuasive.”
Of course not to you. You don’t want to be reasonable on this issue. SCOTUS is starting to disagree with you. Several important decisions have come down relatively recently supporting the right to carry handguns where they are currently prohibited.
You want to challenge the Bill the rights? Why not toss out the 3A. Why not the 4th and 5th. Why not just tear up the whole thing and let Obama decide rule of law by executive order depending on his personal and political whims. Hell, let him appoint himself executive for life. After all, the entirety of the of C gets challenged, infringed, etc., right? Why just pick on the 2A?
“”Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.”
Yep. That’s the magical money tree.
one more comment…..I go to liberal blogs like the Daily Kos (holding my nose the whole time). Amazing how the concern for safety, law & order, and peaceful interaction evaporates when discussing a liberal cause, like Furgeson. Suddenly it’s all hate and violence. African Americans, according to liberals, have a right to riot, should hunt down officer Wilson and kill him; maybe kill lots of whites. Just read the comments. Hundreds of them in this vein. It’s despicable.
“We’ve all been reading Brett’s comments on this topic for years. They’re not persuasive.”
Of course not to you. You don’t want to be reasonable on this issue. SCOTUS is starting to disagree with you. Several important decisions have come down relatively recently supporting the right to carry handguns where they are currently prohibited.
You want to challenge the Bill the rights? Why not toss out the 3A. Why not the 4th and 5th. Why not just tear up the whole thing and let Obama decide rule of law by executive order depending on his personal and political whims. Hell, let him appoint himself executive for life. After all, the entirety of the of C gets challenged, infringed, etc., right? Why just pick on the 2A?
“”Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.”
Yep. That’s the magical money tree.
“just sayin’, are you aware that the Constitution allows the government to do some thing which are not guaranteed as rights? So the fact that there is not an enumerated right to health insurance does not, in itself, mean that having the government provide (or, in the case of the ACA, facilitate the provision of) it. ”
yes, of course I know that.
When the ACA was being developed and promoted the liberal mantra was that everyone has a right to healthcare. Liberal words and raison d’etre; not mine.
“just sayin’, are you aware that the Constitution allows the government to do some thing which are not guaranteed as rights? So the fact that there is not an enumerated right to health insurance does not, in itself, mean that having the government provide (or, in the case of the ACA, facilitate the provision of) it. ”
yes, of course I know that.
When the ACA was being developed and promoted the liberal mantra was that everyone has a right to healthcare. Liberal words and raison d’etre; not mine.
“just sayin’, are you aware that the Constitution allows the government to do some thing which are not guaranteed as rights? So the fact that there is not an enumerated right to health insurance does not, in itself, mean that having the government provide (or, in the case of the ACA, facilitate the provision of) it. ”
yes, of course I know that.
When the ACA was being developed and promoted the liberal mantra was that everyone has a right to healthcare. Liberal words and raison d’etre; not mine.
Set the spam trapped comments free.
Given the evidence available to me, Typepad lulls the admin into thinking that there aren’t going to be any more comments from regular commenters marked as spam, so the admin thinks ‘Yeah, I don’t need to keep that window open on my desk all the time’. Then, through the magic of the innnerwubs, it knows you have closed that window (perhaps by finding someway to have you restart your computer) and then it starts choosing random regulars to spam-trap. At least that is how I see it working. Feel free to note it so I can catch it, and my apologies.
Set the spam trapped comments free.
Given the evidence available to me, Typepad lulls the admin into thinking that there aren’t going to be any more comments from regular commenters marked as spam, so the admin thinks ‘Yeah, I don’t need to keep that window open on my desk all the time’. Then, through the magic of the innnerwubs, it knows you have closed that window (perhaps by finding someway to have you restart your computer) and then it starts choosing random regulars to spam-trap. At least that is how I see it working. Feel free to note it so I can catch it, and my apologies.
Set the spam trapped comments free.
Given the evidence available to me, Typepad lulls the admin into thinking that there aren’t going to be any more comments from regular commenters marked as spam, so the admin thinks ‘Yeah, I don’t need to keep that window open on my desk all the time’. Then, through the magic of the innnerwubs, it knows you have closed that window (perhaps by finding someway to have you restart your computer) and then it starts choosing random regulars to spam-trap. At least that is how I see it working. Feel free to note it so I can catch it, and my apologies.
“Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.
Yes, an operational approach to the money supply that has led to our present penury no doubt, begging the world for scraps.
“Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.
Yes, an operational approach to the money supply that has led to our present penury no doubt, begging the world for scraps.
“Print and spend” has been the modus operandi for about a hundred years.
Yes, an operational approach to the money supply that has led to our present penury no doubt, begging the world for scraps.
Now, I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem: Refusing to draw said arbitrary lines. If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
Now, Brett, you and I both know this isn’t a solution. As other nations aren’t bound by the interpretation of 2nd Amendment that you so dearly want the US to be bound by, imposing sane restrictions on private weapons ownership would mean the US military would be reduced to human wave tactics without air, artillery, or naval support. The common citizen does not need anti-aircraft weaponry, indirect fire armaments, close support aircraft, guided missile cruisers, strata-bombers, or over-the-horizon ballistic missiles. The military, when faced with the certain prospect of engaging enemies armed with the aforementioned and associated devices, does need them. If the common citizen wishes to lay hands on them despite having no need for them, it is sensible, sane, and quite frankly in keeping with the Constitution’s text as written for the government to control, regulate, and indeed limit or interdict access thereto.
a man with a hunting rifle with a scope can easily kill more people with 30 rounds than a guy with an M16 and a 30 round magazine.
A well-trained shooter with a scoped rifle, sure. Overwrought concern about the size of semi-automatic rifle magazines is rarely concerned with well-trained shooters, however. If we take a random individual who decides with no long-term planning to go on a shooting spree, I assure you I’d feel safer if they had a bolt-action rifle and 210 rounds than if than if they had an M-Forgery with a full combat load.
Now, I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem: Refusing to draw said arbitrary lines. If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
Now, Brett, you and I both know this isn’t a solution. As other nations aren’t bound by the interpretation of 2nd Amendment that you so dearly want the US to be bound by, imposing sane restrictions on private weapons ownership would mean the US military would be reduced to human wave tactics without air, artillery, or naval support. The common citizen does not need anti-aircraft weaponry, indirect fire armaments, close support aircraft, guided missile cruisers, strata-bombers, or over-the-horizon ballistic missiles. The military, when faced with the certain prospect of engaging enemies armed with the aforementioned and associated devices, does need them. If the common citizen wishes to lay hands on them despite having no need for them, it is sensible, sane, and quite frankly in keeping with the Constitution’s text as written for the government to control, regulate, and indeed limit or interdict access thereto.
a man with a hunting rifle with a scope can easily kill more people with 30 rounds than a guy with an M16 and a 30 round magazine.
A well-trained shooter with a scoped rifle, sure. Overwrought concern about the size of semi-automatic rifle magazines is rarely concerned with well-trained shooters, however. If we take a random individual who decides with no long-term planning to go on a shooting spree, I assure you I’d feel safer if they had a bolt-action rifle and 210 rounds than if than if they had an M-Forgery with a full combat load.
Now, I suspect you understand that I have a very simple way of resolving that problem: Refusing to draw said arbitrary lines. If the government doesn’t want citizens to be entitled to own some weapon, let them not issue it to their soldiers. Problem solved.
Now, Brett, you and I both know this isn’t a solution. As other nations aren’t bound by the interpretation of 2nd Amendment that you so dearly want the US to be bound by, imposing sane restrictions on private weapons ownership would mean the US military would be reduced to human wave tactics without air, artillery, or naval support. The common citizen does not need anti-aircraft weaponry, indirect fire armaments, close support aircraft, guided missile cruisers, strata-bombers, or over-the-horizon ballistic missiles. The military, when faced with the certain prospect of engaging enemies armed with the aforementioned and associated devices, does need them. If the common citizen wishes to lay hands on them despite having no need for them, it is sensible, sane, and quite frankly in keeping with the Constitution’s text as written for the government to control, regulate, and indeed limit or interdict access thereto.
a man with a hunting rifle with a scope can easily kill more people with 30 rounds than a guy with an M16 and a 30 round magazine.
A well-trained shooter with a scoped rifle, sure. Overwrought concern about the size of semi-automatic rifle magazines is rarely concerned with well-trained shooters, however. If we take a random individual who decides with no long-term planning to go on a shooting spree, I assure you I’d feel safer if they had a bolt-action rifle and 210 rounds than if than if they had an M-Forgery with a full combat load.
Don’t bother with just sayin’, he’s in an ip address block that apparently includes blackhawk and mighty whitey. Living in that neighborhood is its own punishment and I’m not going to waste my (or anyone else’s) time dealing with it.
Don’t bother with just sayin’, he’s in an ip address block that apparently includes blackhawk and mighty whitey. Living in that neighborhood is its own punishment and I’m not going to waste my (or anyone else’s) time dealing with it.
Don’t bother with just sayin’, he’s in an ip address block that apparently includes blackhawk and mighty whitey. Living in that neighborhood is its own punishment and I’m not going to waste my (or anyone else’s) time dealing with it.
Some US citizens do own fighter jets and other military aircraft. Unarmed I would assume.
Some US citizens do own fighter jets and other military aircraft. Unarmed I would assume.
Some US citizens do own fighter jets and other military aircraft. Unarmed I would assume.
Well, yes. It’s really the weapon systems that are deemed problematic, as without those you’re generally just looking at high-performance vehicles that aren’t particularly efficiently designed for general-purpose use. Although I wouldn’t doubt that e.g. the FAA would look askance on privately owned stealth aircraft.
Well, yes. It’s really the weapon systems that are deemed problematic, as without those you’re generally just looking at high-performance vehicles that aren’t particularly efficiently designed for general-purpose use. Although I wouldn’t doubt that e.g. the FAA would look askance on privately owned stealth aircraft.
Well, yes. It’s really the weapon systems that are deemed problematic, as without those you’re generally just looking at high-performance vehicles that aren’t particularly efficiently designed for general-purpose use. Although I wouldn’t doubt that e.g. the FAA would look askance on privately owned stealth aircraft.
You want to challenge the Bill the rights?
no. nobody does.
thanks. go away.
You want to challenge the Bill the rights?
no. nobody does.
thanks. go away.
You want to challenge the Bill the rights?
no. nobody does.
thanks. go away.
When the ACA was being developed and promoted the liberal mantra was …
You seem to have missed the first iteration, where the ACA (in essence) was developed by the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly a liberal think tank.
And then the second iteration, where it was implemented by a Republican governor.
So just possible you have no clue what you are talking about. (If you take places like Daily Kos as accurate on much of anything, you might as well take Fox News as unbiased reporting — in their reporting, not the labeled opinion bits. And someone would have to be totally adrift from reality to think that.)
When the ACA was being developed and promoted the liberal mantra was …
You seem to have missed the first iteration, where the ACA (in essence) was developed by the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly a liberal think tank.
And then the second iteration, where it was implemented by a Republican governor.
So just possible you have no clue what you are talking about. (If you take places like Daily Kos as accurate on much of anything, you might as well take Fox News as unbiased reporting — in their reporting, not the labeled opinion bits. And someone would have to be totally adrift from reality to think that.)
When the ACA was being developed and promoted the liberal mantra was …
You seem to have missed the first iteration, where the ACA (in essence) was developed by the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly a liberal think tank.
And then the second iteration, where it was implemented by a Republican governor.
So just possible you have no clue what you are talking about. (If you take places like Daily Kos as accurate on much of anything, you might as well take Fox News as unbiased reporting — in their reporting, not the labeled opinion bits. And someone would have to be totally adrift from reality to think that.)
“It’s really the weapon systems that are deemed problematic, …”
Yes, it wouldn’t do to have Larry Ellison strafing Microsoft headquarters.
“It’s really the weapon systems that are deemed problematic, …”
Yes, it wouldn’t do to have Larry Ellison strafing Microsoft headquarters.
“It’s really the weapon systems that are deemed problematic, …”
Yes, it wouldn’t do to have Larry Ellison strafing Microsoft headquarters.
cleek,
I hope just sayin’ sticks around long enough for us to see how far our local conservatives are willing to go down the line with him (or her; women can spout crap too). We may learn something interesting from the exercise.
–TP
cleek,
I hope just sayin’ sticks around long enough for us to see how far our local conservatives are willing to go down the line with him (or her; women can spout crap too). We may learn something interesting from the exercise.
–TP
cleek,
I hope just sayin’ sticks around long enough for us to see how far our local conservatives are willing to go down the line with him (or her; women can spout crap too). We may learn something interesting from the exercise.
