Supreme Court decision on Obamacare mandate
UPDATE 9:22a: philipklein tweet: “SCOTUS: ‘The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution’– says states have choice on participating in expansion.'” SCOTUSblog tweet: “Expansion of Medicaid is constitutional (key), but States can’t be stripped of funds for not complying with expansion provisions.”
UPDATE 9:17a: The individual mandate will become a tax. Taxpayers will still be forced to pay for abortions. SCOTUSblog tweet: “From the Court: The mandate max [may?] be regarded as a tax. ‘That is sufficient to sustain it.'” philipaklein tweeet: “SCOTUS: Mandate ‘may reasonably be characterized as a tax.’ It survives.”
UPDATE 9:15a: The mandate is constitutional. Chief Roberts joined four liberal justices for majority opinion. SCOTUSblog tweet: “CJ Roberts fifth SCOTUS vote saved the ACA.”
UPDATE 10:13 a: Medicaid provision limited but not invalidated.
UPDATE 10:10a: Correction – Individual mandate is UPHELD as a tax. Said to be constitutional. Court rules individual mandate will become a tax. It appears the law will stand – not under Commerce Clause of Constitution but taxing powers of Congress.
UPDATE 10:08a: The individual mandate has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
9:42a: The Supreme Court’s decision on the Obamacare mandate is due at 10a EST. I’ll post it as I learn it.
As a reminder, the Court’s options are:
- Punt (say law can’t be challenged until people have paid the tax)
- Strike down the mandate
- Strike down the mandate and anything linked to it
- Strike down the Medicaid expansion
- Strike down the entire law
- Uphold the entire law
According to a poll I have running, most of you think the Supremes will choose #5 – strike down the entire law. We can only hope.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The silver lining is that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned for at least this year and next year. Attention to the ACA has greatly assured that.
Ugh. Worst ruling ever. We need lots of Republicans elected this year, so we can repeal this.
“Ugh. Worst ruling ever.”
I suppose we’ve forgotten about a little ruling called Roe v. Wade.
@JDC: Okay, point. But this ruling not only advances abortion, but quashes liberty. So, it’s right up there with it, at least.
Let’s remember that when the gods want to punish man, they answer their prayers.
This may end up being just the ammunition the Republicans and a furious majority of Americans need.
Remember that LBJs “victorious” Gulf of Tonkin resolution, giving him unlimited powers to wage war in Vietnam, only led to his downfall. This “victory” may lead Obama to his as well.
Always be very very careful what you wish for.
“This may end up being just the ammunition the Republicans and a furious majority of Americans need.”
To do what? Elect the man who is the ideological grandfather of the Affordable Care Act, and whose signature accomplishment during his one term as governor was to implement a nearly identical version at the state level?
Anyway, here is the best summary of the holding from the SCOTUSBlog’s live blog:
Amy Howe:
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
Even shorter version: mandate (and thus rest of law; question of severability not applicable) survives as tax, 5-4 (Roberts joining majority; Kennedy dissenting). The government cannot withhold currently existing Medicaid funds from the states which refuse to comply with the new Medicaid eligibility requirements, but it can stipulate that to receive new funding under the ACA, they must abide by those requirements.
joan,
For states to experiment with their own forms of providing health care is one thing, for the federal government to mandate is quite another. The vast majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. Romney has promised to overturn it and this will be a great issue for Republicans running for office.
Like I said joan, always be very careful what you wish for. I well remember LBJ’s “great victory” and his ultimate destruction. One thing about history, it repeats itself.
I just kissed freedom goodbye. What a sorrowful parting. What, are we in America still?
Ah well. On to get some Republicans with backbones in, maybe we have a hope in repealing it. Maybe.
“The vast majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. Romney has promised to overturn it and this will be a great issue for Republicans running for office.”
In theory, yes, but this is almost entirely meaningless when you consider that various individual components of the law, most importantly the mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions, are overwhelmingly supported by most people. Mitt Romney can’t run on overturning “Obamacare” in the abstract. Any competent Obama campaign will make sure to drive home the point that if Mitt Romney succeeds in having the ACA legislatively overturned, that provision, and other popular provisions, will go as well. Romney’s been awfully skittish about addressing the healthcare issue anyway, probably for this reason. My guess is that he does not take that gamble, unless the economy and employment suddenly and drastically pick up and he has nothing else to run on.
Hi Libertybelle,
Don’t despair. I’ve lived long enough to see many an answered prayer lead to destruction.
Blessings are often disguised. The lost job, the failed romance. What seems catastrophic at the time is viewed later on with relief and gratitude.
Personally I think Republicans feared a “victory” would take away their best weapon. This is the ammo they need. Sure we’ll hear their sputtering of outrage, but I’m convinced they are privately rejoicing.
joan,
People vote and they’re outraged. Republicans have ammo. Romney has an issue.
Be very careful what you wish for joan.
Hey Mary,
Yes, I know it’s not good to despair. :) I know that it could in fact turn out to be a victory. But to what end?
What I despair is how the U.S. Supreme Court could possibly uphold this. They’re supposed to balance out the powers. But of course they haven’t always done so (Roe, anyone?).
Oh well. I’m a citizen of the Kingdom of God, and I know my King is just above all things. This world is but a shadow of what’s to come, so there is no need to despair. But I do love what America is supposed to stand for. It grieves my little libertarian heart to see liberty trampled day in and day out. Ah well. What’s to be expected of a country that kills its own children by the millions?
Romney already has an issue that he’s had preliminary success with: the economy. If I was advising his campaign, I would tell him to stay on track with that (again, barring a sudden and dramatic reversal of the unemployment rate). Republicans in certain downticket races, on the other hand, especially freshmen incumbents who were elected on repealing the ACA, will probably benefit more from the ruling. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see the prospects of many liberal Democratic House and Senate candidates (i.e. Elizabeth Warren) improved now either.
So much for their sacred oath to uphold the Constitution.
During his confirmation hearings, Republicans raved about John Roberts being a strict constructionist. Then when he adheres to it, they whine.
You whiners talk about loss of your freedoms? Yet some of you want your religious beliefs to be forced on others via the law.
Shame on your blatant hypocrisy and shame on your fetus masturbation.
Well joan,
Thankfully you’re not advising his campaign. Oh, since the ruling, donations to Romney’s campaign were over $200,000.
Gary,
Obama assured us the mandate would not be a tax. Roberts says it is.
So by decreeing a mandate a “tax” the government can force on the American people what they don’t want? Please point that out in the Constitution.
not wanting people to be forced to BUY INSURANCE is NOT forcing religious beliefs on anyone.
I want to know where in the Constitution it says that the government has a right to force people to buy insurance
No one is being forced to buy insurance under this ruling. You can refuse to buy insurance, but in doing so you’ll be assessed a federal tax, which is a legitimate exercise of congressional power.
I guess abolitionists were just into slave masturbation. 9_9
I think the Roberts court handed Obama a poison pill. It is now a tax, a tax which 98% of the people will pay. Remember his promise of not raising taxes on 98% of Americans. He is just as screwed as Bush 41 with his ‘no new taxes.’
