Health Care Debate...an Actual Debate!!

This morning on Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan, there was an interesting development. Mr. Ratigan hosted an actual debate on health care! Shocking I know. But it did happen.

The segment in quest was ostensibly to be a debate between Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and form New York Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey (some how pronounced McCoy!). Now I am not going to present this as some sort of impartial and objective airing of differing points of view. I loathe Mrs. McCaughey. She has done more in the last 15 years to retard substantive health care reform then almost any other person.

Her track record on this issue is clear. If there is a democrat in the White House, she will be against virtually any health care reform they offer. The New Republic has a timely and long overdue piece attacking Mrs. McCaughey, especially since the very same publication was responsible for publishing her first misguided screed.

But I digress. In contrast to Mrs. McCaughey, Rep. Weiner has been vocal proponent of health care reform (a strong advocate of a single-payer system). So I am clearly on one side of this argument. But here is the segment on the Morning Meeting:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obviously the host grew increasingly frustrated with Mrs. McCaughey's dissembling. Not only that, but I did very much enjoy the exchange over the "tort reform". While it is an issue which I talked about in much greater detail here, the statics just do not support the claim that it is the magic bullet that so many conservatives paint to be. I mean, viscerally it has the right feel to it. Lawyers are held in low regard by the general public, so it only stands to reason that they are somehow messing up health care too! The problem with that sort of rationalization, though cathartic, just is not an accurate assessment of what actually happens.

To add to that, when Mrs. McCaughey did finally answer Mr. Ratigan's question. Rep. Weiner took that opportunity to pounce. Pointing out accurately, that what she was suggestion was a removal of Medicare coverage for anyone currently 55 years old or younger. Not that I am opposed to some sort of age increase, in actuality I think the CBO's recommendation is a valid one. I just viscerally enjoy when a serial demagogue, gets out demagogued, or at the very least rhetorically treated the way they treat others.

As I stated earlier, it is just pleasant to see specious arguments challenged. Mr. Ratigan did an admirable job of trying to the keep the conversation tethered to the topic at hand. So it is worth a watch.

-Cheer

Mental Health Break....

I will be back to posting about health care reform later today/week. But for today I had just had to post about this.

I present to you the "Craz-E" Burger.


A bacon cheeseburger, with a buttered Krispy Kreme bun. That's right a fraking buttered Krispy Kreme!!!!!

This ladies and gentlemen...is why we are fat. God. I feel my arteries clogging as I look at this thing.....

-Cheers

Moderation as a Religion...

The seeds of fetishized centrism are starting to show fruit. I have to echo Steve Benen and Atrios on this one.

The group, which didn't have any specific policy goals in mind and simply liked the idea of a small bill, specifically targeted $40 billion in proposed aid to states. Helping rescue states, Sen. Collins & Co. said, does not stimulate the economy, and as such doesn't belong in the legislation. Democratic leaders reluctantly went along -- they weren't given a choice since Republicans refused to give the bill an up-or-down vote -- and the $40 billion in state aid was eliminated.

Whether the amount of money was necessary or not didn't even enter the equation. For centrists it is more about extracting their pound of flesh for moderation's sake, then about good policy.

In the past, government hiring had managed to somewhat offset losses in the private sector, but government jobs declined by 53,000, with the biggest number of cuts on the local and state levels. Even the Postal Service, which is included in the public-sector job statistics, dropped 5,300 jobs.

"The major surprise came from the public sector, where every level of government cut back," Naroff said. "The budget crises at the state and local levels have caused an awful lot of belt-tightening."

That was such an awesome compromise.

-Cheers

Tell me again how great our health care system is....

No words just a graph. (Click on the pic to see a larger version)


-Cheers

Health care Debate....Part.....

Pretty much the deck is stacked against citizens getting a fair shake in the health care reform debate. Last night provided the perfect example of that, and earned (the often linked to here) Ezra Klein a place on my "blogs you should be reading" list.

His post on the 'The Status Quo Wins in Health-Care Reform' is a must read.

If you do not know much about Sen Wyden's Free Choice Amendment, it quite simply gave most of the insured populace a choice about insurance. It would give us the same sort of options members of congress and federal employees get with their coverage. Mainly it would give people the ability to chose coverage, portability of that coverage, and reasonable rates even if unemployed.

That was, what was defeated last night.

So yeah. I am a bit disappointed.

-Cheers

Douche-Bag of the Day Part 2!

I spoke to soon! Evidently there is a race going on to see who can be more douchey then the last douche!

In this corner we have Ms. Anne Applebaum (h/t Greenwald and Lawyers). Ms. Applebaum of the Washington Post penned a 4 paragraph piece in defense of Roman Polanski, here. I recommend reading it:

Of all nations, why was it Switzerland -- the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators -- that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre -- though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

Here are some of the facts: Polanski's crime -- statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl -- was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.

I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.

I think this is the first defense of pedophilia and rape combined ever. I was literally speechless.

Words fail in this sort of situation. The man admitted he raped a 13 year old girl. Admitted to giving her alcohol and drugs. Then fled from his incarceration. I say admitted, he pled guilty.

This is simply beyond the pale. But wait it gets better. After being excoriated by the masses at large Ms. Applebaum had response which is here. But I found this bit of it the most mind numbingly myopic part of it:

Of course, there were some very legitimate disagreements, including two excellent ones from my colleagues Gene Robinson and Richard Cohen, and I take some of their points. But to them, and to all who imagine that the original incident at the heart of this story was a straightforward and simple criminal case, I recommend reading the transcript of the victim's testimony (here in two parts) -- including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski's house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson's jacuzzi -- and not just the salacious bits.

I think pretty clearly Ms. Applebaum is blaming the victim.

But there is one thing I do agree with Ms. Applebaum on. If he were not famous, Polanski would have been treated differently. He would have been tossed in jail and would not have had the chance to flee the country.

-Cheers

Douche-Bag of the Day

Today that honor goes to Mr. John Derbyshire. In an interview with Alan Colmes, Mr. Derbyshire had this to say:

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.

COLMES: We’d be a better country if women didn’t vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don’t you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

Furthermore, As ThinkProgress reports had this to say:

Derbyshire reasoned that we “got along like that for 130 years.” Colmes countered by asking if he also wants to bring back slavery. No, Derbyshire responded, “I’m in favor of freedom personally.” Colmes noted that freedom didn’t extend to women’s right to vote, however. Derbyshire said, “Well, they didn’t and we got along ok.” Listen here:

Later in the interview, Derbyshire said there’s also a case to be made for repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you “shouldn’t try to force people to be good.”

Ahh...so you "shouldn't try to force people to be good", but it is perfectly acceptable to legally hold people in a diminished state?

Evidently "freedom" is only for white males in Derbyshire's world.

-Cheers