During the confirmation hearings of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett, I repeatedly objected to the clearly false narrative that she was nominated to vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act in the pending case of California v. Texas. The case was highly unlikely to result in such a decision and the Democrats knew it. The case was focused on a highly technical and limited issues of severability. It would either be resolved on that limited basis or dismissed for standing. While Barrett might view the ACA as unconstitutional (as many do), I noted that she was more likely to dismiss the challenge or sever the individual mandate than to strike down the Act in the case. That is what she did in joined the 7-2 decision to dismiss the case.
During the confirmation, the Senate Democrats surrounded the room with giant pictures of people who would lose their health care if Barrett was confirmed and struck down the Act. They were portrayed as her future victims as members pummeled Barrett with accusations that she was just an ACA-killing shill. Barrett retained her composure and did not state the obvious — that she was more likely to vote to dismiss the case than to strike down the Act. She also refused to take the bait in responding to President Trump’s call for the Act to be struck down.
The shameful attacks were unrelenting. Democrats insisted that there was no question that Barrett would vote in the case to strip away health care for millions. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed in a press release that “a vote by any Senator for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and eliminate protections for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions.”
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-M.D., claimed that Barrett was on an “assignment” by Trump to get rid of Obamacare:
“We just chatted for a minute, and I really wanted to try to understand her experience as a person when it came to health care because she is being sent on assignment to the Supreme Court by President Trump. And we know what that assignment is, eliminate the Affordable Care Act.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., referred to Barrett as a “judicial torpedo” aimed at destroying Obamacare: “This Supreme Court nominee has signaled in the judicial equivalent of all caps that she believes the Affordable Care Act must go, and that the precedent protecting the ACA doesn’t matter,” Whitehouse said. He claimed that the “influences behind this unseemly rush see this nominee as a judicial torpedo they are firing at the ACA.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, claimed in an interview during Barrett’s confirmation hearings that Republicans “want her on that court to hear the Affordable Care Act case… so that she can strike it down. This nominee poses a clear and present danger, an immediate danger, to the healthcare of over 20 million Americans who have healthcare thanks to the Affordable Care Act.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) declared that Barrett would “work to gut” the ACA and called Barrett a “right-wing ideologue who does not represent the majority of Americans.”
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., insisted that Barrett’s nomination was being “fast-tracked” due to the pending case:
“This nominee is being fast-tracked, first of all, because this nominee has been vetted by the two groups that matter: the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation,” Casey said. “Both groups totally committed to undoing, striking down the Affordable Care Act. So she’s already passed that test, and she apparently passed with flying colors as she moved very quickly to a likely confirmation.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tweeted. “Make no mistake, a vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who meets President Trump’s tests is a vote to take away people’s health care and vital rights.”
Legal and media experts echoed the narrative that confirming Barrett meant no health care for Americans. Professor Charles Tiefer wrote with complete confidence that “[a]s a textualist, she will find that the whole ACA is dead. It will be somber reminder that however the Presidential race comes out, Republicans have set up a 6-3 Court conservative court that will reign supreme for decades to come.” He and others like NYU Professor Stephen Gillers said that Barrett should consider recusal from the case.
Barrett sat through days of such baseless attacks and predictions. She even had to endure Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, claiming that her adoption of two Haitian children raised the image of a “white colonizer” and suggested that the children were little more than props to their mother.
I do not seriously expect apologies. That is something that does not happen in our age of rage. Spurious attacks and false claims are simply ignored by the media when they are later proven to be untrue. They served their purpose in the staging of the confirmation. By the time the “judicial torpedo” proved to be a dud, the members and the media had moved on to the next target and orchestrated narrative. All that was left was the sound of a hallow clank hitting the side of the ACA as Barrett joined six other justices to dismiss the case.
“The more Trump voters, the smaller the % of the county that’s been vaccinated. Trump voters’ stupidity re: Covid will result in some of them dying unnecessarily.”
This is the continuous Stupidity of Anonymous the Stupid. Certain groups need to be vaccinated and certain groups do not. Children do not need vaccination, nor do those who already had Covid. For the large younger segment vaccination may not be necessary. ATS doesn’t think. Maybe he can’t.
Let us take a look back at Anonymous the Stupid’s former claims. NYS is doing great and Cuomo is a great governor deserving of his Emmy. You applauded that Emmy while saying DeSantis and Florida were doing a terrible job. However when the fog cleared, despite your claims, Florida with a huge senior population along with a greater population than NY had less deaths.
Anonymous the Stupid, you and your ideas should bow out.
The IRS has been accused of discrimination again.
It denied tax-exempt status to Christians Engaged because it taught biblical values, and urged people to apply those values when they voted. The IRS declared that biblical values align with the Republican Party. Apparently, Democrat Christians aren’t really Christians, according to the IRS.
“You do not qualify as an organization described in IRS Section 501(c)(3). You engage in prohibited political campaign intervention,” wrote Stephen A. Martin, director of the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations Rulings and Agreements, in a May 18 letter (pdf) to Christians Engaged, the Garland, Texas-based prayer group recognized by Texas officials as tax-exempt.
“You are also not operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes within the meaning of Section 501 (c)(3), because you operate for a substantial non-exempt private purpose and for the private interests of the D party.”
The “D party” is a reference to the Republican Party, according to a novel “legend” that Martin provided at the top of his letter to the Texas group.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/irs-denies-tax-exemption-to-texas-religious-group-because-prayer-bible-reading-boost-the-republican-party_3861757.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-06-18&mktids=e78ea2b2f723eddacb195cbbba3a506e&est=UCv8jcI7DYREsohNFxstMLN%2FYgt8ZgCaHvkF091U3aOnlT3SNOTLl4q2OfVxTG4Opg%3D%3D
From the same article:
“First Liberty Institute is appealing Martin’s decision on behalf of Christians Engaged.
“The IRS states in an official letter that Biblical values are exclusively Republican. That might be news to President Joe Biden, who is often described as basing his political ideology on his religious beliefs,” First Liberty Institute counsel Lea Patterson said in the statement.
“Only a politicized IRS could see Americans who pray for their nation, vote in every election, and work to engage others in the political process as a threat. The IRS violated its own regulations in denying tax-exempt status because Christians Engaged teaches biblical values.”
In the appeal letter, First Liberty said, “By finding that Christians Engaged does not meet the operational test, Director Martin errs in three ways 1) he invents a nonexistent requirement that exempt organizations be neutral on public policy issues; 2) he incorrectly concludes that Christians Engaged primarily serves private, nonexempt purposes rather than public, exempt purposes because he thinks its beliefs overlap with the Republican Party’s policy positions; and 3) he violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech, and Free Exercise, and Establishment clauses by engaging in both viewpoint discrimination and religious discrimination.”
Martin’s letter and decision are certain to ignite a new firestorm of protests among congressional Republicans, conservative and religious freedom advocacy groups, and civil liberties defenders, as happened during President Barack Obama’s Oval Office tenure.
The IRS under Obama singled out hundreds of conservative, Tea Party, and evangelical tax-exemption applicants for special treatment that included long delays and multiple requests for detailed information about the beliefs and activities of officials associated with the groups.
Multiple lawsuits were filed against the IRS by such groups, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed in two separate settlements to compensate them for undisclosed amounts.”