–TP
My apologies to one and all, I should have just let Brett’s comments go by without a response.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.
My apologies to one and all, I should have just let Brett’s comments go by without a response.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.
My apologies to one and all, I should have just let Brett’s comments go by without a response.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.
Now just a darned minute, russell. Have you forgotten so soon the informative discussion of the death dealing possibilities one could inflict on innocent bystanders with a Dodge Durango?
How quickly liberals forget.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.
Now just a darned minute, russell. Have you forgotten so soon the informative discussion of the death dealing possibilities one could inflict on innocent bystanders with a Dodge Durango?
How quickly liberals forget.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.
Now just a darned minute, russell. Have you forgotten so soon the informative discussion of the death dealing possibilities one could inflict on innocent bystanders with a Dodge Durango?
How quickly liberals forget.
You seem to have missed the first iteration, where the ACA (in essence) was developed by the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly a liberal think tank.
That is not exactly true.
And then the second iteration, where it was implemented by a Republican governor.
Yes. After a overwhelming Democratic state legislative majority repeatedly overrode his veto and forced him to do so.
You seem to have missed the first iteration, where the ACA (in essence) was developed by the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly a liberal think tank.
That is not exactly true.
And then the second iteration, where it was implemented by a Republican governor.
Yes. After a overwhelming Democratic state legislative majority repeatedly overrode his veto and forced him to do so.
You seem to have missed the first iteration, where the ACA (in essence) was developed by the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly a liberal think tank.
That is not exactly true.
And then the second iteration, where it was implemented by a Republican governor.
Yes. After a overwhelming Democratic state legislative majority repeatedly overrode his veto and forced him to do so.
Thanks for straightening that out, bobby.
I’ll stop comparing the ACA to the Heritage Plan.
Were they comparable, the ACA would be recommending walking through the Heritage Foundation offices gunning down their part-time staffers not afforded health insurance in their cubicles with the weapons pig-filth Tighty-Whitey and his whore daughter who beat the sh*t out of lesbians in Navy craft showers I paid for recommends for the citizenry at large.
The ACA merely recommends that the Heritage staffers in the copy room have an opportunity to purchase insurance that Marty hates, like the shoes he keeps buying.
Just to approximate the murder counseled by Heritage for the poor and some of the middle class with the latter’s healthcare schemes.
Brett’s plane out of town is slow compared to the F-16 fighter jets we Second Amendment liberal aficionados are mustering to engage Confederate traitor terrorist aircraft before they leave U.S. airspace during the coming troubles.
Thanks for straightening that out, bobby.
I’ll stop comparing the ACA to the Heritage Plan.
Were they comparable, the ACA would be recommending walking through the Heritage Foundation offices gunning down their part-time staffers not afforded health insurance in their cubicles with the weapons pig-filth Tighty-Whitey and his whore daughter who beat the sh*t out of lesbians in Navy craft showers I paid for recommends for the citizenry at large.
The ACA merely recommends that the Heritage staffers in the copy room have an opportunity to purchase insurance that Marty hates, like the shoes he keeps buying.
Just to approximate the murder counseled by Heritage for the poor and some of the middle class with the latter’s healthcare schemes.
Brett’s plane out of town is slow compared to the F-16 fighter jets we Second Amendment liberal aficionados are mustering to engage Confederate traitor terrorist aircraft before they leave U.S. airspace during the coming troubles.
Thanks for straightening that out, bobby.
I’ll stop comparing the ACA to the Heritage Plan.
Were they comparable, the ACA would be recommending walking through the Heritage Foundation offices gunning down their part-time staffers not afforded health insurance in their cubicles with the weapons pig-filth Tighty-Whitey and his whore daughter who beat the sh*t out of lesbians in Navy craft showers I paid for recommends for the citizenry at large.
The ACA merely recommends that the Heritage staffers in the copy room have an opportunity to purchase insurance that Marty hates, like the shoes he keeps buying.
Just to approximate the murder counseled by Heritage for the poor and some of the middle class with the latter’s healthcare schemes.
Brett’s plane out of town is slow compared to the F-16 fighter jets we Second Amendment liberal aficionados are mustering to engage Confederate traitor terrorist aircraft before they leave U.S. airspace during the coming troubles.
Just for the record, the US military has use for shotguns too. Not for the common trooper though but for special forces to be used in enclosed spaces (=room full of bad guys). Iirc some police forces also use them (and be it for beanbags).
Just for the record, the US military has use for shotguns too. Not for the common trooper though but for special forces to be used in enclosed spaces (=room full of bad guys). Iirc some police forces also use them (and be it for beanbags).
Just for the record, the US military has use for shotguns too. Not for the common trooper though but for special forces to be used in enclosed spaces (=room full of bad guys). Iirc some police forces also use them (and be it for beanbags).
Actually, Harmut, they’re a standard-issue weapon for USA MPs (and not exclusively for use with with less-lethal rounds, either); non-SF infantry routinely uses them for breaching/clearing operations and urban warfare as well. They’re rarely primary arms, and are treated foremost as tools outside the military LE community, but they still have kept a place in modern warfare.
Actually, Harmut, they’re a standard-issue weapon for USA MPs (and not exclusively for use with with less-lethal rounds, either); non-SF infantry routinely uses them for breaching/clearing operations and urban warfare as well. They’re rarely primary arms, and are treated foremost as tools outside the military LE community, but they still have kept a place in modern warfare.
Actually, Harmut, they’re a standard-issue weapon for USA MPs (and not exclusively for use with with less-lethal rounds, either); non-SF infantry routinely uses them for breaching/clearing operations and urban warfare as well. They’re rarely primary arms, and are treated foremost as tools outside the military LE community, but they still have kept a place in modern warfare.
“My apologies to one and all, I should have just let Brett’s comments go by without a response.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.”
My comments, Russell, WERE a response. Did you miss this, from “the once and future cleek”?
“
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.context? we don’t need no freaking context.”
I very seldom actually open a discussion of the 2nd amendment and guns here. Really, I don’t. Rather, somebody else spews some idiocy on the topic, out of the blue, and I correct them, and numerous others leap in to defend the idiocy. Because liberals have a lot invested in that particular mistake. (Which is amazing, given all that it’s cost you politically.)
Imagine you were at a right wing site, engaged in a discussion of mead brewing, or some such, and somebody, out of the blue, emits this gem: “Of course, the 1st amendment ‘freedom of the press’ only means that the government printing house in Pueblo CO can’t be shut down.” Or, “Freedom of speech? That just means you can reply when the police ask you a question. Everybody knows that!”
If you cleared up the misapprehension, would you be the one who diverted the topic from how to get a ferment unstuck? I don’t think so.
Same here. Every once in a while, somebody else suddenly decides to drop a steaming pile of stupidity on the topic, out of the blue, and I attempt to clean it up.
“My apologies to one and all, I should have just let Brett’s comments go by without a response.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.”
My comments, Russell, WERE a response. Did you miss this, from “the once and future cleek”?
“
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.context? we don’t need no freaking context.”
I very seldom actually open a discussion of the 2nd amendment and guns here. Really, I don’t. Rather, somebody else spews some idiocy on the topic, out of the blue, and I correct them, and numerous others leap in to defend the idiocy. Because liberals have a lot invested in that particular mistake. (Which is amazing, given all that it’s cost you politically.)
Imagine you were at a right wing site, engaged in a discussion of mead brewing, or some such, and somebody, out of the blue, emits this gem: “Of course, the 1st amendment ‘freedom of the press’ only means that the government printing house in Pueblo CO can’t be shut down.” Or, “Freedom of speech? That just means you can reply when the police ask you a question. Everybody knows that!”
If you cleared up the misapprehension, would you be the one who diverted the topic from how to get a ferment unstuck? I don’t think so.
Same here. Every once in a while, somebody else suddenly decides to drop a steaming pile of stupidity on the topic, out of the blue, and I attempt to clean it up.
“My apologies to one and all, I should have just let Brett’s comments go by without a response.
Once it’s about guns, it’s all guns all the time.”
My comments, Russell, WERE a response. Did you miss this, from “the once and future cleek”?
“
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.context? we don’t need no freaking context.”
I very seldom actually open a discussion of the 2nd amendment and guns here. Really, I don’t. Rather, somebody else spews some idiocy on the topic, out of the blue, and I correct them, and numerous others leap in to defend the idiocy. Because liberals have a lot invested in that particular mistake. (Which is amazing, given all that it’s cost you politically.)
Imagine you were at a right wing site, engaged in a discussion of mead brewing, or some such, and somebody, out of the blue, emits this gem: “Of course, the 1st amendment ‘freedom of the press’ only means that the government printing house in Pueblo CO can’t be shut down.” Or, “Freedom of speech? That just means you can reply when the police ask you a question. Everybody knows that!”
If you cleared up the misapprehension, would you be the one who diverted the topic from how to get a ferment unstuck? I don’t think so.
Same here. Every once in a while, somebody else suddenly decides to drop a steaming pile of stupidity on the topic, out of the blue, and I attempt to clean it up.
and I attempt to clean it up.
bless your heart. you do try, don’t you.
and I attempt to clean it up.
bless your heart. you do try, don’t you.
and I attempt to clean it up.
bless your heart. you do try, don’t you.
A good primer on where U.S. health care stands:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-your-medical-bills-will-just-keep-growing-2014-11-17?page=1
Helpful graphs as well.
It’s the first of four reports from MarketWatch.
The article explain why, in terms less inflammatory than mine but no less correct, why upfront costs are soaring.
It’s a deliberate free market solution (in a mixed medical market) and an expensive one for so-called “healthcare consumers”.
You’re not really a “patient” when you are out cold in the emergency room. You are a “consumer” of resources.
Move along, because the meter is running. Wake up and go to sleep.
Yet, as the graphs show for the millionth time, outcomes in the U.S. are far below the rest of the “civilized” world in which various universal healthcare schemes abound, but at far higher cost in the U.S.
A good primer on where U.S. health care stands:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-your-medical-bills-will-just-keep-growing-2014-11-17?page=1
Helpful graphs as well.
It’s the first of four reports from MarketWatch.
The article explain why, in terms less inflammatory than mine but no less correct, why upfront costs are soaring.
It’s a deliberate free market solution (in a mixed medical market) and an expensive one for so-called “healthcare consumers”.
You’re not really a “patient” when you are out cold in the emergency room. You are a “consumer” of resources.
Move along, because the meter is running. Wake up and go to sleep.
Yet, as the graphs show for the millionth time, outcomes in the U.S. are far below the rest of the “civilized” world in which various universal healthcare schemes abound, but at far higher cost in the U.S.
A good primer on where U.S. health care stands:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-your-medical-bills-will-just-keep-growing-2014-11-17?page=1
Helpful graphs as well.
It’s the first of four reports from MarketWatch.
The article explain why, in terms less inflammatory than mine but no less correct, why upfront costs are soaring.
It’s a deliberate free market solution (in a mixed medical market) and an expensive one for so-called “healthcare consumers”.
You’re not really a “patient” when you are out cold in the emergency room. You are a “consumer” of resources.
Move along, because the meter is running. Wake up and go to sleep.
Yet, as the graphs show for the millionth time, outcomes in the U.S. are far below the rest of the “civilized” world in which various universal healthcare schemes abound, but at far higher cost in the U.S.
“ferment unstuck”
Good band name.
“ferment unstuck”
Good band name.
“ferment unstuck”
Good band name.
“…it wouldn’t do to have Larry Ellison strafing Microsoft headquarters.”
I can haz kickstarter plz?
“…it wouldn’t do to have Larry Ellison strafing Microsoft headquarters.”
I can haz kickstarter plz?
“…it wouldn’t do to have Larry Ellison strafing Microsoft headquarters.”
I can haz kickstarter plz?
Brett (from awhile ago):
4) The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute, because “doesn’t work well with” isn’t the same as “contradict”.
I posted a link with some analysis of how the different parts of the law earlier, and my interpretation of it is far from merely “doesn’t work well with”.
Feel free to address the analysis there and convince me otherwise.
Count:
Your MarketWatch link is dead on. Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
Brett (from awhile ago):
4) The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute, because “doesn’t work well with” isn’t the same as “contradict”.
I posted a link with some analysis of how the different parts of the law earlier, and my interpretation of it is far from merely “doesn’t work well with”.
Feel free to address the analysis there and convince me otherwise.
Count:
Your MarketWatch link is dead on. Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
Brett (from awhile ago):
4) The the text in question is clear, and DOESN’T “contradict” other sections of the statute, because “doesn’t work well with” isn’t the same as “contradict”.
