tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post548635947308325179..comments2024-03-18T23:02:16.395-04:00Comments on the daily howler: TRIBE AND RACE: The plutocrats cheer! <b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-71962405453653518162013-11-20T01:31:56.690-05:002013-11-20T01:31:56.690-05:00The final rule actually in place, requires the fee...The final rule actually in place, requires the fee for 2014, 2015, and 2016. (The fee drops after the first year, and expires in 2016 altogether. Half the money comes in 2014.) So you're now complaining about a rule change that might take place in 2015? You haven't answered for your ignorance about 2013 yet.<br /><br />But the hits just keep comin'. You source? <i>The Wall Street Jounal</i>. And here's a hint: for this to be "another arguably" illegal waiver, you're gonna have to actually make a first argument that some waiver is illegal. Something you can't seem to do. Quoting the right-wing noise machine doesn't count as an argument, by the way.<br /><br />Got any of those answers I asked for? I'm here to help.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-30249829780606732142013-11-20T01:11:42.700-05:002013-11-20T01:11:42.700-05:00DAinCA,
Of course I haven't read 2000 pages o...DAinCA,<br /><br />Of course I haven't read 2000 pages of ACA law or even a single reg based on the law. And yet somehow I managed to find the section that authorizes waivers on insurance standards for 2013. That would, of course, make the waivers perfectly legal, while you, of course, maintain just the opposite. That means that you've told an untruth, you've failed to check your statement even after you've been corrected, and you've continued to tell that untruth anyway. So, let me turn around and ask you: Does that make me a better man (or woman) than you?<br /><br />OK, You've said that the waivers were a political decision, dictated by the President himself and one that violated equal protection (well, you said "treatment," but that's the same thing). You now say that this political decision wasn't based on favor. So what makes the decisions "political"?<br /><br />The fact is that you have no idea whether the President overrode HHS. In fact, until I told you, you didn't even know that HHS was involved. You also have no idea on what basis the waivers were granted, but you insist that you know it's "political."<br /><br />You won't answer my specific questions, but you've thrown up a smokescreen of italics about other supposedly "legally dubious actions." Your source naturally is right-wing opinion. Michael Barone is a right-wing commentator for <i>The Washington Examiner</i> a newspaper set up by Philip Anschutz specifically to counter the liberal <i>Washington Post</i>. Anschutz is a billionaire (38th on <i>Forbes</i> list) best known for investing in sports franchises. No surprise you're carrying his water.<br /><br />We can get to discussing your new claims after we finish with your old ones. (Well, these aren't your claims really. Just things that you've read by people you agree with politically and that you parrot).<br /><br />Let me repeat my questions:<br /><br />1. Have you found the section of the ACA that makes legal the 2013 waivers on standards? If not, why not? And if not, why do you insist on repeating the claim of illegality?<br /><br />2. What evidence do you have that the President is involved in granting individual waivers, and what makes these waivers "political"? Feel free to define "political," since you say my interpretation is wrong.<br /><br />3. Since "equal protection" is imposed on the states by the 14th Amendment, what make you think that the same stricture is imposed on the federal government?<br /><br />4. Supposing that equal protection actually applies, what level of scrutiny makes the HHS/Presidential decisions a violation?<br /><br />As though your latest italics didn't do the job for me, let me bang my point home once more: you swallow whole and unquestioningly political judgments, no matter how ignorant, fed to you by the right-wing noise machine. You make no effort to verify anything.<br /><br />So does that make me a better man (or woman) than you?<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29184330972930076202013-11-20T00:42:58.950-05:002013-11-20T00:42:58.950-05:00Another arguably illegal waiver is in the offing:
