« Caudaphobia - The Tragedy of the Tails | Main | Scattershots – 22jun15 (updated 27jun15) »

21 June 2015

Comments

Todd Juvinall

I only speak for myself Kesti, why do you ask?

Todd Juvinall

Fish 6:59 AM

That is the question and the answer is of course YES> The left is in bed with the government agencies who then send them grants worth billions and on on the merry-go-round. The taxpayers get hosed the place is going to hell. But NRDC etal get their pie of the pie.

fish

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 25 June 2015 at 07:06 AM

I'm sure that "True Believer"™ approves.

Todd Juvinall

I wonder how the "true believers" Iphones will get charged when they shut down all the coal plants. Revolution!

fish

SCOTUS decisions flowing like water.

Looks like Steve will be seeing forced demographic changes in Truckee....I'm sure he approves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-upholds-key-tool-used-by-obama-administration-to-fight-housing-biasw/2015/06/25/5851fa2a-1b43-11e5-bed8-1093ee58dad0_story.html


...and in the "the law is what we say it is not what legislators, regulators, and bureaucrats actually write down" category looks like federal Obamacare subsidies will continue to flow to states without state plans.

...and the left wonders why we aren't similarly awed by the magnificence of government?!

fish

'In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase'...


...for only they possess the power of divination...to know the mind of god.


There is a reason that these guys wear priestly garments.

Todd Juvinall

I knew the SCOTUS would do this. They are part of the Government and protect it at all costs. Roberts is the turn coat like Earl Warren was. We can expect more government hegemony and less individual rights as the SCOTUS make up from whole cloth this stuff. We must disavow Marbury v Madison and return the SCOTUS to a lesser role as envisioned by the Founders. It will get worse and worse and we see why no one believes these are pointy heads are smart. They are just bureaucrats. God help the country.

We are all just stupid in their eyes. The words really don't say what they say and so GRUBER wins! And he was right! Only he was right about issue as SCOTUS is now the panel of derision.

Jon

How'd you like to be sitting round the dinner table at the Scalia house tonight? LOL.

fish

Posted by: Jon | 25 June 2015 at 07:51 AM

One of the perks of being old and protected from from most government diktats.

I'm sure he'll be sharing a wry chuckle at his congress, his fellow justices and the citizenry in general.

fish

Posted by: Jeff Pelline | 25 June 2015 at 07:56 AM


Other than your natural inclination to cause local seismic disturbances in the Nevada City area by "Rolling on floor, laughing out loud" why are you chuckling at this mornings events?

Gregory

The progressive knee jerk ad hominems never stop. They're not my cup of tea but one only needs to peruse the website to find evidence the "Center for Security Policy" is anything but a "right wing wacko tank. Planet Paranoia. Its the modern version of the Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming". They're a serious group.

It is a right wing 501c3 thinktank lauded by the likes of Ronald Reagan. Honest and serious actors on the stage (not including "Jon") would take what that Center has written and attack that critically rather than just pointing and issuing a guttural scream ala Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Gregory

"I only speak for myself Kesti, why do you ask?" -Todd

Because you used the royal "We" which indicates you were speaking for all, and I'm quite sure that was not the case. Kesti was spot on.

Todd Juvinall

Actually I thought the SCOTUS made themselves irrelevant when they tossed Prop 187 out. So for me this is not a surprise. They don't care what the people pass as voters, they don't care what the State's desire and now they can't even follow the law they swore to uphold. The "plain reading" of a word or phrases is what they are taught. That is no longer the case. So, anyone expecting justice from the SCOTUS new lib majority, good luck.

Also, I never cared for the California Supremes either. When I was active in politics and we had Republican governors, they appointes "conservative" justices. Well, they never saw a property rights case they wouldn't screw the property owner over for. They all become bureaucrats.

Todd Juvinall

I love when people correct me. LOL!

Gregory

Somewhere in the recent past I suggested the SCOTUS vote would be 5-4 tanking Obamacare or 6-3 upholding it, with Roberts writing the opinion which is the Chief's prerogative . Roberts would have voted to tank, but by siding with the five who formed the majority he could limit the damage.

