Mickey

I think that concluding that he did not do diddly in the beginning and now is grandstanding to make up for that initial failure is a perfectly consistent position to take. It may not be one with which you agree but it is not inconsistent. In fact, going from the sublime to the ridiculous as he has done is a good indication that yes, he was AWOL on the issue from the git go which is precisely why he needs to go so overboard now. Methinks he doth protest his concern too much.

Justice Kennedy did nothing of the kind. This is just one of those conservative, Coluter-Limbaugh-Hannity type of sound bytes that just gets repeated and repeated and repeated until its gospel truth. The decision was made based on the US Constitution, specifically the Eighth Amendment. The state of the law internationally was a reference made to simply confirm what our own Constitution, in the opinion of a majority of the Justices, holds. From the syllabus: "The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830—831, and n. 31. The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom. Pp. 21—25." The holding was really based on the Atkins case which was decided in 2002 and resulted in a ban on executing mentally retarded persons. At the time Atkins was decided, 30 states prohibited either all executions or at least executions of the mentally retarded. That evidence was critical in the Court finding that a national consensus had emerged that execution of the mentally retarded was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Similary, in the Roper case dealing with the execution of juveniles, 30 states banned such executions. Even in the 20 states with no formal ban, such executions were rare, only three of those states had executed a juvenile in the 10 years before Roper was decided. The references in the opinion to international law are made after the holding was reached and is discussed simply in the context that the development of international standards in this area confirms the holding which is based entirely and exclusively on US law. Even without those references, the holding would remain the same. References to laws which have no value as controlling precedent is absolutely nothing new. Believe it or not, I do not agree with the holding in Roper but agree with Justice O'Connor' opinion, who dissented from that holding, that there was nothing at all wrong or inappropriate with the majority's very limited use of international law. The real issue that should be discussed is whether there really is some sort of national consensus which has emerged over the years in the US that executing juveniles is always cruel an unusual punishment. I don't think that is the case. In fact, if there ever was a juvenile whose execution would have been neither cruel nor unusual, it would have been the defendant in Roper.

Yeah but if you have that accident, they will treat you and some one will have to pay for it. As a society, we long ago made the decision that we are not going to withhold needed medical care because the patient can't afford it. We are just having trouble accepting that we have to pay for it. Human nature. I have no problem with that decision, my complaint centers around the lack of political will to find an efficient way to pay for it. Politicians of every stripe took note at what happened to Hillarycare and they just don't have the stones to take their own swing at the problem.

You are still not answering the question, I am not asking whether Roberts is qualified or not or if he should or should not be confirmed. There are those voting for him simply because they believe he will vote the way they want on certain issues and would vote against him if that were not the case irrespective of his qualifications. By the same token there are those, like Schumer, who are voting against him because they don't like they way they think he will vote, irrespective of his qualifications. Why is one group a scum and the other not for employing the same standard? What constitutional basis supports your view that Senators must confirm all "qualified" candidates? Looking at the entire history of the court, that has not been the case historically and the constitution itself does not in anyway limit the grounds upon which a Senator can vote yea or nay on a nomination. If a Senator believes that a nominee will rule on an issue using faulty reasoning, is a judge who uses faulty reasoning or legal analysis "qualified"?

I rather think that Schumer feels the same way about Roberts.

Bib, you have got to end this unhealthy obsession of yours with my pants and the things, unspeakable things, which happen there.

No matter how you slice it the hard choice remains the same, we either have to pay for those who can't afford health care or deny them treatment. Both choices are really, really bad but there it is. I didn't read his posts as wanting coverage for everyone and in fact, mandated employer provided health insurance won't provide coverage for everyone.

"Soak the taxpayers" is a great applause line since I have never, ever met anyone who thought they were undertaxed. The reality is that we are all getting soaked on healthcare anyway, the money is just extracted by methods other than taxes or, more accurately, extracted by methods other than just taxes. It is an expense that must be carried unless we decide that people too poor to pay for their own health care or health insurance will not get treatment. We either have to pay for that treatment or not provide it. Whether we pay for it through taxes, higher insurance rates, higher medical care costs, higher prices for goods and services or some combination doesn't change the unalterable fact that we have to either pay for it or not provide it. Kudos to you for providing your employees with insurance.

A lot of carriers offer discounts to get you signed up, my firm changes carriers every year to take advantage of those discounts. Worth a shot?

