Disqus - Latest Comments for Andy

Re: Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon Stewart Who….(Etc.)

Andy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:37:18 -0000

A few points:

Hannity's show is an opinion show, not a "news" show. If you want a news show on Fox, watch Shep Smith's.

Secondly, opinion shows are all about the narrative. Olbermann, Maddow have their narratives too, as do many others who host opinion and talk type of shows. And guess, what, Jon Stewart has a narrative. So I don't get too upset about it, but it seems there are a lot of people out there who lack enough self-awareness to understand that the "news" they like is just as narrative-driven as the "news" they don't like.

Re: House Democrats Say They Will Not Vote for Final Bill if Stupak Amendment Is In It

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:03:57 -0000

It seems there is a lot of disagreement over what the actual bill and the stupak amendment would or would not cover and would or would not force people/insurance companies to do. This is one of those times I really wish there were fewer lawyers in Congress.

I'm not sure why someone doesn't offer an amendment to extend the long-standing Hyde amendment to this legislation. That seems to be President Obama's standard - that the legislation be consistent with that long-standing, if unsatisfying, compromise. I have to wonder why that kind of simple solution isn't considered, much less attempted. I suspect the answer is that both sides of the debate are attempting to change the status-quo in their favor through parliamentary trickery and confusing, lawyer-y legislation. Frankly, the American people deserve better than the travesty this process has become.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:20:24 -0000

What I'm trying to determine is if this new law will use the same standard as the hyde amendment. The language I quoted is from that.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:19:22 -0000

Kathy,

You say, "Here is a short list of general reform principles," then after you list them you say, "Once that is done," without ever telling us *how* they would get done.

I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't think my ideas are possible at present since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in real reform. Here's the sentence you seem to have missed: "Unfortunately, the established political parties aren't interested in the kind of systemic reform I advocate for because they each have powerful vested interests." You originally - and speciously - claimed I didn't have any solutions - I think I do, but they are not politically possible given the vested interests that support your party and the GoP. I'm actually quite cynical on that score and believe that the system will, at a minimum, have to stand the precipice before real reform occurs, but I think it's much more likely we'll go the way of Argentina first. Our Congress too often doesn't act until after a crisis occurs.

So go ahead and criticize my politically impossible ideas all you want, but you should at least acknowledge that your solution doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems in the system either. It's quite amazing for you to lecture me about costs - the drum I constantly beat - on one hand while the other hand supports a bill that is likely to affect costs in the wrong direction. If you want to engage in wishful thinking and believe this bill you support will somehow reduce costs or even the rate of cost growth, then don't let me stop you. Maybe you'll get lucky and the train will somehow derail before it hits us - or at least those of us who will still be around to bear the brunt and clean up the mess.

And you give no specifics at all about how you would lower the cost of health care so 50 million uninsured Americans could afford it.

Actually I did - I listed the three general principles I think are necessary. Those are changes that would really be structural change. If you were expecting a thesis or detailed explanation, sorry to disappoint you, but this is just a comment thread after all.

Your "government-sponsored catastrophic insurance plan" is a hoary chestnut by now. It completely ignores what the problem is to begin with -- that health care costs are catastrophically out of control, getting higher every day, and totally out of the reach of most Americans. The 50 million Americans who are uninsured cannot afford private insurance. That is the point.

Maybe you missed the part where I said that would come after the necessary structural reform, which I believe should be the priority above all else - a priority the current legislation ignores. Of course if we simply adopted the model I suggested without those structural changes then it would fail - just as this current legislation will fail should it become law. At the risk of repeating myself, we need systemic reform, not the window-dressing that both political parties advocate.

The argument that compares health insurance to car insurance is specious, and has been debunked many times before. The value of human life and health is not analogous to a car. A car is optional; my life is not. And it's a good thing that cars are optional, because I can't afford the cost of automobile insurance in my state anyway. I'm glad I can live w/o a car. I can't live w/o my life.

Of course, but you completely missed what I was saying which related to the fiscal aspect of health care coverage. If you can't understand the financial implications of unlimited liability vs capped liability then I don't know what to tell you. Capping liability by requiring government to cover costs above that cap would tend to reduce premium costs. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was comparing the value of life to the value of a car or a house, but whatever.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:11:41 -0000

Almoderate,

The standard today, for medicare/medicaid at least, is that "life of the mother" means abortion is permissible when a threat to the mother includes "physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." I would like to see where, exactly, the specific language you quoted exists in the bill.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:45:12 -0000

Kathy,

Touche' on your patronizing response! So my apologies for assuming you didn't the fiscal reality, but you are actually one of the few. Most people simply don't know that health costs have always risen faster than inflation and I made a wrong assumption based on your laying so much blame at the feet of one President.