...Another arguably illegal waiver is in the offing:<br /><br /><i>FWIW, the WSJ sneak-previews the next ObamaCare waiver, which will address a union grievance:<br /><br />Earlier this month the Administration suggested that it may grant a waiver for some insurance plans from a tax that is supposed to capitalize a reinsurance fund for ObamaCare. The $25 billion cost of the fund, which is designed to pay out to the insurers on the exchanges if their costs are higher than expected, is socialized over every U.S. citizen with a private health plan. For 2014, the fee per head is $63.<br /><br />The unions (unlike other private citizens) don't want to pay. So:<br /><br />In an aside in a Federal Register document filed this month, the Administration previewed its forthcoming regulation: "We also intend to propose in future rulemaking to exempt certain self-insured, self-administered plans from the requirement to make reinsurance contributions for the 2015 and 2016 benefit years."<br /><br />Allow us to translate. "Self-insured" means that a business pays for the medical expenses of its workers directly and hires an insurer as a third-party administrator to process claims, manage care and the like. Most unions as well as big corporations use this arrangement.<br /><br />But the kicker here is "self-administered." That term refers to self-insured plans that don't contract with the Aetnas and Blue Shields of the world and instead act as their own in-house benefits manager.<br /><br />Almost no business in the real world still follows this old-fashioned practice as both medicine and medical billing have become more complex. The major exception is a certain type of collectively bargained insurance trust known as Taft-Hartley plans. Such insurance covers about 20 million union members, and four out of five Taft-Hartley trusts are self-administered.<br /><br />There's no conceivable rationale—other than politics—for releasing union-only plans from a tax that is defined as universal in the Affordable Care Act statute. Like so many other ObamaCare waivers, this labor dispensation will probably turn out to be illegal.</i><br /><br />http://justoneminute.typepad.com/David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-51712056224056471392013-11-19T22:56:23.515-05:002013-11-19T22:56:23.515-05:00deadrat, if you've read 2000 pages of ACA law ...deadrat, if you've read 2000 pages of ACA law and another 10,000 pages of ACA regs, you're a better man (or woman) than I am. Note that I said that the waivers were a political decision, not that they necessarily went to political cronies. Neither you nor I know how the inside discussions went, but I don't any HHS would give a waiver to McDonalds without consulting the White House. <br /><br />The various legal questions are murky. This article mentions some <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/rothman-new-revelations-transform-obamacare-from-fiasco-into-scandal/" rel="nofollow">legally dubious actions:<br /></a> <br /><i>As political analyst Michael Barone observed on Tuesday, the White House unilaterally delayed the employer mandate to comport with the law’s health insurance requirements in July and waived income verification requirements designed to determine who should receive subsidies. On both occasions, the president flagrantly refused to enforce the provisions of his own signature legislative achievement. <br /><br />And now, POLITICO reports, the president is preparing to ignore yet another of the law’s provisions. This time, the inconvenient stipulation to be conspicuously overlooked is one which would reimburse health insurance providers for losses they incur as a result of extending coverage to millions of low-income uninsured. As POLITICO declares in their headline, Obama told insurance companies that there is “no bailout” in store for them. There is just one problem, as POLITICO concedes in the 11th paragraph of this report, the White House is preparing to do the exact opposite of what their headline suggests. <br /><br />“To address the industry concerns about additional costs if they revive the canceled plans, administration officials said last week they would tweak one of those tools — called ‘risk corridors’ — to give them more help,” POLITICO reports. “But Obama made clear that the financial support has a limit, according to the two health executives and several other industry sources who were briefed on the meeting.”<br /><br />Not adjusting “risk corridors,” as Talking Points Memo’s Sahil Kapur reports, would be the path of least political resistance – Americans have no taste for another bailout of a private industry, particularly one that incurs its losses as a result of complying with federal regulations. But to not provide those adjustments would likely force some insurers out of the exchange marketplace, making insurance provided by those companies that are still in the marketplace more expensive and, thus, threatening the financial viability of the ACA. This would hasten the onset of the “death spiral” effect.<br /><br />Already, the administration’s short-term risk mitigation strategy has made a bailout for insurance providers more likely. By allowing some insurance providers the option of refusing to comply with the ACA’s coverage mandates and allowing those who lost their noncompliant plans to regain them, some states will have risk pools that are simply riskier and, thus, more expensive for non-subsidized insured. </i><br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81144464216285795772013-11-19T21:19:26.209-05:002013-11-19T21:19:26.209-05:00There's little difference between HHS disobeyi...