The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Brownie]

If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start:

Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.

There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.

Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?

When it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.

You also don't have your employer pick out a contractor to build your home for you (and everyone else).  Perhaps the tax laws should change to make it less advantageous for an employer to provide health care, and more advantageous for an individual to find an insurance program to his liking.

[Tank]

The best judges combine empathy with adherence to the rule of law. Given that both liberals and conservatives have long sought to benefit from that fact, isn't it high time we were all honest enough to admit it?

The robot justices of the 21st century will be incapable of empathy.

No point to starting to think of justices as human now.

[RV]

If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start:

Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.

There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.

Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?

When it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.

You also don't have your employer pick out a contractor to build your home for you (and everyone else).  Perhaps the tax laws should change to make it less advantageous for an employer to provide health care, and more advantageous for an individual to find an insurance program to his liking.

Addressed in the article:

The third class of health-cost proposals, I explained, would push people to use medical savings accounts and hold high-deductible insurance policies: "They'd have more of their own money on the line, and that'd drive them to bargain with you and other surgeons, right?"

He gave me a quizzical look. We tried to imagine the scenario. A cardiologist tells an elderly woman that she needs bypass surgery and has Dr. Dyke see her. They discuss the blockages in her heart, the operation, the risks. And now they're supposed to haggle over the price as if he were selling a rug in a souk? "I'll do three vessels for thirty thousand, but if you take four I'll throw in an extra night in the I.C.U."—that sort of thing? Dyke shook his head. "Who comes up with this stuff?" he asked. "Any plan that relies on the sheep to negotiate with the wolves is doomed to failure."

I do agree that there should be re-aligning of incentives for doctors - the question is whether the health care market is one that's efficient enough to react to the demands of the sheeple.

[Chuck to Chuck]

But Sotomayor said this:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Rod Dreher with the exculpatory (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/05/i-was-wrong-about-sotomayor-sp.html):

The NYT has a link to the entire speech in which she made the comment about the "wise Latina" reaching a "better" verdict than "a white male who hasn't lived that life." I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

Relieved, because it strikes me as both idealistic and realistic. I am sure Sotomayor and I have very different views on the justice, or injustice, of affirmative action, and I'm quite sure that I won't much care for her rulings as a SCOTUS justice on issues that I care about. But seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling.

Acknowledging that judges are human?  How empathic.

[Brownie]

You wouldn't necessarily have a high deductible plan. You'd buy a plan that you're most comfortable with, and you'd pick an insurance company that (you'd hope) would negotiate the best rates with the health care providers. It wouldn't be much different than what you have now, except the insurance company (jn many ways your contractor) is more accountable to you. That and if you change jobs (or lose your job) you don't have to worry about COBRA.

[MikeC]

A major factor to look at is Sotomayor's 60% overturn rate when he decisions reach the higher court.

I think she runs counter to everything stated in the oath of the Supreme Court...

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

She seems like a lock to be our next Supreme Court Justice, despite her not so glowing track record.

For me i am keeping on eye on the dealership closings and could they be politically motivated? Some of which has been discussed here lightly...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/even-gop-congressman-loses-chrysler.html

That site is reporting Big Dem Donor group keeps all 6 of their dealerships, competition from non-donors was wiped out.

I certainly hope our government isn't politically targeting private citizens based on whether they donated to him or not and then deciding if they keep their dealership. Right now there doesn't appear to be any known strategy to why 5 star dealerships are getting shuttered and less profitable ones are staying open. You would think if they wanted to get Chrysler off the ground again it would keep the most profitable dealerships but that doesn't appear to be happening which is why people are looking at other explanations to why this is happening. It is certainly an interesting if not scary angle.

The more research being done is that a vast majority of the closures look to be heavy GOP donors.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html

Ton of links and dealerships that get the axe and stay open.

[RV]

A major factor to look at is Sotomayor's 60% overturn rate when he decisions reach the higher court.

I think she runs counter to everything stated in the oath of the Supreme Court...

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

She seems like a lock to be our next Supreme Court Justice, despite her not so glowing track record.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html

There are two fairly obvious problems with this. Firstly, only five of Sotomayor's opinions have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. That's hardly enough to reach a statistically sound conclusion. Moreover, as a matter of semantics, most people don't begin quoting percentages until the number of instances is significantly higher than five. If you came into the office on a Monday morning, and I asked you whether you'd gotten out over the weekend, you probably wouldn't say: "Yes, I got out 66.67% of the time!" -- you'd just tell me that you went out on Friday and Saturday and then sat around and watched basketball on Sunday.