Now, getting to your solution... Oh wait! That's right! You don't have any ideas for a solution. Or, on second thought, maybe that's not fair. You do have a solution. Don't throw money at a broken system. And that makes so much sense, Andy. When a system is broken, it has to be fixed. And you don't fix it by throwing money at it. You fix it by using the faith-based repair program: doing absolutely nothing and hoping the problem goes away. Or better yet: Pretending the problem doesn't even exist anymore!

I do actually have ideas, if you cared enough to ask. Unfortunately, the established political parties aren't interested in the kind of systemic reform I advocate for because they each have powerful vested interests. Yes, that includes the party that you seem to identify with. The Democratic plan which you support does nothing to change the existing system - its the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs. Since, as you've now said, you're completely cognizant of the systemic fiscal problems and the unsustainability of the system, one wonders why you support a bill that ignores those problems and the problem of unsustainability and, indeed, is likely to make those problems worse. It would be interesting to hear your defense on that score.

Just so you're clear on where I stand, here is a short list of general reform principles I think are necessary:

1. Get employers out of the health care business. Employer-provided health care favors corporations over small business and is one of the primary factors of wage depression over the last couple of decades.
2. Get rid of the fee-for-service system.
3. Change incentives and increase transparency within the system so that the consumers of health care better understand what they are getting and how much it costs.

Once that is done I would favor a government sponsored national catastrophic insurance plan where government would pay medical costs over a set amount (let's say $100k a year, adjusted yearly, as an example). This would effectively set a cap on what private insurance would pay out and make health insurance operate more like auto and property insurance (ie. your property insurer knows that your house and belongings are worth X amount and know they won't have to pay more than that. For health insurance, there currently is no limit, raising risks and premiums). Then individuals could buy private insurance to cover whatever they'd like and government could assist those with low income to enable them to purchase insurance.

Of course, that's just one idea and one that has flaws, as any plan would. There are other plans that could work, obviously. The bill that was recently passed in the house is not one of those.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:39:30 -0000

Rayne at Firedoglake lists the 64 Democrats who, in her words, “ask[ed] for primary opponents.”

Gee, I thought Congressional representatives were supposed to represent their constituents and not party apparatchiks.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:21:57 -0000

Kathy,

Just so you are aware, health care costs have outpaced inflation since the 1950's. We have long-standing systemic problems in the system that have nothing to do with GWB. There is no tax rate or spending cut that will make the system sustainable when costs are increasing at three time GDP growth. This bill, while it has a few merits, is simply throwing money at a broken system and will only add fuel to fire of financial unsustainability. And I'm sure when the system finally crashes the Partisans will be pointing fingers at GWB or Clinton or Obama or whatever President they like the least.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:15:44 -0000

GreenDreams,

Let's get a few things straight. To begin with, I don't need you to tell me (wrongly) what I think or believe. So quit with the "you teabaggers" crap. I am an abortion rights supporter and on the question of whether government should fund abortions or not as part of any medical care government provides or pays for, in general I think government should do that. But I have enough of a brain to realize that many - even a majority - of people in this country do not agree and I am not one to force such things down the throats of people who believe differently from me.

Additionally, what government ought to do is not the same thing as what government is required to do. Kathy apparently believes that failure to cover abortion violates the 14th amendment, which I think is poppycock, particularly since medically-necessary abortions are covered by government through medicaid and elsewhere and considering that not every medical procedure is covered by government programs.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:15:53 -0000

You see, this is why I don't like lawyers writing legislation.

It appears the amendment would prohibit elective abortions for any subsidized plan, though abortion riders would be allowed. Non-government subsidized plans could offer what they want.

There's also a big disagreement over exactly what "public funds" means since federal money can come from a variety of sources.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:46:31 -0000

Almoderate,

If what you say is true, then I'm misinformed about this amendment. As I said before, I don't think the government has any business telling private insurance what it cannot insure, particularly a legitimate and legal procedure like abortion.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:13:21 -0000

It's only contradictory if you think the obligations and rights of government and the private sector are the same. Obviously, they are not.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:24:23 -0000

There are lots of things that insurance can deny coverage on. While we may agree that government should cover abortions, I think the argument that government MUST cover abortions as a matter of constitutionality is a completely bogus argument.