Also I believe either one of two things with happen to the wonderful Affordable Care Act.
1. It will not be funded by congress.
2. It will be repealed.
Gary, I do believe I’m one of the few (maybe the only one) who was bemoaning loss of freedom.
And I absolutely do NOT want to push my religious views on others. I disagree with Rick Santorum and many other Republicans and Christians on that issue.
And there are several secular pro-lifers here who don’t have religious beliefs *to* push on others….
Oh but that would mess up your rhetoric, wouldn’t it? That would throw a wrench in your little rant? Sorry to shatter your delusions of what pro-lifers are.
joan,
In refusing to buy a car or home the American people will be assessed a federal tax. This is a legitimate exercise of Congress. Yes or no?
Where in the Constitution is the government given the right to dictate what the American people will buy…. or else?
Also, didn’t The One assure the American people this mandate was not a tax? Gee, the SCOTUS says otherwise. Can’t be The One lied or anything.
Gary,
LibertyBelle is correct. I happen to be agnostic. There is another poster here who I believe runs a secular PL blog. Google atheist and agnostic pro life.
Prolife is not and never has been a religious issue. Its a moral and ethical one.
When people whine that religious people should stay out of politics, I ask them if Dr. Martin Luther King should have kept silent on the issue of civil rights.
joan,
Up to a million dollars donated to Romney’s campaign since the ruling.
teh dude in teh gray suit has teh butthurt.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-picture-of-nancy-pelosi-and-john-boehner-says-it-all-2012-6
Now that we know it’s a tax, does that mean that the illegals that Obama want’s to grant amnesty have to pay that tax too?
Hmm…
“Up to a million dollars donated to Romney’s campaign since the ruling.”
Add that to the $395 million the Koch brothers raised for him last week in California.
Another true “man of the people.”
mp,
The Hollywood elite paid $40,000/plate to raise 15million for Obama just at one dinner.
Another true “man of the people”.
The Hollywood elite paid $40,000/plate to raise 15million for Obama just at one dinner.
Another true “man of the people”.
Oh, I absolutely, totally, 100% agree.
What made you think I wouldn’t?
Gary: “You whiners talk about loss of your freedoms? Yet some of you want your religious beliefs to be forced on others via the law.”
What “religious beliefs” are those, Gary? That people shouldn’t be allowed to kill innocent people? Those darned religious zealots…
Er… I know I’ve been absent (and frightfully busy), as of late, but: don’t feed the trolls (e.g. Gary), y’all… even when I’m not here to scold you! :)
mp,
You brought up the subject concerning “man of the people”. I’m just giving another example.
Hi bmmg39,
Yeah, those religious zealots like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who don’t realize they can’t force their religious convictions on others. For those too young to remember, the civil rights movement was initiated from the pulpit of a church and was very religiously oriented.
I know, the horror, the horror.
You brought up the subject concerning “man of the people”.
Was I not supposed to bring that up? :)
mp,
Its Jill’s blog, if its OK with her to bring up a certain subject, its fine with me.
Paladin,
Yes, we shouldn’t feed the trolls. But can we poke them with a stick once in a while? They’re such curious creatures!
Gag me moment:
NPR reporter Correspondent Horsley: “By the time President Obama stopped speaking, the rain had stopped and a little sunshine was peeking through the clouds. That gave David O’Donnell of Portsmouth one more reason to be impressed with Mr. Obama.
Rally Participant O’Donnell: “See what his voice does? It clears up the weather too. It clears up the economy, creates jobs, helps education, and straightens out the weather”.
This is what passes for journalism in America today.
Too bad no one thought to ask Obama to part the Gulf of Mexico during the BP oil spill. Sure would have made the repair work a lot easier.
This is what passes for journalism in America today.
You obviously haven’t read the contemporaneous press accounts of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.
It would be censored on this blog.
mp,
I was pointing out the slobbering ”journalist” who actually thought that what this mind numbed Obamaite said was of any relevance.
Now we can laugh even harder when they call themselves ‘prochoice’, now that one choice obamacare has been forced down everyone’s throats. My choice will be to pay the fines and not buy in-join me and watch ACA bleed to death. In a year (or sooner) we’ll hear the slacker libs whining “I didn’t know it was gonna be like THIS…”.
I’m anxiously waiting Bill O’Reilly’s admission of idiocy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0HjZpVe6fo
Like he’s the only one surprised by the decision.
“I’m anxiously waiting Bill O’Reilly’s admission of idiocy.”
Nice to see the “non-partisan” Media Matters taking random potshots at Fox News. At this
point I would pretty much vote for a Nazi over a Democrat. At least Nazis are honest about it when they take away your freedoms and kill innocent people. Why bother looking at the Republicans’ records or positions any longer? It is now impossible for the GOP to be worse than the Democrats.
In a national with 50 million uninsured Americans, this is a great step.
Not a perfect bill by any means – too friendly to drug companies, too much power to congress still to enact some of the potential cost savings – but this bill takes a step in changing the dynamic of how we see health care in America.
Right now, we have the backwards approach of underfunding or not paying for preventative care, yet we’re fine with paying for everyone’s emergency care (when it often – not always – but often could have been dealt with before it became an issue).
That care, statistically, does not get paid for and gets passed to those who have insurance – which leads to higher rates, more people dropping insurance, and thus more, uncompensated care.
Personal responsibility is why conservatives cames up with the individual mandate years ago – and health reform will now make sure that more people are covered. At any time, any uninsured person, through no fault of their own, can become a multi-million dollar liability to paying customers. This changes that (does not completely eliminate, but helps).
Furthermore, the banishment of the words ‘pre-existing condition’ and ‘lifetime caps’ is a win. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance is a win. Requiring insurance companies to spend a minimum amount on care is a win.
Romney will now run on repeal – and that’s fine. But be careful to listen to what he wants to then REPLACE it with. Does he have a credible plan, or does he simply want to keep 20% of Americans without insurance? Does he simply want to bring back pre-existing conditions? Is he okay with parents of very sick children reaching life time benefit maxes and facing the consequences of that?
Again – this is not a perfect law. I hope congress looks for ways to make it better.
To eliminate it though without a REAL solution (beyond the cute phrases GOPers are throwing out so far – cute phrases that do nothing to solve the problems we have) would be a wrong move.
EGV,
How many times must I tell you that free market solutions and tort reform, not more government interference and takeover, will bring this “crisis” under control?
There was a time when health insurance was only for catastrophic purposes and health costs were under control and managable. That’s because there was no third party payer, doctors and hospitals had to be competitive. There was no medicare or medicaid and somehow elderly and poor people got the needed health care. I swear my grandparents lived in hospitals. My grandfather suffered major strokes and spent much time in them. My grandparents didn’t go broke paying medical bills.
The “city” hospital where I lived cared for the indigent, and was considered a top notch hospital. Hospitals offered assistance to those in need. Our hospitals do that here and you’d be surprised the people who feel no obligation to pay, even though the hospital made payment arrangements for them.