Elections mean things and one of the most lasting acts of a president is the makeup of the SCOTUS.

Ben Emery

Todd,
"We must disavow Marbury v Madison and return the SCOTUS to a lesser role as envisioned by the Founders."

I agree.

fish

Posted by: Gregory | 25 June 2015 at 08:17 AM


I'm looking forward to years of entertainment resulting from this!

Todd Juvinall

Well if the Republicans can use this decision to take the White House, perhaps things may change. But I have no confidence that would be the case. I saw the people running and winning office become part of the bureaucracy rather than what I believes was the purpose of elections. So, all this is just hooey. The American people are not interested in "nuance" decisions. One only needs to read the SCOTUS decision on "wetlands" from last decade to see how the bureaucracy twists things to maintain the status quo and their power.

The SCOTUS is making law and that was supposed to be the venue of the Legislature or the people. The slippery slope is occupied.

Todd Juvinall

Ben Emery, welcome aboard.

Barry Pruett

Todd:

"We must disavow Marbury v. Madison and return the SCOTUS to a lesser role as envisioned by the Founders." I think that John Roberts agrees with you.

Honestly, the Supreme Court should be finding paths that uphold legislation from the People (by and through our elected representatives). It is very clear that both Roberts and Kennedy are of this same school of thought. Whether or not Obamacare should exist is a political decision and not really a decision for the Court.

That said, tomorrow will be more interesting in connection with redistricting and same-sex marriage.

Todd Juvinall

Barry, as an attorney are you not taught that words mean what they say? That is apparently not the case with Roberts. Twice he has created law and that is not how things were set up. Common people read the Gruberized wording as plain language, so if Roberts and Kennedy wanted to be true legal people they would have read the language as the common folks do. Oh, and thirty plus states!

Barry Pruett

First, Obamacare is a tax. That is pretty clear.

Second, and if the president is expanding upon the law and not executing the laws as written, the People cannot rely on the Court all of the time. Congress can impeach the president, but because Gingrich et al decided to try to impeach Clinton for a stain on a blue dress, the American public is very jaded about such constitutional provision.

I like that stayed out of it. I wish that they would do that more often.

Ben Emery

Todd,
Been on board for a long time.

Barry,
They were very careful in the wording of this law. I am glad the court upheld the law in the case.

Todd Juvinall

Barry who stayed out of what?

fish

Posted by: Ben Emery | 25 June 2015 at 08:57 AM


Indeed! Upholding the will of the masses. Just like they will do with the TPP.

Jon

Good for SCOTUS in interpreting the meaning of the words. I think we all agree that with the billions of words contained in historic legislation, mistakes are made. It finally became clear to Roberts and Kennedy that without the Federal exchange the entire financial structure of the ACA would have imploded. Of course that was not the intent of Congress.

Amazingly John Boehner came out this morning and doubled down on the Republican desire to keep fighting this law. The guy is delusional and irrational. How about proposals to fix provisions that are not effective or efficient? Oh no, that's not what the base wants..

Barry Pruett

Ben said: "They were very careful in the wording of this law."

I think that the exact opposite is true. The democrats and the president rushed an ill-conceived and poorly worded statute through Congress by a dubious procedural method. I am only glad that the Court stayed out of a legislative issue, and I hope that this trend continues.

On a political note and in order to get any fundamental healthcare reform, a Republican president needs to be elected who will actually work with Congress in an honest fashion and without all of the arrogance.

Ben Emery

Fish,
Just because I like the ruling and feel that it was correct in this case doesn't mean I like this court. Affordable Care Act was very carefully written to withstand all these attempts to deny millions of Americans health insurance/ health care. I think that is one of the reasons why it took thousands of pages. I didn't support the law when voted on because of the way the bill was created and there was not a public option, which 70% of American's supported. Once passed I support the law and will do whatever I can to make it better and expand to all Americans.

I support Single Payer Health Systems at the state level with a national/ federal base being mandatory. This guarantees all people access to health care. Private Health Insurance then becoming strictly supplemental if you do not feel the state insurance program gives you enough coverage or care. It makes basic health care a human right not a privilege in America. We will join the rest of the developed world.

