Time on Edwards

Time responds to the hypocrisy charges that you brought here the other day.

Another challenge is that much of the attention he's gotten recently has been the unflattering kind, stories that question his sincerity and assail his image as a fighter for the little guy by focusing on his pricey haircuts, huge house and hedge-fund job. These viral attacks, spreading from the Drudge Report and other blogs to newspapers everywhere, make a dumb argument. They assume that someone who's wealthy can't be a sincere advocate for poor and working people. By that logic, the healthy can't speak on behalf of the sick, or whites on behalf of people of color. But in politics, of course, dumb arguments can hurt you, which is why some Edwards aides urged him not to build such a big house. Their effort failed because the Edwardses—having battled cancer and lost a son, Wade, in an automobile accident 11 years ago, when he was 16—wanted to enjoy the luxuries they could afford. "We live our lives," says Elizabeth. "We're not pretending to be anything we're not. People have said, Don't do this or that. How would it look? But I honestly don't know how much time I've got. So we're going to live our lives."

Here's what would truly be hypocritical: if Edwards spoke out on behalf of the disadvantaged while pushing policies that benefit the rich. This he does not do. He favors boosting the capital-gains tax rate for families earning over $250,000 and closing the loophole that allows fund managers—like those at Fortress Investment Group, where he earned almost $500,000 in 2006—to get taxed at just 15%. "He wants to take money away from the people who paid him," says deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. "That's not hypocrisy. That's sincerity."

But once a politician is branded as inauthentic, however unfairly, it's hard to shake the label. (Ask Gore.)

The Horror!

From the Weekly Standard. Excerpt:

The fascists are coming! Or rather, they're already here, installed in the White House, planning like mad to subvert the Constitution and extend their reign in perpetuity, having first suppressed and eviscerated all opposition and put all of their critics in jail. Thus goes the rant of America's increasingly unhinged left. If only, sigh many Bush partisans, wondering when this administration will get out of the fetal position and show some fighting spirit. To them, as to most reasonable observers, the White House shows the chronic fatigue of a two-term presidency reaching its final year. Nonetheless, paranoia about what Bush and Co. are up to preys on the minds of many progressives, who have progressed, in this case at least, beyond reason.

John Edwards PSA

This is too funny. From IMAO.

http://www.imao.us/archives/008568.html

Affordable Health Care

This is a continuation of ideas raised in Garrett's SCHIP post.

Is there an affordable healthcare crisis in America? Yes. Is there a simple, root cause for this; i.e., "evil" insurance companies. No.

There are many factors that conspire to create an environment of spiraling healthcase insurance premiums which are growing, by some estimates, at 15% a year.

Note that a lot of the following constitutes my opinion based on many years of consulting to the insurance and emergency services industries. And some of it is conjecture. I have not seen "Sicko" nor wish to since "balance" and "Moore" are rarely on the same page.

• Medical liability. Doctors seem to fear making educated guesses about problems, probably due to the many liability lawsuits flying around. Therefore, it seems to me that a patient is subjected to much more expansive and expensive testing when being treated for CYA purposes. And medical liability premiums to protect from lawsuits are ridiculously expensive, forcing medical professionals to charge more for services. There's also my second point....
• ...federated services. Many doctors have stakes in testing facilities and send a patient to be tested even when not strictly necessary. Since there's a faceless insurance company paying, the expense is desensitized and the doctor does not have to worry about financial impact to his patient.
• Hidden true costs of treatment. Many people seek medical attention for trivial reasons because they are insured and are insulated from the actual cost of the services. If a policy covers a procedure than the patient is far more likely to undergo it, even if elective, than they would if paying for it directly. This drives up the cost of insurance premiums.
• Hospitals are required to treat all people, regardless of ability to pay. While admirable, the hospital must charge the people who can pay much more to cover these costs.
• Personal accountability. Many people gamble on not buying insurance because it would require limiting other expenditures. Folks are over-extended in credit not because they used their Visa to buy a root canal, but to buy a new HD TV. The insurance isn't prioritized. To these people, insurance is not "affordable" because it would require undesirable lifestyle adjustments.
• Choices. People do not, sometimes cannot, avail themselves of the choices of healthcare out there. For example, many employers offer healthcare benefits with low deductibles and a high benefit payout which increases premium costs. Sometimes, an individual would be better off with a high deductible policy and a small monthly investment into a Flexible Savings Account to cover that deductible.

Insurance companies do make a profit and that's why they are in business. Many of these companies are traded publicly, which means anyone can go over to the SEC Edgar website and get an Annual Report. What you will see, generally speaking, is that profits (and losses) are in line with corporations as a whole. Also, insurance companies are required to maintain huge cash reserves in case of catastrophic claims. This is money that, in general, they can't touch and setting reserves detracts from profits.