Personal responsibility means taking care of your own health. Visiting the doctor when necessary. Researching and questioning, especially drugs you are ordered to take. Treating symptoms seriously. Not abusing your body and health and then expecting a magic solution. It like the fire department EGV. Despite having a top nothch fire service in your community, you still must take responsiblity for protecting you family and your home from fire.
One example near me was a doctor who offered a low income community free prenatal services. The ladies only had to show up at his office. Not one woman came in. The doctor was concerned as the ladies apparently had no trouble finding the local drug dealers, who I’m sure don’t give credit, the liquor store, the cigarette machines, and the McDonald’s drive through, but as the doctor pointed out he couldn’t hogtie the women and drag them in.
So you see EGV, in the real world some people don’t quite have their priorities straight and personal responsibilty isn’t something that can be government mandated.
Romney has raked in $4.2 million since the ruling. What a coincidence!
Hi LibertyBelle 11:17am
The SCOTUS upheld the “rights” of slaveholders, segregation of black Americans and the decree by Franklin Roosevelt that allowed for the confiscation of the property and businesses of Japanese American citizens, and then forcing them into concentration camps. Shades of Josef Stalin.
Then there was Roe v Wade which many legal scholars have called into question.
The SCOTUS does not have the most sterling of history. Though some equate the justices with the gods of Mt. Olympus they are in fact as human as us all, with all the weaknesses,biases and prejudices that come with being mere mortals.
I would pretty much vote for a Nazi over a Democrat.
It all comes down to the Children of Light versus the Children of Darkness, doesn’t it?
And you, of course, are one of the Children of Light.
There is no subtlety, no tolerance. You view the world through the simplest of prisms and see only the whitest of whites and the blackest of blacks.
You say you’d rather vote for a nazi?
Well, it’s a free country. Why don’t you do that and think about what it will make you.
mp,
Well actually the NAZIs were socialists, i.e. leftists, so maybe voting for Nazis wouldn’t be all that different than voting for Democrats.
NAZI was an acronym for National Socialist German Workers’ Party
Well actually the NAZIs were socialists, i.e. leftists, so maybe voting for Nazis wouldn’t be all that different than voting for Democrats.
And you implore people to be careful of what they wish for?
You’re as nuts as he is.
mp,
LOLLLLL. Truth bites doesn’t it? Also calling me nuts isn’t very tolerant of you.
No I don’t implore people to be carefu of what they wish for, I strongly advise they do so.
I work out, watch what I eat, make sure my kids eat their veggies and buckle their seat belts and get all their shots, put on their sunscreen, educate them on how abstinence is the sole method to avoiding pregnancy and disease, and yet my husband and I are going to be the ones who get taxed here, i.e., pick up the slackers’ slack.
ABO
(anybody but obama)
Hi Courtnay,
Exactly.
Mary,
Yeah, I get that. But I’m still disappointed in them.
As I’ve mentioned before, though, I’ve got a libertarian heart so I’m rather frequently disappointed in our systems of government. As you say, the government is run by people, people who are flawed. And that’s life. But life goes on.
Gary is exhibit “A” of the proabort mentality. The crude and obnoxious post is right in sync with the other trolls that post here regularly. Gary–you will find a home at obnoxious left wing blogs–why don’t you just stay there and be happy wallowing in the dung.
Re the court’s ruling: judicial activism is judicial activism no matter how you slice it. Though I strongly disagree with his ruling I will take Justice Roberts at his word that he feels the court should basically bend over backwards to let the congress have their way. Now our job is to hold him to his word. We must present President Romney with prolife legislation that will define abortion ”rights” out of existence…after all Roberts said it is not the court’s job to act as a backstop. And while we are at it, one of the first pieces of legislation in the next congress should be to make all tax increases require a two thirds majority vote.
We conservatives have gotten somewhat complacent over the years and let the libs and others who really enjoy the perks of being legislators and bureaucrats run roughshod over our country. While we are out here busily raising our families and building our businesses and working 70 hour weeks the ruling class is stealing our freedoms from right under our noses. If this is not a wake-up call, I do not know what is. It is safe to say that if our republic is to be saved we are going to have to have to readjust our time committment priorities and our views on political activism…no more arm chair yelling at the TV. Simply put millions of conservative activists are going to have to get their rears in gear. 2010 was a good start and we must keep it going. Take heart–the results in Wisconsin show us that putting forth a strong effort in the face of unrelenting falsehoods and hate speech from the left will be successful if we stick to it. The DNC said Wisconsin was a trial run for the fall and they think that they will have to heap even more hate speech onto the various Republican candidates in order to win.
Mary -
Just a few points because we have gone down this path before:
– You will be happy to know that tort reform is already the law of the land in many states. And no, it doesn’t make a big enough difference to be a game changer. It does control costs anywhere from 1/2 of a percent to 1%.
– Free market – I’m interested to know how that would work. Are you suggesting that a person who lives in Ohio buys a plan from an insurance company in Idaho (who then has to establish contracts with facilities in other states?) – or do you mean the free market like shopping for a BMW. If I can’t afford a BMW, I don’t buy it. So are you saying if people can’t afford the quad bypass, they don’t get it and we just let them die? Please clarify what you mean.
– On the rest of your points – I agree – the things we can do now are more expensive – they do cost money. Most health care goes to a small percentage of people (the consumption of services). 50 years ago, those people died. Now, they can live. We can go back to the model of letting them die, but I suppose I’m okay paying more money to let them live. That’s just me.
mp, did you have fun writing all of that crap? Children of light? Children of darkness? What the hell are you talking about? Democrats are doing everything they can to DESTROY economic and religious liberty. Democrats are doing everything they can to keep child murder legal. As I said, at least the Nazis were honest about it when they trampled freedom and murdered people. They didn’t pretend it was “for the people” like you, Obama, ex-GOP, and every other completely dishonest and morally bankrupt person enjoys doing.
EGV,
How many states? How does it specifically effect medical malpractice claims? Personally I like England’s ( I believe) system that if you file a lawsuit and lose, you pay all costs, including the legal fees of your opponent. Its not only medical malpractice but the frivolous suits that must be addressed, like the person who sues because they injure themselves while breaking into someone’s home.
EGV I’ve gone over the free market options with you more times than I can count. If it hasn’t registered by now it never will and I’m tired of repeating it time and again.
50 years ago people spent more time in hospitals! I remember when hernia patients were hospitalized 5 days. My mother was in 10 days when she had my sister. It was down to 5 when I started nursing. Polio patients would be in iron lungs for weeks. My grandparents were in weeks at a time. Cataract patients were in 10 days. So you see EGV, care has markedly improved but you have also gotten more third party payment in the form insurance and government, which has only succeeded in jacking up costs.
You ARE paying more and that’s why. BTW, when someone tells you how wonderful the gov’t run Canadian health care is, ask them why the Canadian gov’t contracts with American hospitals to care for Canadian citizens.
Also, you don’t see that slob Michael Moore, who had only praise for the Cuban health system going to Cuba do you? He told Sean Hannity if necessary he would go to Mayo.
So where you get the idea the gov’t can do better is beyond my comprehension since the gov’t has already shown it can do nothing but generate red tape, corruption, inefficiency, and out of control expense and waste.