Ben Emery

Barry,
So far every time challenged in the courts the wording has stood up to the test. I would say that is very carefully written.

I agree with you on how the law was created. If I were the republicans that is the angle I would challenge the law but then again the republicans pass laws through dubious procedural methods all of the time.

Maybe cutting off their noses to spite their face might actually start the domino effect of getting all of this corruption out of our government.

Jon

Todd, do you really see a whole lot of anger out there about the SCOTUS decision today? Where would it be - Fox and Friends? Don't watch it so don't know. I know my friends with their small home business really appreciate it, when they were finally able to finally afford coverage and get hooked up with a doctor for their little girl with needs. You would have pulled it out from under them?

Todd Juvinall

Actually Barry yhey jumped right into the legislative process. Roberts created a tax so he could uphold the law. Now he says the words don't mean what they say. My goodness, this just makes more people say who cares. The courts are now corrupt and Roberts is leading the way.

fish

Posted by: Ben Emery | 25 June 2015 at 09:43 AM


Ben you are a very nice man but you are mistaken. Had this law been better written there would certainly not been this court case. One of the primary architects of the law admitted that it was passed using less than ethical means.

It is now incumbent upon congress to make their monster work.

I look forward to seeing them do that.

Jon

Todd, did you really say that Chief Justice Roberts is CORRUPT?
Pretty serious charge for an incredibly respected jurist. So what you are saying is that GW Bush was an idiot for nominating him? You would have preferred Harriet Myers- the family lawyer? LOL.

Todd Juvinall

Jon 9:61 AM

Don't watch Fox and Friends so I have no idea what they say.

All the millions that lost their insurance and their doctors believing what Obama said over 23 times does not bother you Jonnie? Where that $2,500 a year saving for the working people? The deductible skyrockets to many thousands of dollars for the poor doesn't bother you jnnie? You are just a liberal foot soldier for this and could care less about the real world affects are. Besides, we were told there were forty million uninsured poor and this boondoggle has supposedly helped 8 million? And those are subsidized by working people. And what about the "cadillac" plans that people paid extra for to get better medical care on the free market. ObamaCare will now tax them into oblivion. Jeeze, why are you such a sychpoant for the farce? Seig Heil Jonnie!

Todd Juvinall

Jonnie, yes corrupt in the sense of being a terrible lawyer. I have no idea if he owns medical stock or has a relative in the field. Who knows. No he is corrupting the common people's idea of what justice means (Maybe the blacks are on to something?). The true meaning of words. You can do your own research to see if he is beholden to something or someone or maybe blackmailed. That is not my meaning.

Jon

Todd, you don't know what you are talking about in regard to health insurance. The poor can obtain get on one of the many new Medi-Cal policies in CA- there are no sky high deductibles. If you are in FL with idiot governor, you are indeed out of luck. As for the middle class, I've had sky high deductibles for nearly a decade now with group coverage- its the reality of nearly all group private insurance. The ACA only has no deductibles for high cost major medical costs, which one could argue should be lower. But for the first time, millions of people have some small protections against having to go bankrupt if they have an accident or come down with a chronic illness. I am with Ben- the best model would be an expanded Medicare for all- some type of universal coverage.

Jon

typo- meant to say- The ACA only has HIGH deductibles for high cost major medical costs.

Ben Emery

Fish,
My guess it was written so it could withstand these challenges, therefore carefully written. Or would you prefer politically written description? I agree with ethics part of your statement.


Todd,
It was written as a tax, Roberts didn't make that up out of think air. One of the benefits of not belonging to either the D's or R's I listen to interviews from both camps. They were talking about the tax long before it reached SCOTUS.

Jon

Todd and other Republican politicos- you would seem to favor making this a 2016 campaign issue.

BEST OF LUCK TO YOU! I do wish you well.

Jon

Todd, totally disagree with you about the literal meaning of words and the SCOTUS purpose. The highest calling of the Court is to INTERPRET and uncover INTENT. Not just rely solely on a poorly written sentence or phrase in some piece of legislation.

