We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, December 17. 2018
More Evidence Organic Farming is Bad
Schools Ordered to Teach Eight-Year-Olds That ‘Boys Can Have Periods Too’
Is practicing yoga cultural appropriation? Students react.
Baltimore County Spends $147 Million On School Laptops; Four Years Later Test Scores Still Terrible
HOW THE LIBERAL PRESS SHAPES THE NEWS
Good Riddance to Obamacare
Mueller's ‘Enterprise’ Witch Hunt
Mueller Destroyed Messages From Peter Strzok's iPhone; OIG Recovers 19,000 New "FBI Lovebird" Texts
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
On the media shaping the news: I agree, but hoped this would be an examination of how media darlings like Warren get kid glove treatment, while Pubs are dissected...alive. Just imagine for a minute that Trump had claimed to be Native American and had gotten preferential treatment in his business dealings because of it. What if he had dodged questions for years and finally unveiled a DNA test that showed him to be 1,024th Native American?
The jokes would never stop.
This is CNN's headline: Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with 'strong evidence' of Native American ancestry.
CBSNews: Elizabeth Warren: DNA test shows strong likelihood I have Native-American heritage
On the day she released this news, major news outlets lined up to toe her party line: she was right all along and Trump was wrong. But she has almost no NA heritage according to the test she is brandishing. If a Pub had done this, it would be instant death to whatever creditably they might have had up until that moment.
That is how media sets narrative. Choosing when to pounce and when to let a favored candidate make shaky claims without challenging the claim.
Re Warren - The MSM has been gaslighting for her for a long long time.
Her first story wasn't that she had some random Native American ancestor 6 or more generations back but that her mother had such obvious Indian heritage (half Delaware, half Cherokee according to Chief Spouting Bull) that her father's racist parents forced them to elope.
Christopher B: https://www.dailywire.com/node/37177
that ancestry is actually Mexican, Peruvian, and Colombian
That is incorrect. The analysis is based on genetic traits unique to Amerindians, but does not distinguish between various Amerindian groups.
30 degrees off.
North American Indian tribes have made a point of not cooperating with genetic testing organizations, likely to preserve their monopoly on granting tribal membership by other means.
Lacking DNA from North American indigenous peoples, genetic testing groups have substituted analysis for markers from South American indigenous peoples under the theory that the two groups share common DNA because they are parts of a single wave of migration into the Americas, a theory that is now being questioned based on more extensive analysis of ancient DNA.
The common belief is that "Amerindians" all came from Asia and more or less from the same genetic pool in Asia. If true you could sample an Amerindian's DNA and an Asian (from the same DNA pool) DNA and find no difference. You seem to be saying that either Amerindians DNA "changed" after coming to America OR that the theory of a immigration from Asia is not accurate and more to the point that there was immigration from other places in addition to from Asia. Can you clearify your claim and show evidence for these radical opinions?
Christopher B: the two groups share common DNA because they are parts of a single wave of migration into the Americas, a theory that is now being questioned based on more extensive analysis of ancient DNA.
From your article, "About 25,000 years ago, Native Americans' ancestors split from the people living in Siberia... Once they got south of the ice sheets coating much of Canada, ancestral Native Americans split into two genetically distinct groups." That means they share a common lineage that is distinct from other human populations.
Anon: The common belief is that "Amerindians" all came from Asia and more or less from the same genetic pool in Asia. If true you could sample an Amerindian's DNA and an Asian (from the same DNA pool) DNA and find no difference.
That is incorrect. Evolution is ongoing.
Anon: You seem to be saying that either Amerindians DNA "changed" after coming to America ...
That is exactly the case.
"Amerindians DNA "changed" after coming to America ... That is exactly the case.
Precolumbian? Explain. Unless the explanation is that there were diverse pre-Columbian immigration not just from Asia.
Anon: Precolumbian? Explain.
Every new birth incurs genetic mutations; in humans, typically about 100 per generation. These mutations accumulate and can be used as markers to determine ancestry.