I posted a link with some analysis of how the different parts of the law earlier, and my interpretation of it is far from merely “doesn’t work well with”.
Feel free to address the analysis there and convince me otherwise.
Count:
Your MarketWatch link is dead on. Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
My comments, Russell, WERE a response.
Fair enough. And yes, I do note that you often step back from the 2nd Amendment stuff.
I named you in my comment, but the “all guns all the time” thing was primarily about just saying’s offerings.
My comments, Russell, WERE a response.
Fair enough. And yes, I do note that you often step back from the 2nd Amendment stuff.
I named you in my comment, but the “all guns all the time” thing was primarily about just saying’s offerings.
My comments, Russell, WERE a response.
Fair enough. And yes, I do note that you often step back from the 2nd Amendment stuff.
I named you in my comment, but the “all guns all the time” thing was primarily about just saying’s offerings.
thompson: Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
We’ve broached this subject (at least) once before. Not sure we settled it, in the sense of nailing down our definitions.
Health care “costs” can increase due to:
1) The same quantity of services fetching higher prices; or
2) More services being purchased at constant prices.
Which of these are we more worried about? Which of them would greater “transparency” reduce? Should we even want to reduce #2, and if so should we want the same thing w.r.t. telecom services, financial services, and so forth?
–TP
thompson: Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
We’ve broached this subject (at least) once before. Not sure we settled it, in the sense of nailing down our definitions.
Health care “costs” can increase due to:
1) The same quantity of services fetching higher prices; or
2) More services being purchased at constant prices.
Which of these are we more worried about? Which of them would greater “transparency” reduce? Should we even want to reduce #2, and if so should we want the same thing w.r.t. telecom services, financial services, and so forth?
–TP
thompson: Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
We’ve broached this subject (at least) once before. Not sure we settled it, in the sense of nailing down our definitions.
Health care “costs” can increase due to:
1) The same quantity of services fetching higher prices; or
2) More services being purchased at constant prices.
Which of these are we more worried about? Which of them would greater “transparency” reduce? Should we even want to reduce #2, and if so should we want the same thing w.r.t. telecom services, financial services, and so forth?
–TP
Tony,
Don’t forget
3) new (and at least initially expensive) services becoming available. And therefore being bought and used.
That doesn’t raise costs for specific other services. But does raise total health care costs. Yet another reason to nail down the definition being used when saying that costs are rising and by how much.
Tony,
Don’t forget
3) new (and at least initially expensive) services becoming available. And therefore being bought and used.
That doesn’t raise costs for specific other services. But does raise total health care costs. Yet another reason to nail down the definition being used when saying that costs are rising and by how much.
Tony,
Don’t forget
3) new (and at least initially expensive) services becoming available. And therefore being bought and used.
That doesn’t raise costs for specific other services. But does raise total health care costs. Yet another reason to nail down the definition being used when saying that costs are rising and by how much.
wj, I think your 3) is part and parcel of Tony P.’s 2).
The only problem I can see with 2) is unnecessary services being provided/purchased at the behest of the provider simply for the money or at he behest of both the provider and the purchaser out of ingorance.
How much of a problem either is, I don’t know.
wj, I think your 3) is part and parcel of Tony P.’s 2).
The only problem I can see with 2) is unnecessary services being provided/purchased at the behest of the provider simply for the money or at he behest of both the provider and the purchaser out of ingorance.
How much of a problem either is, I don’t know.
wj, I think your 3) is part and parcel of Tony P.’s 2).
The only problem I can see with 2) is unnecessary services being provided/purchased at the behest of the provider simply for the money or at he behest of both the provider and the purchaser out of ingorance.
How much of a problem either is, I don’t know.
4)Increased population will lead to higher health care costs, c.p.
5)Wasteful patents on drugs and medical devices.
6)Demographic changes.
7)Political choices that constrict the supply of some medical services (doctors).
4)Increased population will lead to higher health care costs, c.p.
5)Wasteful patents on drugs and medical devices.
6)Demographic changes.
7)Political choices that constrict the supply of some medical services (doctors).
4)Increased population will lead to higher health care costs, c.p.
5)Wasteful patents on drugs and medical devices.
6)Demographic changes.
7)Political choices that constrict the supply of some medical services (doctors).
Tony:
I’m really only concerned with 1), which is pretty much what is described in Count’s article. If you haven’t had a chance yet, I’d recommend reading it.
Tony:
I’m really only concerned with 1), which is pretty much what is described in Count’s article. If you haven’t had a chance yet, I’d recommend reading it.
Tony:
I’m really only concerned with 1), which is pretty much what is described in Count’s article. If you haven’t had a chance yet, I’d recommend reading it.
Madison’s original draft of the 2A:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The difference between this draft and today’s 2A is miniminal. The only difference concerns the omission of the “religious” portion.
Madison’s original draft of the 2A:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The difference between this draft and today’s 2A is miniminal. The only difference concerns the omission of the “religious” portion.
Madison’s original draft of the 2A:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The difference between this draft and today’s 2A is miniminal. The only difference concerns the omission of the “religious” portion.
Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
There are a couple of things about this that don’t seem to hang together, for me.
First, the pricing structure of health care may not be transparent to the patient, but they are transparent to somebody. Health-related goods and services aren’t given away for free, somebody – typically an insurer – pays for them, and they presumably know how much they are paying, and for what.
Why doesn’t the insurer’s knowledge of what they are paying drive costs down? How will putting the burden on the patient to be a “wise consumer” be a more effective restraint on costs?
The other thing I don’t understand is how patients are supposed to know what they do, and don’t, need, or what those things should cost.
If I get three quotes for an MRI, how do I know I’m comparing services of equal value? Ditto for meds, surgery, any kind of physical therapy, or any kind of hands-on care.
If doc #1 says putting in a stent costs $10K, and doc #2 says she can do it for $3K, what kind of sense am I supposed to make of the difference?
Why does one cost $3K and the other cost $10K, and is there anything that contributes to that difference that will have an effect – good or bad – on my outcome?
How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?
Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
There are a couple of things about this that don’t seem to hang together, for me.
First, the pricing structure of health care may not be transparent to the patient, but they are transparent to somebody. Health-related goods and services aren’t given away for free, somebody – typically an insurer – pays for them, and they presumably know how much they are paying, and for what.
Why doesn’t the insurer’s knowledge of what they are paying drive costs down? How will putting the burden on the patient to be a “wise consumer” be a more effective restraint on costs?
The other thing I don’t understand is how patients are supposed to know what they do, and don’t, need, or what those things should cost.
If I get three quotes for an MRI, how do I know I’m comparing services of equal value? Ditto for meds, surgery, any kind of physical therapy, or any kind of hands-on care.
If doc #1 says putting in a stent costs $10K, and doc #2 says she can do it for $3K, what kind of sense am I supposed to make of the difference?
Why does one cost $3K and the other cost $10K, and is there anything that contributes to that difference that will have an effect – good or bad – on my outcome?
How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?
Health care costs will continue to outpace inflation until there is transparency in the pricing structure.
There are a couple of things about this that don’t seem to hang together, for me.
First, the pricing structure of health care may not be transparent to the patient, but they are transparent to somebody. Health-related goods and services aren’t given away for free, somebody – typically an insurer – pays for them, and they presumably know how much they are paying, and for what.
Why doesn’t the insurer’s knowledge of what they are paying drive costs down? How will putting the burden on the patient to be a “wise consumer” be a more effective restraint on costs?
The other thing I don’t understand is how patients are supposed to know what they do, and don’t, need, or what those things should cost.
If I get three quotes for an MRI, how do I know I’m comparing services of equal value? Ditto for meds, surgery, any kind of physical therapy, or any kind of hands-on care.
If doc #1 says putting in a stent costs $10K, and doc #2 says she can do it for $3K, what kind of sense am I supposed to make of the difference?
Why does one cost $3K and the other cost $10K, and is there anything that contributes to that difference that will have an effect – good or bad – on my outcome?
How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?
And then there’s the detail that the amount charged to the insurers (which may be transparent, but may not be identical for all of them) is not what someone without insurance is going to get charged. In my experience, it’s lots higher. Comes of not having any bargaining leverage, as well as no knowledge of the price of alternatives or the relative merits of those alternatives.
Which a mechanic, you can shop around much more easily. Not to mention that, even if it is the light of your life, you are likely not as attached to the condition of your car as to the condition of your body. Which makes objective evaluations difficult.
And then there’s the detail that the amount charged to the insurers (which may be transparent, but may not be identical for all of them) is not what someone without insurance is going to get charged. In my experience, it’s lots higher. Comes of not having any bargaining leverage, as well as no knowledge of the price of alternatives or the relative merits of those alternatives.
Which a mechanic, you can shop around much more easily. Not to mention that, even if it is the light of your life, you are likely not as attached to the condition of your car as to the condition of your body. Which makes objective evaluations difficult.
And then there’s the detail that the amount charged to the insurers (which may be transparent, but may not be identical for all of them) is not what someone without insurance is going to get charged. In my experience, it’s lots higher. Comes of not having any bargaining leverage, as well as no knowledge of the price of alternatives or the relative merits of those alternatives.
Which a mechanic, you can shop around much more easily. Not to mention that, even if it is the light of your life, you are likely not as attached to the condition of your car as to the condition of your body. Which makes objective evaluations difficult.
russell:
First, the pricing structure of health care may not be transparent to the patient, but they are transparent to somebody.
I don’t think that’s consistent with the picture being painted in the article Count linked:
“Prices are just pulled out of thin air,” he said.
[…]
Experts believe the bulk of providers continue to resist the notion that the high cost of health care can’t be sustained, and so they keep their pricing concealed.
[…]
Peter Ubel, is a former general internist who gave up practicing medicine four years ago
[…]
“[What’s] real common are these tenfold differences in prices–$200 vs. $2,000—that’s just a common kind of variation for anything from getting your tonsils out to a colonoscopy to getting a knee replacement. There are absolutely gigantic variations,” Ubel said.
russell:
First, the pricing structure of health care may not be transparent to the patient, but they are transparent to somebody.
I don’t think that’s consistent with the picture being painted in the article Count linked:
“Prices are just pulled out of thin air,” he said.
[…]
Experts believe the bulk of providers continue to resist the notion that the high cost of health care can’t be sustained, and so they keep their pricing concealed.
[…]
Peter Ubel, is a former general internist who gave up practicing medicine four years ago
[…]
“[What’s] real common are these tenfold differences in prices–$200 vs. $2,000—that’s just a common kind of variation for anything from getting your tonsils out to a colonoscopy to getting a knee replacement. There are absolutely gigantic variations,” Ubel said.
russell:
First, the pricing structure of health care may not be transparent to the patient, but they are transparent to somebody.
I don’t think that’s consistent with the picture being painted in the article Count linked:
“Prices are just pulled out of thin air,” he said.
[…]
Experts believe the bulk of providers continue to resist the notion that the high cost of health care can’t be sustained, and so they keep their pricing concealed.
[…]
Peter Ubel, is a former general internist who gave up practicing medicine four years ago
[…]
“[What’s] real common are these tenfold differences in prices–$200 vs. $2,000—that’s just a common kind of variation for anything from getting your tonsils out to a colonoscopy to getting a knee replacement. There are absolutely gigantic variations,” Ubel said.
Thanks for calling out those cites thompson.
They lead me back to my original question.
Somebody, somewhere, is cutting checks in amounts of sometimes tenfold difference, for good and services of nominally equal value.
What gives? Nobody in an insurance company notices this?
I understand that providers may not be transparent about how they come up with pricing, but the number that comes out of that process still shows up on a bill.
Why would we expect patients’ having to pay the bills to exert some kind of market-based discipline, when having insurers pay – who presumably bring some kind of domain knowledge to the table – does not?
Thanks for calling out those cites thompson.
They lead me back to my original question.
Somebody, somewhere, is cutting checks in amounts of sometimes tenfold difference, for good and services of nominally equal value.
What gives? Nobody in an insurance company notices this?
I understand that providers may not be transparent about how they come up with pricing, but the number that comes out of that process still shows up on a bill.
Why would we expect patients’ having to pay the bills to exert some kind of market-based discipline, when having insurers pay – who presumably bring some kind of domain knowledge to the table – does not?
Thanks for calling out those cites thompson.
They lead me back to my original question.
Somebody, somewhere, is cutting checks in amounts of sometimes tenfold difference, for good and services of nominally equal value.
What gives? Nobody in an insurance company notices this?
I understand that providers may not be transparent about how they come up with pricing, but the number that comes out of that process still shows up on a bill.