Todd Juvinall

No you don't Jonnie. You wish us ill. The Tea Party will now generate more candidates to boot out the lefty and repubs that they feel are not looking out for America. I am not a member.

Regarding the ACA jonnie. Tell us all how you know what you know and we don't. You say I don't know what I am talking about so tell us how you know. My guess is crickets.

Todd Juvinall

Jonnie 10:16 AM

How do you know that? Who told you that? Jeeze, you don't know squat. They are to say if a law is Constitutional not interpret and rewrite legislation. My goodness are you a product of public schools?

Jon

fish 9:56- It is now incumbent upon congress to make their monster work. I look forward to seeing them do that.

Could not agree more, fish. Boehner is making a massive tactical mistake right now if we are to take him at his word today. The dour sounding moron wants to keep fighting the ACA. But he and his party have a great opportunity to actually do something to fix it-and use it in 2016 as a campaign issue. Obama has said he is fully open to working on those things. Surely Mitch McConnell and the Senate would go along.

fish

Posted by: Ben Emery | 25 June 2015 at 10:13 AM

My guess it was written so it could withstand these challenges, therefore carefully written.

Well then it hasn't been "carefully written" it's been carefully rewritten by SCOTUS decisions.

"Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax.

The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion.

Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Congress now needs to make this work....how they will do that remains a mystery.

George Rebane

Apologies for the tardy post on today's SCOTUS ruling here -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2015/06/the-really-supreme-supreme-court.html

Jon

Todd, same public schools as you. LOL. BTW, they already determined the law was constitutional, it was not at issue in this decision.

Todd Juvinall

Sorry jonnie, this illegal act by the SCOTUS will galvanize the people and more democrats will get booted at all levels of the country. The Presidency is assured now for a Republican. This will be the gift that keeps on giving for the "right". Then when the old broad Ginzburg leaves as well as Breyer, we can be a lot more certain to get conservatives who know the Constitution.

Jon

Todd, I say- Go Go Tea Party!

Oh, but too bad it had its peak about 5 years long years ago when people got mad about the financial crash. Last November, its favored candidates were swamped by the establishment almost everywhere in America.

Todd Juvinall

The law was created by SCOTUS jonnie. Van't you read?

Barry Pruett

Today on CNN when asked by Wolf Blitzer about skyrocketing health insurance costs for the majority of Americans, Jen Psaki replied with all of the responses by Jon above - 16 million with insurance, pre-existing condition coverage, etc. She never answered the question asked by Blitzer, and being a horrible journalist and in the tank for the democrats (like our local leftwing blowhard), he did not press for a direct answer. The answer is that healthcare premium are up nearly 80%, and the administration's position evidence by their non-answer is as follows: It is okay that middle class Americans are paying significantly more for health insurance because they are subsidizing others. Any replacement to Obamacare will likely include the popular provisions, but we need to get the exploding costs for middle class Americans under control.

Jon

Todd 10:27- you're a real class act there. Nice stuff. But don't believe you have a very good history at political prognostication.

Galvanize which people? Its over Todd. Tweak the ACA, but its going nowhere.

The Tea Party hasn't been able to galvanize anything of note since about 2010. Suddenly another grass roots, angry, white, conservative male group is going to emerge for 2016?

Ben Emery

Fish, 25 June 2015 at 10:24 AM

That is very interesting for sure. I will look into it and get back to you.

Jon

Barry, under an ACA model, I would actually support the movement away from group employer provided coverage, to an individual, subsidized/sliding scale coverage with means testing. Yes, employer group coverages are seeing increased premiums. But whats new- I've seen that for the last 20 years or so, forcing groups to take higher deductibles. This was years before the ACA or anyone had heard of Barack Obama. Millions of people and businesses were having a tough time with their coverage long before ACA. Right after ACA was passed employer group premiums finally started leveling off a bit. My experience is that premiums are not exploding now, but they are starting to go back up at higher rates, with the same high deductibles. As ACA remains, I believe it should be expanded to everyone so the risk pools will start to even out and make more sense. Employer group coverage makes very little sense under this model, because it takes all the profitable healthy people out of the ACA pools.