The provision making it illegal for insurers to provide abortion coverage through the exchange I think is completely unconstitutional and should be removed (or fall in the courts). I don't see where the federal government has that kind of authority.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:28:43 -0000

Refusing to pay for coverage is not the same thing as denying coverage. Your comment to Leon is a strawman. There is no constitutional guarantee that any or all medical procedures must be covered by insurance or must be paid for equally through taxes.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:01:27 -0000

Kathy,

I don't see how you can claim this is a constitutional issue. The fact that abortion is legal does not mean there is some constitutional requirement for government to fund abortions. Gun ownership, for example (among many other things) is also legal and constitutional but no one claims that government has a duty to buy guns for people who can't afford them.

Like it or not there are a lot of people in this country that don't want their tax dollars funding abortion. That's not a legal or constitutional issue - it's a political issue. It's the same with your examples of the death penalty and the military. The difference with those is that both have much more political support than abortion does.

Re: Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:34:07 -0000

Pretty tame and typical,actually. Shouting-down in the house isn't all that unusual and used to be a lot worse.

Re: Details Emerging About Accused Fort Hood Massacre Shooter Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan

Andy — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:03:18 -0000

Col. Pat Lang is the only one who I think has gotten the analysis on this completely right. The key word: "Alienation."

Re: Read It and Weep

Andy — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:11:07 -0000

If you want to reduce the defense budget, why don't you get our President to end American involvement in the two major wars we're currently in?

Second, consider what could be done with the $400 billion plus we spend each year simply to pay the interest on the national debt. The argument about what could be done with the defense budget is kind of like arguing about what my family could (hypothetically) do without that car payment money while ignoring the $50k in credit card debt that's rising by $10k a year.

Re: Democrats Notice They’re Spending Us Into Oblivion

Andy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:40:57 -0000

Military spending has remained pretty consistent on the basis of GDP. Pretty much every other area of government spending has risen dramatically in comparison. Considering that the interest on existing debt alone is almost $400 billion a year, cutting the defense budget (~$600 billion this year) won't make much difference.

Stevek,

So what is your position? That the Democrats are blameless? You originally said it wasn't the Democrats who "spent us into oblivion." Well, you're wrong. With the exception of a couple of years, the Democrats have held either Congress or the White house for for the past several decades. They could have put a lid on spending and they didn't. Neither did the Republicans. Holding one party or another blameless is willful ignorance of the facts.

Re: Democrats Notice They’re Spending Us Into Oblivion

Andy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:13:12 -0000

Well said Polimom.

Re: Democrats Notice They’re Spending Us Into Oblivion

Andy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:54:02 -0000

Steve,

The fact that Congress didn't have a spine to stand up to Bush doesn't change the fact that budgetary power rests with Congress. Now the Democrats are in charge of both branches. So tell us, what is going to happen? Somehow I seriously doubt we'll be seeing the surpluses we had in the 1990's simply because the party you like is in power.

Re: Democrats Notice They’re Spending Us Into Oblivion

Andy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:19:25 -0000

And your point is?..

Look at your chart again and consider which party controlled Congress.

And really, both parties are quite guilty of running up the budget. Arguing which one is worse is kind of pointless.

You're deluding yourself if you really believe the Democrats aren't responsible for our budget mess - they are, but so are the Republicans.

Re: Democrats Notice They’re Spending Us Into Oblivion

Andy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:59:01 -0000

Stevek,

Last time I checked the Congress is the constitutional body responsible for creating and passing a budget, not the President.

Re: Could the U.S. see a Military Coup?

Andy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:33:59 -0000

Will the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, acting through our Joint Chiefs of Staff or some other high-level corps of U.S. Military officers, and supported by a variety of angry business leaders and extreme conservatives be so resentful of any changes to our national priorities that they would encourage a complete removal of our elected civilian federal government, save the Department of Defense?

That's a nice fantasy for a spy novel but is patently absurd in 2009. There may come a point when such a thing is possible, but it is at least a generation away.

Re: Nancy Pelosi’s Perfect Answer to a Perfectly Ridiculous Question

Andy — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:58:16 -0000

Yes, armies. Not an Air Force. The Air Force is not "armies," and the Founders certainly did not have airplanes in mind when they referred to "raising armies."

They didn't have tanks and machine guns or a ton of other stuff in mind either. Unless you think Congressional authority is limited to purchasing muskets, horses and smooth-bore artillery, Congress has the explicit enumerated power to equip and sustain the armed forces including aircraft, tanks and all the rest. That some of this military equipment is sustained and organized in an organization that doesn't have "Army" in the name does not magically make it unconstitutional. The idea that air forces, tanks, machine guns, etc. are only constitutionally legitimate if they are part of an organization with "Army" or "Navy" in the name does not make much sense to me.