As of 2011, 35 states have medical malpractice limits, typically around $250K to $350K. Some states have found small savings – some states have declared it a complete bust. Hatch asked the CBO about savings in 2009 – they came back with .5%. I’ve found a few arguments that say the fed shouldn’t meddle in malpractice – that it is a state level choice – so not sure if you believe it is a federal thing to address.
Your argument on free market works if you treat it like you would any other item, which is, that people who can’t afford it go without. Is that what you are claiming?
On Canada – I’ve no doubt many people come to the US for specialized care. We are AWESOME at specialized care. What we aren’t good at is keeping people healthy – providing care through somebody’s lifetime so that they are less likely to need specialized care.
But I agree with you 100,000% - we are the best in the world at specialized medicine. You get no argument from me.
Mary – one more question – your last statement…given that, and I agree with you that there shouldn’t be waste – do you support the Health Care Reform that insurance groups should spend at least 80% of premiums on actual care? Right now, there is no limit, so many plans spend well over 25% on things OTHER than care.
So are you saying you suport that component?
EGV,
Malpractice limits are not tort reform, which is desperately needed.
Who has gone without health care? For people not getting care we are sure spending a lot.
I pointed out to you EGV how prior to insurance and gov’t interference, people got health care!
My point about Canada, if gov’t run health care is so marvelous, then the Canadian gov’t shouldn’t need any help from us, right? Cancer treatment is specialized? My aunt’s Canadian therapist had to make arrangements to bring her father to the US, otherwise he was on a waiting list for treatment.
People aren’t good at keeping themselves healthy. Your health EGV, isn’t someone else’s responsibility, its yours.
I support insurance reform, yes. I support personal responsibility. I support healthful practices. I support less crime and violence so people are ending up in emergency rooms full of holes. I support stricter drunken driving laws.
This bill was as bloated as the rest of government. And it was an unnecessary detour and burden on the economy, which should be their number one priority. Other than perhaps the little matter of us killing our own.
Some say Roberts was crazy like a fox to swat this back in our lap. I don’t know. But the phrase “most important election in our lifetime” is becoming truer by the day.
They didn’t pretend it was “for the people” like you, Obama, ex-GOP, and every other completely dishonest and morally bankrupt person enjoys doing.
As I said, you’re one of the Children of Light. You can’t possibly be mistaken. I must be “completely dishonest and morally bankrupt” because I don’t agree with you. If I’m not with you, I’m against you.
Black or white. It can’t be any other way.
Yes, but it is rather drab being one of the Children of the Gray, isn’t it?
Here’s a couple of links, for those who aren’t offended by a “Christ…ian” source.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2012/June/Why-the-Healthcare-Battle-is-Far-from-Over/
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2012/June/Dunn-Voters-Will-Protest-Obamacare-in-November/
I upvoted mp’s comment because even though I know he’s being sarcastic, right and wrong DO exist, and I like being on the side of right. If he’s not so sure they exist, how does he know he’s on the side of Right? Perhaps he should just go home and stop bothering us.
Very enlightened of you, x. :)
I upvoted mp’s comment because even though I know he’s being sarcastic …
I wasn’t being sarcastic.
Mary -
I think we’ll never see eye to eye on this. Today isn’t 50 years ago. 50 years ago, a baby born very early would die. Today, we can do more. That costs money.
I’ll agree again – America has a great system of specialized care – we don’t do well with preventative care.
The bottom line to your argument though is false – right now, it is society’s legal responsibility if somebody doesn’t take care of themselves. Somebody in an emergency situation gets treatment – it is the law – passed years ago. So you can say all you want that it is all up to the individual, but it isn’t, and it hasn’t been in a long time.
John Lewandowski –
Missed your comment earlier – and I just want to clarify.
So in your mind, you find it virtuous to keep the status quo system where people die because of lack of health insurance, and it is morally bankrupt to support a system in which those people will be covered?
Am I understanding that correctly?
It was Obamacare that made the wave election in 2010. The Obamacare mandated tax is going to energize voters for this years election just like the wave election of 2012 did. Only this time Obama is going to get washed out too.
Truth -
Maybe, we’ll see – but who knows? You were very, very confident that Health Care Reform would be overturned, and it appears that you were very wrong in that prediction.
But again, who knows. Those who make bold predictions usually just end up looking goofy in the end.
“So in your mind, you find it virtuous to keep the status quo system where people die because of lack of health insurance,”
People have always been able to go to non-profit hospitals like the Catholic hospital system and get treatment. Nobody gets denied. Do you have any numbers on how many people die in the US each year because they were refused health care?
45,000 a year is the generally accepted number (derived from a long term harvard study).
That is people without healthcare though – not denied treatment. For instance, if somebody doesn’t have health care and ends up with a advanced cancer that normally would have been caught sooner, they might get treatment at the end (so not denied care) – but they didn’t have health care.
Very easy to find study out there if you’d like to read it.
People have always been able to go to non-profit hospitals like the Catholic hospital system and get treatment. Nobody gets denied.
According to a surgeon, who was once an acquaintance of mine and had privileges at a local Catholic hospital, many indigent cancer patients were sent home with a morphine drip to die.
So, yes, they received treatment, but they were sent home to die.
“You were very, very confident that Health Care Reform would be overturned, and it appears that you were very wrong in that prediction.”
And you Ex-RINO have a very very flexible mind where memorys can be elasticized and fabricated. Either that or perhaps your mind is in a nearly perpetual state of memory elasticization.
I have a question for you ExRINO. Would you support legislation whose purpose is to grant fathers legal custody/rights to their children; specifically rights that would enable him to prevent the mother from killing their unborn child?
“That is people without healthcare though – not denied treatment.”
Correct, nobody died because they didn’t get treatment. And you think Obamacare is gonna do better? People will be worse off cause the HHS is writing rules to put tnon-prifit health systems out-of-business.
And your argument that people are dying cause they aren’t get preventive is ridiculous. Most of those people probably had access to doctors but chose never to go to the doctor anyway unless they got sick.
Here’s an interesting question for you. Since the Supreme Court declared that Obamacare is a tax; wouldn’t non-profits be exempt from that legislation?
EGV 11:44PM
I am not of the mentality that we should have government mandated wet nurses who lead us by the hand to get preventative care. How exactly do we lack in preventative care?
Maybe we lack in people taking the personal responsibility to get it or to maintain their health.
My opthamologist expressed his frustration at patients who will not take their prescribed eyedrops as ordered to treat their glaucoma. He said patients come in with sky high eye pressures that can lead to eventual impairment, even blindness. He has to start their treatment regimen again or change eyedrops. They may require more eyedrops. Surgery may also be necessary, and not very helpful. I have glaucoma EGV. I religiously take my eyedrops, I religiously make my required eyes exams. I don’t want to go blind. I don’t want surgery. It ain’t rocket science. Yet people don’t seem to give a damn or think there’s some magic cure. Put simply, they will take no personal responsibility.
I must admit my condition was discovered on a fluke. I hadn’t had eye exams in years. Just didn’t bother. MY OWN STUPID FAULT!!!!