The “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The Manifest Tenor
The Supreme Court has released the whirlwind and it will pay the price, “packing” and loss of autonomy, under the dictatorship of communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America. The judicial branch conspires to be the second legislative branch while the legislative branch usurps the judicial branch’s power. Head of the Politburo, Brilliant Genius of Humanity and Gardener of Human Happiness, Chuck Schumer, threatens further destruction of the Constitution and the total elimination of American freedom. Officials who are sworn to support the Constitution, indeed, disarticulate and pulverize the Constitution inexorably, starting with “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, holding theoretically-free Americans hostage in a wholly unconstitutional, socially engineered, communist (liberals, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) welfare state. The maximal freedom of individuals, in conjunction with severely limited and restricted self-governance, is dissipated as the essential and critical admonition of Hamilton remains forsaken and abandoned.
To wit,
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…[will]…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
We are all waiting for Anonymous the Stupid to provide a definition of what CRT is and how it works. So far his comments are empty of answers.
You like most these days just pick a side and dig in it seems Professor which is of course the problem. Just not sure why you can’t see it, especially given the same things spoken on the right side of the aisle which you never seem to have an article on, I don’t get. I guess working for Fox news alters the genetic makeup a bit, and you get somewhat side-loaded. But you are correct and she along with most members of the court have shown that they are capable of doing the job they were appointed to do. In fact while we sit here watching the left and the right trying their best to burn it all down, it appears that the Court is the only member of the trinity still doing their job and it looks like at the end of the day its going to be the Court that saves us all. From ourselves.
Court is the only member of the trinity still doing their job and it looks like at the end of the day its going to be the Court that saves us all. From ourselves.
You don’t even realize what you are advocating.
The judiciary is not our moral police, they are not the hall monitors, they are not the Peoples senior, wise leaders. The govt is instituted by the People. To serve the People.
The judiciary has one job. Interpret the law and constitution. For damn sure, it is not to “save us from ourselves”
People like you cede your own power to your neighbor, for no other reason than they have learned a foreign language(legalese) and have worked hard to attain an appointed (not earned) position
Svelaz says:
“Turley is just flinging some chum for his hungry followers to keep them happy for the time being.”
“Time being” is right. By his own choosing, Turley has been able to avoid issues which would greatly antagonize his Fox News audience, e.g., Liz Cheney’s purging, the dubious Arizona audit, the Big Lie, etc.
Soon though, Turley will not have the luxury of remaining silent. When the Trump organization and/or Trump is indicted and prosecuted, Turley will have to weigh in. He will not be able to skirt the issue. Turley will NOT claim, unlike the Trumpists, that the prosecution is a witch-hunt. His defending the government’s prosecution will infuriate them, and he will forfeit all the goodwill which he has so far engendered. The Trumpists will turn on him viciously. You wait and see…
Sorry Jeff, but if you think Turley will upset his core Trump base, don’t count on it. More than ever Turley has posted manufactured outrage to the base, and they love it. Stoking division has been and will be Turley’s model for the near future and maybe beyond.
FishWings,
There is no way that Turley can avoid analyzing Trump’s prosecution. He will be invited on Fox for his commentary. You know that the Trumpists will say, “Witch-hunt!”
Turley has never once repeated that lie, and as a law professor, he NEVER will. And the Trumpists will not accept his not doing so. Even now, you can sense the discontent among those here with his reticence to defend Trumpism.
In order to placate them, Turley criticizes Democrats and the MSM. But this will not suffice when Trump or his organization are being prosecuted. If Trump is convicted of being a tax cheat, then that judgement discredits Trumpism and by extension Trumpists. They will not stand for it- they will demand that you lie- “Trump is wrongly convicted.” That will become the new Litmus test of fealty to Trump.
As any lawyer knows, Turley has a duty to zealously represent his client’s interests, i.e., Fox News, but a lawyer can not commit fraud by lying. Turley will serve a useful function by validating the Trump conviction so that the Prime Time hosts don’t have to. Instead of Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham saying it, they’ll bring Turley on their programs to say it for them. That will preserve their bona fides with their audiences. They don’t want to waste their time defending a convicted loser. They’ll move on.
Glenn Greenwald on Tucker makes some of the same points about FBI cases against ‘terrorists’ that Mespo and I have been making here.
Short segment worth watching:
https://mobile.twitter.com/columbiabugle/status/1406060262050779140
This is a foolish question.
Large groups of Republican politicians are unlikely to apologize to an individual, and large groups of Democratic politicians are also unlikely.
For example, have the Republicans who pushed the birther conspiracy theory — including Trump — apologized to Obama? No. Has JT ever criticized them for it? Not that I’ve seen.
There is nothing surprising about Barrett agreeing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. But as L. Luppen notes, their claims during her nomination hearings “is again not something Dems made up. Barrett’s academic writing in 2017 harshly criticized Roberts’ NFIB merits decision upholding parts of Obamacare. The fact that she joined a standing decision today doesn’t change that, or justify this confected charge of hypocrisy.” As evidence for his claim, he appends a relevant page from her 2017 article, “Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty” where she criticizes Roberts’ opinion.
Juneteenth
Dang! They can’t even write properly.
The slaves said they wanted freedom.
What they really wanted was “free stuff” – by the truck load: Wholly unconstitutional matriculation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
0h, and $25 trillion on the War on Poverty since 1965…poverty won.
Now they want uh holiday!
What?!!!
They already got a holiday.
What they want now is yet uh-nother holiday.
Dang!
Is it ever going to STOP?
Holidays were intended for national heroes and historic dates. Is there a nation with heroes named Juneteenth? And which historic dates in America have anything to do with African tribal chiefs selling their countrymen to Arab slave traders who sold them to British shippers who sold them to British planters in the British West Indies, whose revenue, ultimately, made its way back to Great Britain.
Geez! Make it an African holiday or a British holiday for crying out loud!
The inmates have taken over the asylum (am I crazy, was the inflection point the 19th Dumbmendment? – sure seems like the last hundred years have been the worst hundred years).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I’ll bet Egypt is ecstatic that the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.
Egypt hasn’t suffered for millennia, and doesn’t suffer now, a caterwauling, ineffectual and dependent minority which is relentlessly begging for “free stuff,” in all its multitudinous forms, including compulsory free social acceptance, free money, free food, free housing, free matriculation, free grade inflation, free hiring, free mortgage assistance, free healthcare insurance, free immunity from culpability, etc.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America have made Karl Marx proud.
No freedom and self-reliance for them; simply class “untouchability,” dependence and entitlement.
Actual Americans have got to learn to say NO!
Oh, and goodbye (i.e. illegal deportation is no better or worse than illegal admission – illegal emigration is no better or worse than illegal immigration).
Perhaps Justice barrett did not choose to go against Chief Roberts rewriting of the OHC legislation changing the wording of “a penalty” to “a Tax”? Aren’t they to rule on the laws, and not write those laws? They reject taking a gun case or religious case that the Constitution fully provides for, and then just rule as they want things to be socially? We are there, and Old Nero is now fiddeling.
Most egregious – the commingling of the definitions of the words “state” and “federal” to facilitate the “exchanges” in Obamacare.
And, of course, these issues are moot as Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress with the power to tax for ONLY “…general Welfare…” and if Congress cannot tax for it, it cannot exist.
The singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch and Supreme Court.
The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional.
Low intelligence folk need to see this video in front of a school board. He defines CRT in 2.5 minutes while offering proof.
Ty Smith DESTROYS Critical Race Theory to the board of Bloomington School District 87
Interesting point this guy is making. HOWEVER, he is only using his own success or his determination as an example to judge against all others. He’s still saying the same thing that is being falsely promoted. That CRT is about teaching kids that if you are white you are better off and those who are not white are not. He over simplified the purpose of that CRT is about. What he didn’t mention was CRT’s emphasis on racism. Clearly he made his own choices and became successful, but that is not always true of everyone else. He’s the exception, not the norm and that’s the problem.