Insurance companies pay claims within the structure and guidelines of UCR (usual and customary) service costs which are determined by HICFA or other organizations annually. When a patient has a horror story it's usually due to one of several reasons:

• The service charged far outside the usual costs and is disallowed.
• The patient did not follow policy procedure before taking treatment.
• The service provider is not an approved provider.
• The insured's coverage had lapsed.

In you look analytically at some of these horror stories and not emotionally, you'll see a lot of "Yes, but's" coming from the claimant. And it's generally one of the reasons I listed. Insurance companies exist to service people and make a profit. Not rip people off.

The SCHIP efforts are a great effort to make healthcare coverage available to as many people as possible but there have to be stringent guidelines as to who can be accepted into the programs. It's unfair to the truly indigent to accept a family into the program who simply can't live without their HBO and that, I think, is one of the concerns alluded to in Garrett's post.

Finally, there are ripoff "healthcare clubs" out there who will sell you memberships that are nothing more than price negotiation services - but you'd never know until push comes to shove that they are not really selling insurance. These are the true slimeballs.

My Response

...is humor :-)

Goldberry@Kos nails it

Dear Republican Lurkers:

Yes, YOU. We know you're out there, scoping the lefty blogosphere to see how we're chortling with glee over Larry Craig's fall from grace. Read wmtriallawyer's diary for our true sentiments on the issue. Larry Craig is gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. It wasn't the gay part that got him into trouble. It was the hiding it part. We're not celebrating that. We're just having a bit of schadenfreude at his expense. It will pass pretty quickly.

No, the Craig Scandal has once again turned the spotlight on the biggest problem the GOP has these days: You have your priorities all wrong.

Take a good look at the frontpage. See that pic of George Bush and John McCain with the birthday cake? In the diary that commemorates the day we lost one of our most beloved cities? Oh, you missed it? No surprise there.

Good For Him

Sen. Johnson is almost completely recovered from his stroke. Good for him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20479466/

An O'Rourke Moment

Greatest political satirist alive...

"The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors--psychology, sociology, women's studies--to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Texas to EU : FOAD

Statement by Robert Black, spokesman for Texas Governor Rick Perry, concerning the European Union’s appeal that Texas enact a moratorium on the death penalty:

“230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.”

Putin the Terrible

Nice article about the growing nationalism in Russia. IMHO this is something we should be paying more attention to.

http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?content=20070903_109073_109073&page=1

"Brownie's Law"

It's a crying shame that this is considered newsworthy, instead of a given...

Passing "Brownie's Law," so agencies like FEMA get the job done: Edwards will enact a new requirement - "Brownie's Law" - ensuring that senior political appointees actually are qualified to perform the job to which they are appointed. Brownie's Law will require that heads of executive agencies and other senior officials have demonstrated qualifications in the field related to their job.

Clinton's Terror Fears

From the NY Post:

August 25, 2007 -- Meanwhile, the senator also made it abundantly clear that even in the worst of times - like a 9/11-style attack on America - rank partisan politics is uppermost in her mind.
Campaigning in New Hampshire the other day, Hillary tried to make the case that she would be "the best of the Democrats to deal with" the "horrible prospect" of another terrorist attack against the United States.

Why would it be so horrible?

Said Clinton: Another attack "will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again."

Amazing. And so typically Hillary.

Some might have thought of the possibility of a repeat of the horrendous loss of life at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and aboard United Flight 93.

Others might have imagined the tremendous destruction of property - or the crushing psychological effect such an attack could have on all Americans.

Not Hillary.

Nope, as far as she's concerned, the worst thing about a terrorist attack is that it might possibly give the GOP a leg up in the elections and keep her from the goal that she has sought for years: becoming president.

And she says Republicans are obsessed with partisanship and divisive politics?

Where are the Good Candidates?

The author finds killer weaknesses in both Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates. Could 2008 be the year of the big surprise?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/23/do2302.xml

Excerpt:

That's how the election will work, in principle. The trouble is, at the moment it's impossible to see how we get from here to there in practice. By this, I don't mean that something will prevent the primaries or the election from taking place. Other than starting a little early (I know, it's getting worse and worse) this campaign is so far progressing smoothly, from a technical point of view. The problem isn't the procedures, but the nature of the candidates, each one of whom, not necessarily for obvious reasons, seems wholly unelectable.

Making Crazy People Crazier

From IMAO

I kinda like how IMAO doesn't anger left wing blogs that often. We're a happy site, so who could be angry at us? Still, I sometimes envy the power of other people to enrage the other side, to get them screeching and jumping around like monkeys who just had their cage shaken.