(Most mutations are neutral in effect, or nearly so.)
Dangerous Dean: But she has almost no NA heritage according to the test she is brandishing.
Her most recent Amerindian ancestor was 6-10 generations ago. The near range would indicate about 1/64 genetic inheritance, which would be consistent with her family lore.
Christopher B: but that her mother had such obvious Indian heritage (half Delaware, half Cherokee according to Chief Spouting Bull) that her father's racist parents forced them to elope.
She never claimed that her mother was half Delaware or half Cherokee, but that her mother was said to have an Indian ancestor. It's not an uncommon American family story.
All evidence to the contrary, kiddiez.
She lied to get a job at Harvard..
There isn't a lying lefty out there, that the Zachriel group won't bend over backwards to defend.
To be completely fair, I don't think she got her job at Harvard by claiming NA ancestry. I do think she let Harvard burnish its diversity credentials by listing herself as faculty with NA heritage, when she should have known better or at least been more careful. And now she's simply ridiculous.
We'll never know as Warren has declined to authorize officials at Harvard or Penn, both private institutions, to release her employment records.
True. But I was following her academic career with interest back then, and she was a hot property, even though at the time no one had yet heard of this NA gene nonsense. It wasn't yet fashionable to pay much attention to it.
I normally don't answer bots, but the point is that she DID claim to be Native American. Then, when called on it, she showed us a DNA test that said, at best, that she had a tiny sliver of NA DNA.
My original point was that if this had been a Republican, the story would have been "Only 1/64th NA??!?! This Pub is a liar!!"
You will likely come back to muddy the waters on that point, but it will remain salient and true.
Dangerous Dean: she showed us a DNA test that said, at best, that she had a tiny sliver of NA DNA.
That's fine, though "tiny" is relative. We object to the repeated use of the term 1/1024, when that is the far end of the range. A lot of Americans have similar stories in their family lore.
1/64th .... 1/1024th... split the difference, kiddiez, it doesn't matter, she still lied.
Boys can have periods: I'm difficult and irrational today because it's my period. I'll be this way all week. Maybe two. Could be three.
#1, D.D.: The enemedia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the D.N.C.
How the Liberal Press Shapes the News: The D.N.C. calls the shots.
Europe: "Nothing Scares The Identity Politics Left Like An Actual Working-Class Uprising" And, by golly, they GOT one!
I await the Gang of Z's refutation of Dr. Hanson's essay.
Sam L: I await the Gang of Z's refutation of Dr. Hanson's essay.
Binary thinking. You're welcome.
Heh. I have read quite a lot of his work over the years and I strongly contend that VDH is among the most NON-binary thinkers commenting on contemporary culture and politics in the country. Zachriel are a perfect example of binary thinking, as evidenced by the predictability of their view on any respective subject brought up in a post, and, also, by the way, by their use of the faddish, catch-word binary. I wish that word would be largely limited, as it once was, to use in reference to computers, where it applies, instead of to humans, where it, most definitely, does not.
When the kiddiez use words like this they are not trying to convey facts, reasoning and/or logic, they are trying to trigger emotions - mostly rage.
It's tap dancing around the subject and they do it often.
John Hyland: I have read quite a lot of his work over the years and I strongly contend that VDH is among the most NON-binary thinkers commenting on contemporary culture and politics in the country.
Perhaps not elsewhere, but binary thinking is well exhibited in this essay. Start with the title, "The Globalist Mindset", which minimizes a broad spectrum of beliefs. There is no single globalist mindset. Rather, people have a wide variety of views on globalism, from a conservative status quo of maintaining existing international relations to radical reshaping of the international system. He repeats this rigid categorization throughout the essay with the globalist "creed", "The globalist alone knows", "globalist penance", etc.
You didn’t read the whole article. You made a string of jibberish on the title alone.
B. Hammer: You didn’t read the whole article.
Z: He repeats this rigid categorization throughout the essay with the globalist "creed", "The globalist alone knows", "globalist penance", etc.