But secondly, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually below average based on the Washington Times' criteria. According to MediaMatters.org, the Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon.

But you're right. She will almost certainly be unable to uphold her Supreme Court oath as well as that studmuffin Alito, who was totally not awesome at your completely arbitrary measure of not having his opinions overturned.

Samuel Alito once wrote that employees who allege sex discrimination ought to have a tougher time proving their claims. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Alito once argued that Congress hadn't granted state workers the family-leave benefits that are mandated for other employees. The high court rejected his thinking again.

And Alito, now President Bush's choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, once embraced a standard that would make it harder to punish water polluters. But the Supreme Court didn't go along.

But I should give you more credit. Surely you were raising holy hell about that judicial activist Samuel Alito back when he was nominated.

[ChuckD]

The more research being done is that a vast majority of the closures of the small minority of dealerships that are owned by persons who have in the past contributed to political causes look to be heavy GOP donors.

Edited for the ginormous fucking distinction. Like 100 fold.

Edit: Fine. Maybe 80 fold.

Edit2: 20 fold. I'll go with 20 fold. Or maybe 50.

Edit3: By the way, thanks for using spellcheck yesterday, MikeC.

[CBStew]

The more research being done is that a vast majority of the closures of the small minority of dealerships that are owned by persons who have in the past contributed to political causes look to be heavy GOP donors.

Edited for the ginormous fucking distinction. Like 100 fold.

Edit: Fine. Maybe 80 fold.

Edit2: 20 fold. I'll go with 20 fold. Or maybe 50.

Edit3: By the way, thanks for using spellcheck yesterday, MikeC.

Why doesn't Desipio offer a "run-on sentence" check?

[Quality Start Machine]

She seems like a lock to be our next Supreme Court Justice, despite her not so glowing track record.

I'm pretty sure you originally thought Harriet Miers was a helluva pick.

[Gil Gunderson]

SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html

To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.

I'll tell you what she doesn't have, though: children.

What kind of childless commie he-bitch is Barry Soetoro trying to shove down America's throat?

Another thing she may well lack: intellectual curiosity.  Which, I am told, is the single defining characteristic that separates the intelligent from the not-so-intelligent.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sotomayorside0527.artmay27,0,7883030.story

...Sotomayor and the two other judges on the 2nd Circuit panel that heard the appeal waived restrictions on the length of legal briefs and time allotted for oral argument. In an apparent measure of the significance of the case, the parties were permitted to submit 86-page briefs and an 1,800-page appendix. They were given an hour to argue.

On Feb. 15, 2008, in a single, unpublished paragraph, the panel affirmed Arterton's "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion." It also said it was sympathetic to the plight of one of the plaintiff firefighters whose dyslexia required him to take extraordinary measures to prepare for the test.

Cabranes [the dissenting judge] wrote that the three-judge panel's ultimate decision "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination."

You're reviewing an appeal of an employment-discrimination case, and your answer is "no."  No review of the Constitutional issues, just "what he said." 

I'd especially be interested in Gil's opinion on this, since I believe it strikes reasonably close to his area of expertise.  Is it common for an employment discrimination Circuit-Court appeal to have a one-paragraph majority opinion affirming the lower court's ruling?

It is when the judges reviewing the mindfuck that is and was this case don't want to think about their judgment.  However, if I recall correctly, the first opinion of the Circuit Court had a very lengthy paean to the diligence of the district judge.

The oral argument is beautiful to listen to.  Everyone is aiming at convincing Kennedy.  Wonderful.  Also, so many questions from the Justices that by the end of the argument, you'd think they didn't know what the fuck they were originally talking about.

[Tank]

PROVOCATIVE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

[RV]

Interesting take (at least for a simple non-lawyerin' fella) on the changing makeup of the court.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court

In 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.

First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.

Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.

Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)

Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).

[morpheus]

Interesting take (at least for a simple non-lawyerin' fella) on the changing makeup of the court.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court

In 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.

First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.

Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.

Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)

Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).

The 1980 Court was conservative relative to Courts past.  It's all where you put down your "conservative" or "liberal" yardstick, really.

[Tank]

Interesting take (at least for a simple non-lawyerin' fella) on the changing makeup of the court.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court

In 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.

First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.

Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.

Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)

Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).

The 1980 Court was conservative relative to Courts past.  It's all where you put down your "conservative" or "liberal" yardstick, really.

I'll tell you where you can put your conservative yardstick...