I thought Jonah Goldberg's recent column was fairly innocuous. It's about that, while lefties dominate the web now, that's more due to them being on the offensive and things were different back when Clinton was president and will be different when a Democrat becomes President again. A simple, reasoned point with hardly an insult to the left thrown in it. Yet he got a giant post on the front page of Daily Kos dedicated to tearing him to shreds. Yes, a front page post; for the new "center" of the American pubic, there apparently is nothing more important than attacking Jonah Goldberg for pointing out the cyclical nature of political momentum. For about five or six paragraphs, Hunter writes, "I hate Jonah Goldberg. Jonah Goldberg is stupid. I hate Jonah Goldberg." over and over before even mentioning anything in the article he disputed (and his first objection to the article was a purely semantically one; Goldberg said writing professionally on the internet since 1998 make him old in newcomer years and Hunter says it makes him a "newcomer"). Actually, Hunter barely quotes any of the article and just rants for pages and pages. That's crazy hatred right there... near BDS level even.

That's almost like a superpower being able to drive the left into an irrational frenzy without even trying. What if Goldberg purposely tried to anger them and wrote something like, "Everyone at Kos smells and is ugly."? They'd go so crazy, they might miss that an election is going on.

SCHIP

*headdesk*

Tommy Thompson, 2001:

So, working with the President, we've developed a new program that will provide better health care for the millions of Americans who lack medical insurance or access to affordable care. The President announced the program a short time ago on his weekly nationwide radio address, and I'm here today to outline to you how it will work.

It's called the Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability Initiative. This new model waiver program makes it faster, easier, and simpler for states to expand access to health insurance to low-income citizens through Medicaid and through SCHIP demonstrations.

The program is budget neutral, and it's a partnership between Washington and the states. It's not top- down. We want to work with you, in partnership, to expand health insurance to the most vulnerable and needy members of our society, most especially, to those whose incomes are under 200 percent of the poverty level.

You know what works best in your home states. You know the specific needs of your people. We've designed the model waiver program to give you the tools and the flexibility you need to advance benefits and quality care to those back home who need it the most.

Mark McClellan, 2006:

To provide States with the ability to structure their SCHIP plans to improve coverage and the quality of services available to beneficiaries, the Secretary has the authority to waive aspects of the Federal statute and regulations governing SCHIP. This allows States to amend their programs to increase health insurance coverage and encourage innovation. Using section 1115 of the Social Security Act, States can more effectively tailor their programs to meet local needs and can experiment with new approaches to providing health care services. These demonstrations have been used to provide health insurance to uninsured children, parents, caretaker guardians, and pregnant women. For example, CMS recently extended a demonstration in Minnesota that allows the State to use SCHIP funds to provide coverage to those with incomes from 100 to 200 percent of FPL who are parents and relative caretakers of Medicaid- and SCHIP-eligible children. Extending coverage to parents and caretaker relatives not only serves to cover additional uninsured individuals, but it may also increase the likelihood that they will take the steps necessary to enroll their children. Extending coverage to parents and caretakers may also increase the likelihood that their children remain enrolled in SCHIP. For example, in New Jersey, which covers parents through a section 1115 demonstration, the State found that having one parent enrolled increased the likelihood that a child remains enrolled.

Dennis Smith, 2007:

In addition, to ensure that expansion to higher income populations does not interfere with the effective and efficient provision of child health assistance coordinated with other sources of health benefits coverage, and to prevent substitution of SCHIP coverage for coverage under group health plans, we will ask for such a State to make the following assurances:

• Assurance that the State has enrolled at least 95 percent of the children in the State below 200 percent of the FPL who are eligible for either SCHIP or Medicaid (including a description of the steps the State takes to enroll these eligible children);
  
• Assurance that the number of children in the target population insured through private employers has not decreased by more than two percentage points over the prior five year period; and
  
• Assurance that the State is current with all reporting requirements in SCHIP and Medicaid and reports on a monthly basis data relating to the crowd-out requirements.

We will continue to review all State monitoring plans, including those States whose upper eligibility levels are below an effective level of 250 percent of the FPL, to determine whether the monitoring plans are being followed and whether the crowd-out procedures specified in the SCHIP state plans are reasonable and effective in preventing crowd-out.

Sim Us

This would explain a lot...

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Johnny Hypocrite Rides Again

John Edwards is, by far, the most hypocritical, bald-faced lying major candidate in the 2008 race from either party:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118728685546999884.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news&apl=y

The Volokh View on Padilla

Orin Kerr agrees with the Kos post Garrett cross-posted pretty much but much less effiminate and whiny hand-wringing.

He also notes and agrees with what I have been saying all along insofar that the Padilla prosecution broke new legal ground and, doubtlessly, opens up the question of what should be done with U.S. citizens who plot with foreign terrorist organizations.

I think Tim McVeigh showed us what we do with homegrown terrorists.