EGV, you miss my point time and again or you simply choose to ignore it. Costs skyrocketed after insurance company and gov’t interference. Long hospital stays are nothing new, 40-50 years ago they were the rule. Iron lung wards were filled with people who stayed weeks, even months. Outpatient surgery was unheard of, even considered laughable.
Poor people got care. My mother was a single working mother. All three of her children saw the doctor and the dentist. There was no medicaid or insurance coverage for routine visits, and no gov’t programs.
mp 12:52am
Sending patients home on morphine was not an uncommon practice for religious and non religious hospitals. In fact morphine drips were done in the hospital as well when patients were terminal and in extreme pain. I know two nurses who had them when their cancer was terminal and they were in extreme pain. I would consider it very humane. In fact, I wish heroin was legal for this purpose. It may be in some cases. Over 30 years ago my friend’s father could legally smoke marijuana to relieve the pain of his cancer.
Patients and families often made the choice to forego treatment, or treatment was futile, and opt for pain relief only.
No Ex-GOP. I would just appreciate some honesty from you, Obama, and the rest of the tyrants who seek one thing alone – to make us all slaves of the government. This has nothing to do with health care. It’s about weakening the American people so that we come to rely on politicians for EVERYTHING. it’s evil. But, I know that you and your friends are not going to try honesty any time soon. That would conflict with your goals. So there’s really nothing left to say to you. Why talk with a completely dishonest troll, who pretends to be searching for answers to America’s problems when he really just wants us to be slaves?
mp, on the other hand, seems to be under the impression that I think I’m some kind of saint. No, I just think mp is a supporter of great evil. You don’t have to be a saint to be against slavery and mass murder. Every human being of good will should be against them. Of course, mp knows this because it is self-evident. But these people love playing games.
Truth – fabricated memories?
March 24th – from you: “Hal and Ex-RINO – you can stick a fork in it. Obamacare is dead. ”
March 28th – on the same thread – from you: It looks like Obamacare is gonna get deep sixed by the supreme court. I am glad to see it go away even though I could have watched the Democrat party die a long painful death if it if it had survived.
All I want to hear you say is that you admit that you were quite bold in your predictions, and you were wrong. That’s all I want.
truth -
I don’t consider it a moral victory if somebody doesn’t have insurance and then waits until the last minute to go to the hospital (when it is truly an emergency), or gets treatment in the end for something that could have been caught a long time before.
This law will save people’s lives because it focuses on preventative care.
On your question on the tax – individuals pay the mandate (much like a speeding ticket, you don’t pay it unless you don’t follow the rules) – not corporations. And individuals aren’t tax-exempt.
Mary -
I can no longer argue with somebody who believes that we should just dial medicine back to the 1940’s and we’ll all be better off.
John -
I don’t believe that at all. I believe that the Dems saw a spiraling system out of control, and believe that it is a good thing for people to have health insurance to correct that spiral (and I can explain the spiral if you’d like). I’d agree with your assertion if a public option was passed. It was not. The system is very much a standard insurance legislation. The majority of Americans will continue to get their insurance through non-government plans. To suggest otherwise is the only dishonest thing going on here.
EGV,
Like I said, what I tell you simply doesn’t register or you choose to ignore it. I can only conclude that you don’t want to be confused with the facts.
BTW, the era I’m discussing is not the forties, its the fifties to the late seventies.
Mary -
FACTS?
FACTS?
Are you talking about your conversations with your eye doctor?
Or the facts about your grandparents?
The stories of polio patients?
Oh yes – I’m overwhelmed by the facts of this conversation. I mean, if ma and pa could give birth out back in the barn, it should be good enough for the young whipper snappers these days!
EGV 12:35am
45,000 deaths a year is generally accepted?
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/do-45-000-americans-die-each-year-from-lack-of-health-care
45,000 deaths a year is generally accepted?
So, you link to a snippet offered up by “NCRP,” which just happens to be the National Center for Policy Analysis, a “conservative think tank” funded by the Koch brothers, among others.
They proceed to smear the authors, accusing them of reaching their conclusions before examining the data, even though the study was peer reviewed, used data from the Centers for Disease Control, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
Frankly, I’ll take the over on the 45,000 number.
Yes – generally accepted. Generally doesn’t mean universally. To get an exact number, you’d have to clone people, put them on two islands, and see what comes out in the end.
If you want to research and post other numbers, you can.
Simple fact it, and it passes the laws of common sense – you stand a better chance of living a long life if you are insured and get regular care. There’s a reason good parents bring their kids in for wellness visits. If there’s no value in preventative care to long term health, then we should just eliminate prenatal and baby wellness visits.
On your question on the tax – individuals pay the mandate (much like a speeding ticket, you don’t pay it unless you don’t follow the rules) – not corporations.
What? Aren’t the employer penalties also considered “taxes”? If a non-profit employer with over 50 employees (like Catholic Charities) doesn’t offer affordable health insurance to their employees, they will be fined/taxed.
mp and EGV,
Peer reviewed studies are forever debated, “proven” and “disproven”. Any researcher will tell you that is exactly what they expect when they publish a study. The point is this Harvard study isn’t the end all be all and it is debated and questioned like any other. Also, even Harvard researchers and their supporters will have their biases and those who oppose them will as well.
You’re free to believe or not believe what you want mp. You can read all opinions and studies and draw your own conclusions.
Oh yes those conniving Koch brothers strike again! Do these guys haunt your dreams mp? They’re into everything from Wisconsin politics to health care studies. I just know that little green men from Mars were behind the Harvard study.
“Simple fact” or not EGV, its questionable if people are dying like flies for lack of insurance. Good parents bringing in their children for well baby exams is called personal responsibility. Prenatal care is called personal responsibility. You can exercise this without insurance, its called medicaid, making payment arrangements, taking advantage of a low cost service, or visiting the health department, some of which conduct free well baby checks and provide vaccines.
Lrning – you are mixing subjects – truth had posted “Here’s an interesting question for you. Since the Supreme Court declared that Obamacare is a tax; wouldn’t non-profits be exempt from that legislation? ”
That’s in reference to Roberts ruling that it worked like a tax. Thus, my point.
Oh yes those conniving Koch brothers strike again! Do these guys haunt your dreams mp? They’re into everything from Wisconsin politics to health care studies.
Sorry, it’s all in the public record. Facts are difficult things.
I checked the public record. You didn’t. That much is obvious.
The facts show the Koch brothers are manipulating the “debate” and this “research” you cite is just one more example of it.
Too bad, so sad, you’ve been had.
You’re free to believe or not believe what you want mp.
This is the heart of it. I don’t “believe” anything. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip.
I search for facts and question them. My business life is built on facts, analyzing them, constantly questioning them. My opinions change when the facts change.
You, on the other hand, are one of the Children of Light. You have the absolute certainty of your beliefs, and lay claim to the righteousness that allows you and your fellow travelers to say that I am a “supporter of great evil.”