Clearly he made his own choices and became successful, but that is not always true of everyone else. He’s the exception, not the norm and that’s the problem.
That’s right. He chose his path. And he didn’t encounter any racist obstacles. Now that could be that he is admittedly color blind. A systemically racist country would be an obstacle to him, whether he recognized it or not. He may be an exception and not the norm. That exception HOWEVER, is not the problem, it is the solution.
Olly, this guy clearly is an exception. But that doesn’t change the fact that his circumstances are NOT the norm. It is the overall system that still affects everyone else. There are always going to be those outliers that others will use as an example, but it’s a rare example.
He’s not colorblind, he’s lucky. That still doesn’t address the issue that we still have a problem with racism.
He’s not colorblind, he’s lucky.
There can be no better evidence of your total and utter demoralization than that. The man tells you that he doesn’t see color. He tells you he has raised his children to not see people by color. He tells you that no white person has ever attempted to obstruct his efforts to succeed. And like you have done countless times, you proceed to assert he isn’t what he says he is. He may be an outlier, but he’s just one of the millions of Americans the race hustlers haven’t managed to brainwash with their toxic ideology. We do have a problem with racism, and you will be the last person, if ever, to discover it is you and your fellow Marxist useful idiots that are the racists.
Olly,
” We do have a problem with racism, and you will be the last person, if ever, to discover it is you and your fellow Marxist useful idiots that are the racists”
It’s that kind of rhetoric that diminishes your credibility. If you know we still have a problem with racism then you fully understand that this man’s experiences are truly an exception. Not the norm. Good for him and his success. It’s not his children not seeing color. It’s others who don’t. His intentions are clearly admirable and a good example to follow, but reality oftentimes doesn’t allow for his example to be the norm. That’s why he’s an outlier. Because his experience is rare. In this society his views can change in an instant. One bad police encounter and you no longer may have that shining example.
It’s that kind of rhetoric that diminishes your credibility.
Bwahahahahaha, not if it’s true and it is.
Thanks for playing.
Olly inveighs:
“We do have a problem with racism, and you will be the last person, if ever, to discover it is you and your fellow Marxist useful idiots that are the racists.”
Systematically Marxist, the Left?
He’s not colorblind, he’s lucky.
Talk to any person that is gained great success. They will all tell you the harder they worked the more lucky they got.
The “problem” is not systemic racism, The problem is feral Black Children. If there was such a thing as Black Leaders, they would not be celebrating the destruction statues and Juneteenth. They would be demanding Black males to rear their children. Everyday. All Day. Every, Child.
Do you agree that fewer people should be jailed for non-violent offenses or kept in jail pending trial for non-violent offenses, so they can help care for their children?
“he didn’t encounter any racist obstacles”
He didn’t say that.
“That exception HOWEVER, is not the problem, it is the solution.”
It certainly isn’t “the” solution, since there isn’t just one problem.
Is it A solution? For some people.
Young frequently points out that the mean IQ for US Blacks is 85. What fraction do you think can earn the “two medical degrees” this man says he has? But of course we already knew that there are many accomplished Black people in the US. That still doesn’t solve how racism sometimes plays out for them and others (e.g., the studies of the home sales estimated prices depending whether the home is shown by a white person vs. a Black person).
That looked like a pretty normal guy who represents his community and recognizes how to get his community ahead.
” What he didn’t mention was CRT’s emphasis on racism.”
I think he mentioned that CRT was teaching our children to be racists. CRT is teaching dependency. He is only an exception because you are interested in teaching his community dependency rather than how to get ahead. You think you are better than him. That is what your attitude demonstrates. Our problem with racism is perpetuated by people like you that cannot think.
Anonymous SM,
“I think he mentioned that CRT was teaching our children to be racists. CRT is teaching dependency. He is only an exception because you are interested in teaching his community dependency rather than how to get ahead. You think you are better than him. That is what your attitude demonstrates. Our problem with racism is perpetuated by people like you that cannot think.”
No CRT doesn’t so any of that. None. You’re just making stuff up because you have not read any of the CRT papers or actual points. “You think you are better than him”, No I don’t, I never made such a claim and have no reason to think that. You’re just grasping at straws here.
“That looked like a pretty normal guy who represents his community and recognizes how to get his community ahead.”
That guy is a conservative radio host and a long time trump supporter. He’s an activist. Not just any parent.
“No CRT doesn’t so any of that. None.”
Svelaz, CRT is teaching racism based on a theory that has been manipulated and stretched to hide the truth and to hide the intentions of those promoting CRT.
” you have not read any of the CRT papers or actual points.
I’m the one that brought up Cheryl Harris not you. I’m the one that brought up Derrick Bell, not you. I’m the one who discusses CRT while you insult the knowledge of another. What facts have you brought into the discussion? Virtually none. Why have you not brought information on CRT to the table? Because you are ignorant of CRT and most other things. You utilize empty phrases in your argument and that proves your ignorance.
The guy in the video was right. What have you said in argument that proves him wrong? Nothing.
I don’t recall if this has been reported on before.
OT. Let the gaslighting begin. This Red State bombshell might require that many people to do more than just apologize.
In addition, Dong has provided DIA with the following information:
Early pathogenic studies of the virus we now know as SARS-CoV-2
Models of predicted COVID-19 spread and damage to the US and the world
Financial records detailing which exact organizations and governments funded the research on SARS-CoV-2 and other biological warfare research
Names of US citizens who provide intel to China
Names of Chinese spies working in the US or attending US universities
Financial records showing US businessmen and public officials who’ve received money from the Chinese government
Details of meetings US government officials had (perhaps unwittingly) with Chinese spies and members of Russia’s SVR
How the Chinese government gained access to a CIA communications system, leading to the death of dozens of Chinese people who were working with the CIA
https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2021/06/17/breaking-chinese-defector-confirmed-as-top-counterintelligence-official-n398374
Apologize? You are joking, right?
Leftists never apologize for the actions of the “Brave, Masked, Wonderful, Warriors of Antifa” or their BLM auxiliaries. Conservatives, mainstream or otherwise are expected to take responsibility and denounce whomever the MSM or other Lefists dictate. Does them no good, they are regarded as “nazis” in the eyes of the left.
antonio
Antonio,
And in the eyes of the Trumpists, the Left are regarded as Marxists. So I guess that makes us even.
Injustice Amy Barrett et al, please read the U.S. Constitution.
Obamacare cannot be taxed for and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
Americans enjoy this constitutional immunity from tyranny.
You are a usurper, a fraud, an imposter and an appalling American failure.
The American Founders would not have even allowed you to vote and now there is no reason to wonder why.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
__________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
It’s not that Democrats make shameless remarks, it’s actually that Democrats are a shame. At least a few of them know when they are lying, misleading, smearing, harming, hurting others but they are so power hungry, they will lie, mislead, deceive at any cost. Never expect an apology from those that have no shame.
That’s no way to talk about republicans, shame on you.
highlyeducated,
Um, tell me, has Trump EVER apologized?
Yes.
Ok, give us 3 examples of Trump apologizing; never mind, just make it 2.
Jeff Silberman
The apologies exist, but that would mean that you would have to do research on the net. It’s easier for you to confirm your beliefs through ignorance.
Hint: He apologized for some of his comments towards other candidates in the primary. There are other apologies that you can look up. However, the important thing is what apologies has the left made for all those four years where Trump was President and the left continuously lied, something you continue to do to this day.