Why would we expect patients’ having to pay the bills to exert some kind of market-based discipline, when having insurers pay – who presumably bring some kind of domain knowledge to the table – does not?
“How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?”
Too much, and for most “procedures”, if you think you know enough, technology, which rarely makes anything cheaper in medicine, will alter what you thought you knew.
Which gets to the problem of defining and addressing medical care as if it is a commodity that bears the same qualities as any other consumer good or service … shoes, cream puffs, harmonicas, a backed up sewer, automobiles*.
Then throw in the fact that when purchasing most other commodities, one is usually ambulatory, conscious, not suffering from intense pain, terror, or unexplained chronic listlessness, and you’re all set to pit your consumer reports background studying against the guile and lying eyes of the salesman of any other product.
*Yes, well, there was an entertaining report on NPR this weekend regarding the fact that the current reading fad among car salesman is Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”.
And guess what? The customer is the enemy force.
So now I have to figure in the flanking maneuvers and feints used in the Battle of Boju when I want to upgrade the ride.
To which I will answer with yet another book:
“The Universe Doesn’t Give A Flying F*ck About You”, by none other than Johnny Truant, of all people.
Tell your Sales Manager that when you disappear to discuss the price we’ve decided on!
“How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?”
Too much, and for most “procedures”, if you think you know enough, technology, which rarely makes anything cheaper in medicine, will alter what you thought you knew.
Which gets to the problem of defining and addressing medical care as if it is a commodity that bears the same qualities as any other consumer good or service … shoes, cream puffs, harmonicas, a backed up sewer, automobiles*.
Then throw in the fact that when purchasing most other commodities, one is usually ambulatory, conscious, not suffering from intense pain, terror, or unexplained chronic listlessness, and you’re all set to pit your consumer reports background studying against the guile and lying eyes of the salesman of any other product.
*Yes, well, there was an entertaining report on NPR this weekend regarding the fact that the current reading fad among car salesman is Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”.
And guess what? The customer is the enemy force.
So now I have to figure in the flanking maneuvers and feints used in the Battle of Boju when I want to upgrade the ride.
To which I will answer with yet another book:
“The Universe Doesn’t Give A Flying F*ck About You”, by none other than Johnny Truant, of all people.
Tell your Sales Manager that when you disappear to discuss the price we’ve decided on!
“How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?”
Too much, and for most “procedures”, if you think you know enough, technology, which rarely makes anything cheaper in medicine, will alter what you thought you knew.
Which gets to the problem of defining and addressing medical care as if it is a commodity that bears the same qualities as any other consumer good or service … shoes, cream puffs, harmonicas, a backed up sewer, automobiles*.
Then throw in the fact that when purchasing most other commodities, one is usually ambulatory, conscious, not suffering from intense pain, terror, or unexplained chronic listlessness, and you’re all set to pit your consumer reports background studying against the guile and lying eyes of the salesman of any other product.
*Yes, well, there was an entertaining report on NPR this weekend regarding the fact that the current reading fad among car salesman is Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”.
And guess what? The customer is the enemy force.
So now I have to figure in the flanking maneuvers and feints used in the Battle of Boju when I want to upgrade the ride.
To which I will answer with yet another book:
“The Universe Doesn’t Give A Flying F*ck About You”, by none other than Johnny Truant, of all people.
Tell your Sales Manager that when you disappear to discuss the price we’ve decided on!
Ask the person sitting next to you on your next airline trip what they paid for their seat.
I suppose we’ll get to the point where the advice for scheduling your next prostate reaming is to make your reservations between 10:00 pm and midnight on a Wednesday evening if you want the cheapest price.
Call on a Friday and pay 50% more and watch the hospital’s software program and the doctor’s eyes above his surgical mask come up showing three identical fruits for the jackpot.
Ask the person sitting next to you on your next airline trip what they paid for their seat.
I suppose we’ll get to the point where the advice for scheduling your next prostate reaming is to make your reservations between 10:00 pm and midnight on a Wednesday evening if you want the cheapest price.
Call on a Friday and pay 50% more and watch the hospital’s software program and the doctor’s eyes above his surgical mask come up showing three identical fruits for the jackpot.
Ask the person sitting next to you on your next airline trip what they paid for their seat.
I suppose we’ll get to the point where the advice for scheduling your next prostate reaming is to make your reservations between 10:00 pm and midnight on a Wednesday evening if you want the cheapest price.
Call on a Friday and pay 50% more and watch the hospital’s software program and the doctor’s eyes above his surgical mask come up showing three identical fruits for the jackpot.
Except with a flight, I know I am getting there at the same time, and in the same condition, as pretty much everybody else on the plane. Regardless of how much each of us paid.
With medical care? Not so much. You have to have some kind of faith in the individual who is treating you. Sometimes that could come from knowing a lot about medicine and actually running an interview. Mostly, it comes from a combination of faith that the insurance company did the vetting (so as not to lose customers), and faith that the government licensing requirements will keep the worse hacks out of the business. Occasionally, it comes from actual references from satisfied customers — if you happen to have something common enough that you know someone who had the same thing. (And it really was the same problem from the same cause with the same necessary treatment….)
Except with a flight, I know I am getting there at the same time, and in the same condition, as pretty much everybody else on the plane. Regardless of how much each of us paid.
With medical care? Not so much. You have to have some kind of faith in the individual who is treating you. Sometimes that could come from knowing a lot about medicine and actually running an interview. Mostly, it comes from a combination of faith that the insurance company did the vetting (so as not to lose customers), and faith that the government licensing requirements will keep the worse hacks out of the business. Occasionally, it comes from actual references from satisfied customers — if you happen to have something common enough that you know someone who had the same thing. (And it really was the same problem from the same cause with the same necessary treatment….)
Except with a flight, I know I am getting there at the same time, and in the same condition, as pretty much everybody else on the plane. Regardless of how much each of us paid.
With medical care? Not so much. You have to have some kind of faith in the individual who is treating you. Sometimes that could come from knowing a lot about medicine and actually running an interview. Mostly, it comes from a combination of faith that the insurance company did the vetting (so as not to lose customers), and faith that the government licensing requirements will keep the worse hacks out of the business. Occasionally, it comes from actual references from satisfied customers — if you happen to have something common enough that you know someone who had the same thing. (And it really was the same problem from the same cause with the same necessary treatment….)
I scan the faces of the passengers disembarking to detect signs of turbulence, nausea, and terror.
If the same pilots are doing my flight, I interview the pilot, the co-pilot, and one of the crew and adjust my alcohol intake accordingly.
I check out the expressions of the ground crews below and if a bunch of them are standing under an engine and pointing, briskly looking through owner’s manuals, and seem to be arguing, I quietly kiss my as* goodbye, in case there isn’t time later and my as* gets separated from me somehow.
You can imagine my fellow passengers hate the delay but a consumer has to be informed.
I scan the faces of the passengers disembarking to detect signs of turbulence, nausea, and terror.
If the same pilots are doing my flight, I interview the pilot, the co-pilot, and one of the crew and adjust my alcohol intake accordingly.
I check out the expressions of the ground crews below and if a bunch of them are standing under an engine and pointing, briskly looking through owner’s manuals, and seem to be arguing, I quietly kiss my as* goodbye, in case there isn’t time later and my as* gets separated from me somehow.
You can imagine my fellow passengers hate the delay but a consumer has to be informed.
I scan the faces of the passengers disembarking to detect signs of turbulence, nausea, and terror.
If the same pilots are doing my flight, I interview the pilot, the co-pilot, and one of the crew and adjust my alcohol intake accordingly.
I check out the expressions of the ground crews below and if a bunch of them are standing under an engine and pointing, briskly looking through owner’s manuals, and seem to be arguing, I quietly kiss my as* goodbye, in case there isn’t time later and my as* gets separated from me somehow.
You can imagine my fellow passengers hate the delay but a consumer has to be informed.
Re: Tony P’s and wj’s speculation about US status as an outlier on medical expenses, it seems to be mostly Tony’s #1:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/3/89.full
Re: Tony P’s and wj’s speculation about US status as an outlier on medical expenses, it seems to be mostly Tony’s #1:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/3/89.full
Re: Tony P’s and wj’s speculation about US status as an outlier on medical expenses, it seems to be mostly Tony’s #1:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/3/89.full
russell:
A couple things, because I don’t think this is a simple subject, nor do I think there is a single magic bullet that fixes everything. In line with that, the below got a little rambly…sorry about that.
Why would we expect patients’ having to pay the bills to exert some kind of market-based discipline, when having insurers pay – who presumably bring some kind of domain knowledge to the table – does not?
I don’t necessarily expect that, is the simple answer. I’m not trying to say price transparency will magically make open heart surgery cost $5 (free with a footlong!). I think it might help individuals to make better choices, both in lifestyle and in medical decisions, if medical costs weren’t such a black box.
But more than that, I think rising medical costs are a significant policy concern for this nation, long term. And its very hard to have an informed public debate about policy solutions without information.
The more uncertainty is in the system, the more opportunities there is for skimming. To quote Lewis Carroll’s link: “The question is whether increased spending results in more real resources devoted to patient care or higher incomes to providers. ” That’s a remarkably hard question to answer. And I think the answer to that question is central to why our costs are high now, and how we can restrain them in future.
The only way to answer that is data. Not just for individual patients (although I like the idea of empowering patients and think it will have some benefit), but for interest groups, advocacy groups.
I think insurance companies probably do restrain costs somewhat. That point is made in this paper (sadly paywalled):
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/3/780.full
for every $100 in Medicare-allowable costs, the average hospital charged $307.
If the hospital had actually collected these charges from every patient in 2004, the profit margin per hospital would average more than 200 percent. However, according to AHA data, U.S. hospitals had a profit margin of only 5.2 percent in that year.
Basically, the take home message is large insurers can use their purchasing power to leverage lower costs from providers, while people without large insurers backing them foot exorbitant bills. This makes it extremely difficult for small insurance providers to enter the field. They will not have the clout of larger companies, and won’t be able to provide competitive rates, even if they are otherwise innovative or patient focused.
We’ve set up a system where insurance companies are *necessary* for nearly every aspect of medical care because people without insurance companies get shafted. I don’t think that’s a particularly good system, because the insurance companies are basically rent-seeking: whatever medical costs are, they are passed onto the policyholders as a group, plus a percentage that goes to the insurance companies.
Many people who could otherwise handle predictable health expenditures (chronic meds/treatments, etc) have no choice BUT an insurance company. Because even if there is a quality, affordable health care option, the lack of transparency makes it almost impossible to find.
To expand on the individual patients a little. You said earlier:
How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?
Realistically, you can’t expect each individual patient to fully grasp all the options and implications. But you can expect patient advocacy groups, institutions like the AHA, AKA, ALA, etc to be able to provide targeted education to patients. And patient involvement in their care should be encouraged whenever possible.
Especially when you consider that 75% of our medical costs are associated with chronic disease: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/chronic.htm
These diseases often have predictable progressions and treatment courses. Empowering people who need lifelong medication or treatment to understand the pros and cons of different treatments and providers, including cost, strikes me as a good thing.
While I don’t expect every patient, or even most patients, to be well informed, I think making information available to motivated and educated patients will have an effect outside those individual patients.
russell:
A couple things, because I don’t think this is a simple subject, nor do I think there is a single magic bullet that fixes everything. In line with that, the below got a little rambly…sorry about that.
Why would we expect patients’ having to pay the bills to exert some kind of market-based discipline, when having insurers pay – who presumably bring some kind of domain knowledge to the table – does not?
I don’t necessarily expect that, is the simple answer. I’m not trying to say price transparency will magically make open heart surgery cost $5 (free with a footlong!). I think it might help individuals to make better choices, both in lifestyle and in medical decisions, if medical costs weren’t such a black box.
But more than that, I think rising medical costs are a significant policy concern for this nation, long term. And its very hard to have an informed public debate about policy solutions without information.
The more uncertainty is in the system, the more opportunities there is for skimming. To quote Lewis Carroll’s link: “The question is whether increased spending results in more real resources devoted to patient care or higher incomes to providers. ” That’s a remarkably hard question to answer. And I think the answer to that question is central to why our costs are high now, and how we can restrain them in future.
The only way to answer that is data. Not just for individual patients (although I like the idea of empowering patients and think it will have some benefit), but for interest groups, advocacy groups.
I think insurance companies probably do restrain costs somewhat. That point is made in this paper (sadly paywalled):
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/3/780.full
for every $100 in Medicare-allowable costs, the average hospital charged $307.