You don’t need facts.
mp,
With research you look at the results and draw your own conclusions. You may think you’re dealing with “facts” when another researcher is “proving” altogether different. So you see mp it is a matter of perspective. Are vaccines harmful? Research goes both ways. It comes down to your own conclusions, which by the way may not be fact.
So you know the Koch brothers had a hand in this particular study? Exactly what did they do and how were they involved? Are they as powerful and wealthy as that socialist icon of the left George Soros, who is one of the most powerful men on earth and has donated multi millions to left wing causes in this country?
As for the last post mp I have never referred to you as a “supporter of great evil” so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Mary,
Mind bending of memorys/words/facts etc. can be elasticized and made to mean whatever the liberal mind determines.
Obamacare is an albatross around Obama and any other politician that runs on raising peoples taxes so that the government can expand Medicare and create health exchanges with tax penalties for NOT buying something. You can stick a fork in Obama now too.
“Lrning – you are mixing subjects – truth had posted “Here’s an interesting question for you. Since the Supreme Court declared that Obamacare is a tax; wouldn’t non-profits be exempt from that legislation? ”
That’s in reference to Roberts ruling that it worked like a tax. Thus, my point.”
Huh? Like most points you make Ex-RINO; that made no sense at all.
As for the last post mp I have never referred to you as a “supporter of great evil” so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Read what I wrote:
Your righteous certainty allows you to say it. I did not say that you said it, but John certainly did.
Finally, I am not your hired hand, your teacher or your preacher. The search for facts and the internalization of facts is a highly personal journey. The Google search engine is one of the most magnificent tools ever invented to facilitate that journey. Everything I said concerning your “citation” and the Koch brothers is only a few moments and keystrokes away, but you need to learn how to do it.
I suggest you begin this journey and sincerely wish you luck in it.
truth -
Maybe your short term memory is as bad as your long term memory. You couldn’t remember your boasts about Health Care Reform going down, which you were wrong about – and now you don’t seem to remember, or understand what you posted. Did you maybe just copy and paste something from a fox news report or something?
In your horribly worded question, you said Since the Supreme Court declared that Obamacare is a tax; wouldn’t non-profits be exempt from that legislation?
What I believe you mean is, Roberts declared the individual mandate constitutional because he says it functions as a tax – is that what you mean? If not, what specific part of the ruling are you talking about here?
mp,
Again, kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, I never said any such thing about you. I am not responsible for what John says. You completely lose me concerning righteous and what it allows me to say.
I’m still waiting for you to verify your claim about the Koch Brothers supposed manipulation of this research.
I’m still waiting for you to verify your claim about the Koch Brothers supposed manipulation of this research.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/annastark
http://www.charleskochinstitute.org/internship-program/after-the-program
http://www.popecenter.org/about/author.html?id=416
http://www.ncpa.org/about/ncpa-public-policy-internships
http://www.charleskochinstitute.org/associate-program/partner-organizations/
Do I need to draw a map?
I’m still waiting for you to verify your claim about the Koch Brothers supposed manipulation of this research.
Sorry, my reply was “moderated.”
It may show up. Someday. Maybe. I guess.
I’m still waiting for you to verify your claim about the Koch Brothers supposed manipulation of this research.
Again, read what I wrote:
They’re manipulating the debate.
In your horribly worded question, you said Since the Supreme Court declared that Obamacare is a tax; wouldn’t non-profits be exempt from that legislation? What I believe you mean is, Roberts declared the individual mandate constitutional because he says it functions as a tax – is that what you mean?
That is correct Ex-RINO. The mandate that requires people to purchase health care is only constitutional if it is deemed to be a tax. Non-profits are tax-exempt entities. This ruling means that a tax-emempt entity Catholic Charities is is not bound to comply with the Unaffordable Health Care Tax Act. And it would be unconstitutional for the government to try to penalize/tax them under this law. That is the way I read it. This law iwill be a freaking never-ending monstrosity of litigation and bureaucracy until we vote the morons out who refuse to admit that the rest of us want to find a better to fix the “pre-existing condition” problem then government control of health care. And we want people getting access because the costs go down and not because the government pays part of everybody’s tab to the insurance industry. That kind of system would reduce the out of pocket for those on Obamacare but it would increase the total cost of the services and greatly reduce the number of people who can afford care on their own. Same with policies. All his mandates will price a minimum health insurance policy out of most peoples reach. It will be illegal for a person to purchase catastrophic health care policies. It will never end until we replace the president and purge the congress of DemocRats and RINOs. It is a tall order but if the wave of 2010 happens again in 2012 then it is possible.
Again, from your “citation”
A Harvard University study published in the American Journal of Public Health claimed that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health care coverage. It’s an alarming figure, except that this study is seriously flawed, says U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, who represents Florida’s 6th Congressional District.
So, I’m asking myself: who is Cliff Stearns, and who is he connected with?
Well, it turns out that Koch Industries is number 7 on his list of Top 20 contributors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00002782&cycle=2012
Soon the Supreme Court will need to rule on the Catholic Church’s refusal to break conscience and comply with the anti-life parts of the mandate. And on and on and on and on and on and on it will go.
Would you be comfortable with the government mandating the collection of yeverybody’s medical records to be entered into a huge government database that can tax you based upon your health needs.
truth – I’m still confused as to what you are claiming – non-profit people?
The individual mandate says that individuals must have insurance or pay a fine. Roberts says it is a tax – I don’t agree with him quite frankly, because I don’t believe a speeding ticket is a tax either. Regardless, the individual mandate has NOTHING to do with catholic organizations because those who work for them still are taxed – it isn’t as if a person is tax exempt if they are catholic – they still pay taxes at the end of the year.
I don’t know how you can dislike a bill so much that you know so little about. It is quite scary actually
If you have any questions on the rest of your post after the word “freaking”, let me know. I was pretty dumbfounded that you didn’t understand the individual mandate still, and knew you were about to go on one of those senseless rants that I’m figuring out more and more, will say nothing.
The individual mandate says that individuals must have insurance or pay a fine. Roberts says it is a tax – I don’t agree with him quite frankly, because I don’t believe a speeding ticket is a tax either.
Because you can’t fine people for inactivity under the Commerce Clause.
Wouldn’t that mean you can’t fine corporations either? If so then it beomes impossible to apply the “tax” workaround to non-profits. I know how logic can give a liberal headaches but hang in there and read my posts as long as you can.
Ex-RINO, I am posting it again for you here in case you missed it…..
This law will be a freaking never-ending monstrosity of litigation and bureaucracy until we vote the morons out who refuse to admit that the rest of us want to find a better fix to the “pre-existing condition” problem then government control of health care. And we want people getting access because the costs go down and not because the government pays part of everybody’s tab to the insurance industry. That kind of system would reduce the out of pocket for those on Obamacare but it would increase the total cost of the services and greatly reduce the number of people who can afford care on their own. Same with policies. All his mandates will price a minimum health insurance policy out of most peoples reach. It will be illegal for a person to purchase catastrophic health care policies. It will never end until we replace the president and purge the congress of DemocRats and RINOs. It is a tall order but if the wave of 2010 happens again in 2012 then it is possible.