<i>There's little difference between HHS disobeying the law vs. the President disobeying the law.</i> From the point of view of the law, this is true, but there's a world of difference between the HHS obeying the law, and the President overriding HHS illegally. But in this case, nobody disobeyed the law.<br /><br /><i>They have no authority beyond what the President has, and he has authority to overrule anything they do.</i> True, but it would be highly unusual for a President to ignore the chain of command. Even Nixon didn't fire the Special Prosecutor. Are you now claiming that Obama overrode decisions of HHS?<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, in this case, I have no doubt that the White House, not HHS, decided whom to grant waivers to. It was a very political decision.</i> You are often wrong though never in doubt. What evidence do you have that waivers were granted to political allies? McDonald's got a waiver, and that organization doesn't involve itself in Presidential politics. Their PAC contributes to both parties' Congressional candidates but more to Republicans than to Democrats. Which friends of Obama got waivers?<br /><br /><i>If you have evidence for your claims above, why don't you provide the links?</i> These are your claims, not mine. Let me list them again.<br /><br />1. The waivers were illegal.<br />2. Obama interfered in the HHS procedures to grant them.<br />3. The waivers went to Obama cronies.<br />4. The waivers violated equal protection.<br /><br />I happen to know that 1 is false. That's because I read the law. I'm trying to get you to take the same effort. Why not give it a try? While you're at it, provide some evidence for the rest. 2 might be hard, but you're oh, so sure of it. 3 should be easy: list those who got waivers and show they're Obama cronies. 4 should be easy as well: tell me how equal protection is a federal issue and what standard of scrutiny applies.<br /><br />Backing up your opinions with evidence seems difficult to you only because you've never tried it. Give it a chance. You might like it.<br /><br />As always, standing by to help.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-40136161005722165742013-11-19T20:53:43.954-05:002013-11-19T20:53:43.954-05:00There's little difference between HHS disobeyi...There's little difference between HHS disobeying the law vs. the President disobeying the law. HHS is part of the Executive Branch. They have no authority beyond what the President has, and he has authority to overrule anything they do. The President is responsible, even if he was uninvolved. Furthermore, in this case, I have no doubt that the White House, not HHS, decided whom to grant waivers to. It was a very political decision.<br /><br />If you have evidence for your claims above, why don't you provide the links?David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72720170738921731582013-11-19T20:13:34.246-05:002013-11-19T20:13:34.246-05:00I can't recall anybody calling for all people ...I can't recall anybody calling for all people to be super-respectful of Obama because he is part African. (Incidentally, he is 100 percent American).<br /><br />But a few less photos circulating around the 'net with him dressed as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose would be nice.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31564106661596546352013-11-19T19:35:56.507-05:002013-11-19T19:35:56.507-05:00I also keep forgetting that the guy being chased h...I also keep forgetting that the guy being chased has no right whatsoever to defend himseld, and that Zimmerman was such a pussy he was getting beat up by a kid who weighed a buck forty.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32895826147161300992013-11-19T19:34:20.003-05:002013-11-19T19:34:20.003-05:00I keep forgetting that Trayvon forced Zimmerman to...I keep forgetting that Trayvon forced Zimmerman to get out of his truck, grab his gun and chase him down.<br /><br />Thanks for reminding me of that particular fairy tale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62375712781334449352013-11-19T19:20:57.531-05:002013-11-19T19:20:57.531-05:00His jury is thinking that it looks like the dude w...His jury is thinking that it looks like the dude who was forced to defend his life with a gun has a hard time with women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23195024001649957652013-11-19T18:57:00.740-05:002013-11-19T18:57:00.740-05:00Anonymous @1:47P,