"...environmental, racial, gender, and cultural..." All of these are chosen because they are ever-changing fashions. Not dramatically, but subtly, so that the woke have to pay constant attention to get it right, or they too will be cast into the outer darkness. Even if you were right on pitch last year, enough to be a Mean Girl on your own and condescend to others, you can miss a new twist and be the subject of ridicule yourself this year.
The only way to win is not to play.
The definition of crazy is to insist that school children be taught that 8 YU boys can have periods. This is so stupid, so crazy that it should automatically make you ineligible for life to work in public life or with children. You should be shunned as the crazy psychotic that you are.
You think it is too strong to say that they are psychotic? Think about this; they know it is untrue and they are intentionally using this to cause social harm to children and parents. THAT is psychotic.
"You think it is too strong to say that they are psychotic? Think about this; they know it is untrue and they are intentionally using this to cause social harm to children and parents. THAT is psychotic."
Even scarier is that some people have become so brainwashed by the transgender cult propaganda that they truly believe a person CAN change their biological sex - they think that a man can change into a women. A lot of these people are teachers.
If I had a school-aged child nowadays and they were gender-nonconforming I would home school them. There is serious pressure out there on weird kids to announce that they are trans because that brings social cachet to the school and suddenly the weird kid becomes useful to them. Never mind the lifelong health effects - school administrators need to be able to signal about how woke they are, and in order to do that they need a trans kid.
The ACA is obscure, but Congress understood it well enough to exempt itself from its effects. Yes, technically, Congress and its staff must go to the exchanges for health insurance coverage, but they got themselves declared a "small business" in order to escape that fate. With refreshing honesty, Congress argued that, if their staff were required to live with exchange policies, they would no longer be able to hire decent staff. I'd say that shows a strong grasp of how the law works.
Texan99: The ACA is obscure, but Congress understood it well enough to exempt itself from its effects.
You have this backwards. Normally, employers at large organizations do not use the exchanges, but buy group insurance. That was Congress's original intent with regards to their employees.
Texan99: With refreshing honesty, Congress argued that, if their staff were required to live with exchange policies, they would no longer be able to hire decent staff.
Congress is competing for talent with people who would normally work for organizations that provide health insurance as part of their benefit packages, and not buy on the exchanges.
Congress's original intent was to exempt itself from the exchanges, I agree--why wouldn't they? The exchange coverage sucks, and they knew it. Then they were shamed into making the ACA explicitly cover themselves as part of the ugly negotiations that got the law passed. They then escaped coverage by having HHS deem them a business, again because they understood that exchange coverage sucks. They also explained that they had to do this because they're competing to hire good staff, and intelligent people who make good staff know that exchange coverage sucks. What have I been telling you?
None of this would be too shocking if exchange coverage were designed to cover people who couldn't find coverage any other way. OK, it's last resort, maybe we live with the fact that we all know exchange coverage sucks. Unfortunately, the ACA was written to prohibit the continued issuance of pre-ACA-style policies to 3-5 million people in the individual market (such as self-employed people). Those of us in that category understood as well as Congress does that exchange coverage sucks and no one would accept it if they had any choice. Why do you think they took our previous coverage away? We could never have been forced to buy the bad exchange coverage if we'd been allowed to keep our existing coverage.
I'd have paid a mandate penalty if that had been all it took to keep my pre-ACA policy and tell the exchange to stuff it. The problem with the ACA was never just the mandate, which was easy to circumvent. It was the ACA's making the previous style of coverage illegal to issue and therefore unavailable on any terms, on or off the exchanges. The President and other leaders of the Dem party told us our pre-ACA plans would be grandfathered, though no new ones could ever again be issued. Even that was a lie. The grandfathering was a hoax. I have met exactly one person in 8 years who managed to keep her grandfathered coverage alive, by freezing it in amber. She can never change one jot or tittle about it for the rest of her life, if she wants to keep it. No switching to another provider network, no moving out of state, no slight modifications in the deductible, absolutely nothing. Above all, don't believe anyone from HHS or the carrier who assures you that a trivial change is not enough kill the grandfathering. They will wait until you take the bait and do it, but then the damage is irrevocable.