If the hospital had actually collected these charges from every patient in 2004, the profit margin per hospital would average more than 200 percent. However, according to AHA data, U.S. hospitals had a profit margin of only 5.2 percent in that year.
Basically, the take home message is large insurers can use their purchasing power to leverage lower costs from providers, while people without large insurers backing them foot exorbitant bills. This makes it extremely difficult for small insurance providers to enter the field. They will not have the clout of larger companies, and won’t be able to provide competitive rates, even if they are otherwise innovative or patient focused.
We’ve set up a system where insurance companies are *necessary* for nearly every aspect of medical care because people without insurance companies get shafted. I don’t think that’s a particularly good system, because the insurance companies are basically rent-seeking: whatever medical costs are, they are passed onto the policyholders as a group, plus a percentage that goes to the insurance companies.
Many people who could otherwise handle predictable health expenditures (chronic meds/treatments, etc) have no choice BUT an insurance company. Because even if there is a quality, affordable health care option, the lack of transparency makes it almost impossible to find.
To expand on the individual patients a little. You said earlier:
How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?
Realistically, you can’t expect each individual patient to fully grasp all the options and implications. But you can expect patient advocacy groups, institutions like the AHA, AKA, ALA, etc to be able to provide targeted education to patients. And patient involvement in their care should be encouraged whenever possible.
Especially when you consider that 75% of our medical costs are associated with chronic disease: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/chronic.htm
These diseases often have predictable progressions and treatment courses. Empowering people who need lifelong medication or treatment to understand the pros and cons of different treatments and providers, including cost, strikes me as a good thing.
While I don’t expect every patient, or even most patients, to be well informed, I think making information available to motivated and educated patients will have an effect outside those individual patients.
russell:
A couple things, because I don’t think this is a simple subject, nor do I think there is a single magic bullet that fixes everything. In line with that, the below got a little rambly…sorry about that.
Why would we expect patients’ having to pay the bills to exert some kind of market-based discipline, when having insurers pay – who presumably bring some kind of domain knowledge to the table – does not?
I don’t necessarily expect that, is the simple answer. I’m not trying to say price transparency will magically make open heart surgery cost $5 (free with a footlong!). I think it might help individuals to make better choices, both in lifestyle and in medical decisions, if medical costs weren’t such a black box.
But more than that, I think rising medical costs are a significant policy concern for this nation, long term. And its very hard to have an informed public debate about policy solutions without information.
The more uncertainty is in the system, the more opportunities there is for skimming. To quote Lewis Carroll’s link: “The question is whether increased spending results in more real resources devoted to patient care or higher incomes to providers. ” That’s a remarkably hard question to answer. And I think the answer to that question is central to why our costs are high now, and how we can restrain them in future.
The only way to answer that is data. Not just for individual patients (although I like the idea of empowering patients and think it will have some benefit), but for interest groups, advocacy groups.
I think insurance companies probably do restrain costs somewhat. That point is made in this paper (sadly paywalled):
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/3/780.full
for every $100 in Medicare-allowable costs, the average hospital charged $307.
If the hospital had actually collected these charges from every patient in 2004, the profit margin per hospital would average more than 200 percent. However, according to AHA data, U.S. hospitals had a profit margin of only 5.2 percent in that year.
Basically, the take home message is large insurers can use their purchasing power to leverage lower costs from providers, while people without large insurers backing them foot exorbitant bills. This makes it extremely difficult for small insurance providers to enter the field. They will not have the clout of larger companies, and won’t be able to provide competitive rates, even if they are otherwise innovative or patient focused.
We’ve set up a system where insurance companies are *necessary* for nearly every aspect of medical care because people without insurance companies get shafted. I don’t think that’s a particularly good system, because the insurance companies are basically rent-seeking: whatever medical costs are, they are passed onto the policyholders as a group, plus a percentage that goes to the insurance companies.
Many people who could otherwise handle predictable health expenditures (chronic meds/treatments, etc) have no choice BUT an insurance company. Because even if there is a quality, affordable health care option, the lack of transparency makes it almost impossible to find.
To expand on the individual patients a little. You said earlier:
How much medical knowledge do I, the patient, have to come up to speed on in order for “consumer” market dynamics to accurately price this stuff?
Realistically, you can’t expect each individual patient to fully grasp all the options and implications. But you can expect patient advocacy groups, institutions like the AHA, AKA, ALA, etc to be able to provide targeted education to patients. And patient involvement in their care should be encouraged whenever possible.
Especially when you consider that 75% of our medical costs are associated with chronic disease: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/chronic.htm
These diseases often have predictable progressions and treatment courses. Empowering people who need lifelong medication or treatment to understand the pros and cons of different treatments and providers, including cost, strikes me as a good thing.
While I don’t expect every patient, or even most patients, to be well informed, I think making information available to motivated and educated patients will have an effect outside those individual patients.
More on Gruber and who really funded RomneyCare in Massachusetts.
Us, via George W. Bush’s White House.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/A_Defense_Of_Jonathan_Gruber
More on Gruber and who really funded RomneyCare in Massachusetts.
Us, via George W. Bush’s White House.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/A_Defense_Of_Jonathan_Gruber
More on Gruber and who really funded RomneyCare in Massachusetts.
Us, via George W. Bush’s White House.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/A_Defense_Of_Jonathan_Gruber
Who is fracking who?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/17/1345523/-Texas-Republicans-work-to-squash-local-fracking-ban
Typical pig filth.
Who is fracking who?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/17/1345523/-Texas-Republicans-work-to-squash-local-fracking-ban
Typical pig filth.
Who is fracking who?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/17/1345523/-Texas-Republicans-work-to-squash-local-fracking-ban
Typical pig filth.
Count, you have to understand that those folks are for states’ rights. Not the rights of the Federal government. And absolutely not the rights of local governments (let alone the people).
But states’ rights — that’s what it’s all about. (At least until they aren’t the ones running the state. Then their enthusiasm for local rights will know no bounds.)
Count, you have to understand that those folks are for states’ rights. Not the rights of the Federal government. And absolutely not the rights of local governments (let alone the people).
But states’ rights — that’s what it’s all about. (At least until they aren’t the ones running the state. Then their enthusiasm for local rights will know no bounds.)
Count, you have to understand that those folks are for states’ rights. Not the rights of the Federal government. And absolutely not the rights of local governments (let alone the people).
But states’ rights — that’s what it’s all about. (At least until they aren’t the ones running the state. Then their enthusiasm for local rights will know no bounds.)
Part II (four-part series) of Marketwatch’s look at healthcare costs.
Part II (four-part series) of Marketwatch’s look at healthcare costs.
Part II (four-part series) of Marketwatch’s look at healthcare costs.
The real challenge, I noted this from the report on local news this morning, is that the numbers are whatever someone wants them to be. Summary of the report: overall costs going down but all existing plans are going up by an average of 15%, silver plans are going up much more than that, Areas where there is a high concentration of seniors will go up even more.
To which I said: Whaat?
The real challenge, I noted this from the report on local news this morning, is that the numbers are whatever someone wants them to be. Summary of the report: overall costs going down but all existing plans are going up by an average of 15%, silver plans are going up much more than that, Areas where there is a high concentration of seniors will go up even more.
To which I said: Whaat?
The real challenge, I noted this from the report on local news this morning, is that the numbers are whatever someone wants them to be. Summary of the report: overall costs going down but all existing plans are going up by an average of 15%, silver plans are going up much more than that, Areas where there is a high concentration of seniors will go up even more.
To which I said: Whaat?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120306/obamacare-open-enrollment-premiums-down-consumers-should-shop
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120306/obamacare-open-enrollment-premiums-down-consumers-should-shop
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120306/obamacare-open-enrollment-premiums-down-consumers-should-shop
yeah count, in the middle of that is the link to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=0
yeah count, in the middle of that is the link to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=0
yeah count, in the middle of that is the link to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=0
Actually Marty, in the process of making another, larger, point, Dean Baker eviscerated the reporting in that NYT article:
“Anyone reading this article would likely get the impression that most people are seeing big insurance price increases in 2015. This is 180 degrees at odds with reality. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average cost of benchmark plans in the ACA exchanges actually fell slightly in 2015. (The chart accompanying the NYT article would show a story of declining prices or modest increases.) This is remarkable given the fact that insurance costs have been rising sharply for the last half century. Rather than highlighting the fact that for most people in the exchanges premiums are rising little or actually falling, the NYT decided to highlight that some people will pay more, if they don’t change plans.”
From: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-problem-of-qstupidq-in-economics
Actually Marty, in the process of making another, larger, point, Dean Baker eviscerated the reporting in that NYT article:
“Anyone reading this article would likely get the impression that most people are seeing big insurance price increases in 2015. This is 180 degrees at odds with reality. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average cost of benchmark plans in the ACA exchanges actually fell slightly in 2015. (The chart accompanying the NYT article would show a story of declining prices or modest increases.) This is remarkable given the fact that insurance costs have been rising sharply for the last half century. Rather than highlighting the fact that for most people in the exchanges premiums are rising little or actually falling, the NYT decided to highlight that some people will pay more, if they don’t change plans.”
From: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-problem-of-qstupidq-in-economics
Actually Marty, in the process of making another, larger, point, Dean Baker eviscerated the reporting in that NYT article:
“Anyone reading this article would likely get the impression that most people are seeing big insurance price increases in 2015. This is 180 degrees at odds with reality. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average cost of benchmark plans in the ACA exchanges actually fell slightly in 2015. (The chart accompanying the NYT article would show a story of declining prices or modest increases.) This is remarkable given the fact that insurance costs have been rising sharply for the last half century. Rather than highlighting the fact that for most people in the exchanges premiums are rising little or actually falling, the NYT decided to highlight that some people will pay more, if they don’t change plans.”
From: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-problem-of-qstupidq-in-economics
Well, Lewis, what I find interesting is that they don’t deny, and the HHS secretary was here this week, that the silver plans are going up more than 15% for almost anyone that has one. Then the rest go down, because most people didn’t get to the deductible, so their real cost is all their health care plus their legally mandated insurance.
Well, Lewis, what I find interesting is that they don’t deny, and the HHS secretary was here this week, that the silver plans are going up more than 15% for almost anyone that has one. Then the rest go down, because most people didn’t get to the deductible, so their real cost is all their health care plus their legally mandated insurance.
Well, Lewis, what I find interesting is that they don’t deny, and the HHS secretary was here this week, that the silver plans are going up more than 15% for almost anyone that has one. Then the rest go down, because most people didn’t get to the deductible, so their real cost is all their health care plus their legally mandated insurance.
insurance cost goes up every year. always. this is true with or without Grubercare.
insurance cost goes up every year. always. this is true with or without Grubercare.
insurance cost goes up every year. always. this is true with or without Grubercare.
insurance cost goes up every year. always. this is true with or without Grubercare.
and we have achieved singularity
insurance cost goes up every year. always. this is true with or without Grubercare.
and we have achieved singularity
insurance cost goes up every year. always. this is true with or without Grubercare.
and we have achieved singularity
The costs are rising slower than they were before ACA though. Including on employer-sponsored plans, which employees *pay* as well via the implicit drag on compensation.
But BOTH individual and group plan rates are rising slower now.
And since you have no way of knowing how much of each participant’s potential cost-sharing they actually had to lay out, you don’t really know if people’s out of pocket costs will rise, do you?
The only difference you know, ex ante, is how much or how little premiums are rising.
“Then the rest go down, because most people didn’t get to the deductible”
^^^^^^^^
That is how cost-sharing, as a price signal in insurance, works. As a general rule, those who get more care are going to pay more out of pocket.
The costs are rising slower than they were before ACA though. Including on employer-sponsored plans, which employees *pay* as well via the implicit drag on compensation.
But BOTH individual and group plan rates are rising slower now.
And since you have no way of knowing how much of each participant’s potential cost-sharing they actually had to lay out, you don’t really know if people’s out of pocket costs will rise, do you?
The only difference you know, ex ante, is how much or how little premiums are rising.
“Then the rest go down, because most people didn’t get to the deductible”
^^^^^^^^
That is how cost-sharing, as a price signal in insurance, works. As a general rule, those who get more care are going to pay more out of pocket.
The costs are rising slower than they were before ACA though. Including on employer-sponsored plans, which employees *pay* as well via the implicit drag on compensation.
But BOTH individual and group plan rates are rising slower now.
And since you have no way of knowing how much of each participant’s potential cost-sharing they actually had to lay out, you don’t really know if people’s out of pocket costs will rise, do you?
The only difference you know, ex ante, is how much or how little premiums are rising.