I'm inclined to call bullsh...Anonymous @1:47P,<br /><br />I'm inclined to call bullshit here, but I could be convinced by evidence. Got any?<br /><br />If you think the Clinton/Obama primary season was nasty, you must be in constant need of the fainting couch. The 2000 Bush/McCain South Carolina primary, now <i>that</i> was nasty.<br /><br />Obama did not "subvert" the rules committee to disallow Clinton delegates. The two disputed states were Michigan (where Obama wasn't on the ballot) and Florida. The states were originally stripped of their delegates for holding primaries too early, but were eventually restored to half-strength. Clinton got 50% or the Florida vote and ended up with 57% of the pledged delegates. The rules committee split the Michigan delegates evenly on a 19-8 vote. Thirteen members of the committee had endorsed Clinton, so this was hardly an Obama steamroller. Clinton felt she'd been robbed. Of 4 delegates.<br /><br />The rules for awarding Democratic delegates are complicated and arcane. Extra delegates are awarded for winning Congressional districts or for winning by large margins. In some states, delegates are awarded in a convention and a primary. Obama played the rules. Clinton relied on the unpledged superdelegates, who turned out didn't want to disturb the pledged delegate totals.<br /><br />Age didn't stop Reagan (70 when he took office) or George HW (65), and the latter had Dan Quayle as a worry. Liberals are what? 20% of voting population. There aren't enough of them to "close ranks" to elect Obama.<br /><br />But keep telling yourself that affirmative action (or something "akin" to it) was the reason for Obama's success.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1672506188585053182013-11-19T18:33:49.836-05:002013-11-19T18:33:49.836-05:00Go away troll.Go away troll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13995725169445340852013-11-19T17:38:42.332-05:002013-11-19T17:38:42.332-05:00DAinCA,
Is this an admission that you made a wild...DAinCA,<br /><br />Is this an admission that you made a wild accusation without evidence to back it up? Would you like to apologize now or later? Or not?<br /><br />Your analogy about Bush excusing Haliburton from paying Medicare tax is inapt. Companies are not being excused from paying taxes (or even penalties); they have been given permission to offer substandard plans in 2013.<br /><br />So, let's be clear about your original accusation. You claimed that Obama is violating his legal duties by granting waivers he's not authorized to grant and violating his ethical duties by granting these illegal favors to his friends. You have now added that Obama has violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.<br /><br />If you'd asked a question about the legal standing of the waivers, that would be one thing. If you'd twitted the media and the administration because they didn't explain the legal basis of the waivers, that would be a like thing. You did neither of these things. You charged that the President<br /><br />1. acted illegally in granting waivers,<br />2. did so in pursuit of cronyism, and<br />3. did so in violation of equal protection.<br /><br />I'd like to know the following:<br /><br />1. It turns out that HHS is granting the waivers; not the President. Are you also charging that Obama illegally interfered in the decisions of an executive department?<br /><br />2. It turns out that the ACA allows the granting of waivers in the matter of 2013 insurance standards. Have you been able to pinpoint the section?<br /><br />3. Equal protection applies to the states via the 14th Amendment. Can you tell me how this stricture applies to the federal government?<br /><br />4. Assuming that equal protection even applies, can you explain the level of scrutiny that makes the waivers a violation?<br /><br />I don't blame you for dodging these questions. I'll even admit that they are in part rhetorical, a device simply to point out your continuing and abyssal ignorance. But, hey! Give it a shot. Consider that it might be good for you to attempt to support your opinion with fact. For once.<br /><br />As always, I'm here to help. Tell me what's not clear about my request.<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33850530329872378992013-11-19T16:44:41.585-05:002013-11-19T16:44:41.585-05:00deadrat asks me to search the ACA for the provisio...deadrat asks me to search the ACA for the provision that allows HHS to grant waivers in 2013. I think the burden should be on the Administration to show the public that they have this power.<br /><br />Here's an analogy: Suppose President Bush had granted Halliburton a waiver so they didn't have to pay Medicare tax. Would I be asking deadrat to prove that Bush didn't have the power to do this? Would the media be ignoring this apparent abuse of power? Of course not. There would be a widespread demand that the President justify violating the principle of equal treatment under the law.<br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-87484211156571418012013-11-19T16:42:33.025-05:002013-11-19T16:42:33.025-05:00From Salon
What's his jury thinking now?