Paul Emery

Well the Repubs are breathing a collective sigh of relief with today's SCOTUS decision affirming the Constitutionality of Obamacare. If it would have gone the other way they would have had to actually do something about health care, something they have been unable to do in the past.

Barry Pruett

Jon said: "My experience is that premiums are not exploding now, but they are starting to go back up at higher rates, with the same high deductibles." That may be your experience personally, but that I not the fact on the ground for middle class Americans.

Jon said: "But whats new- I've seen that for the last 20 years or so, forcing groups to take higher deductibles. This was years before the ACA or anyone had heard of Barack Obama. Millions of people and businesses were having a tough time with their coverage long before ACA."

Except that the law passed to lower premiums according to Obama and democrats. A dubious claim that the Washington Post gave three Pinocchios.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-claim-that-insurance-premiums-will-go-down/2012/08/09/424048f2-e245-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_blog.html

Jon

Barry, how about my idea of scrapping the ancient idea of employer-based coverage? I believe its time has come. Business should benefit and the market becomes more rational, as opposed to this current near-insane model of confused group, individual and government coverage.

fish

Posted by: Jon | 25 June 2015 at 11:24 AM

Is this your area of expertise Jon? I'm interested in your, "near-insane model of confused group, individual and government coverage" claim.

Paul Emery

Single payer (medicare for all) is the only viable option. It will come to that eventually.

fish

Posted by: Paul Emery | 25 June 2015 at 11:07 AM

Actually you're mistaken Paul. The constitutionality of the act was already affirmed. This was to determine if the law would be interpreted as written. It wasn't.

fish

Posted by: Paul Emery | 25 June 2015 at 11:29 AM

You'll need to elaborate on this statement a bit Paul. Actuarially Medicare is already doomed. This isn't my contention it's the contention of people who understand (and report honestly about) Medicare.

Gregory

An actual free market in health care and insurance is the only viable option but that may just got pushed back a few score years. We still have not gotten the one real reform that would make a difference to the private insurance market... make employer paid plans taxable income, with a one time adjustment of the tax rates to make that revenue neutral rather than a windfall to the IRS.

Ben Emery

Paul,
Oddly enough it was Ted Kennedy that killed a bill that was very close to the Affordable Care Act that President Nixon promoted. Republicans have advocated just about everything in ACA for decades and Romney actually got it passed in MA. The funny think about it is was a response to the Single Payer advocates who have been relentless on pressuring our federal government since the Truman administration. Now we have another conservative Democrat as President who wants their health care reforms they oppose it for partisan purposes.

RomneyCare=ObamaCare=NixonCare=DoleCare

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/239725-romneycareobamacarenixoncaredolecare

It has good aspects and much needed regulations on industry but still falls short of its ultimate goal, affordable access to health care for all Americans. Now this part is in place we need to get to work on finishing the job.

Health Care For All California

http://www.healthcareforall.org/

Jon

yes fish, I follow the system pretty closely in work and personal life. Some type of single payer is the obvious successor to this cobbled system in the future, but for now, seems the employer model is the problematic piece. Medicare and Medi-Cal/Medicaid is going nowhere, as their are tens of millions fully dependent on this for survival. Best to build off this and create something sustainable with healthier young people in the pool.

Jon

Gregory, yes, your idea about taxing group employer group health plans will lead to the end of that market. An inevitable outcome.

Todd Juvinall

Only a true free system in health care insurance will work. That means the government stay out of it with demands for these free marketers to cover things. I never did understand how that took place in America. If I want to start a company that only wants to insure (offer) to diabetics, why can't I? How is it the government can tell a private company what they can and cannot cover?

Gregory

That was Milton Friedman's idea, not mine, Steve, from decades ago. It's income earned by the employee, and the fact that it isn't taxed by accident of pre-WWII tax law and the popularity of it as a wage and price control dodge is the reason why we have the distortion of Cadillac Plans in the first place. There could still be employer plans and there probably would be, assuming the employer really could put together something that looked better than what was on the private market with risk pools being, at the minimum, the local congressional district.