“Then the rest go down, because most people didn’t get to the deductible”
^^^^^^^^
That is how cost-sharing, as a price signal in insurance, works. As a general rule, those who get more care are going to pay more out of pocket.
I would also note that a higher deductible is less of a big deal when preventive care is included at no cost.
One of the big failings to date of high deductible plans is the mismatch between welfare enhancement and cost-sharing. Dis-incentivizing preventive care (such as with deductibles and co-insurance) often results in delayed care for conditions that become more expensive if left untreated, which can then propagate higher costs throughout the system. Preventive care is a lousy place to put a cost signal.
So preventive care is a good *investment*, but historically insurance companies have not been sure that the patient will still be with the plan in a few years, so there was little incentive to provide preventive care. From an individual insurer’s point of view, they could be paying for preventive care which will keep some other future plan’s costs down. So mandating it is a good idea.
Also, competition can do wonders for costs. From the NYT article:
“In releasing the data, administration officials noted that more insurers had entered the market in many states. By the government’s count, 25 percent more insurers will be participating in the exchange next year, and consumers will have a choice of 40 different plans, on average, up from 31 this year.
New Hampshire shows how consumers may benefit from additional competition. In most of the state, the number of insurers is increasing to five in 2015, from just one this year. Prices for the lowest-cost silver plan have fallen by 14 percent.”
I would also note that a higher deductible is less of a big deal when preventive care is included at no cost.
One of the big failings to date of high deductible plans is the mismatch between welfare enhancement and cost-sharing. Dis-incentivizing preventive care (such as with deductibles and co-insurance) often results in delayed care for conditions that become more expensive if left untreated, which can then propagate higher costs throughout the system. Preventive care is a lousy place to put a cost signal.
So preventive care is a good *investment*, but historically insurance companies have not been sure that the patient will still be with the plan in a few years, so there was little incentive to provide preventive care. From an individual insurer’s point of view, they could be paying for preventive care which will keep some other future plan’s costs down. So mandating it is a good idea.
Also, competition can do wonders for costs. From the NYT article:
“In releasing the data, administration officials noted that more insurers had entered the market in many states. By the government’s count, 25 percent more insurers will be participating in the exchange next year, and consumers will have a choice of 40 different plans, on average, up from 31 this year.
New Hampshire shows how consumers may benefit from additional competition. In most of the state, the number of insurers is increasing to five in 2015, from just one this year. Prices for the lowest-cost silver plan have fallen by 14 percent.”
I would also note that a higher deductible is less of a big deal when preventive care is included at no cost.
One of the big failings to date of high deductible plans is the mismatch between welfare enhancement and cost-sharing. Dis-incentivizing preventive care (such as with deductibles and co-insurance) often results in delayed care for conditions that become more expensive if left untreated, which can then propagate higher costs throughout the system. Preventive care is a lousy place to put a cost signal.
So preventive care is a good *investment*, but historically insurance companies have not been sure that the patient will still be with the plan in a few years, so there was little incentive to provide preventive care. From an individual insurer’s point of view, they could be paying for preventive care which will keep some other future plan’s costs down. So mandating it is a good idea.
Also, competition can do wonders for costs. From the NYT article:
“In releasing the data, administration officials noted that more insurers had entered the market in many states. By the government’s count, 25 percent more insurers will be participating in the exchange next year, and consumers will have a choice of 40 different plans, on average, up from 31 this year.
New Hampshire shows how consumers may benefit from additional competition. In most of the state, the number of insurers is increasing to five in 2015, from just one this year. Prices for the lowest-cost silver plan have fallen by 14 percent.”
What Lewis said.
What Lewis said.
What Lewis said.
Part III, from MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-obamacare-wont-stop-the-health-care-cost-crisis-2014-11-19?page=2
Part III, from MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-obamacare-wont-stop-the-health-care-cost-crisis-2014-11-19?page=2
Part III, from MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-obamacare-wont-stop-the-health-care-cost-crisis-2014-11-19?page=2
The marketwatch link is worth reading, again. Also, FYI, the link takes you to page 2.
The marketwatch link is worth reading, again. Also, FYI, the link takes you to page 2.
The marketwatch link is worth reading, again. Also, FYI, the link takes you to page 2.
From an individual insurer’s point of view, they could be paying for preventive care which will keep some other future plan’s costs down. So mandating it is a good idea.
Yes.
And as the insured gets older, and approaches Medicare eligibility, the value of preventive care in terms of future savings drops ever more sharply.
From an individual insurer’s point of view, they could be paying for preventive care which will keep some other future plan’s costs down. So mandating it is a good idea.
Yes.
And as the insured gets older, and approaches Medicare eligibility, the value of preventive care in terms of future savings drops ever more sharply.
From an individual insurer’s point of view, they could be paying for preventive care which will keep some other future plan’s costs down. So mandating it is a good idea.
Yes.
And as the insured gets older, and approaches Medicare eligibility, the value of preventive care in terms of future savings drops ever more sharply.
This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives. Rather than giving the insurance companies bad incentives, and making it illegal for them to respond to them.
This is why I propose that the tax status of employee paid health benefits be extended to such benefits obtained from any source whatsover. Fraternal organizations, Sam’s club, you name it. Let people get their insurance, with the same tax status, through organizations they needn’t leave if they change jobs, and a lot of the problems with the current system are simplified.
This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives. Rather than giving the insurance companies bad incentives, and making it illegal for them to respond to them.
This is why I propose that the tax status of employee paid health benefits be extended to such benefits obtained from any source whatsover. Fraternal organizations, Sam’s club, you name it. Let people get their insurance, with the same tax status, through organizations they needn’t leave if they change jobs, and a lot of the problems with the current system are simplified.
This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives. Rather than giving the insurance companies bad incentives, and making it illegal for them to respond to them.
This is why I propose that the tax status of employee paid health benefits be extended to such benefits obtained from any source whatsover. Fraternal organizations, Sam’s club, you name it. Let people get their insurance, with the same tax status, through organizations they needn’t leave if they change jobs, and a lot of the problems with the current system are simplified.
This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives
yes, single payer.
talk to your representative about it today!
This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives
yes, single payer.
talk to your representative about it today!
This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives
yes, single payer.
talk to your representative about it today!
Brett’s idea is a good one in theory, but would require things like community rating, shall-issue rules and a mandate. Or instead of community rating you could have the equivalent of an ‘assigned-risk’ type rule, whereby each insurer must accept a portion of the unhealthy/uninsurable pool that is proportional to their market share. (Otherwise, you will get the same death-spiral that association-sponsored group life and disability plans have faced. In theory, insureds had *permanent* coverage there; but the plans unravelled due to adverse selection.)
There is also the question of how to deal with highly non-linear cost increases as the insureds age. This problem exists now, and would not go away even with *lifetime* coverage.
Thompson, yes that is a good article. I don’t know exactly how successful we have been or will be in addressing the first derivative of health care costs in this country. My experience in the insurance industry however, is that it is only the past couple of years that have not seen double-digit increases in PREMIUMS. A number of explanations are possible I suppose, including the depressed economy, the ACA, a lull in innovation (as referenced @ Marketwatch).
But one reason why other countries have more room to maneuver in dealing with health care cost increases is that their absolute level is so much lower than ours. And as the Health Affairs essay I posted showed, this is not due to overuse / over utilization in the US. So the price signal / skin in the game theories I keep hearing seem like a bit of a red herring.
High unit input prices is what seems to drive our costs. And the apparent causes of that are monopolistic pricing, a lack of anti-trust enforcement wrt hospitals and provider groups, balkanized insurance customers and artificial scarcity of physicians.
Brett’s idea is a good one in theory, but would require things like community rating, shall-issue rules and a mandate. Or instead of community rating you could have the equivalent of an ‘assigned-risk’ type rule, whereby each insurer must accept a portion of the unhealthy/uninsurable pool that is proportional to their market share. (Otherwise, you will get the same death-spiral that association-sponsored group life and disability plans have faced. In theory, insureds had *permanent* coverage there; but the plans unravelled due to adverse selection.)
There is also the question of how to deal with highly non-linear cost increases as the insureds age. This problem exists now, and would not go away even with *lifetime* coverage.
Thompson, yes that is a good article. I don’t know exactly how successful we have been or will be in addressing the first derivative of health care costs in this country. My experience in the insurance industry however, is that it is only the past couple of years that have not seen double-digit increases in PREMIUMS. A number of explanations are possible I suppose, including the depressed economy, the ACA, a lull in innovation (as referenced @ Marketwatch).
But one reason why other countries have more room to maneuver in dealing with health care cost increases is that their absolute level is so much lower than ours. And as the Health Affairs essay I posted showed, this is not due to overuse / over utilization in the US. So the price signal / skin in the game theories I keep hearing seem like a bit of a red herring.
High unit input prices is what seems to drive our costs. And the apparent causes of that are monopolistic pricing, a lack of anti-trust enforcement wrt hospitals and provider groups, balkanized insurance customers and artificial scarcity of physicians.
Brett’s idea is a good one in theory, but would require things like community rating, shall-issue rules and a mandate. Or instead of community rating you could have the equivalent of an ‘assigned-risk’ type rule, whereby each insurer must accept a portion of the unhealthy/uninsurable pool that is proportional to their market share. (Otherwise, you will get the same death-spiral that association-sponsored group life and disability plans have faced. In theory, insureds had *permanent* coverage there; but the plans unravelled due to adverse selection.)
There is also the question of how to deal with highly non-linear cost increases as the insureds age. This problem exists now, and would not go away even with *lifetime* coverage.
Thompson, yes that is a good article. I don’t know exactly how successful we have been or will be in addressing the first derivative of health care costs in this country. My experience in the insurance industry however, is that it is only the past couple of years that have not seen double-digit increases in PREMIUMS. A number of explanations are possible I suppose, including the depressed economy, the ACA, a lull in innovation (as referenced @ Marketwatch).
But one reason why other countries have more room to maneuver in dealing with health care cost increases is that their absolute level is so much lower than ours. And as the Health Affairs essay I posted showed, this is not due to overuse / over utilization in the US. So the price signal / skin in the game theories I keep hearing seem like a bit of a red herring.
High unit input prices is what seems to drive our costs. And the apparent causes of that are monopolistic pricing, a lack of anti-trust enforcement wrt hospitals and provider groups, balkanized insurance customers and artificial scarcity of physicians.
Brett, I can certainly seem the benefits. But it is not clear how that approach would deal with the fact that a great many people make dramatic changes, over the course of their lives, in where they live, what they do for a living, etc. Which could make determining their risk pool a bit problematic.
Brett, I can certainly seem the benefits. But it is not clear how that approach would deal with the fact that a great many people make dramatic changes, over the course of their lives, in where they live, what they do for a living, etc. Which could make determining their risk pool a bit problematic.
Brett, I can certainly seem the benefits. But it is not clear how that approach would deal with the fact that a great many people make dramatic changes, over the course of their lives, in where they live, what they do for a living, etc. Which could make determining their risk pool a bit problematic.
It is also logical that health care costs would constitute an increasing share of a nation’s economy, at least to some extent.
That is because health care is a relatively human labor-intensive industry, which makes it greatly affected by the Baumol Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease
It is also logical that health care costs would constitute an increasing share of a nation’s economy, at least to some extent.
That is because health care is a relatively human labor-intensive industry, which makes it greatly affected by the Baumol Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease
It is also logical that health care costs would constitute an increasing share of a nation’s economy, at least to some extent.
That is because health care is a relatively human labor-intensive industry, which makes it greatly affected by the Baumol Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease
Not to mention that, for an (adult) individual, the amount of health care generally increases with age. And the age structure of the population is changing from a pyramid to a bullet (flat sides, sloped top) to a beehive (flat sides, even more sloped top). As the fraction of very old people increases, the cost of health care overall rises.
Not to mention that, for an (adult) individual, the amount of health care generally increases with age. And the age structure of the population is changing from a pyramid to a bullet (flat sides, sloped top) to a beehive (flat sides, even more sloped top). As the fraction of very old people increases, the cost of health care overall rises.
Not to mention that, for an (adult) individual, the amount of health care generally increases with age. And the age structure of the population is changing from a pyramid to a bullet (flat sides, sloped top) to a beehive (flat sides, even more sloped top). As the fraction of very old people increases, the cost of health care overall rises.
The economists are re-reading Logan’s Run as we speak (i.e. type).
The economists are re-reading Logan’s Run as we speak (i.e. type).
The economists are re-reading Logan’s Run as we speak (i.e. type).