Per your suggestion, I searched the Internet for a Trump apology, and I’ll be damned; I found this report:
“In a stunning turnaround, President Donald Trump apologized to the American people for the growing number of deaths attributed to the Covid-19 virus. Although the United States accounts for only 4% of the world’s population, the nation has sustained 28% of the coronavirus-caused deaths.
In a series of tweets, Trump said, “I’m sorry I didn’t act sooner and I’m sorry that I’ve pushed to open up the country before the pandemic is under control. As you know, I’ve added my name to the stimulus checks that Americans have received. Now I’ve asked to add my name to the death certificates of all Americans who die of the coronavirus from now on.”
Health officials nationwide were elated by the president’s gesture. Within Trump’s inner circle, however, the response was mixed. Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told the media, “This just proves that President Trump is the greatest leader in the history of the world. And this is a wonderful reason to re-elect him in November.” Others were more cautious. Speaking anonymously, for fear of losing his/her job, one person in the White House said, “This is the first time in his life that Trump has apologized for anything. He has never before shown remorse or taken responsibility for something that has gone wrong. Consequently, there is increasing concern that he may be suffering from a brain tumor.”
I stand corrected. My apology.
Jeff Silberman
“I stand corrected. My apology.”
You stand correct on more than that, but here you see a fallacious way of bashing Trump. Trump was sorry he didn’t act sooner, but he acted quicker than almost anyone else would have in the face of a Democrat Congress trying to impeach him and do what they could to prevent him from doing what he was trying to do. Fauci and many others in charge of the nation’s health were useless or counterproductive. Pelosi and DeBalsio were doing the opposite in their respective cities. They encouraged the country to go in the opposite path that Trump apologized for going too slow. Democrats didn’t want to move at all.
The second apology here has to do with the reopening of the nation. But, again, except for specific areas at specific times despite Trump’s apology for encouraging opening too quickly, he had little control since that decision was a state decision.
In reality, the number of deaths due to a quicker reopening was counterbalanced by the deaths from the closures. We had an increase in suicide, drug abuse, fatal delays in health care use, and stresses due to the loss of income since that too causes death. Locking people inside likewise killed people because inside was where the virus could concentrate and kill.
Mostly, the elderly and ill succumbed to Covid. Many of them probably would have succumbed anyway sometime later.
Last I looked at the comparison between expected morbidity. Actual morbidity was below the curve, indicating the likelihood that those dying a year earlier might have died a year later. We will have to wait for those full numbers to appear before we can draw final conclusions, but I feel strongly that is what we will see.
The vaccine is reducing the number of deaths from Covid, but one has to wonder how many patients would have been saved if drugs like Ivermectin and HCQ had been advocated nationwide. Unfortunately, such advocacy was hindered by Democrats, social media and the MSM. Dr. Kory and his team of noted physicians estimate 100,000 lives could have been saved.
The closed minds and hateful minds like Jeff’s couldn’t put the science ahead of their hate. Their hate and stupidity are responsible for many of the deaths, along with the loss of businesses and jobs.
You, Jeff, have a lot more to apologize for.
The Trump “apology” was a SATIRE, you idiot.
Hmm. I guess the statement was taken out of context. I actually believed what Jeff said because I don’t remember the statement and didn’t check it or its context out.
That doesn’t make me an idiot with regard to my response. It makes me an idiot for trusting anything Jeff says or even what you say. Sometimes the thing is so trivial it isn’t worth checking out. That is the problem we have. Democrats lie all the time and cannot be trusted.
You lie all the time, but you might actually be telling the truth this time. You should be embarrassed that a blog member took the word of another and you call the blog member an idiot. That tells us that lying is in your blood.
Of course they won’t apologize.
In an aside, where are all the photos of the people who lost their affordable health care due to the ACA? My health care was taken away from me, and my only options cost as much as a mortgage, and the good doctors didn’t accept it.
Where are all the photos of the middle class small business owners, the individual policy holders, who have to choose between paying their premium and keeping the lights on? What about all those who have to forego insurance because the unsubsidized ACA is totally unaffordable?
Where are the photos of those on individual Obamacare policies, who have cancer? That’s when they find out that most top cancer treatment centers don’t accept it.
Giving people insurance shouldn’t have been the goal. That’s just a shiny plastic card. The goal should have been improving access to quality healthcare.
What the ACA accomplished was to create a dual caste healthcare society; those with employer policies who have access to quality health care, including oncology, and those on Obamacare individual policies, who can only access lower tier quality care, as in going to a county hospital. Sadly, many of the latter used to have individual polices that gave them access to top quality doctors. The ACA took that away from them.
It’s all a game for power for politicians. Who can word their side best.
“ In an aside, where are all the photos of the people who lost their affordable health care due to the ACA? My health care was taken away from me, and my only options cost as much as a mortgage, and the good doctors didn’t accept it.”
‘AS an aside’.
What would photos do? Are people who are losing healthcare automatically have their photos taken? What is this trend you’re onto?
“ My health care was taken away from me, and my only options cost as much as a mortgage, and the good doctors didn’t accept it.”
This doesn’t pass the smell test. I call BS. Only the good doctors accept insurance? The bad ones do?
I’ve seen many silly claims such as this turning into BS claims. It’s as old as the ACA itself.
This is Svelaz, once again displaying his complete ignorance and calling what others say, “I call BS.”. I would respond with fact like I have before but Svelaz doesn’t have the capability of absorbing fact into his arguments. In fact Svelaz told us who he was with similar claims about CRT. He couldn’t explain that either and in argument made conflicting statements. I responded but as usual when he is faced with information Svelaz flees the room.
Here, Svelaz was part two of my response made easy for you to reply to.
A Partial Explanation of CRT: (Svelaz said: “it is very obvious you have not read or even researched CRT. )
“reality that out history is rife with racism”
That is a chronic problem worldwide, but again, you cannot define CRT or tell us how it gets rid of racism.
Is equity your answer? Let’s start everyone on a different place in the race track, so they all finish equally? That sounds pretty stupid.
We should be looking for equality under the law, not equity. CRT is not interested in breaking the color boundary, CRT is interested in making the color boundary more prevalent, more racist. They say that the white guy who won the race won it because of his whiteness, not his athletic ability. That, of course, is according to CRT. Therefore, to produce equity rather than equality under the law, tie a ball and chain to his sneakers.
“Just like the Holocaust we learned about it and know why it happened because it is taught in school. CRT is no different”
That is pure ignorance talking. What CRT is actually creating is the German equivalent of the Holocaust. It is determining the lives of people based on color and race. It is Nazism of a different sort. It is creating a mirror image of the racism seen in the racists of the past.
CRT seeks to destroy colorblindness, individual rights, private property, school integration, freedom of speech, and meritocracy. CRT wishes to do this by replacing equality with what they consider equity.
The above parallels the Marxist push of the 1960’s. Cheryl Harris early on wrote a paper, “Whitenes as Property” She is a critical race theorist. She proposed seizing land and wealth from rich people, suspending property rights and redistributing the land based on race.
The Marxist type push used to be based on class. Now it is based on color. You cannot see that Svelaz because you push an ideology without knowing what it is. I am telling you what it is based on one of the foundational papers behind CRT.
Start reading what you are talking about. You might be ignorant, but I can’t believe anyone can be as ignorant as you sound. In the end, these people see the end of capitalism and its replacement with collectivism.
S. Meyer,
“This is Svelaz, once again displaying his complete ignorance and calling what others say, “I call BS.”. I would respond with fact like I have before but Svelaz doesn’t have the capability of absorbing fact into his arguments. In fact Svelaz told us who he was with similar claims about CRT. He couldn’t explain that either and in argument made conflicting statements. I responded but as usual when he is faced with information Svelaz flees the room”
SM, you’re hilarious. Pretending to know what you are talking about while hurling insults. Classic. You can’t respond because you don’t have a clue what you are trying argue about. I was mentioning Karen S’s claim which is pretty sparse on details and heavy on vagaries.