The Cadillac Plan would have gone in the first wave of Obamascare except that it's a darling of labor unions without which the Democratic Party would be losing far more often. That sacred cow started bellowing when the knife was unsheathed and so has been spared.

Todd Juvinall

The cadillac plan is still in place and will conveniently be discussed after Jan 20, 2017.

Jon

Todd, there is of course no free market in healthcare, never can be. So how can you design a full free market payment system around a totally skewed delivery system? You want people having to pay $100,000 out of pocket for an MRI or $1000 just for the privilege to see a Neurologist or GI doctor?

This goes without saying- but there is no free market healthcare delivery system and never can be. Unless you think healthcare is not a human right. If you only want the rich to have healthcare, just say it. Then your free market financing system would work. There is a very limited supply of providers due to the natural barriers to entry/natural limit on who can be a doctor, PA, NP, while at the same time we see increasingly high demand for those very limited health care providers and services, due to demographics and health patterns and demands for technologies, drugs, modern treatments, etc. So what are you going to do to balance this out? Allow your car mechanic to operate on you?

Jon

Steve?..whatever Gregory.

Todd Juvinall

Jonnie do you really understand what you are saying here?

You tell me how the government can tell a free market industry like health insurance, what they can and cannot cover? Where is it in the Constitution and how does the capitalist sytem envision it? It doesn;t and isn't. In fact the document says they cannot interfere with "contracts"

If I only want to supply health insurance to pregnant women why do I have to cover all the rest?

Also, if the true cost of the MRI is $10,000 and you pay $1,000, where does that $9,000 difference come from? Economics 101 must have been while you were sleeping?

Jon

The health insurance industry, the entire healthcare industry is NOT free market. Somehow you believe it is. So, there is nothing more to debate with you on this topic.

Todd Juvinall

Say what? I have pointed out that it is NOT a free market. Are you dense? Read what I said above and try to digest it carefully rather than shooting from the lip. Jeeze!

Jon

I'm saying healthcare cannot be a free market. Ever. By its very nature.
You think it can. So, there is nothing more to talk about.

Gregory

Let's dissect what "Jon", almost certainly Steven Frisch of the "Sierra Business Council" that isn't a council of businesses, has written:

"This goes without saying- but there is no free market healthcare delivery system and never can be. Unless you think healthcare is not a human right. If you only want the rich to have healthcare, just say it. Then your free market financing system would work."

Classic straw man fallacy by the double talking Frisch. There was a free market in health care in the USA before the WWII distortions of the insurance market, before the Medicare came along with the government refusing to pay in full for the cost of Medicare services which caused providers like hospitals to shift costs to everyone else. Folks who had employer based insurance had their bully to stand up to the hospital bullies. The rich could just pay. The poor had medicaid, the middle class, if they got sick without insurance, became poor and, if they lived through it, would then get medicare or medicaid.

"There is a very limited supply of providers due to the natural barriers to entry/natural limit on who can be a doctor, PA, NP, while at the same time we see increasingly high demand for those very limited health care providers and services, due to demographics and health patterns and demands for technologies, drugs, modern treatments, etc."

The intentional blindness inherent in this rant is truly amazing. The barriers are anything but natural; the Feds enable the supply fixing of the medical guild that controls supply... the American Medical Association. It is so difficult to get into med school because of the unwillingness of big medicine to actually have enough seats in med schools, driving Americans to attend foreign med schools in order to have the career they want, once they jump through the hoops of getting their education recognized. Note also the paucity of MD's in the ranks of H1B visa holders.

"So what are you going to do to balance this out? Allow your car mechanic to operate on you?"

Provide the seats in med school and allow as many to graduate and practice medicine as can pass solid tests of their expertise. Change the truly bizarre financial structure of hospitals, admit all who have their offices within the hospital are actually hospital employees and let them hire the best they can find at the price they can afford to pay.

And, starting now, actually reforming tort law which was untouched by Pelosi/Reid/Obamacare because trial lawyers are yet another Democratic Party sacred cow would help. Does everyone remember what democratic VP candidate built himself a 28 THOUSAND square foot home and how he earned the money?
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848

Straw man bullshit. Steve, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Jon

No I am not Steve Frisch. I thought you had 15 degrees and would be able to figure that out on your own?