Texan99: Congress's original intent was to exempt itself from the exchanges, I agree--why wouldn't they?
That's right. Large organizations normally provide health insurance coverage of part of their benefit package, so it would be consistent for Congress to do the same.
Texan99: Then they were shamed into making the ACA explicitly cover themselves as part of the ugly negotiations that got the law passed.
That's right. They were singled out, and ended up without the typical benefits that most people get when working for a large organization.
Texan99: None of this would be too shocking if exchange coverage were designed to cover people who couldn't find coverage any other way.
This is a separate topic. What do you find objectionable about insurance provided by the exchange? Price? There's definitely a problem with pricing for those who make too much to qualify for a subsidy.
The price is risible, it's true, in part because they're legally prohibited from selling me the catastrophic coverage I want, the high-deductible kind that I used to rely on to keep my premiums down. The real price differential arises from the fact that I priced in my policy many years ago, paying for it continuously, before we both aged and developed more expensive problems. Now I share a price with people who didn't get insured until after they were expensively ill. It's like paying $100K a year for fire insurance because I'm priced together with people who wait until the firetrucks are on the way before buying a policy. In other words, my little sliver of the population, the 3-5MM in the individual market, are bearing the lion's share of the burden to subsidize people who did not get insured until they were already very sick. People on employer plans aren't sharing in this burden. Congress delayed the effective day of the ACA for them, and they remain blissfully unaware how things work for the self-employed.
(Part 2) But my biggest objection is not price. It is that in this county, and I am told now in all of Texas, it no longer is possible at any price to buy an ACA-qualified PPO in the individual market, only outstandingly crappy HMOs with ridiculous networks and more ridiculous hoops to jump through to get referrals to specialists. The coverage is not only unavailable for traveling outside Texas, it doesn't even cover expenses incurred outside this small county and immediate environs. That kind of insurance may come in handy for sniffles or flu shots, but it's useless for big, scary illnesses that could devastate my net worth if I have to go to a real doctor instead of some HMO network hack. The whole point of insurance should be to let me cover my ordinary bills out of pocket, then to kick in if I face something really unusual and expensive. This is the opposite.
(Part 3) Then there's the matter of having to switch every year. Carriers hate the financial instability of this system and steadily drop out of the market. You can never tell from one year to the next who might be offering a plan. Every year you start all over finding out who's in network at the last minute. Not that you can believe anything you find online or at the exchange about who's in network, certainly not before you choose your plan by the deadline. There is no official penalty when the carrier lies about who's in network; you have to call each doctor's office and personally confirm. And of course they routinely drop out mid-year as well. Since there is no choice (exactly two providers in the exchange in this county), there is no economic penalty either.
(Part 4) The rules for subsidies are arcane. The exchange personnel have no idea how to apply them. If you're self-insured and don't get a W-4 from an employer, or your income fluctuates from month to month or year to year, there is no way to persuade the HHS people that you've qualified for the coming year. No matter how often they agree on the phone or even on your "private" webpage that you have finally qualified, they'll keep sending you letters explaining that you didn't provide them with this or that (doesn't help to keep copies and return-mail certificates and receipts), so your subsidy is about to be terminated. Luckily, they generally don't mean it; a lot of meaningless paper apparently is generated and sent by robots. More often, they don't really dispute that you've sent a required document, they just explain that after several months they still haven't gotten around to reviewing it, or it's probably sitting in another office, and they have no idea how to find it. Then they will actually tell you that if they don't review it by the deadline, they're going to terminate the subsidy. It's Kafkaesque. Again, because there's no competition, they have nothing to fear by behaving this way. They're the only game in town. They are emphatically not worried about losing your business to the competition. Also again, if this were charity of a last-resort variety, these drawbacks might not be so shocking, but this is the only insurance I am now legally entitled to buy. It's not that I'll pay a penalty if I buy non-complying insurance, it's that the carriers were legally prohibited from selling it to me. The individual market was legally dismantled.