I did tell you many times SM, I’ve told you I can’t help you if you are too stupid to grasp what you read or are led to so you can research for yourself. I didn’t leave the room SM, unlike you, I do have a life outside this blog. Perhaps you are not aware that there is a world outside this forum.
“A Partial Explanation of CRT: (Svelaz said: “it is very obvious you have not read or even researched CRT. )
“reality that out history is rife with racism”
That is a chronic problem worldwide, but again, you cannot define CRT or tell us how it gets rid of racism.
Is equity your answer? Let’s start everyone on a different place in the race track, so they all finish equally? That sounds pretty stupid.”
LOL!! SM, you really didn’t read squat. CRT isn’t about solutions for or how to get rid of racism. Thanks for proving that you still haven’t read it. No links to what you read, no citations or quotes either. You’re full of sh!t.
“We should be looking for equality under the law, not equity. CRT is not interested in breaking the color boundary, CRT is interested in making the color boundary more prevalent, more racist. They say that the white guy who won the race won it because of his whiteness, not his athletic ability. ”
SM, again you show magnificent ignorance. CRT is about explaining the reasons why today’s inequality with blacks is still an issue. It’s about this country’s continued history with racist laws and systems meant to keep certain groups in place determined by white people who believe they shouldn’t lose dominance. It’s a long recurring theme that goes as far back as the founding of our nation. Is it telling you that every single white kid or person is an oppressor, a racist? No it doesn’t say anything of the sort. BUT it IS talking about those who ARE or WERE still promoting racism.
“CRT seeks to destroy colorblindness, individual rights, private property, school integration, freedom of speech, and meritocracy. CRT wishes to do this by replacing equality with what they consider equity.”
Jesus SM, you really have big problems with reading comprehension. CRT does nothing of the sort. You’re making it so obvious that you have NOT read what CRT is about at all OR you have read it but you have no idea what you are reading because you can’t grasp what it is saying.
“The above parallels the Marxist push of the 1960’s. Cheryl Harris early on wrote a paper, “Whitenes as Property” She is a critical race theorist. She proposed seizing land and wealth from rich people, suspending property rights and redistributing the land based on race.
The Marxist type push used to be based on class. Now it is based on color. You cannot see that Svelaz because you push an ideology without knowing what it is. I am telling you what it is based on one of the foundational papers behind CRT.”
Cheryl Harris wrote her paper back in 1993 and it was not a foundational paper. It was one of many papers that is CRT. ONE paper that had a parallel similarity to Marxist views is not proof that CRT IS Parallel to Marxism. You’re hilarious. CRT is a complex issue that involves many more papers that don’t make the same observations. That brush you’re using to paint CRT with is so broad. It just shows you are way too simplistic to get what CRT is really about. You’re stuck with the talking points that others have been telling you because you can’t comprehend what you are reading. That’s why you keep falling back to the simple talking points. You are way in over your head here SM. That much is clear.
“SM, you’re hilarious.”
Thank you, Svelaz, but why did you spend the next two paragraphs saying nothing? You accused Karen of BS, but even saying you have only half her intelligence insults Karen. You are a boob.
You continue to demonstrate you do not grasp what CRT is. Your responses are inane. CRT is engaged more in proselytizing than in solving problems. It is the reverse of character over color, but you can’t seem to work that into your response.
“today’s inequality with blacks is still an issue.”
This is the first thing you said that has any meaning. Many cultures have faced the same problems. Jews were slaughtered worldwide and continue to be killed, but they seem to be very productive. Asians have the same problem as blacks. They can be easily recognized as Asian, yet they too have been productive. Take note, they don’t go to college to study Asian studies. Blacks from Africa seem to do well. Then there are American blacks that do fabulously in medicine (the video), law (Thomas), economics (Sowell), along with a whole host of others. Adversity can be a driver as well as a barrier.
I am not saying things are perfect for any group, but we have seen all different people overcome their problems. You and your ilk are the problems.
” CRT does nothing of the sort. “
Note, how you can’t say what CRT is actually doing, why and how. You don’t have the slightest idea despite all the insults and despite the fact you haven’t responded to the written word.
“Cheryl Harris wrote her paper back in 1993 and it was not a foundational paper.”
It was, but the word foundational doesn’t mean there aren’t other papers of similar value. Why don’t you discuss some of the other papers that tell us how CRT is not racist without relying on mumbo jumbo.
“CRT is a complex issue that involves many more papers that don’t make the same observations.”
Then talk about those papers. You don’t because you are full of BS and too lazy to actually look up the stuff. Have you learned who Derrick Bell was? Probably not because, along with being stupid, you are lazy.
Once again, you have said almost nothing and don’t even know it.
SM
Anonymous SM, I have shown you many times what CRT is about. I can’t make you grasp the concept of finding out for yourself. You’re deflecting a lot because you still have not read anything about CRT and what it pertains to. Everything you have said is not what it is about. You’re still relying on the talking points of others who are just as ignorant about CRT as you are. That’s the problem.
SM, I get that you are trying to look smart for the others, but lets face it. You’re trying too hard and it shows. You’re just not smart enough to grasp what you are trying to argue. There would be no point in discussing the finer points of CRT with you because you would devolve into the usual talking points. It becomes a nasty cycle of circular arguments on your part. Like I said before, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink it.
As usual Svelaz, your arguments delve into nothingness. You didn’t respond to a single point raised in my response copied below.
We all await your answer to MLK’s statement. Does character define the man, or does color define the man? You can’t answer that because, based on what you have said, you are a racist.
Have you thought about the amount of anti-Semitism in the world and its increase in this country especially among those on the left?
How come there is so much Asian hostility in black communities? Are they not both defined by their color?
Why don’t you read Thomas Sowell’s biography. He had a rough childhood and he was black. You might learn something, but we know you can’t read him because you are racist when it comes to black people that have succeeded.
Tell us why the Cheryl Harris paper wasn’t a foundational paper or one of the foundational papers? You claimed it wasn’t, but we know you didn’t even know her name until I mentioned it, and then you did a quick Google search. Unfortunately, a date was enough for you even thought it is the early dates that define a movement. Come to think of it you didn’t bother commenting on Derrick Bell. Too lazy to look up more than one name at a time. You have a dream that one day all men that are intelligent will be stupid so you won’t stand out so much.
Keep up the stupid, Svelaz. We are used to it.
—
“SM, you’re hilarious.”
Thank you, Svelaz, but why did you spend the next two paragraphs saying nothing? You accused Karen of BS, but even saying you have only half her intelligence insults Karen. You are a boob.
You continue to demonstrate you do not grasp what CRT is. Your responses are inane. CRT is engaged more in proselytizing than in solving problems. It is the reverse of character over color, but you can’t seem to work that into your response.
“today’s inequality with blacks is still an issue.”
This is the first thing you said that has any meaning. Many cultures have faced the same problems. Jews were slaughtered worldwide and continue to be killed, but they seem to be very productive. Asians have the same problem as blacks. They can be easily recognized as Asian, yet they too have been productive. Take note, they don’t go to college to study Asian studies. Blacks from Africa seem to do well. Then there are American blacks that do fabulously in medicine (the video), law (Thomas), economics (Sowell), along with a whole host of others. Adversity can be a driver as well as a barrier.
I am not saying things are perfect for any group, but we have seen all different people overcome their problems. You and your ilk are the problems.