High unit input prices is what seems to drive our costs. And the apparent causes of that are monopolistic pricing, a lack of anti-trust enforcement wrt hospitals and provider groups, balkanized insurance customers and artificial scarcity of physicians.
Exactly right. The most egregious failures of our health care system are the result of market failure (a feature, not a bug of the “health care market”) and deliberate public policy choices.
High unit input prices is what seems to drive our costs. And the apparent causes of that are monopolistic pricing, a lack of anti-trust enforcement wrt hospitals and provider groups, balkanized insurance customers and artificial scarcity of physicians.
Exactly right. The most egregious failures of our health care system are the result of market failure (a feature, not a bug of the “health care market”) and deliberate public policy choices.
High unit input prices is what seems to drive our costs. And the apparent causes of that are monopolistic pricing, a lack of anti-trust enforcement wrt hospitals and provider groups, balkanized insurance customers and artificial scarcity of physicians.
Exactly right. The most egregious failures of our health care system are the result of market failure (a feature, not a bug of the “health care market”) and deliberate public policy choices.
As the fraction of very old people increases, the cost of health care overall rises.
Given long term productivity trends (past and some reasonably assumed future), this should not be a big social issue as we can shift freed up resources to the health care sector.
We have, alas, chosen otherwise.
As the fraction of very old people increases, the cost of health care overall rises.
Given long term productivity trends (past and some reasonably assumed future), this should not be a big social issue as we can shift freed up resources to the health care sector.
We have, alas, chosen otherwise.
As the fraction of very old people increases, the cost of health care overall rises.
Given long term productivity trends (past and some reasonably assumed future), this should not be a big social issue as we can shift freed up resources to the health care sector.
We have, alas, chosen otherwise.
One universal insurance system, one card, a huge pool to spread costs.
Many choices of plans, as in the FEHB.
Simplification:
Remove the States from the equation, which gives us one insurance regulatory system to deal with, instead of 51 plus Puerto Rico. Cross state lines and you still have your insurance card, which will be accepted everywhere.
Remove employers from the equation, which frees employees to decide their employment without the extra bullsh*t of what-about-my health-plan, which would encourage entrepreneurship and permit corporations to invest their savings in more productive endeavors, including raising salaries and pay levels, research and development, and dividends to shareholders.
No tax deductions for healthcare insurance, thus simplifying the tax code. One Medicare-type of tax, in fact, call it Medicare.
All in, the quick and the dead, pay the same premium and deductible, whatever is required to supplement the Medicare tax/premium deducted from pay checks.
All doctors and medical facilities would be in the network, instead of this stupid patchwork we have now.
As you see, the insurance scheme would permit wide choice among plans, but if you want further simplification, have one country-wide insurance plan, like some European countries which have better overall outcomes and lower overall costs, and stop this ridiculous, annual, time-consuming, unproductive, nail-biting crapapalooza of “shopping” and “comparing” insurance plans, which is merely three-card monte conducted by liars and small-print paranoia peddlers like Chico Marx.
Also, large print via sky-writing by word of mouth.
One universal insurance system, one card, a huge pool to spread costs.
Many choices of plans, as in the FEHB.
Simplification:
Remove the States from the equation, which gives us one insurance regulatory system to deal with, instead of 51 plus Puerto Rico. Cross state lines and you still have your insurance card, which will be accepted everywhere.
Remove employers from the equation, which frees employees to decide their employment without the extra bullsh*t of what-about-my health-plan, which would encourage entrepreneurship and permit corporations to invest their savings in more productive endeavors, including raising salaries and pay levels, research and development, and dividends to shareholders.
No tax deductions for healthcare insurance, thus simplifying the tax code. One Medicare-type of tax, in fact, call it Medicare.
All in, the quick and the dead, pay the same premium and deductible, whatever is required to supplement the Medicare tax/premium deducted from pay checks.
All doctors and medical facilities would be in the network, instead of this stupid patchwork we have now.
As you see, the insurance scheme would permit wide choice among plans, but if you want further simplification, have one country-wide insurance plan, like some European countries which have better overall outcomes and lower overall costs, and stop this ridiculous, annual, time-consuming, unproductive, nail-biting crapapalooza of “shopping” and “comparing” insurance plans, which is merely three-card monte conducted by liars and small-print paranoia peddlers like Chico Marx.
Also, large print via sky-writing by word of mouth.
One universal insurance system, one card, a huge pool to spread costs.
Many choices of plans, as in the FEHB.
Simplification:
Remove the States from the equation, which gives us one insurance regulatory system to deal with, instead of 51 plus Puerto Rico. Cross state lines and you still have your insurance card, which will be accepted everywhere.
Remove employers from the equation, which frees employees to decide their employment without the extra bullsh*t of what-about-my health-plan, which would encourage entrepreneurship and permit corporations to invest their savings in more productive endeavors, including raising salaries and pay levels, research and development, and dividends to shareholders.
No tax deductions for healthcare insurance, thus simplifying the tax code. One Medicare-type of tax, in fact, call it Medicare.
All in, the quick and the dead, pay the same premium and deductible, whatever is required to supplement the Medicare tax/premium deducted from pay checks.
All doctors and medical facilities would be in the network, instead of this stupid patchwork we have now.
As you see, the insurance scheme would permit wide choice among plans, but if you want further simplification, have one country-wide insurance plan, like some European countries which have better overall outcomes and lower overall costs, and stop this ridiculous, annual, time-consuming, unproductive, nail-biting crapapalooza of “shopping” and “comparing” insurance plans, which is merely three-card monte conducted by liars and small-print paranoia peddlers like Chico Marx.
Also, large print via sky-writing by word of mouth.
Meet Michael Cannon, the man who could bring down Obamacare
Meet Michael Cannon, the man who could bring down Obamacare
Meet Michael Cannon, the man who could bring down Obamacare
Cannon, meet Jindal:
Jindal: I don’t think the President should shut down the government.
TODD: So you do want Republicans to fight him on this to the point where it could shut down the government.
JINDAL: I don’t think the President should shut down the government.
Cannon is merely guilty of attempted murder, as of today.
If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, he is a mass murderer.
There is no difference between Cannon breaking into my house and threatening my family and what he is doing right now.
Shoot to kill in either case.
Cannon, meet Jindal:
Jindal: I don’t think the President should shut down the government.
TODD: So you do want Republicans to fight him on this to the point where it could shut down the government.
JINDAL: I don’t think the President should shut down the government.
Cannon is merely guilty of attempted murder, as of today.
If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, he is a mass murderer.
There is no difference between Cannon breaking into my house and threatening my family and what he is doing right now.
Shoot to kill in either case.
Cannon, meet Jindal:
Jindal: I don’t think the President should shut down the government.
TODD: So you do want Republicans to fight him on this to the point where it could shut down the government.
JINDAL: I don’t think the President should shut down the government.
Cannon is merely guilty of attempted murder, as of today.
If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, he is a mass murderer.
There is no difference between Cannon breaking into my house and threatening my family and what he is doing right now.
Shoot to kill in either case.
It is also logical that health care costs would constitute an increasing share of a nation’s economy, at least to some extent.
Not to forget: “health care costs” are that part of GDP whose other name is “health care incomes“. Rising costs bad, rising incomes good, is a fine sentiment, but a self-contradictory one.
We can divide The Economy into sectors in various ways. If we can talk about the “health care sector” we can also talk about the “telecom sector”, and wonder why nobody worries about “rising telecom costs” or “over-utilization of telecom services” or the prospect that “telecom will consume X% of GDP in 20YY”. Maybe grandmothers have taken to saying that “When you have your cellphone, you have everything.”
Whether it’s “health care” or “telecom”, what can be problematic is this: the providers in the sector are few and highly paid; the sector consumes, say, 20% of GDP and turns it into income for only 10% of the population. This imbalance can get out of hand — especially when guilds, patents, and other forms of monopoly are considered so natural as to be sacred.
–TP
It is also logical that health care costs would constitute an increasing share of a nation’s economy, at least to some extent.
Not to forget: “health care costs” are that part of GDP whose other name is “health care incomes“. Rising costs bad, rising incomes good, is a fine sentiment, but a self-contradictory one.
We can divide The Economy into sectors in various ways. If we can talk about the “health care sector” we can also talk about the “telecom sector”, and wonder why nobody worries about “rising telecom costs” or “over-utilization of telecom services” or the prospect that “telecom will consume X% of GDP in 20YY”. Maybe grandmothers have taken to saying that “When you have your cellphone, you have everything.”
Whether it’s “health care” or “telecom”, what can be problematic is this: the providers in the sector are few and highly paid; the sector consumes, say, 20% of GDP and turns it into income for only 10% of the population. This imbalance can get out of hand — especially when guilds, patents, and other forms of monopoly are considered so natural as to be sacred.
–TP
It is also logical that health care costs would constitute an increasing share of a nation’s economy, at least to some extent.
Not to forget: “health care costs” are that part of GDP whose other name is “health care incomes“. Rising costs bad, rising incomes good, is a fine sentiment, but a self-contradictory one.
We can divide The Economy into sectors in various ways. If we can talk about the “health care sector” we can also talk about the “telecom sector”, and wonder why nobody worries about “rising telecom costs” or “over-utilization of telecom services” or the prospect that “telecom will consume X% of GDP in 20YY”. Maybe grandmothers have taken to saying that “When you have your cellphone, you have everything.”
Whether it’s “health care” or “telecom”, what can be problematic is this: the providers in the sector are few and highly paid; the sector consumes, say, 20% of GDP and turns it into income for only 10% of the population. This imbalance can get out of hand — especially when guilds, patents, and other forms of monopoly are considered so natural as to be sacred.
–TP
Tony P. +1
Tony P. +1
Tony P. +1
“This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives
yes, single payer. ”
I take it you’re unclear about the difference between “enable” and “compel”.
“This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives
yes, single payer. ”
I take it you’re unclear about the difference between “enable” and “compel”.
“This is why an actually effective reform would have to involve enabling an individual to stay in the same risk pool their entire lives
yes, single payer. ”
I take it you’re unclear about the difference between “enable” and “compel”.
Ancient hunter-gatherers worried about all the agricultural products being consumed way back when. Then it was the Stone Agers, fretting over all the bronze stuff everyone was into. Bronze Agers then wrung their hands over all the iron goods people seemed to like.
It’s a tale as old as time.
Ancient hunter-gatherers worried about all the agricultural products being consumed way back when. Then it was the Stone Agers, fretting over all the bronze stuff everyone was into. Bronze Agers then wrung their hands over all the iron goods people seemed to like.
It’s a tale as old as time.
Ancient hunter-gatherers worried about all the agricultural products being consumed way back when. Then it was the Stone Agers, fretting over all the bronze stuff everyone was into. Bronze Agers then wrung their hands over all the iron goods people seemed to like.
It’s a tale as old as time.
I take it you’re unclear about the difference between “enable” and “compel”.
go on and show me where i said anything about “compel”.
I take it you’re unclear about the difference between “enable” and “compel”.
go on and show me where i said anything about “compel”.
I take it you’re unclear about the difference between “enable” and “compel”.
go on and show me where i said anything about “compel”.
There’s already an individual mandate. Single payer will just make the rest of the system work that much better.
(Remember when a public option was under discussion, and one of the criticisms was that it would put all the private insurers out of business? Would that be a matter of compelling people to like the government plan, or would that just be enabling?)
There’s already an individual mandate. Single payer will just make the rest of the system work that much better.
(Remember when a public option was under discussion, and one of the criticisms was that it would put all the private insurers out of business? Would that be a matter of compelling people to like the government plan, or would that just be enabling?)
There’s already an individual mandate. Single payer will just make the rest of the system work that much better.
(Remember when a public option was under discussion, and one of the criticisms was that it would put all the private insurers out of business? Would that be a matter of compelling people to like the government plan, or would that just be enabling?)
“go on and show me where i said anything about “compel”.”
“single payer”
How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?
“go on and show me where i said anything about “compel”.”
“single payer”
How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?
“go on and show me where i said anything about “compel”.”
“single payer”
How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?
Yeah, buying my health insurance from the Waltons will enable me to stay in the same risk pool for my whole life. No way they boot me the instant I get sick, what with their renowned concern for the well-being of their fellow humans.
Yeah, buying my health insurance from the Waltons will enable me to stay in the same risk pool for my whole life. No way they boot me the instant I get sick, what with their renowned concern for the well-being of their fellow humans.
Yeah, buying my health insurance from the Waltons will enable me to stay in the same risk pool for my whole life. No way they boot me the instant I get sick, what with their renowned concern for the well-being of their fellow humans.