Jon

Gregory, the piece you and Todd are missing is that MEDICARE is not going anywhere. Your entire premise in imagining healthcare are free market, is that Medicare needs to be destroyed. Ain't happening. HUNDREDS of millions of present and future recipients are not going to ever scrap Medicare. Modify it, reform it-OF COURSE. But will never be scrapped. The system will never be your Uncle Milty vision of a free market. Can't be. I know you would be fine with economic discrimination of services, but 90% of Americans won't be.

Gregory

Nice use of ad hominem to avoid writing about the issues, "Jon". I demolished your 12:01 and you have chosen not to refute it.

Todd Juvinall

No one said anything about Medicare going anywhere jonnie. The saps in the middle class pay into it. Why should they get zip? The poor are covered by Medicaid, a free handout and now Ocare all of which are subsidized (mostly by tax on corporate profits). So if that is where you want all your tax money to go, fine. I would like to see the country allow more freedom from mandates (they are unconstitutional in my view anyway) and within a short period of time the solutions will be there and much better. But as you believe healthcare is a "right" then you probably are correct that the debate is over and you can scurry back under your bridge.

I really enjoy seeing my tax money going to fix the teeth of all those meth addicts. Warms the cockles of my heart.

Gregory

"Your entire premise in imagining healthcare are free market, is that Medicare needs to be destroyed."

More pure straw man horseshit from "Jon". No, it doesn't need to be "destroyed", it needs to pay the actual cost of providing the care that it pretends to be buying. The sick healthcare system, the huge increase in costs to the private patients, is largely the shifting of much of the inadequate compensation forced by the admission of medicare and medicaid patients onto people who aren't in on the "negotiations".

The Federal government doesn't "negotiate" payment schedules in good faith; they KNOW private insurers and the uninsured have been carrying much of that load.

Todd Juvinall

One last rant. When the SCOTUS tossed Prop 187, they left in place the massive expenditures California makes on the free medical, schooling and myriad other free programs for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! So the SCOTUS tossed the people's vote, just as they are doing with marriage and we are just supposed to sit there and take it? The rise of different groups is because they feel they are not being heard. Anyway, thank the SCOTUS for sending your roads pothole money to fund a interpreter for a illegal criminal in the court system arrested for doing a pre teen.

Jon

You didn't destroy anything Gregory. Reforming the AMA- while not a bad idea- alone is not going to magically turn the healthcare industry into a free market system. Already touched on the other factors- technology, demographics, regulatory, governmental involvement (NOT going away), financial, national belief in healthcare as a right, etc.

Gregory

I've never had a problem with the concept that the rich get better health care than I do, Steve/Jeff/"Jon" and if you make it such that everyone has to get the same care it will be rationed and the rich will fly their GulfStream to the nearest luxury hospital.

Jon

hell, you're the one with a plane Gregory, so I will accept that you will get better care than me in the future.

Gregory

There is no claim of any magic bullets, Steve/Jeff, and the way to restoring any free market is to break down all those distortions one by one.

It's so soothing to call healthcare a "right". By that you mean you have a right to demand doctors, nurses, hospitals, work for free to give you the care you want, or that you have a right to demand the government to take money from your neighbors and force the healthcare providers a sum that they can demand they accept as payment? Please be specific how this "right" actually gets transformed into what you are entitled.

So, you think the Founders of the country erred in not following up the Bill of Rights with a Bill of Entitlements?

Jon

nope. They couldn't possibly look into the future and find millions of Americans bankrupted by our healthcare system. Since there was nothing to imagine 250 years ago, I would prefer to follow the sentiments of almost all other civilized nations in their approach to healthcare.

Gregory

Ahh, the politics of envy at work. Nice one, Jeff/Steve/"Jon". I have a plane, so therefore I must be rich.

It's more a truism that I have an airplane and therefore I used to be rich. The guaranteed path to having a small fortune in aviation is to start with a large fortune.