” CRT does nothing of the sort. “
Note, how you can’t say what CRT is actually doing, why and how. You don’t have the slightest idea despite all the insults and despite the fact you haven’t responded to the written word.
“Cheryl Harris wrote her paper back in 1993 and it was not a foundational paper.”
It was, but the word foundational doesn’t mean there aren’t other papers of similar value. Why don’t you discuss some of the other papers that tell us how CRT is not racist without relying on mumbo jumbo.
“CRT is a complex issue that involves many more papers that don’t make the same observations.”
Then talk about those papers. You don’t because you are full of BS and too lazy to actually look up the stuff. Have you learned who Derrick Bell was? Probably not because, along with being stupid, you are lazy.
Once again, you have said almost nothing and don’t even know it.
SM
“CRT is a complex issue . . .”
That wide-spread thinking disorder is called “complexity-worship.” It is always used by those who cannot think in principles and cannot grasp the essence of an idea. It is also used as a fallacy to undercut those who can think in principles and who can see the essence of an ideology.
S Meyer:
Anytime that I see a comment from Svelaz, I just pass over it.
He is a troll and incoherent to boot.
Why waste time on him?
“Why waste time on him?”
It’s in S. Meyer’s nature. He can’t help himself. There are times he talks to himself. It’s good entertainment.
You are absolutely right, Monument. Originally, as I explained to another, I was studying people. I honestly believed that people couldn’t be as stupid as some seemed to be. I was wrong, but this blog is selective in its attractiveness to people, so it doesn’t represent people as a whole. I think regular people who wouldn’t bother with this subject matter have far more commons sense than the leftists on this blog.
I spent my entire life working on my career which expanded to multiple careers. That left me little time and that time I chose to spend with my family and a bit with friends. As a result, I had to make many decisions on the spot and never had the time to think about related things or let my mind wander..
I haven’t needed to work for many decades but continued to do so, gradually reducing the hours involved. That leaves me ( a person who could work 60-80 hours a week) a lot of time thinking and letting my mind wander, a luxury I never had, even though I had to make many decisions based on a lot of information.
Does responding to Svelaz waste a lot of time? Yes and no. Svelaz represents many non-thinkers who lack innate intelligence even though they think they are smart. That makes me curious. Some others write interesting things that have led me to read many books either mentioned or related to what They said. Most of the books were good, a rare few weren’t
I like to think, even if the thoughts seemingly involve stupid or trivial things. Nothing is entirely stupid or trivial. My idol is Richard Feynman. He seems to have had everything in the right place.
Thank you for giving me the time to let my mind wander all over the place.
Svalez, I asked where all the photos were of people the ACA harmed, in reference to this from Turley’s post:
“During the confirmation, the Senate Democrats surrounded the room with giant pictures of people who would lose their health care if Barrett was confirmed and struck down the Act. They were portrayed as her future victims as members pummeled Barrett with accusations that she was just an ACA-killing shill.”
If you are unaware that top cancer treatment centers, and many doctors, don’t accept Obamacare individual policies, you could:
a) look it up
b) call your doctor and explain that you have a friend who is considering getting rid of their employer policy, and replacing it with an Obamacare policy, and ask them what they think
c) call local doctors and ask if they accept Obamacare Exchange policies, and if not, why not.
Do you know what I consistently see from the Left? A failure to research. Since it would be inconvenient to their political views to be true, then it must not be true. You give no evidence that I’ve made a “silly claim” or that it’s “BS”, other than your feelings.
The only people who support Obamacare are those who don’t have unsubsidized individual policies, or those who never had insurance, and have a subsidized policy. Otherwise, any rational person who used to pay an affordable premium, with a $500 deductible, that was accepted everywhere, and had all the benefits they ever needed, would be outraged to have it taken, replaced with a $12,000 deductible, over $1000 premium, and couldn’t find a doctor who accepted it.
Let me enlighten you, that is, if you can bear to accept facts:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/04/doctors-hospitals-wont-accept-obamacare-marketplace-plans
https://nypost.com/2014/03/19/nations-elite-cancer-hospitals-off-limits-under-obamacare/
Svelaz:
The ACA was one of the examples of a majority abusing a minority, which lacked the votes to defend itself.
Most people in the US have employer insurance, or Medicare. Obamacare didn’t affect them like it did those who had individual policies, such as small business owners.
So they hurt them. They took away those affordable, high quality policies, and they replaced them with unaffordable policies that most doctors would not accept. They scoffed at the complaints, and pointed to an entirely different group of people, those who had been in Medical or Medicaid, or who hadn’t had insurance at all.
So many people just don’t care if a policy harms someone else. It’s got to hurt them before they object.
The ACA should have focused on improving the quality of healthcare for the poor. That’s not what this did.
Why don’t you read this article and then tell me how the ACA “smells” to you.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacare-can-be-worse-than-medicaid-1530052891
“This year will be the last in which uninsured Americans are forced to pay ObamaCare’s penalty for lack of coverage. The change—part of the GOP’s tax reform—comes as relief on the demand side of health insurance. Yet nothing has changed on the market’s supply side. Without additional reforms to ObamaCare’s restrictions on insurers, millions of Americans will continue to choose from a limited range of lackluster plans.
Many of the country’s top hospitals are off limits to patients covered by ObamaCare’s current plans. Take Houston’s MD Anderson Cancer Center, which was named America’s best cancer-care hospital by U.S. News & World Report in 13 of the past 16 years. The hospital’s website suggests that it takes even Medicaid, but it doesn’t accept a single private health-insurance plan sold on the individual market in Texas.
Since Blue Cross of Minnesota withdrew from the individual market in 2016, the state’s Mayo Clinic—once cited by President Obama as a model for the nation—has been off limits to Minnesotans covered by ObamaCare exchange plans. Memorial Sloan Kettering appears out of bounds for every exchange plan in New York. Both of these hospitals are open to some Medicaid patients, though Mayo’s chief executive has predicted publicly that Medicaid patients may eventually have to queue behind their privately insured peers.
Think about these developments. When Mr. Obama promised to insure the uninsured, what kind of insurance was he talking about? Most people, and maybe even the president himself, imagined it would look like a typical employer plan or a standard Blue Cross individual policy. Who imagined that the only products available would be more limited than Medicaid?”
Obamacare and a few things often associated with Obamacare were terrible for the poor, working people with middle-class incomes who had to buy their insurance privately and the taxpayer. It was good if one wanted to show fake numbers to prove Obamacare was working. It reduced overall healthcare quality and used resources in the wrong place. Obamacare was responsible for all of the above and also increased overall costs.
Obamneycare allowed me to get hip surgery as a middle class guy working 3 jobs concurrently and dislocating my hip twice a day putting my shoes on and off.
Of course I live in a state that immediately jumped on board with the Medicaid expansion. It is impossible to judge Obamney care without taking into account their response to the Medicaid expansion.Many Repub governors fought, and refused, the expansion as it made them appear budget conscious — and as we know, Repubs only care about deficits when Dems are in control of the executive branch.
eb
I am glad you had your hip surgery, but while you were having your hip surgery others died or were getting less care than they should have, You were happy with Obamacare because you didn’t require Obamacare coverage. If you did and were happy with that coverage then that is because others were charged more than the going rate to subsidize your needs. Those others, sometimes with more need, often were deprived of their own care.
You don’t bother checking out the data because you think you were a winner and are too selfish to concern yourself with all the losers.
SM
Actually I was just happy to pay 7 grand out of pocket for hip surgery rather than 45 to 50 grand. As far as the group paying for the individual in need — that’s how insurance, writ large, works. That’s not to say I don’t feel badly for people who live in states with Repub governors that refused the Medicaid expansion. Those people were victimized by their governor, not the program itself.
