tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post881153066668053312..comments2024-03-29T00:25:24.008-04:00Comments on the daily howler: As heard on Fox: They’re giving us our old Hayes back!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-40511311143716540422013-10-26T20:11:03.551-04:002013-10-26T20:11:03.551-04:00The CBO doesn't predict human behavior. It re...The CBO doesn't predict human behavior. It reports statistics and makes estimates. I'm guessing that was true back in the day with the Catastrophic Care change to Medicare, and that as usual you're just making up a report by the CBO on how the costs "would go down" with retirees. There are 48+M uninsured in this country. Let's assume that the 4M who would face the penalty are part of that 48M. To a first order, that means that the natural constituency for those who might benefit from the ACA outnumbers by eleven to one those who don't want insurance.<br /><br />Not everybody in the 48M will be covered of course, and of those who are, not all will be satisfied. Just as not all of the 4M will decide facing and fighting penalties is worth going without insurance.<br /><br />No one really knows what will happen, but the comparison with the Catastrophic Care episode is specious.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65409526203834848512013-10-26T17:45:04.868-04:002013-10-26T17:45:04.868-04:00Obviously, thats the CBO's prediction of what ...Obviously, thats the CBO's prediction of what will happen based on the CBO's assumptions about human behavior! In the late 80's, the CBO made assumptions about how the cost of the Catastrophic Care bill would go down. They had it all figured out because there job is to find a way to say "This is whats going to happen.," Lionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336249052780481883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5709460159734651102013-10-26T13:09:41.018-04:002013-10-26T13:09:41.018-04:00The Catastrophic Care addition to Medicare did not...The Catastrophic Care addition to Medicare did not provide for catastrophic care in spite of its name, the additional taxes cost more than they were worth, and they applied to all Medicare recipients. There are about 48M uninsured people in the country. Of course, not all of them will end up insured, but the CBO says that only about 4M would wind up paying the penalty.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-73300700506392471482013-10-26T12:48:43.330-04:002013-10-26T12:48:43.330-04:00Anonymous @ 9:32A,
I may be an idiot, but unlike ...Anonymous @ 9:32A,<br /><br />I may be an idiot, but unlike you, I'm familiar with both the evidence and the law.<br /><br />I think Zimmerman lied. And the prosecution did its best to use his narrative against him. It was an uphill battle since 1) he didn't testify and couldn't be cross-examined, and 2) he killed the only rebuttal witness. When I say his credibility wasn't germane, I mean it wasn't germane to the issue of TDH's blog entries. No one can know for sure what and how much of Zimmerman's statements are untrue, but we can know certain facts. You and many journalists simply ignore those facts, and <i>that's</i> what TDH complains about. If you think that TDH is interested in analyzing Zimmerman's behavior or assessing Zimmerman's guilt, you've missed the point of his blog.<br /><br />The only evidence that anybody has that Z was struck first comes from Z himself, and that's obviously suspect. But even if M struck Z first, that wouldn't necessarily have been illegal. If M had reasonably believed that Z presented a threat to his own life and safety, M was under no legal obligation to wait for Z to attack. M's preemptive strike would have been legal even if he was reasonably mistaken.<br /><br />Z did not say that M asked why he, Z, was after him. Z claimed M said "You got a problem." Z did not report that he refused to answer; Z said he answered "No." Z did not say that at that point he grabbed for his gun; Z said he reached in his pocket for his phone. All of this is self-serving, but absolutely none of it is an admission against interest.<br /><br />Zimmerman's statement to the police is one of the few pieces in the whole episode that we can be absolutely sure of. We actually have Zimmerman's signed statement of his account. And you're 0 for 3 in making claims about that statement.<br /><br />Which one of us is the idiot again?deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-75234591625270235952013-10-26T12:47:11.382-04:002013-10-26T12:47:11.382-04:00Right and watch all holy hell break loose when the...Right and watch all holy hell break loose when they start trying to enforce a sizable penalty. Catastrophic Care addition to Medicare had to be abandoned when people found out it was not free and that they would be charged for it based on income. Lionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336249052780481883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15296290646672866122013-10-26T12:44:16.882-04:002013-10-26T12:44:16.882-04:00"Zimmerman's lies" -- The jury heard..."Zimmerman's lies" -- The jury heard it all and believed Zimmerman because Zimmerman's version was internally consistent and consistent with the facts. Moreover, it made sense. If you watched the trial, the prosecution not only did not make sense but their witnesses contradicted each other and at the end of the trial, the prosecutor himself admitted that Martin was beating Zimmerman, actually brought out a dummy and acted Martin's part.Lionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336249052780481883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65548750837565507652013-10-26T12:40:46.165-04:002013-10-26T12:40:46.165-04:00Yeah. Its a kind of passive aggressive thing with...Yeah. Its a kind of passive aggressive thing with "liberals" (totalitarian liberals which should be a contradiction): if you don't want to spend money the way they want to spend money, you are bad. Lionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336249052780481883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82410802182999861482013-10-26T12:37:27.584-04:002013-10-26T12:37:27.584-04:00The penalty is much much less than what insurance ...The penalty is much much less than what insurance would cost them. <br /><br />And politically there is a problem with assessing them taxes. Wait and see. Maybe you are too young to remember the Catastrophic Care addition to Medicare that was passed with great fanfare in the 80s but did not go into effect until 1989. Thats when people on Medicare found out that they were the ones who would be paying for it. It was repealed very quickly. Lionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336249052780481883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10591551654893478032013-10-26T12:34:01.714-04:002013-10-26T12:34:01.714-04:00Re Republican Congressman who hates to "look ...Re Republican Congressman who hates to "look upon" Obama. I can't stand the sight of him myself. Also could not stand the sight of Bush. Is this the best we can do? Its too bad.Lionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06336249052780481883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-74908791004644160852013-10-26T11:19:10.538-04:002013-10-26T11:19:10.538-04:00You have no evidence whatsoever that Z was the fir...<i>You have no evidence whatsoever that Z was the first one struck</i><br /><br />There's no evidence that Trayvon Martin was ever struck. Unlike Z, M had no injuries consistent with having been struck.<br /><br />Of course, M was shot to death. But, nobody would argue that M was shot to death <i>before</i> he beat up Z.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-73381230998733974752013-10-26T09:32:04.246-04:002013-10-26T09:32:04.246-04:00Deadrat, you are an idiot. The very notion that th...Deadrat, you are an idiot. The very notion that the fact that Zimmerman lies weren't "germane" is retarded. When the killer lies on essentially every point, you must throw out the self serving offal that deep throats like you suck in, like how the final conflict began. <br /><br />You have no evidence whatsoever that Z was the first one struck, other than the claims of the killer, who changed his story every time the police or Hannity warned him he wasn't believable. <br /><br />That leaves you with the admission against interest of Zimmerman that the conflict began when Trayvon asked why Z was after him, Z refused to answer, and Z grabbed for his gun. Manslaughter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77597622409306106162013-10-26T00:32:18.398-04:002013-10-26T00:32:18.398-04:00Anonymous @ 11:19P,
My! Aren't you the poste...Anonymous @ 11:19P,<br /><br />My! Aren't you the poster boy for TDH's screed about the Zimmerman trial.<br /><br />TDH didn't write about Zimmerman's "lies" because, assuming Zimmerman lied, that wasn't germane to his point about getting basic facts correct. TDH didn't write about Zimmerman's "bad character," because, assuming Zimmerman's character was bad, that couldn't be probative for anything that happened that night. That's why character can't be issue at trial.<br /><br />You, yourself might try getting your facts correct, even if you can't control your prejudices.<br /><br />There's no evidence that Zimmerman "stalked" Martin. Certainly, not in the legal sense. And not in the vernacular sense of a predator stalking prey. Otherwise, Zimmerman was the first stalker to get punched out by his victim. There's no law against following someone in a public place.<br /><br />There's no evidence that Zimmerman provoked Martin. No one knows what precipitated the fight after the two confronted each other. Absent a threat, there's no law against confronting someone in a public place either.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79335815687932663682013-10-26T00:18:32.513-04:002013-10-26T00:18:32.513-04:00DAinCA,
Is there no bottom to your foolish ignora...DAinCA,<br /><br />Is there no bottom to your foolish ignorance? About your chain of clinics: Go here:<br /><br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNfGyIW7aHM<br /><br />The penalty starts out low to avoid dinging people during the inevitable confusion surrounding a new law. It eventually rises to 2.5% of income exceeding the threshold for filing a tax return. There can be neither criminal sanctions nor liens, but the penalty is collected under a particular section of the tax code that allows the IRS to double the original penalty when confronted with a refusal to pay.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-37936079211121270442013-10-26T00:02:40.884-04:002013-10-26T00:02:40.884-04:00DAinCA,
Churches use their resources to aid the n...DAinCA,<br /><br />Churches use their resources to aid the needy? That's <i>adorable</i>. The Catholic Church uses its resources to pay judgments in sexual abuse cases. The Mormon Church uses its resources to try to kill marriage equality. Evangelical churches use their resources to annoy other at home and abroad by proselytizing. Westboro Baptist church uses its resources to harass the bereaved.<br /><br />States that voted Republican have lots of Democrats; states that voted Democratic have lots of Republicans. Unless we know who gave how much to charity, it's impossible to know who's more generous.<br /><br />But perhaps all those blue states didn't have enough money left over for charity after their taxes went to red states. deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85649158173681825372013-10-25T23:54:36.419-04:002013-10-25T23:54:36.419-04:00JoshSN,
Those weren't the same Republicans.