I think you miss the point, that they wouldn’t be paying for it. They’d just serve as a link to a pool of people, and gain by the fact that people would be motivated not to drop their memberships in Sam’s club.
But, fine, get your insurance through the Democratic party. It would be another chance to prove they could not screw up insurance.
I think you miss the point, that they wouldn’t be paying for it. They’d just serve as a link to a pool of people, and gain by the fact that people would be motivated not to drop their memberships in Sam’s club.
But, fine, get your insurance through the Democratic party. It would be another chance to prove they could not screw up insurance.
I think you miss the point, that they wouldn’t be paying for it. They’d just serve as a link to a pool of people, and gain by the fact that people would be motivated not to drop their memberships in Sam’s club.
But, fine, get your insurance through the Democratic party. It would be another chance to prove they could not screw up insurance.
High deductibles and copays are to medical insurance what radically reduced to no legroom and getting socked for $25 per bag (that’s coming for carry-on, too) and fees for blanket and pillow usage are to airline travel, just another way of transferring the money in your wallet to shareholders and the other owners of corporations.
What are you gonna do, take the train?
Now, many will say, well, profitability is what incentivizes the owners of hospitals, airlines, and medical practices to provide the services, which is true, I suppose, but my solution is that each of us, everyone, should become Hobbesian hedge fund managers to make a living so we can f*ck each other with impunity and drop this pathetic kabuki theater that we are all fellow Americans in the same boat.
“How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?”
How do you get to everything you want in an insurance and medical market without compelling a sizable percentage of people to go without affordable health insurance and medical care altogether?
If you have to use a hospital emergency room, and I hope you don’t, the staff is compelled to provide a minimal (not enough) service to you without the expectation of being paid.
That’s gotta kill you.
I don’t know how you get through your day, what with all the things you are compelled to do one way or another, but I’m glad you’ve adjusted.
High deductibles and copays are to medical insurance what radically reduced to no legroom and getting socked for $25 per bag (that’s coming for carry-on, too) and fees for blanket and pillow usage are to airline travel, just another way of transferring the money in your wallet to shareholders and the other owners of corporations.
What are you gonna do, take the train?
Now, many will say, well, profitability is what incentivizes the owners of hospitals, airlines, and medical practices to provide the services, which is true, I suppose, but my solution is that each of us, everyone, should become Hobbesian hedge fund managers to make a living so we can f*ck each other with impunity and drop this pathetic kabuki theater that we are all fellow Americans in the same boat.
“How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?”
How do you get to everything you want in an insurance and medical market without compelling a sizable percentage of people to go without affordable health insurance and medical care altogether?
If you have to use a hospital emergency room, and I hope you don’t, the staff is compelled to provide a minimal (not enough) service to you without the expectation of being paid.
That’s gotta kill you.
I don’t know how you get through your day, what with all the things you are compelled to do one way or another, but I’m glad you’ve adjusted.
High deductibles and copays are to medical insurance what radically reduced to no legroom and getting socked for $25 per bag (that’s coming for carry-on, too) and fees for blanket and pillow usage are to airline travel, just another way of transferring the money in your wallet to shareholders and the other owners of corporations.
What are you gonna do, take the train?
Now, many will say, well, profitability is what incentivizes the owners of hospitals, airlines, and medical practices to provide the services, which is true, I suppose, but my solution is that each of us, everyone, should become Hobbesian hedge fund managers to make a living so we can f*ck each other with impunity and drop this pathetic kabuki theater that we are all fellow Americans in the same boat.
“How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?”
How do you get to everything you want in an insurance and medical market without compelling a sizable percentage of people to go without affordable health insurance and medical care altogether?
If you have to use a hospital emergency room, and I hope you don’t, the staff is compelled to provide a minimal (not enough) service to you without the expectation of being paid.
That’s gotta kill you.
I don’t know how you get through your day, what with all the things you are compelled to do one way or another, but I’m glad you’ve adjusted.
How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?
The simplest way would be simply to not forbid them from paying someone else.
Such as the way that someone now can got to a doctor who is not included in what their (non-single-payer) insurance will pay for. Either because of not being in that insurance network (or HMO), or just because the doctor finds dealing with insurance too much hassle.
How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?
The simplest way would be simply to not forbid them from paying someone else.
Such as the way that someone now can got to a doctor who is not included in what their (non-single-payer) insurance will pay for. Either because of not being in that insurance network (or HMO), or just because the doctor finds dealing with insurance too much hassle.
How do you get to single payer without compelling people not to have a different payer?
The simplest way would be simply to not forbid them from paying someone else.
Such as the way that someone now can got to a doctor who is not included in what their (non-single-payer) insurance will pay for. Either because of not being in that insurance network (or HMO), or just because the doctor finds dealing with insurance too much hassle.
When Sam’s Club corporate parent, Walmart, provides all of its employees, including part-time, with decent health insurance and medical care, instead of reducing the headcount in its insurance program, the public might be fascinated.
I get my insurance through the Democratic Party, via the FEHB group plan, though I pay full freight.
It works great.
You two will get a healthy portion of your health insurance through the Democratic Party if you choose to sign up for Medicare when it comes time, or if you are unfortunate enough, and I hope you are not in dire straights, when you are admitted into a Medicaid nursing home because no one else will have you and your family is compelled to go to work and doesn’t have time to empty your dribble cup.
You could do it under the Republican plan (it’s a secret — really small print sewn into Paul Ryan’s underpants by his Mom before he went to Ayn Rand summer camp) and proceed directly to the poorhouse or the cemetery, whichever comes first.
When Sam’s Club corporate parent, Walmart, provides all of its employees, including part-time, with decent health insurance and medical care, instead of reducing the headcount in its insurance program, the public might be fascinated.
I get my insurance through the Democratic Party, via the FEHB group plan, though I pay full freight.
It works great.
You two will get a healthy portion of your health insurance through the Democratic Party if you choose to sign up for Medicare when it comes time, or if you are unfortunate enough, and I hope you are not in dire straights, when you are admitted into a Medicaid nursing home because no one else will have you and your family is compelled to go to work and doesn’t have time to empty your dribble cup.
You could do it under the Republican plan (it’s a secret — really small print sewn into Paul Ryan’s underpants by his Mom before he went to Ayn Rand summer camp) and proceed directly to the poorhouse or the cemetery, whichever comes first.
When Sam’s Club corporate parent, Walmart, provides all of its employees, including part-time, with decent health insurance and medical care, instead of reducing the headcount in its insurance program, the public might be fascinated.
I get my insurance through the Democratic Party, via the FEHB group plan, though I pay full freight.
It works great.
You two will get a healthy portion of your health insurance through the Democratic Party if you choose to sign up for Medicare when it comes time, or if you are unfortunate enough, and I hope you are not in dire straights, when you are admitted into a Medicaid nursing home because no one else will have you and your family is compelled to go to work and doesn’t have time to empty your dribble cup.
You could do it under the Republican plan (it’s a secret — really small print sewn into Paul Ryan’s underpants by his Mom before he went to Ayn Rand summer camp) and proceed directly to the poorhouse or the cemetery, whichever comes first.
Marty doesn’t get one of these until he’s exhausted his deductible:
http://tbo.com/health/new-hospital-gown-designed-to-cover-patients-rears-20141119/
😉
Marty doesn’t get one of these until he’s exhausted his deductible:
http://tbo.com/health/new-hospital-gown-designed-to-cover-patients-rears-20141119/
😉
Marty doesn’t get one of these until he’s exhausted his deductible:
http://tbo.com/health/new-hospital-gown-designed-to-cover-patients-rears-20141119/
😉
Now, many will say, well, profitability is what incentivizes the owners of hospitals, airlines, and medical practices to provide the services
Oddly, I remember learning somewhere along the line that people worked not just to get money, but because they derived satisfaction from doing some useful thing well.
Here is why this country is going down the drain:
We’ve elevated profitability from a desirable and necessary condition of working, to its overriding end and purpose.
It’s a freaking mental disorder. Maybe some kind of prion is involved.
Now, many will say, well, profitability is what incentivizes the owners of hospitals, airlines, and medical practices to provide the services
Oddly, I remember learning somewhere along the line that people worked not just to get money, but because they derived satisfaction from doing some useful thing well.
Here is why this country is going down the drain:
We’ve elevated profitability from a desirable and necessary condition of working, to its overriding end and purpose.
It’s a freaking mental disorder. Maybe some kind of prion is involved.
Now, many will say, well, profitability is what incentivizes the owners of hospitals, airlines, and medical practices to provide the services
Oddly, I remember learning somewhere along the line that people worked not just to get money, but because they derived satisfaction from doing some useful thing well.
Here is why this country is going down the drain:
We’ve elevated profitability from a desirable and necessary condition of working, to its overriding end and purpose.
It’s a freaking mental disorder. Maybe some kind of prion is involved.
Buy the insurance, we’ll stiff you.
Abort the fetus, we’ll arrest you.
Have the baby, we’ll bankrupt you.
The republican plan in a nutshell.
The nutshell is extra.
Buy the insurance, we’ll stiff you.
Abort the fetus, we’ll arrest you.
Have the baby, we’ll bankrupt you.
The republican plan in a nutshell.
The nutshell is extra.
Buy the insurance, we’ll stiff you.
Abort the fetus, we’ll arrest you.
Have the baby, we’ll bankrupt you.
The republican plan in a nutshell.
The nutshell is extra.
Link to that:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/family-faces-1m-medical-bill-184047328.html
Again, a business site, not Commiesforcondoms.comdom
Link to that:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/family-faces-1m-medical-bill-184047328.html
Again, a business site, not Commiesforcondoms.comdom
Link to that:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/family-faces-1m-medical-bill-184047328.html
Again, a business site, not Commiesforcondoms.comdom
Russell, an example of your 4:20 pm comment:
You can count on Wall Street to reward any corporate fracking of their employees or their customers.
Read the attached links below the stock chart to get the full gist:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=JBLU&insttype=Stock&freq=2&show=&time=13
For those wondering, if you want to invest in the only airline that doesn’t charge baggage fees, there is Southwest Airlines.
I’m doing so in a few weeks.
Can’t say the same for legroom; it’s sardine seating in coach.
Coach? More like Boxcar.
Russell, an example of your 4:20 pm comment:
You can count on Wall Street to reward any corporate fracking of their employees or their customers.
Read the attached links below the stock chart to get the full gist:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=JBLU&insttype=Stock&freq=2&show=&time=13
For those wondering, if you want to invest in the only airline that doesn’t charge baggage fees, there is Southwest Airlines.
I’m doing so in a few weeks.
Can’t say the same for legroom; it’s sardine seating in coach.
Coach? More like Boxcar.
Russell, an example of your 4:20 pm comment:
You can count on Wall Street to reward any corporate fracking of their employees or their customers.
Read the attached links below the stock chart to get the full gist:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=JBLU&insttype=Stock&freq=2&show=&time=13
For those wondering, if you want to invest in the only airline that doesn’t charge baggage fees, there is Southwest Airlines.
I’m doing so in a few weeks.
Can’t say the same for legroom; it’s sardine seating in coach.
Coach? More like Boxcar.
JetBlue is, of course, starting from a fairly roomy ration of seating space.
About those ACA premium increases:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/11/21/premium-insulation/
JetBlue is, of course, starting from a fairly roomy ration of seating space.
About those ACA premium increases:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/11/21/premium-insulation/
JetBlue is, of course, starting from a fairly roomy ration of seating space.
About those ACA premium increases:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/11/21/premium-insulation/
Marketwatch on American medical blahblah, Part IV:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-care-costs-its-time-for-patients-to-take-control-2014-11-20?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I find this one to be pretty thin beer, but it does explain to Marty, for example, why he has high deductibles.
It wasn’t my idea.
It was the idea of mainstream conservative behavioral economists.
Now shop.
Marketwatch on American medical blahblah, Part IV:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-care-costs-its-time-for-patients-to-take-control-2014-11-20?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I find this one to be pretty thin beer, but it does explain to Marty, for example, why he has high deductibles.
It wasn’t my idea.
It was the idea of mainstream conservative behavioral economists.
Now shop.
Marketwatch on American medical blahblah, Part IV:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-care-costs-its-time-for-patients-to-take-control-2014-11-20?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I find this one to be pretty thin beer, but it does explain to Marty, for example, why he has high deductibles.
It wasn’t my idea.
It was the idea of mainstream conservative behavioral economists.
Now shop.
til you drop.
And if you feel you are going to drop, put it off til next year to save money.
til you drop.
And if you feel you are going to drop, put it off til next year to save money.
til you drop.
And if you feel you are going to drop, put it off til next year to save money.