A ...From Salon<br /><br /> What's his jury thinking now?<br /><br />A chilling 911 call shows George Zimmerman trying to frame his girlfriend -- just like he did Trayvon Martin<br /><br />end quote.<br /><br />What does it say about the judgement of Bone-gnawer who went into frenzies of liberal bashing defending Z?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90109131011971918102013-11-19T16:22:19.683-05:002013-11-19T16:22:19.683-05:00Anonymous at 3:48:
Leave now, troll.Anonymous at 3:48:<br /><br />Leave now, troll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-39788971128078157922013-11-19T15:48:34.334-05:002013-11-19T15:48:34.334-05:00KZ can type! Type, KZ, type!KZ can type! Type, KZ, type!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-74392159221123964492013-11-19T14:00:53.555-05:002013-11-19T14:00:53.555-05:00If Hillary Clinto had spent her time as First Lady...If Hillary Clinto had spent her time as First Lady helping kids lose weight and planting a vegetable garden on the White House lawn, she wouldn't have been elected senator either. Name recognition alone isn't helpful unless the reputation that goes with the name suggests competence. Clinton overcame resentment about her aspirations -- she didn't win because she was First Lady, she won in spite of being First Lady. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77710587201741827922013-11-19T13:47:01.140-05:002013-11-19T13:47:01.140-05:00It isn't fair that Obama was elected the first...It isn't fair that Obama was elected the first time, with a thinner resume than Clinton, but the media coalesced around his candidacy and those supporting him used some spectacularly nasty tactics to secure the nomination, including subverting the rules committee and convention so that Clinton's delegates could not be counted. It was one of the uglier elections. Part of what helped Obama was the desire to elect the first African American president, the historicity, although many Clinton supporters felt it would have been just as historic to elect the first female president. And yes, there was age discrimination against McCain and the fear that if he were unable to function, Palin would become president. Whatever you want to call it, I do think that when liberals close ranks to put the first African American in office, regardless of his policies and experience, there is something akin to affirmative action operating. But no one really cares about the disappointed hopes of women in this country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45247700341872550742013-11-19T13:42:22.606-05:002013-11-19T13:42:22.606-05:00Go away.Go away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12031279286949273882013-11-19T13:41:17.217-05:002013-11-19T13:41:17.217-05:00Nobody in NY cares about partners in Arkansas law ...Nobody in NY cares about partners in Arkansas law firms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3274648474455558292013-11-19T13:38:58.867-05:002013-11-19T13:38:58.867-05:00Sure, Hillary earned her election as Senator. She...Sure, Hillary earned her election as Senator. She's smart and hard-working (and shares my wife's alma mater.) George W. Bush earned his election as Governor and as President. However, family connections were also vital for both of them. A baseball team owner not named Bush wouldn't have had the same electoral success. A non-Clinton partner in a powerful Arkansas law firm couldn't have been elected Senator from New York, no matter how hardworking and competent she was. David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-86422834545473065252013-11-19T13:37:08.835-05:002013-11-19T13:37:08.835-05:00Yeah, it's really not fair that Obama was elec...Yeah, it's really not fair that Obama was elected (twice!) to the Presidency with his thin resume. Just another example of race-based affirmative action, and in John McCain's case, age discrimination.<br /><br />But how's it comin' on that search of the ACA for the provision that allows HHS to grant waivers in 2013? You accused the President of illegally exempting his friends from following the law. I'm sure you're willing to back that up. Do you need more time? Or a hint? I'm here to helpdeadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58470827258013817202013-11-19T12:44:57.621-05:002013-11-19T12:44:57.621-05:00I caught bone-gnawer inciting librul-hatred with a...<br /><br />I caught bone-gnawer inciting librul-hatred with a really vicious distortion of a mainstream utterance (for example, "But after Reader's Digest went public in 1990, its conservative readership began to literally die off") and his fans are baying for censorship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42145192974778363922013-11-19T11:57:24.228-05:002013-11-19T11:57:24.228-05:00Yes, this is in line with upper class prep school ...Yes, this is in line with upper class prep school behavior too. And of course, upper class manners are equivalent to all manners everywhere because they have inherent obvious value. And if someone in a class addresses another student as "Yo" or "Jim" they will have nothing of value to say and have no place in civil society, and thus the plutocracy rules. Jefferson had no problem being President of some of the people, no problem living with his wife's slave half-sister and no problem with the fact that women couldn't do any of the things men could, but as long as he addressed people as Mr. or Mrs., it was all OK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com