Shhh.....Just because you live in a fact based world is no reason for you to lord it over those who don't. You're soooooo arrogant.

Well, we agree that this kind of behaviour, chanting "fix your dick" is wrong. Don't I have a right to complain about it and point out that it was a pretty shameful display here and wherever else I want to register my complaints? I haven't said that they should all be tossed out of the stadium or advocated any action, all I have done is point out that those who chanted that stuff were drunken cretins who should be ashamed of themselves.

Exactly. Maybe the reason that kind of behaviour goes on is because so many accept it as tolerable just because it is in the endzone section. It is a public gathering of all kinds from all walks of life and therefore, you have to have a pretty thick skin and low expectations but even so, there are limits. They may be very low standards but there is a standard.

You know, I had almost, almost I say, managed to suppress that memory and keep it from haunting me day in and day out. Thanks for reminding me of what had to be one of the lowest congressional episodes in history. Can I call you and chat for a bit when I wake up in a cold sweat at about 3:00 am tonight?

Grand Jury Indictment, Witch Hunt, same thing. Granted it isn't as rock solid as impeaching a President for lying about a blow job but I guess we will just have to endure this Grand Jury madness for awhile.

You say that like "----sucking whores" is a bad thing. If we are going to have whores, we should definitely have the ----sucking kind.

I think that if we didn't have a media, the hurricane would still have happened, the response at multiple levels would have been poor and people would still have died. Accordingly, I do not blame the media. If that constitutes a defense of the media, fine, I am "defending" them. The right has been blaming "the media" for everything for so long now it is practically a reflex. Nothing republicans ever do is bad, the media just makes it look that way. Nothing democrats ever do is good, the media just makes it look that way. Over and over and over. It is the conservative equivalent of FLIGHTSUIT. I sometimes think that if we simply agreed that from here on in the media officially sucks so that it need not be repeated, we would elimenate about 50% of the posts on the board and maybe have more time to discuss actual issues like how do you evacuate a city of a couple of million people in the face of a rapidly approaching category 5 hurricane?

See, it all depends on what channel you watch.

A bigger schmuck than Delay? Is that possible? Is Rove running for Congress? I am going to find a dark, safe corner somewhere to tremble in private.

Is that your defense of Delay, that other freaks have gotten away with worse?

I would point out that he is innocent until proven guilty and his family has all my sympathy in having to deal with the media frenzy that is certain to follow. I would also add that neither Tom Delay nor the Republican party invented the notion of corrupt politics and corrupt politicians. With all those caveats having been said, thank God and the law for Grand Juries and good riddance to a real #$!@#$@$.

I think this is a classic case of avoiding painful reality. There are two choices here ultimately. Refuse medical treatment to those who can't afford it or find the best way to pay for that treatment. People want to beleive in a magic bullet on this one that if we just reduce fraud and abuse or unnecessary treatment or reform tort law, etc, etc, the problem will go away and it won't cost a dime or result in people dying from lack of insurance. Ken is right, just pushing this off to employers isn't a solution without a cost. It might not be the best way to do it, it might even be the worst way for all I know. I have heard all sorts of criticism of the solutions that have, from time to time been proposed but I have not yet heard those critics offer a viable alternative.

Who decides that it is just a case of the sniffles and not whooping cough? Where will that decision be made, in a hospital emergency room or by a citizen with no medical degree or training? Who is to perform this national triage everytime a person with no insurance is sick? True story: A guy is in a car accident caused by an old lady who drove in front of him. He has lots and lots of kids, some adopted. The injuries put him out of work and out of insurance. He paid for insurance out of his own pocket but at some point, he had to choose, pay the mortgage or the insurance? Goceries or insurance? Heat or insurance? Then one day his 11 year old daughter comes down with the "sniffles". Normally they would have taken her in to be sure her fever was nothing to be concerned about but they had no money to pay for the service out of their pockets so they didn't. Two days later her temp spiked, she went septic, burst appendix. Nearly died. Spent 12 days in the hospital and underwent emergency surgery. The whole thing cost way, way, way more than it had to. The bottom line problem is that we are either going to refuse treatment to the uninsured and learn to accept the reality that people will die because they can't pay for treatment or we have to find a way to pay for treatment for those who can't afford it. You don't want employers to have to do it and have the costs spread out across a broad swath of society. I assume you don't want national healthcare. I'm guessing you would get rid of medicaid and medicare if you had the chance. The magic of the "free market" is not going to result in health care for those who can't afford it. It hasn't and it won't. What is the solution to the core problem, medical treatment for those who can't afford it?

Economies and natural disasters unfortunately don't recognize election cycles. Certainly, not all that has happened on Bush's watch is his fault however, how he has responded to those events is his responsibility. The war in Iraq for example. That is his baby, through and through. If there is blame to shoulder, congress was right there nodding in agreement the whole way and in fact, I supported the war myself after a fashion. So there are plenty of people who have a share in responsibility there but the man with absolutely the most responsibility is George W. Bush. Neither the public nor the congress stopped him, even if they could have. By the same token, neither the public nor the congress was clamoring for the invasion of Iraq. It was his idea and the way it was performed is, again, all his responsibility.

Actually, JSP brought up how terrible it would be if another Clinton were in the WH, a fairly clear reference to how awful it was the first go-round, hence the response to him you felt compelled to join in on with your own take of the Clinton years. I took your remark regarding Clinton having ignored security threats to include more than just terrorism thinking that if you meant to be more specific you would have used a less general term than "security threats". Was Saddam a "security threat" that you believe Clinton ignored or one that he dealt with effectively? Still waiting for a response from you on the question as whether those who confirmed Roberts based on what they think he'll do on the bench are just as scummy as Schumer is for being against his confirmation based on what he thinks Roberts will do on the bench. By the way, the "juvenile" comment is much appreciated because these discussions are always improved by hurling personal insults. Bravo. Another question, which type of post most fits the definition of "rant", one which contains personal insults or one which doesn't?

The problem is, we are paying for it anyway. Unless we are prepared to turn away bleeding babies from emergency rooms, treatment of the uninsured is paid for and paid for in the most expensive manner possible, through emergent care. I read an interesting piece in Slate today which discussed the growing divorce of health care benefits and employment. A fast growing category of uninsured people are the employed uninsured. It is becoming a huge problem for hospitals. In fact, the article I read discussed why HCA was having such problems that people like Frist needed to unload their stock. HCA has concentrated their expansion in southern states partly based on their belief that they would fare better in "business friendly" states. However, those states are far more likely to have a lot more employed but uninsured citizens compared to other states. At the same time, they can't turn people away in emergencies any more than hospitals in other states can. The result is that 15% of their services are to the uninsured. In the short term they absorb that revenue hit but in the long term adjust their rates to compensate so that those of us still insured pay the bill. Blaming poorly skilled and lowly paid workers for not having insurance assumes that they can somehow magically transform themselves from poorly skilled and lowly paid workers into something else. I do not think that there has ever been a point in our entire history where there were not a whole lot of poorly skilled and lowly paid workers. Workers unable to pay for their own insurance. It is a constant in any society and in every economy. We can find a way to deal with it as effectively and inexpensively as possible, knowing that it won't be a pain free solution or we can turn people away at emergency rooms and accept that there will be people from babies to octogenarians dying in hospital parking lots from perfectly treatable causes simply because they have no insurance. What we are doing now is forcing the healthcare industry to provide the treatment we are not heartless enough to deny to the uninsured and then deluding ourselves into thinking that it isn't costing us anything. When the widgets are people's lives, supply and demand doesn't work so well. You are absolutely right that forcing employers to provide health insurance increases the costs of the goods and services provided by those employers. However, treating the uninsured increases the costs of health care to the insured and provides treatment to the uninsured in the most inefficient and expensive manner possible. Those costs have gone up so much that increasing numbers of employers are no longer providing health insurance as a benefit thereby increasing the numbers of uninsured patients and so on. Unless we are going to deny treatment to the uninsured, even in emergency situations, somehow we have to figure out how best to defray the cost of health care. Under the present "system" the cost of treating the uninsured is on the back of two horses, hospitals and the federal government. Hence medicaid, medicare and health care costs go up and up and up. If we forced employers to provide a basic plan to all their employees, those costs would be transferred to the costs of goods and services. The cost then gets spread not on the back of two horses but on the backs of millions and millions of transactions occuring in the market place every time a good or service is exchanged. The only way to handle a financial burden too big to bear is to elimenate the burden (no treatment for the uninsured) or spread it out so that the impact on any one person is manageable (mandating employer provided insurance is just one way of doing that). That is just the way I see it Ken. I don't pretend to be an expert though and I am not at all happy about mandating anything but I am just not sure how else we deal with this problem other than through some sort of cost spreading to cover treatment of those too poor to pay for their own.