[Orin Kerr, August 16, 2007 at 3:48pm] Trackbacks
What Does the Padilla Verdict Mean?: Here's my take. In the short term, the major significance of the Padilla verdict is that the Administration won't have to face the question of what to do next in this case. A guilty verdict only settles this one case, but this one case otherwise could have gone on for a long time and likely would have ended up back at the Supreme Court. In the longer term, this case adds one data point in favor of using the criminal justice system to prosecute terrorist suspects. Every case is different, and no one verdict can settle very much in this debate; each verdict can only be a single data point in a broader set. But this case adds a data point in favor of using the criminal justice system. Beyond that, though, this verdict doesn't settle very much. Most importantly, it doesn't change how Padilla has been treated all this time; it doesn't erase the last six years. So while this one case is over, the questions it raised should and will continue.

We're so screwed.

Over five years after his arrest, multiple trips to the Supreme Court, and being held for years in a military brig without charge, counsel or judicial review--Padilla is found guilty. It's a jury verdict that has been so de-legitimized by the Administration's shenanigans in this case, that it's rendered practically (if not legally) meaningless. And we should all feel guilty for allowing a U.S. citizen to be subjected to this.

The jury ruling has been so de-legitimized by the twisted path to "justice" of the Padilla case that I search in vain for the meaning. He was arrested in May 2002 on a "material witness" warrant. Two days before the District Court was to rule on the validity of continuing to hold him, Bush designated him an "enemy combatant." He petitioned for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court, which dismissed his petition on technical grounds for being filed in the wrong court against the wrong person. He refiled in the proper court and got a favorable decision. But then a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bush DOES have the authority to detain him without charges indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Administration released highly-inflammatory information alleging that Padilla was planning to blow up apartment buildings here in the U.S. (He was originally said to have wanted to set off a radiological "dirty bomb.") Padilla again appeals to the Supreme Court. A few days before Bush has to file arguments, Padilla is indicted in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas--charges totally unrelated to what the government used to justify holding him without charges.

So, he and his two co-defendants are found guilty of "support of terrorism" charges--not a big surprise given the jury's quick return from its day-and-a-half deliberations (never a good sign) following a 3-month trial.

But the conviction is a really a reflection on us. We are all guilty for letting a U.S. citizen be subjected to this kind of "justice."

Sunday Comix

Heh. You gotta admit this is good-natured humor.

Very smart commenter at TPMmuckraker

This guy seems to know what he's talking about. You have to do a lot of scrolling to find his posts, but it's worth it.

Yes, and there's a rule about that as well: ORCON, it's illegal go classify evidence of illegal activity.

Which takes us back to the dispute over Cheney's assertion that "that" EO "didn't apply." The "EO that did or didn't apply" contains the rules on ORCON.
It doesn't matter whether the "_EO_" did or didn't apply, the _32 CFR 2800_ does apply: It has OVP name on it. It can be enforced through prosecutions; and that CFR _does_ list EOs which _do_ apply.

Whether the _standards listed_ does or does not apply is meaningless; the issue is whether the _requirement_ regardless which standard is used, ignored, or explained away is _legally enforceable_. Arguing over which EO does or doesn't apply is a distraction from [a] the ORCON requirements which prohibit classification of that data; and [b] the data which _must_ be protected per the applicable CFR: 38 CFR 2800.
- - - -
This takes us back to the RNC e-mails. Recall, the White Hose legal counsel did something very stupid:
1. Determined that the information would be protected by privilege
2. Created an illegal backup database
3. Destroyed that database

Here's the problem, and why we know legal counsel was involved: Once someone assumes a database will "never" see the light of day; they have a choice: Do they talk candidly; or do they use that "to be forever hidden" database to hide illegal activity?

Here's how we know something very important: Once the evidence of illegal activity was _known_ to be revealed; and that _claims_ of executive privilege would _fail_, then they had a problem: The backup e-mail could be detected; and the _existence_ and content of that backup e-mail could be breached.
In other words, one does not destroy evidence in the RNC e-mails unless they believe that privilege would fail; but then contradict themselves and say, "But we have executive privilege". That defies reason. Again, if the _expectation_ of privilege -- going forward from time of creation -- were real, then there would have been [wait for it] [a] no reason to have a backup systems; no reason to have an e-mail system that violated the law; and no reason to _destroy_ the very thing that would "forever" enjoy a shield of privilege.
- - -

Rule: Privilege isn't a power: It's a _claim_ that the _court_ doe snot have to recognize. If a claim of privilege has been abused; or adverse inferences _about missing data_ suggest that the evidence was _illegally destroyed_, the claim of privilege is one that the court is _not required_ to recognize. A defendant can do things that will make the claim meaningless, without effect, or irrelevant: By disclosing that information in an e-mail, as Miers did with the DoJ e-mail.
Executive privilege isn't something the _court_ is required to recognize. It can be claimed, asserted, and demanded as a "right" but that's meaningless: It is a _court recognized_ claim that the court -- for whatever reason it chooses -- can refuse.

ETA: One of the Kos posters went through and pulled all of Anon's posts into one diary.