...JoshSN,<br /><br />Those weren't the same Republicans.<br /><br />You've got two choices here -- venality or stupidity. Either Republicans have knowlngly declared war on the uninsured or they're dumb enough to believe teahadist crap. We know which one DAinCA is going for. You too, eh?deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-88793458728622875252013-10-25T23:43:54.304-04:002013-10-25T23:43:54.304-04:00deadrat wrote: What happens if non-subsidized peop...deadrat wrote: <i>What happens if non-subsidized people don't sign up? They'll be assessed a penalty at tax time, so there's no benefit to not signing up.</i><br /><br />The penalty is much smaller than the insurance premium. Furthermore, it can only be collected from an income tax refund. If you don't overpay your estimated tax + withholding, you won't actually have to pay a penalty.<br /><br /><i> What's your alternative to the current system that keeps insurance costs accelerating and enlarges the pool of the uninsured?</i><br /><br />My personal alternative would be a chain of clinics, locally run, that provide basic medical care at affordable cost. I have a vague memory of being treated at such a clinic in the Bronx in the late 1940's. In addition, I'd pass a law that hospitals and pharmacies have to charge the same price to all. Under the current system, the government or insurance company gets an enormous discount. If you don't have insurance you pay full price.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56899788972394558912013-10-25T23:26:29.997-04:002013-10-25T23:26:29.997-04:00And as for Medicare Part D -- you really believe R...And as for Medicare Part D -- you really believe Republicans supported that provision out of compassion, when Republican govenors are refusing billions in Federal aid to cover the poor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53665122717078196342013-10-25T23:24:59.925-04:002013-10-25T23:24:59.925-04:00Exactly, JoshSN -- Romney's policies were all ...Exactly, JoshSN -- Romney's policies were all built on the moocher line, but of course he wouldn't openly advertise it. That revelation was for big donors only, but was clearly seen in the his policy prescriptions. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45509246643688874852013-10-25T23:19:51.242-04:002013-10-25T23:19:51.242-04:00Yes, the Trayvon Martin issue did give a good exam...Yes, the Trayvon Martin issue did give a good example of liberal foolishness...Primarily from one named Bob Somerby who pretended that Zimmerman's repeated lies, bad character, unjustified stalking, and provoking of a guy talking on his cell phone counted for nothing since it was a black kid wearing a hoodie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27251500033065550422013-10-25T21:59:21.636-04:002013-10-25T21:59:21.636-04:00Ah, heck. Liberals are always being told by the na...Ah, heck. Liberals are always being told by the nastiest people how nice they have to be. Bag it!Hattiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02621439195920479957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19778506103645006112013-10-25T21:07:27.504-04:002013-10-25T21:07:27.504-04:00Why would you ignore church tithing? Churches use...Why would you ignore church tithing? Churches use their resources to aid the poor and needy.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76775584811853822092013-10-25T18:02:13.362-04:002013-10-25T18:02:13.362-04:00Anon5:23, I wouldn't call airing a show within...Anon5:23, I wouldn't call airing a show within a few months of the Army hearings as particularly early in McCarthy's reign of terror. I would say Murrow jumped on the bandwagon when it became increasingly obvious that McCarthy was out of control and needed to be stopped. He performed a service by publicizing what was happening to a broader public, but he didn't take down McCarthy in any sense. <br /><br />In CA, the Army hearings were broadcast after the 11 pm nightly news every evening. My parents stayed up to watch them. But they happened long after many in Hollywood lost their jobs. McCarthy didn't only affect actors and directors. His Red Scare cost my father his job, simply because my mother was taking lessons in Russian language in night school. It didn't take much to be under suspicion in those days. So, that isn't history for me -- it was part of my life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47602153906436750342013-10-25T17:53:33.347-04:002013-10-25T17:53:33.347-04:00The federal government isn't providing care to...The federal government isn't providing care to the poor and middle class. The federal government is subsidizing some members of the poor and middle class so that they can purchase medical insurance and thereby obtain care from the usual providers of medical treatment.<br /><br />If you factor out church tithing, republicans are not more charitable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63727127293744464192013-10-25T17:41:03.016-04:002013-10-25T17:41:03.016-04:00Republican hostility to providing care to the poor...<i>Republican hostility to providing care to the poor and middle-class has a long history, going back to Medicare.</i><br /><br />Not quite. I think you mean<br /><i>Republican hostility to THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT providing care to the poor and middle-class has a long history, going back to Medicare.</i><br /><br /> Republicans are more generous in terms of charitable giving than Democrats. E.g., see http://clearwater.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/whos-more-geneours-republicans-or-democrats<br /><br /><i>States that voted Republican in the last presidential race are far more likely to be generous to charities than those voting Democratic, a report by the Chronicle of Philanthropy suggests.</i>David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49569714048465390292013-10-25T17:39:15.893-04:002013-10-25T17:39:15.893-04:00Romney most certainly did not run his campaign on ...Romney most certainly did <i>not</i> run his campaign on the idea that half the country are moochers. It was something he said at a private function. <br /><br />It is true that Republicans don't want to expand the number of people who want to thank Democrats for government services, but these same Republicans supported Medicare Part D, just a half dozen years ago.<br /><br />JoshSNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08034864979736555692noreply@blogger.com