It is a tall order but if the wave of 2010 happens again in 2012 then it is possible.
Well, you’ll have $395 million in Koch Industries money behind you, so it just might.
mp,
The fact the Koch brothers contribute proves what? Who else contributes and what is the extent of their influence? Does this prove once and for all the study is not flawed?
What exactly is the debate the Kochs manipulate and how do they do this?
Harvard has a long tradition of liberalism. Any possibility that could have influenced the study?
If you have any questions on the rest of your post after the word “freaking”, let me know.
I beg your pardon; the word ’freaking’ was quite an apt choice of words to describe Obamacare.
truth – my quick thoughts:
– If you believe this is government control of health care, you don’t understand what government control means. For most people, nothing changes come 2014. Most people will still get insurance through private insurance companies. If that is ‘government control’ – then you don’t know what the government is.
– I welcome thoughts on fixes to pre-existing conditions. Simply force companies to outlaw it? You like regulation? The high risk pools? Feel good about how those are working? The GOP will HAVE to come up with a credible plan on pre-existing conditions, because people like that those are gone.
– Yes, we do want to drive down costs. That is a good goal. I think this bill will have an impact, but it still leaves too much in the power of congress to implement hard choices to reach savings.
– Your claims on the pricing being out of most people’s reach is unfounded and unsupported.
– If by catastrophic coverage, you mean that people can’t buy bare bones plans – yes – that would be good to get rid of those. The goal should be to get people regular care so that they don’t have the need for coverage for huge things.
– Maybe you guys should have picked a better option than Romney. Maybe Romney wins – there haven’t been enough new polls to say the impact on this ruling. But it becomes much tougher sledding for the GOP in my opinion. If they just say “repeal” – sooner or later, the public will realize that means getting rid of some of the nice aspects of the plan that are supported. And while I might be wrong, I don’t think the GOP is going to be able to get a plan that gets rid of pre-existing conditions and covers millions more than we have been covering. At the least, you’d need Romney care lite – and do you think the far right is going to support that? This ruling puts the GOP between a rock and a hard place – I think the polls will show an immediate hit to Obama and slight shifting, but as more people learn about the plan, things will shift back. And Obama’s been in a good place – leading in Pennsylvania – leading in Ohio – heck, he’s even leading in Florida now. If the economy does keep moving forward (more likely with the European bailout) and health care reform ruling doesn’t hurt Obama too badly, than Romney is really going to have a hard time. I’m not going to go as far as you did with making bold predictions that came out to look silly. Romney could win – but he’s going to need some luck.
This ruling puts the GOP between a rock and a hard place – I think the polls will show an immediate hit to Obama and slight shifting, but as more people learn about the plan, things will shift back.
That is precisely the tone-deaf mentality that led to Scott Brown and the wave of 2010.
The fact the Koch brothers contribute proves what?
Mary, your endless stream of questions is amusing and I’m familiar with the tactic.
You asked me to prove Koch influence. I did, and resoundingly.
It will become even more obvious if my “moderated” response is un-moderated.
Why are they attempting to influence the debate? You figure it out.
I’m not your hired hand.
mp,
The Koch brothers are one of 20 contributors. That proves they and 19 other people donate. I believe we were originally discussing the validity of the research, not a debate.
You made the claims mp, I’m just trying to make sense of them.
The Koch brothers are one of 20 contributors.
The Koch brothers are one of the top 20 contributors.
I believe we were originally discussing the validity of the research, not a debate.
The propaganda puff piece you cited was an attempt to invalidate the Harvard research. The Harvard paper was peer reviewed and published. Until other peer reviewed research comes along to invalidate it, it stands.
Attempting to smear its authors accomplishes nothing, except to validate the beliefs of the Children of Light.
Have a great day.
Lrning – you are mixing subjects – truth had posted “Here’s an interesting question for you. Since the Supreme Court declared that Obamacare is a tax; wouldn’t non-profits be exempt from that legislation? ”
That’s in reference to Roberts ruling that it worked like a tax. Thus, my point.
I understand what you said. That’s why I asked “Aren’t the employer penalties also considered “taxes”?” Or perhaps the ruling didn’t cover the employer penalties, I don’t know.
Lrning – I don’t believe that the ruling had anything to do with the employer penalties. I’m not 100% sure, but I never heard that aspect being questioned (legally).
Again with the “great right-wing conspiracy”. I don’t preoccupy myself with Soros. Let the Koch brothers be. We all have a right to have our say. Let’s stop insulting those who back us up, and just argue the points.
I’m not 100% sure, but I never heard that aspect being questioned (legally).
I had not heard that anywhere else before either. But you have heard it now.
Soros! Spooky Dude!
Sigh. Miss Glenn.
Let’s stop insulting those who back us up, and just argue the points.
Yeah, you do that.
mp,
I will. Insulting those we argue with is so much more fun. Especially the wet blanket types.
I haven’t insulted you … yet.
Courtnay,
I miss Glenn too. Though you can still see much of him on TheBlaze. I’m not paying for his network, any more than I would for better access on the sites of radio hosts I like. I’d go broke!
mp,
You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Please, and by all means, continue your recitation of Koch Talking Points.
I’ll follow along with the list I prepared from researching Koch fronts.
Oh, and if you want to talk about Spooky Dude, let me know.
I’ll pull his list of talking points out of my files.
mp,
You still haven’t shown me the connection between the Koch Bros. and the research.
Peer reviewed and published research is criticized and challenged. It is not sacrosanct.
The Employment Policies Institute published this study
http://epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf
You’d be especially interested in page 32
The Employment Policies Institute published this study
EPI is a Berman front and I’m not going there.
You still haven’t shown me the connection between the Koch Bros. and the research.
The Koch brothers are not connected with the Harvard research. The Koch brothers are connected with the blatantly obvious attempt by NCPA to discredit it.
Peer reviewed and published research is criticized and challenged. It is not sacrosanct.
I didn’t say it was sacrosanct. Nowhere did I say that. I said it’s peer reviewed research and it stands until other peer reviewed research comes along to invalidate it. Period. End of story. Full stop.
Mary, you complain about Harvard University, one of this nation’s premiere institutions, being “liberal,” –read “librul”–yet you unashamedly offer up this trash cranked out by one of Rick Berman’s fronts, Employment Policies Institute, and expect me to take it seriously. REALLY?
The “Employment Policies Institute” is an address at Berman’s lobbying firm in DC. It’s an address. That’s it. That’s all it is.
So, if you want to talk about EPI and Rick Berman, fine. But, I warn you, if we’re going to talk that, we’re going to talk about Rick, ACORN and this guy:
http://occupyforaccountability.org/sites/default/files/u6/resized_okeefe_mugshot_sm.jpg
You know, the one who plotted to discredit a female CNN reporter by showing her his collection of dildos.
Do you want to go there? Do you want that? I don’t.
mp,
Let’s put aside all talk of Rick Berman, the Koch Brothers, and Liberal institutions.
Prove this study by June and Dave O’Neill of Baruch College and City University of New York is inaccurate and Berman’s influence in it.