Yes, I have a plane, it first flew when Lyndon Baines Johnson was President and I'm nearing 1400 hours of logged time as pilot since my first flight as a Sophomore in college. I earned the right to fly myself and others, including under instruments, "flying blind". One of the mechanics at a local airport has a 1947 version of the type 35 and, when he needed to replace an aileron (look it up) found that the ailerons from recent type 36 even still have the same part number.

So, Jeff/Steve/"Jon", why the sin of envy? Is it because you don't know how to fly, because you don't know anyone who will fly you where you want to go, because you don't have the native ability to aviate, navigate and communicate or because you need a 777 to be able to fit through the door?

Gregory

People die in Canada and France because of the way they have chosen to ration care, Steve/Jeff/"Jon". The universal care you seek will not be the care the rich get for all, it will be the standard substandard care that is defined to be usual and customary. Aww, you're 66 and your kidneys have failed? We'll make you as comfortable as we can, but at that age dialysis really isn't the best choice.

No, there won't be a "death panel"; it will just be coded up in the system's authorization software module.

Jon

Wow. Nothing more I can add.

Jon

Can we assume Gregory won't be signing the HEALTHCARE FOR ALL petition at their booth outside BriarPatch anytime soon.

Gregory

I can't afford Briar Patch since they moved from Joerschke Drive, "Jon". I did enjoy patronizing the Commie Co-op (the first time I walked into that location there were three periodicals on the rack that had smiling caricatures of Karl Marx on the covers) back in the old days but thrift has forced me into the Gross Me Outlet and Costco in order to keep me in eggs and decent hootch.

Being a middle class pilot means making choices. The new Briar Patch was easy to drop, the worst value in groceries in the County.

Jon

I go for their hot and cold food bar mostly. And local produce. And wine. And their sale items, which are great deals sometime. Unbelievably good prepared food though- worth a treat once in a while.

And nice people staffing the HEALTHCARE FOR ALL booth.

Gregory

Briar Patch produce has always looked tasty... to the critters that got to it while it was growing.

https://jeffpelline.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/img_3697.jpg

What's the carbon footprint of that behemoth, Jeff? Get a nice tax deduction by tossing a box of Rude|Whine|Farts in the back and calling it a "business" expense? The MSRP of that monstrosity is about half the value of my plane, which, since it has already been fully depreciated in the "free market" (rich folk prefer new), has held its value well over the past 7 years and my plane even has a lower carbon footprint cruising at about 170mph.

Todd Juvinall

Looks like the IRS has destroyed over twenty thousand emails of Lois Lerner's in a OOPA!. Over one hundred backup tapes now are blank. Oops! Then I got to listen to that job creator, amazing American who got his wrecked city back on iys feet, Baltimore, Elijah Cummings do what he does best. Blame Republicans for a "witch hunt" on Lerner. America is in deep shit with the likes of Cummins representing humans. I would not have him as dog catcher. He is as effective as the FUE.

Jeff Pelline

Gregory,
Well, no aborted takeoffs from vapor lock on that "behemoth." I keep it parked in a cool place too.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Jon | 25 June 2015 at 12:05 PM


Just so you know I have not been here since the cowardly Greg declined my kind invitation to have a public debate with actual rules that keep people from being assholes...although I doubt there is any social structure that could keep him from being an asshole.

George Rebane

StevenF 335pm - I take it from that comment that you returned to resume some mudballing. How about giving Pelline some traffic and lob your bon mots from there?

Jon

George R,
Since Gregory, out of left field, brought Mr. Pelline into the conversation with snarky comments about his business and vehicle, don't you think it fair he be allowed to respond?

Steve, I hope you've noticed that that- within 48 hrs- I have variously been called by Gregory- Michael, Jeff, and Steve, sometimes both, sometimes alternating, sometimes different names within minutes of each other. I'm quite confused myself. Pretty sure I don't have multiple personality disorder.

George Rebane

Jon 350pm - So what do you think JeffP's 331pm is? I just don't want it to grow into a 'well he hit me first!' pissing match.

Don Bessee

Hey Gregory, funny they all showed up within a few minutes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad