Morning Reading - Rights, As Defined By Republicans

Michael Tomasky:

This past weekend, several hours before Stephen Paddock exercised his constitutional right to slaughter his fellow Americans (and no, it’s not “too soon” to talk about it), video emerged of Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin talking to a high school assembly. Do you, a girl asked him, consider health care to a right or a privilege? [snip] 

So he answered the young woman: “I think it’s probably more of a privilege. Do you consider food a right? Do you consider clothing a right? Do you consider shelter a right? What we have as rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to freedom. Past that point, everything else is a limited resource that we have to use our opportunities given to us so that we can afford those things.” 

There’s your Republican philosophy in a nutshell: Americans have no right to health care, but they do have the right to own as many assault rifles as they can get their hands on and go shoot up a concert venue. (our emphasis)

Tomasky goes on to deconstruct this sociopathic Republican viewpoint.  Please take a moment to read it.

Lies and the Lying Liars*

As enrollment for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) reaches 4 million, there are signs that getting the uninsured to view it favorably, much less sign up, is proving a tough sell:

Fifty-six percent of those who identified as uninsured in a new poll conducted in February by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a research institution, had an unfavorable view of the health care reform law, compared to just 22 percent who said they view it favorably. The uninsured now see Obamacare less favorably than they did when the enrollment period began in October. As recently as September, more uninsured approved of the law than disapproved.  (our emphasis)

There's no question the bollixed rollout of Obamacare in October has contributed to the reluctance of many of the uninsured to take a closer look at how they would benefit from the coverage.  There are many other reasons individuals might mistrust health care reform or the government or whatever.  But the ceaseless, false drumbeat of the far right, magnified by its media outlets and often segued into the "mainstream media," has doubtless had a negative effect on public perception and, therefore, enrollment.

As the 2014 elections approach, Republicans are aiming to make Obamacare the main cudgel with which to beat vulnerable Democrats.  The Koch brothers' Americans for Plutocrat Prosperity have been aggressively running false ads around the country about "victims" of Obamacare:

Some eight months before the midterm elections, the airwaves are being flooded with the sad tales of Obamacare victims. The tales all fall into the same predictable rut. First, the poor victim steps forward to share his (or, more frequently, her) tale of deprivation. Then reporters discover the putative victim is either a non-victim, or possibly a beneficiary, of Obamacare. Then conservatives get angry.**

(**Conservatives like Byron York, who writes for the driveway-cluttering Washington Examiner, who want you to believe that fact-checking a Koch brothers lie story like cancer victim Julie Boonstra's amounts to attacking the victim -- please go f**k yourself, Mr. York.)

The Koch brothers' propagandists have gotten so desperate to find "stories" that they've even resorted to hiring actors and Republican activists to tell their lies  tales of faux woe.  So, tens of millions will be spent in a desperate campaign to discredit and derail a signal Obama Administration achievement, to fire up the sheeple in the Republican base for the off-year election, and to win back the Senate.   But in the process, remember one thing:  the bottom line is that they just don't want "those people" =cough= "The Moochers" =cough= from having health insurance.  Think of that for a moment.

For that reason, we can't think of viler people than the Koch brothers and their pants-on-fire ideological cave-mates.

Apparently, Harry Reid thinks the same way:

*Apologies to Sen. Al Franken.

Obama(care) Derangement Syndrome

Here are some recent posts concerning Obamacare implementation that bear reading in their entirety.

First, Noam Scheiber on the Rethuglican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party's Obamacare derangement/ obsession:

If you want to appreciate how truly incorrigible conservatives are on the subject [of Obamacare], I recommend watching them grapple with the early news about Obamacare implementation, which has suggested the program could work better than anticipated. It’s a bit like watching a speculator learn he’s bet his life savings on a failing company—which is to say, chock full of denial and elaborate self-delusion.

Ed Kilgore at Washington Monthly has a good follow-up to Scheiber's piece, with his own reading of the motivations of wingnuts' Obamacare derangement/ obsession.

And, over at Daily Kos, Sanchez has a first-hand account of how Obamacare is winning (coverage at a lower cost).  That's what it's all about.

Obamacare California Exchange Rates: Not Higher, Mostly LOWER

This has been all over the progressive blogosphere in the last 24 hours:

On Thursday, California officials revealed insurance companies’ opening bids for the state’s Obamacare marketplace in 2014. The numbers are great for consumers — and terrible for right-wing fear mongering over the health law.

Covered California, the agency tasked with constructing and maintaining the Golden State’s insurance marketplace, announced in a press release that rates submitted by 13 insurers for the 2014 individual marketplace were far lower than initially expected, ranging from a stunning 29 percent below the current average premium for small business health plans to only two percent above them.

Huge markets like California and New York will be leading the way in quickly implementing Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), which will make it increasingly difficult for the reactionaries of the right to slow walk and otherwise gum up the works,  try as they might (and possibly succeed in the near term in their benighted red states).  Seeing actual numbers, as opposed to speculation and fear-mongering, might counter the "death-panels syndrome," wherein the right sets the tone and parameters of the discussion and leads the credulous media around by the nose.  A lot depends on honest brokers to spread the information (for example AARP,  Kaiser Family Foundation, etc.) because surely you won't be reading or hearing it in the news media.

Rethuglicans To Uninsured: You're On Your Own

Matt Miller in today's Kaplan Daily tells us what the real Rethuglican health care alternative is read the whole column if you can:

"The Republican message to uninsured Americans in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling couldn’t be clearer: You’re on your own.

"The party may not have officially adopted the 'let him die' policy of right-wing hecklers at that CNN primary debate, when Ron Paul was asked what should be done when an uninsured man shows up at the hospital. But as a practical matter, Republicans are in pretty unsavory territory. What other conclusion can we draw when Rick Perry, who presides over a state where one in four people lack health coverage, makes swaggering indifference to these Texans’ plight a point of sovereign pride?

"Fifty million uninsured Americans would be the immediate casualties of the GOP’s 'let them eat the emergency room' mentality. But all of us would be at risk. In America — alone among wealthy nations — everyone is a pink slip or job change or new illness away from finding they have lost coverage or are uninsurable.

"This is the shameful reality behind the GOP’s rhetoric on health care. Republicans don’t want to spend a penny to insure the uninsured.

"We know this because back during the original debate over Obamacare, the 'boldest' GOP alternative would have extended coverage to 3 million of the 50 million uninsured, versus Obama’s 30 million (which still leaves us 20 million short of behaving like every other civilized nation, mind you). [snip]

"You may have noticed that Republicans have been struggling to come up with a credible alternative to the Affordable Care Act once they repeal it. Why is it so hard? Because Obamacare WAS the Republican alternative. It was the conservative-designed mandate and subsidy approach. Republicans are in such an intellectual cul-de-sac on this issue that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) actually blasted Obamacare for being a sop to the president’s 'cronies' in the insurance industry. Oy!

"I feel like a broken record, but some truths bear repeating. Only in America could a Democratic president pass Mitt Romney’s health plan and fund it partly through John McCain’s best idea from the last campaign (taxing some employer-provided plans) and be branded a 'socialist.'”

Health Care Reform Quotes of the Day

"The only health care mandate they [Republicans] can embrace are transvaginal probes for women." -- our Governor, Martin O'Malley (D-MD), today. Bada-bing!

"There's only one candidate -- Gov. Romney -- who's committed that he will repeal the Obamney -- the Obamacare tax increase." -- our not-Governor (whew) Bobby "Kenneth" Jindal (Rethug-LA), in a Freudian slip (?) today. "Obamney"-care. Hee-hee.

Catholic Association Reverses on Contraception Coverage

(click to enlarge)


(Mike Luckovich, via gocomics.com)

In a case of curious timing, the Catholic Health Association, which had previously accepted the Obama Administration compromise on including contraception in health care policies offered through Catholic institutions, is now backing off its support. The association still "supports the president’s overall health care overhaul, but believes he should broaden the exemption for religious groups who say facilitating the use of contraception in any way goes against their religious belief."

Seems to us and others that the Vatican and right-wing American bishops are strong-arming their wayward flock into line. All the more reason the Leadership Conference of Women Religious needs to stand its ground against these hypocritical goons and their march to return to the 18th century.

Obamacare Generating Rebates for Consumers

Beyond the money Obamacare will save Medicare, the Kaiser Family Foundation is reporting that Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) will result in $1.3 billion in rebates to consumers from insurers by August, thanks to a provision in the act requiring that insurers spend 80 or 85 percent of earnings from premiums on health care and rebate earnings over and above that percentage to consumers.

As the advantages of Obamacare to average Americans begin to be felt, it would be "nice" if they were touted by the Administration and every Democrat at every opportunity. The "mainstream media?" That would be too much to hope for; facts aren't as exciting as conflict.

Obamacare Will Save Medicare $200 Billion By 2016...

...assuming the five Rethugs on the Supreme Court don't gut the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The inconvenient truth for Rethugs is that Obamacare will save Medicare billions of dollars in just the next four years, according to the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (click on table to enlarge):


Uh, er... Kenyan Socialism!!!

Letters We Wish We'd Written Dept.

Today's Kaplan Daily offers two responses to a recent Kathleen Parker op/ed on the Supreme Court's review of the Affordable Care Act:

Kathleen Parker [“Putting Obamacare in its place,” op-ed, March 28] argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are about as similar as a dog and a zebra. She’s right — it’s an absurd comparison. But she did not acknowledge the most important similarity between the two bills.

The main constitutional argument against the individual mandate in the ACA, as put forth by Paul Clement before the U.S. Supreme Court, is that it is an “unprecedented effort by Congress to compel individuals to enter commerce.”

But it is not unprecedented. The Civil Rights Act compelled many Southern business owners to enter commerce. It forced them, against their will, to sell products to black people.

What is the difference between compelling someone to buy something (as the ACA does) and compelling someone to sell something (as the Civil Rights Act does)? In both cases, commerce is created where it would not have existed without congressional mandate.

David Gutman, Washington

---

Kathleen Parker said that the Affordable Care Act “forces business and individuals to buy something against their will.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. likewise argued that the law forces people who are “never going to need pediatric or maternity services” to buy into the health-care market.

In response, I quote the reply by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to the assertion by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) that he would never need maternity care: “I think your mom probably did.”

Even the young and healthy can’t have the hubris to assert that they will never require medical care. The law would simply require everyone to support a safety net that will help them if and when they one day need it.

Courtenay Lewis, Washington

Parker, her fellow Rethuglican apologists and the Rethuglican justices are wont to draw false comparisons (as above) and ludicrous reductio ad absurdum arguments (mandatory broccoli eating!) that once again only serve to illustrate their blind partisanship and the poverty of their reasoning.

BONUS: Want more of the Parker/Rethug Zeitgeist? Here's Hunter at Daily Kos, referring to Rethuglican id, uber-crackpot and purported Christian Rep. Steve King's (Loon-IA) malevolent take on freedom, liberty and health care:

Tanning and broccoli, freedomz and liberteez, every damn thing tossed up against the wall to avoid dealing with the basic notion that perhaps people are dying and they don't have to die, and perhaps we could help them if the crapsacks among us could only be convinced to give a damn, and maybe repairing the flaws in our system would be a good thing except that a bunch of people who make a lot of money and have wonderful health insurance and are not currently sick just don't see the problem the rest of us are left to deal with every day, and so just don't care. Sovereignty means go to Hell, less fortunate, does it not? I know that from the Republican presidential debates, where the audience was quite clear on what should happen to people who suddenly need medical care but who cannot, for any one of ten thousand different reasons, afford it.

(Ed. - For those who missed the debates, the Rethug crowds cheered the notion of uninsured folks being denied health care.)

"Hurray for Health Reform"

On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing arguments for and against the Affordable Care Act, Paul Krugman reminds us why, even with its flaws, the act is something to cheer for, and why the wingnut/teatard opposition (a.k.a., the Rethuglican base) has had to resort to making things up:

"It’s said that you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies. If the same principle applies to legislation, the Affordable Care Act — which was signed into law two years ago, but for the most part has yet to take effect — sits in a place of high honor.

"Now, the act — known to its foes as Obamacare, and to the cognoscenti as ObamaRomneycare — isn’t easy to love, since it’s very much a compromise, dictated by the perceived political need to change existing coverage and challenge entrenched interests as little as possible. But the perfect is the enemy of the good; for all its imperfections, this reform would do an enormous amount of good. And one indicator of just how good it is comes from the apparent inability of its opponents to make an honest case against it."

Letters We Wish We'd Written Dept.

From today's Kaplan Daily "Letters to the Editor:"

"Oh, the rich irony of George F. Will bemoaning the increase in health-care costs for a company whose very business model contributes to so many health problems in this country ['Indigestion over Obamacare,' op-ed, Dec. 8].

How about we agree to let CKE Restaurants peddle its less-than-healthy Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s fast food (if people want to eat themselves to death, so be it) and it agrees to provide reasonable health-care coverage for its employees?

Thank you for the good, if unintentional, laugh, Mr. Will.

Richard N. McGlothlin, Washington"

The thesaurus-thumbing, right-wing shill "Quill" Will, busted again!

D.C. Circuit Court: "Obamacare" Constitutional

In a split decision, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or "Obamacare" to the numbnuts out there) is constitutional. What makes this a significant decision is that the majority decision was written by Laurence Silberman, by all measures a right-wing judicial appointee of St. Ronnie of Hollywood. It now appears the preponderance of rulings on the ACA are in favor of its constitutionality, either in whole or in part. The suit that the Circuit Court was hearing was brought by "Rev." Pat Robertson, the squirrelly TV talibangelist and former Rethuglican candidate for President.

Reagan Solicitor General: Health Care Mandate Constitutional

Testifying today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried said he was "quite sure the health care mandate is constitutional." Fried, who currently is a professor of law at Harvard, went on to say that the argument that health care regulation is not regulation of commerce (which is permitted by the Constitution) is "entirely wrong and even worse quite confused."

Watch this get lost in the "mainstream media," which is continuing the role of Rethug lie-enabler that it established for itself during the year the health care debate was raging. How so? As Steve Benen shows (via Kos), the media is giving much more attention to the two rulings against the health care law than to the two rulings that declared it constitutional. Fairly unbalanced I would say.

Activist Judge Rules HCR Unconstitutional

As expected, Federal district judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by Dumbya, has declared the individual mandate in the health care reform law unconstitutional. (Rejoice, wingnuts!) Two previous attempts by right wingers to stop HCR in its tracks were shot down by Federal judges. The ruling, in a case brought by Virginia's ultra-right wing Attorney General Ken "The Kook" Cuccinelli, will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. As Steve Benen thoughtfully points out, the individual mandate was a Rethug idea before the inmates took over the asylum. But these days, when it's far more important to destroy the Obama presidency than be philosophically consistent, hey, what's the prob?!

Also, if Hudson were a liberal, wouldn't he be excoriated as an "activist judge?"

UPDATE: If Hudson had a major conflict of interest, wouldn't he be excoriated as a "corrupt judge?"

Sorry, Wrong Narrative!

Utilizing Rethug talking points, the media narrative all summer has been how unpopular the health care reform law is, echoing the Rethug line that it's out of step with American values and yet another example of Big Gummint run amok. Well, someone actually asked a few follow-up questions for a change and boy howdy! Is it possible the narrative was off by 180 degrees? Spineless Dems, take heart! Arrogant Rethugs, take note! Mainstream media, continue to ignore!

(Image disclaimer: Neither a monkey, nor an ancestor of Christine O'Donnell, this image is only intended to disparage the mainstream media - ed.)

Health Reform, the "Pledge," and Political Malpractice

Today, six months after passage of the health reform bill, several key provisions take effect, including no lifetime limits on benefits, sick/costly customers can't be dropped for "technical" mistakes, and children can't be excluded from coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Not bad...for a start.

Meanwhile, in the alternate reality known as Rethuglican politics, Congressional Rethugs issued their lobbyist-written "Pledge to America" today, which was, as expected, the usual right-wing dogma not even warmed over: smaller government, cut non-defense spending, ban abortions, repeal health reform, etc. Oh, and keep those big tax cuts for the wealthy! It's Lemon Pledge*!

And the Dems? Are they ready to do battle over Obama's proposed extension of middle- class- only tax cuts? Are you shitting us? They would need to have a central nervous system (brain and spine) to do that!

* H/t to "Countdown."

Quote of the Weekend

"This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed. The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of "bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and "practical measures" favored by the Republican Party.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is pledged to do this."

-- Alf Landon, in a September 1936 campaign speech talking about Social Security (quoted in the Dickwhisperer's Kaplan Daily column appearing on Sunday). Alf went on to lose to socialistdemocommiefascist FDR in an historic landslide, carrying only Maine and Vermont.

On the eve of the historic health care reform vote, may this hearten Democrat jellyfish and be a foretelling of the Rethug future.

Compare and Contrast

The Kaplan Daily has two pieces worthy of note today, one in its print edition, one online. Former NY Times executive editor Howell Raines appears in a good online piece wherein he takes mainstream journalists to task for not exposing Fux "News" as a 24/7 propaganda machine, particularly in its undisguised battle to defeat the Democrats health care reform. It's an incisive inside- the- pressroom look at why the silence. File it under "Librul Media."

By contrast, the Kaplan Daily chose to publish in its more widely-read print edition a POS (that we refuse to link to) by concern trolls, Fux News Democrats and corporate shills Patrick Caddell and Doug Schoen. Jumping into the fray at the last minute to try to frighten easily frightened Dems not to pass the health care bill, the dynamic duo pull out every point in the Boehner/ McConnell playbook, as Media Matters demonstrates. We have two questions: (1) what insurance company group or Rethug-front outfit is paying them to write this drivel, and (2) why would the Kaplan Daily chose to publish this when the article by Howell Raines has more insight on the machinations and interdependence of Big Media and the Rethug noise machine, and is therefore more relevant to what's going on today? We report, you decide.

The Road Ahead on Health Insurance Reform

Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly has a good summary of the President's announcement today on the road forward on health insurance reform. Might the Rethugs be looking in the rear-view mirror at their high-water mark in the polls? Only if the Democrats - say it together now - Pass. The. Damn. Bill.