You must admit the lady has quite an impressive resume:
http://ideas.respec.org/e/pon36.html
mp,
The link just isn’t working.
Looks like you will have to google June and Dave O’Neill then go to June O’Neill at IDEAS.
Dave O’Neill’s resume isn’t too shabby either.
Prove this study by June and Dave O’Neill of Baruch College and City University of New York is inaccurate and Berman’s influence in it.
I don’t have to prove it’s inaccurate because it’s junk science. It comes from an astroturf shop. What do you take me for, an idiot? What intellectual cesspool did you drag the thing from, Fox News?
And here’s proof of Berman’s involvement. It’s his front.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/politics/18berman.html?pagewanted=2
http://nrn.com/article/epi-launches-campaign-assailing-national-debt
Mary, you’re a pip, you truly are.
mp,
Did you check out the resumes of the O’Neills? If you did you will find these people are accomplished and reputable researchers who are highly unlikely to “front” or falsify research, thus destroying their reputations and that of the institution they work for. These are not researchers from any Astroturf shop.
I challenge you to prove their research false. That’s the real issue here.
Here’s what Rick Berman, self-proclaimed economist and head of EPI, wrote on August 21, 2010, in an article entitled “Torrid pace of borrowing threatens a debt crisis.” The yield on the US 10-year constant maturity bond was 2.62% the day prior to his article.
Are you afraid yet? Are you very afraid? Well, the yield on the same bond was 1.60% yesterday.
If I’d taken Rick’s idiotic counsel, I would have missed out on one of the most massive bull markets in US bonds in the nation’s history.
Rick Berman is an astroturf artist and an idiot, not an economist.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/from-our-readers/another-voice/article15079.ece
I challenge you to prove their research false. That’s the real issue here.
I’m not going to play your silly game. You’re making the claim that they’re economic whiz kids.
Prove it.
mp,
Get the knot out of your undies. What you think of Berman and the EPI is not the issue here. What I think of Harvard is not the issue here.
I didn’t say the O’Neills were economic whiz kids, I said they were established and credentialed researchers, which you can check out for yourself. They are not members of EPI that I can see. I don’t know if they were commissioned by EPI to do this study or not. If they were, given their credentials I would expect nothing but the highest standards from them. I can’t imagine these are people who would trash their established and impeccable reputations to front for anyone or falsify research.
I could argue the Harvard researchers are just liberals doing Harvard’s bidding. I don’t believe it and I can’t prove it. I believe they are reputable researchers. I wouldn’t dare suggest otherwise without some very bigtime evidence.
I don’t for a minute believe the O’Neills or the Harvard researchers would falsify research or front for anyone.
mp, my daughter is a published researcher. She says every researcher expects to be challenged, questioned, criticized, and face reams of counterstudies and counterstudies to those counterstudies. It comes with the territory.
No matter how peer reviewed or reputable, you will be challenged. Look at all the pro and con studies on vaccines. Are all these researchers disreputable and fronting for someone? I seriously doubt it.
The onus is on you mp to prove the O’Neills falsified research or fronted for Berman.
If I were to accuse the Harvard reseachers, the onus would be on me to prove the same.
If I were to accuse the Harvard reseachers, the onus would be on me to prove the same.
You didn’t have to. The propaganda puff piece you cited earlier today was a more than adequate attempt to smear the Harvard researchers in the eyes of the Children of Light.
In the civilized world, that’s what’s called a smear. As far as Rick Berman and his crew are concerned, I have nothing more to say than what I’ve already said. They’re astroturf artists.
mp,
I’m not the one who said it, take it up with the person who did. He may have the evidence to back it up. If he can then its not a smear.
Again, what you think of Berman and his group, like what I think of Harvard, is not the issue here.
Please dispense with this Children of Light crap, at least when talking to me. It makes you sound like you’re hallucinating.
You and your fellow travelers here are the ones who are hallucinating.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback
You’ve been astroturfed, like it or not.
mp, you can call me a Child of the Light any time. Thank you.
Yeah, too bad, so sad, you’ve been astroturfed. You’re one of the Children of Light.
There’s only one problem.
If their program reaches escape velocity, which has yet to be demonstrated, but if it does, you’ll hear someone declare, “We’re go for staging.”
When that occurs, you’re going to discover that you were riding in the back, not the front, because they’re not interested in social issues, only financial and economic ones. The Sign of The Cross doesn’t matter to them, not even life itself matters. The only thing that matters is the Sign of The Dollar.
So, you’ll be jettisoned, like a used-up rocket booster that has fulfilled its purpose. You’ll have helped them get there, but they’ll leave you behind.
Jill, are you reading this? Sound familiar? Have you been here before? Much?
side note: Paul Ryan’s favorite book is Atlas Shrugged and he requires all of his staff to read it. The Koch Foundation distributes it to high schools, colleges and universities across the US. Facts are difficult things.
Good night and good luck.
mp, the fact of the matter is that I, as a Child of the Light (that is to say a follower of Jesus Christ) will always place the will of God above my own. I know Obama is somewhat of a cult of personality and gives speeches from hollywood designed colliseums etc but as Children of the Light we place our faith above our political considerations.
side note: Paul Ryan’s favorite book is Atlas Shrugged and he requires all of his staff to read it. The Koch Foundation distributes it to high schools, colleges and universities across the US. Facts are difficult things.
You say that as if it should matter. Why does that matter to you?
You say that as if it should matter.
You obviously didn’t read this, which I posted above:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback
You might be interested to know that June O’Neill, one of the authors of Mary’s Employment Policies Institute paper was the 1991 recipient of Atlas Foundation’s Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
My, my, it is a small world, isn’t it Mary?
http://zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/faculty/profiles/oneill.html/vitas/oneill.pdf
No peer reviewed work there. Berman paid for a couple of hired guns.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n52_v10/ai_16284357/pg_2/
mp,
Nice try. So the book Atlas Shrugged is distributed by the Koch Brothers? Uh, so what??
Are people forced at gunpoint to read it? BTW, my daughter who is a researcher and as liberal as they come LOVED the book and encouraged me and her father to read it. I better warn her its part of some sinister plot.
Thank you for sharing June O’Neill’s highly impressive resume with us. I didn’t realize she had won awards, it seems like 4, but oddly you mention only one. The Antony Fisher Award, apparently the horror of horrors, is oddly the only one you mention. Googling this award I find it very impressive.
They issued a report? The big deal is what??
Can you prove this report inaccurate or biased? BTW, reports aren’t peer reviewed since it isn’t being published. I’m sure these people were paid for their work, anyone asked to prepare a report would be. That hardly makes them “hired guns” except in your imagination.
Also, despite your ranting and raving, you fail to discredit the study I posted. I’ve reviewed all your sources and can only conclude you don’t like Berman, you don’t like the O’Neills, you don’t like “Atlas Shrugged” and you think the Sir Antony Fisher Award is the ultimate horror, buuuuut, you don’t discredit the study.
Mary, stop shilling.
You failed to mention that Atlas Shrugged is a political manifesto disguised as a novel.
So, it’s class war you want?
mp,
LOL. Your opinion of the book. Fine. Again, who is forced to read it?