Sheer barbarism has not left healthcare in the States to the degree it has in *many* other countries.
eb
What makes you think hip surgery needs to cost 45-50 grand?
SM
My research in a time of need. Even with the orthopedist willing to cut his fee nearly in half, and the surgery being done in the hospital where the surgery was being done being the most permissable in the state to working deals with people in the position I was in, the reality was that I made just enough money that year to put me out of considerationt for financial aid for the cost of the stay. They would only consider a gross income figure, when in reality i was paying the bulk of what came in that year to my helpers to keep my business going.
And the type of surgery I was having was considered a 3 day stay at the time. Now the technology has progressed to where it can technically be a 1-2 day ordeal.
So I’ll steer beyond the subtext of your question, which clearly implies that I didn’t do enough research on the condition/situation I found myself in…, I know that i researched every alternative. The stakes basically dictate it when your entire livliehood depends on being able to move around and you can’t walk. So what makes me “think” that figure was accurate was doing the footwork. See, one of the benefits of Obamacare in my state, and i have to qualify this and say this was during the time of bridging over from 2 year period of non Obamneycare (2013) to the full institution of the program wasn’t just in cost for coverage, it was also reduced what individual services cost.
Probably best to up the level of your questions, Allan.
eb
“So I’ll steer beyond the subtext of your question, which clearly implies that I didn’t do enough research on the condition/situation I found myself in…,”
Actually, Bug, I didn’t wish to imply your abilities had anything to do with any part of your predicament. However, there is a reason healthcare is so expensive in this country. You can correlate rises in healthcare costs with government action.
There is a game that is being played. The hospitals list their fees much higher than they expect to be paid. I have seen bills 20X higher than payments the hospital expects from the insurer.
The uninsured are screwed and frequently charged the full price so that the hospital will negotiate and can get paid far more than their average reimbursement.
I saw one woman who should have been on Medicaid based on her income. The hospital didn’t put her on Medicaid like they were supposed to. She settled with them for a cash price almost equivalent to the average reimbursement. Then she paid monthly for a few years so that she probably paid a couple of multiples of the real price. She finally stopped paying the hospital after she was told that she was being ripped off.
Those unrealistic high prices give hospitals some increase in income. But it does something else. It forces people to buy expensive insurance to cover bills that the insurers never pay. All sorts of rebate schemes were made between insurers, hospitals, and pharmacies in the past.
The public has paid the price with rising healthcare costs that need not exist. It is too complex to explain all at once but I will provide a simple example.
The EpiPen: The price went up to $800. It hit the news, and the price was brought down, but not where it belonged. I understand there is a Canadian substitute that was priced at $200. But the insurers, for some reason, don’t cover that and charged less than a hundred dollars for the copay, so why would a person pay $200 for the Canadian version? That means the insurer paid ~$600 and added a few cents to everyone’s monthly premium With the fall in price, I note it is impossible to buy the EpiPen where I am that has a shelf life of even a year. I think that is intentional.
We need price transparency, and we need the courts to rethink their decisions that substantially favor the healthcare community.
You have been screwed, and so has Karen. To make the numbers work, the subsidies for Obamacare exchanges were tacked onto Karen’s bill. Your bill was far too high.
We are overinsured. We have no price transparency. We have little choice and a whole bunch of other bad things. Most of those bad things were caused by government intervention that favored those that have the money to lobby and support candidates. Socialized medicine doesn’t work because the same problem occurs.
What I am saying is the tip of the iceberg. The private market constrains itself through competition. The government market has no constraints except for the pocketbooks of the taxpayer.
I will say that a number of years ago when I was more involved with the healthcare sector a number of economists told me that healthcare costs could fall by more than 50% with the same or better care if the marketplace was appropriately utilized. Obamacare is not a free market.
Appreciate hearing of your experience with the health care markets, Allan. That’s the kind of input to a discussion that adds something to the content.
I don’t know a lot about that particular market, but my take on markets in general, from an investors point of view is that markets don’t exist in a vacuum. For whatever stabilizing influence strict supply and demand factors work toward the soothing of volatility that is definitely not what speculative money is looking for. Investment capital is looking for emotionally driven price spikes in which to profit off of and will do whatever it can to create the conditions for those price spikes to take place. Everything from old school attempts to corner inventory in what would’ve been called ‘pump and dump’ operations some time ago, to now, very quick overnight market fades driven by banks and institutional investors.
It’s never a government involvement vs. free market game no matter how much that has been an ideologically driven point over time. In order for true price stability, government has to enter a market as a participant to balance the capital that looks for volatile price movement because otherwise sheer profit motive drives action. Government regulation and participation is required to keep investment funds, banks and small investors (like myself) from completely dictating price movement. Otherwise sheer emotion will override logic. Example: i trade the micro forex markets and mini grains. That’s why you’ll see me during the week hanging out on the Turley blog…, I’m riding out swing trades and need to be online to do it. So i’ll jump over to this place while I’m biding that time waiting for signals to enter and exit those markets. I suppose that makes me a professional gambler, but make no mistake, investing like that *is* professional gambling (or at least the informed version of it is, otherwise, it’s just gambling)….
Trump’s tariff taxes (an example of government intervention that was decidely not benevolent) literally pushed the grain markets off of a cliff during his term. Perfect shorting/selling conditions for individual and institutional investors. Like clockwork prices took a dive with short rebounds in which to exit and re-enter the market. Great for investors, awful for grain farmers. The minute Biden won the election grain markets took off in the other direction like they were shot out of a cannon. Couple of reasons for this: one being the ‘market’ immediately began to feel released from such harsh government intervention that resulted in falling sales. The other being, with the advent of a turnaround from Covid in the offing, they sought to make back what they could from pandemic losses in a hurry. You can see it in any grain based food sources today at the market…
Interesting situation because, surprise surprise, Biden hasn’t actually reversed Trump’s tariff taxes. There hasn’t been any change fundamentally in the market other than an emotional belief that food distributors saw a condition in which they could hopefully make back losses in a hurry. The net effect of the tariff taxes was to drive a good chunk of American sales to China over to Brazilian and Russian markets…
Take home lesson? Not all government intervention is good intervention. But without positive government regulatory forces, pure capital drives markets and pure capital only cares about profit.
eb
Bug, I don’t think it fruitful to use layman’s (or even broker) experience of the stock market to inform one of the healthcare sector’s inner details presently under discussion.
The details are not apparent. Transparency for the consumer doesn’t exist, and most people do not understand economics sufficiently to deal with the intricacies of this marketplace.
You are talking about marketplace generalities. I am sorry to say those generalities do not advance the basic knowledge of what is happening. They might help you invest a bit better in another game, the stock market, that we also know little about.
Let me give you a tip. When you buy health insurance, you are paying money to have someone buy your risk. That means when you purchase insurance, you automatically get less back than you paid for in dollar terms. That difference in monetary value goes to profit, administrative costs and waste. It is substantial. Assume 1/3 and more if one wishes to count its full effects.
If you follow closely, the less insurance you have, the less money is spent on the health care market. One looks for lower prices and forces transparency when one has less insurance and pays with one’s own money. That means shopping and lower healthcare prices. That also means lower insurance prices leaving more cash in the hands of the individual. That extra cash permits the individual to reduce insurance needs further.
That circle continues until one reaches a plateau where insurance prices and coverage reach what is presumed to be the best level. At the same time, the marketplace signals to everyone what types of healthcare are desired by the population and the best ways of providing it. That is because money is not just money. Money permits information to travel rapidly from one point to another. (read I-Pencil)
Obamacare short-circuited information transfer. That immediately causes one or more of three things in the three-legged stool; price, access, and quality. Any change in one causes reciprocal changes in the others.
Obamacare tried to give increased access to one segment. That meant prices had to rise for another segment, or quality had to fall. [ObamaCare also caused changes outside that three-legged stool that significantly damaged healthcare costs, quality and access] One that looked carefully at the legislation before it passed knew Obamacare would be an ultimate failure.
You mention Obamacare increased the number of people covered, and you mentioned Medicaid expansions. You think that was good.
If you expand Medicaid without expanding its resources, the poorest and most needy are worse off because the new entrants siphon off the money for their needs.
I want to show you that I am thinking about the people, not about politics. I believe Medicaid in its present form stinks. It is an all or none insurance that is lost as soon as income increases above a certain level. That helps keep people down.
If Medicaid were to be preserved, I would make the shift gradual. That means the person could strive for a higher income without a complete loss of Medicaid. That benefits the poor and helps to mainstream Medicaid.
The above demonstrates the problem you and I have in the discussion. You think politically, and I think principle and workable policy.
By the way, despite what you think, Karen has been accurate in her discussion of Obamacare problems.
Markets are markets are markets. The same principles apply to them all.
eb
“Markets are markets are markets. The same principles apply to them all.”
Bug, you are so obviously wrong that no explanation is necessary. Anyone reading what you wrote will immediately understand that your knowledge is very deficient.
SM
And then they’ll ask me for advice on which markets are about to make big moves, Allan.
eb
Bug, why would anyone ask you about something you know so little about?
SM
Anonymous – if you only paid $7,000 out of pocket, then that’s a steal with an Obamacare policy. The deductible for a family out here is $12,000.
Was it difficult to find a surgeon? I never did find a single doctor who accepted an Obamacare policy while I had it. I used to take photos of signs that read “We don’t accept Obamacare” in doctors offices, to send to my friends who doubted.
I just looked up the cheapest Bronze Plan I could find under Covered CA, for one person age 45, just for comparison. I don’t know if you’re by yourself, or you have a family, so I chose one person.
“A Bronze plan could work for you — but be prepared to possibly spend more than $8,000 when you access care.”
Then I looked up a new estimate, if you’re 60, same income, same zip code, same cheapest bronze plan:
Premium went up to $708 for one person. (A family obviously pays more.)
Again, it said, “A Bronze plan could work for you — but be prepared to possibly spend more than $8,000 when you access care.”
If you “accessed care”, you would have paid $8496 in premiums, plus $6300 medical deductible, plus $500 pharmacy deductible, for a total of $15,296 PER YEAR. That does not take into account if you have any off formulary prescriptions. Obamacare did away with off formulary drug benefits, and those costs do not count towards your max caps. If your medications were not covered, then you would have also paid for them.
If you did not “access care”, and just sat there, being healthy, paying your deductible, you would spend $8496 a year.
Would you feel lucky?
Prior to the ACA, I paid a few hundred a month for my kid and me (my husband had a separate plan), and we had a $500 deductible. Financially, I was far better off, because I paid less. Medically, I was far better off, because every doctor I ever went to accepted my insurance. The network was huge. There were also out of state benefits.
I have to wonder if you had a subsidized plan, or Medicare, otherwise I would have expected to hear about how expensive your premium and deductible were every year on Obamacare.
Also, Anonymous, I’m curious. Do you think that people who live in Blue States, who have Exchange policies, have access to the best cancer treatment centers, and have a great provider network? Do you think the unsubsidized individual policy holder in blue states find Obamacare affordable? Do they find their premiums and deductibles reasonable?
Because there are so many published accounts that state this is not the case.
You suffer willful blindness. As long as you blame those who had no part in constructing the ACA, this problem will never get fixed. Blame the architects. Hold Democrats responsible. Stop allowing them to shirk their responsibility for the catastrophe they caused.
No, I don’t blame Democrats, Karen. I credit them with with providing an alternative to not walking. As I mentioned previously, I truly feel sorry for those living in states where Repub governors didn’t opt in to the Medicaid expansion. The states where costs drastically went up were the states where the governors refused the aid that made Obamneycare affordable.
My first hip surgery was in 2013, technically a bridge year between full instituion of the program and what was available to be previous >> insurance about 900/month while having to wait 2 years for surgery. The bridge program was at about 400 & change a month…something I could afford. Turns out insurance companies previous to pre-existing condition legislation really didn’t like it if you used power tools regularly at your job and they did everything in their power to bounce you from it….
Look, I could go on discussing the details forever, but the truth is, Obamneycare was one of the true examples of government being able to help me, and people like me. The program has been chipped away at since then…hell, my supplementary policy, since I have Medicare now, went up 25% in 2019 alone.
The right has really not liked the idea of everyone getting access to healthcare, even after Obama adopted a republican program after single payer got shot down early in his term. And then the grandstanding by republican governors after that….
Not that the program doesn’t need to be tweaked, it did even before trump got into office. But it needs serious tweaks now. Still, I’ve been a fan of going from someone who really couldn’t walk for a couple of years to someone is fairly active right now, granted at a slower speed.
eb
Anonymous – do you have a subsidized Obamacare policy, or did you go in for the $12,000 deductible?
Hold Democrats responsible for the total unaffordability of Obamacare for the unsubsidized. That has nothing to do with the Medicaid expansion. It only would have affected those whose income is 133% to 138% of the poverty level.
Medicaid expansion also does not address the reasons why most cancer treatment hospitals and most quality doctors do not accept Obamacare individual policies.
Democrats use words like “Medicaid coverage” or “public option” as a shield to deflect cutting criticism of the bill that impoverished Americans and took away their affordable, quality health insurance.
Obama should have focused his efforts on improving access to health care for the poor. He never should have taken away anyone’s insurance. He knew that was an unpopular move, which is why he deliberately lied about it.
Sweet Jesus. Taking away health insurance from people who have cancer, and cannot get the care they need with the replacement, sub par policy. There is no moral defense for such a move. I think quite poorly of the Democrat Party for sticking with this.
This shouldn’t need to be said, but you shouldn’t remove access to affordable health care from one group of people, with the intention of helping another group of people.
Obamneycare or no, Karen…, our healthcare system in this country still suffers a degree of barbarism that is staggering. Still, as someone who has had to live with the results lived through a fair amount of physical struggle of late, the difference between Obamney care and what existed previous is night and day. With the qualifier that I live in a Dem state that didn’t actually fight the institution of the program.
eb
You’ve become a real piece of work, Turley. Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking. Barrett was nominated at the suggestion of the extreme-right Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, and one of their missions is to overturn Obamacare. All Covid-Barrett did was AGREE that the Plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not have a demonstrable stake in the outcome. That was the right call–the red states had NO stake in the outcome, but were hoping that with Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett, they would overlook the pesky little requirement of standing. You know very well that THE MERITS WERE NOT ADDRESSED, but certainly could be in the future because Republicans simply won’t stop trying to overturn Obamacare, even though 31 million Americans depend on Obamacare. Barrett’s concurrence that there was a lack of standing was NOT a vote in favor of Obamacare, and if the right case came along, she would likely overturn it. The SCOTUS doesn’t want to start letting in cases where the requirement of standing is overlooked because the proverbial flood gates would get opened. You DO know better, and once again, all you were doing was tossing red meat to the disciples. Keep the attacks against Democrats going.
Do the democrats still want to impeach Kavanaugh?
They’d rather not have the pick be stolen from them.
eb