What's more, although price is not my primary concern, the new coverage costs three to five times what my pre-ACA coverage did, yet is supremely crappy in comparison. It's not that I used to drive a cheap Vega and they forced me to upgrade to an expensive Cadillac for my own good. It's that I used to drive a Cadillac at a price I could live with, but they confiscated it and ordered me to buy a Vega at five times the Cadillac price.
I love the argument that Congress was "unfairly singled out" when it forced itself to go into the exchanges. People like me were singled out and forced to go into the exchanges. Congress merely pretended to agree to go into them, for PR purposes, then used a loophole to renege, going right back to the Cadillac coverage they'd always enjoyed. The exchange structure they felt comfortable imposing on me wasn't nearly good enough for themselves, yet they lied even about that. "It's great stuff! We're going to use it ourselves! Um, not really, but you guys go ahead and enjoy it! Yes, we get to keep our plans, but you don't get to keep yours." Are you not even embarrassed to argue that of course Congress and its staff wanted good coverage and could never reasonably have been expected to submit to the crappy exchange coverage they were willing to force on others? Others who actually already had good coverage, which Congress was taking away? Because I mean this in the most respectful way: I didn't think even you could make an argument that hypocritical and incoherent.
Texan99: Now I share a price with people who didn't get insured until after they were expensively ill.
Often because they couldn't afford insurance.
Texan99: it no longer is possible at any price to buy an ACA-qualified PPO in the individual market
PPOs are becoming less common as people who have high medical needs choose more comprehensive plans, driving up costs for those plans, while healthy people choose less comprehensive plans.
Texan99: You can never tell from one year to the next who might be offering a plan.
The ACA has some inherent problems that have been purposefully exacerbated by Republicans intent on undermining the program rather than trying to find solutions to those problems. Every other major social program has also had problems, but Congress always made course corrections as necessary, including for Bush's Medicare Part D program.
Zzzz: The ACA has some inherent problems...
Well, no shit, kiddiez!
Ask little Jonny Gruber. The Demonic party saw them as a feature, not a bug.
Texan99: People like me were singled out and forced to go into the exchanges.
There are a lot of ways the program could have been structured. The market basis of the plan was proposed by conservatives, and a number of Republican amendments were included in the final bill, but Republicans ultimately decided that obstruction was better than cooperation. However, there is nothing preventing Congress from improving the bill — other than the politics.
Texan99: Congress merely pretended to agree to go into them, for PR purposes, then used a loophole to renege, going right back to the Cadillac coverage they'd always enjoyed.
Other government employees have health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Congressional members and certain employees were singled out to receive their coverage through DC Health Link at the gold tier level with coverage and costs comparable to many corporate health insurance plans.
You continue to evade the point. Congress agreed to go on the exchange plans as a PR stunt to show they wouldn't be so bad. Then they sneaked out, acknowledging how bad they were, but leaving self-employed people stuck there. You can talk until you're blue in the face about how it was a reasonable expectation for federal employees to have really nice insurance and never change this hypocritical lie.
As for the nonsense about how anything horrible about the ACA somehow can be attributed to the zero Republicans who voted for it, sell that dreck somewhere else. Have a little integrity, if you claim to support the law.
As for the idea that it's somehow OK that I used to have a PPO and now the exchanges offer only crummy HMOs, because PPOs are going out of style or some such nonsense, please. I was never in the tiniest danger of losing my PPO until Congress took my insurance away and stuck me in an exchange.
If people didn't buy insurance until they were expensively sick because they couldn't afford it, does it genuinely make sense to you to take away the insurance of the people who DID fit it into their budgets, and then make them pay for the people who didn't or couldn't? If that made sense to you as something the whole country might get together and do in order to spread the pain, does it really make sense to you to place that burden solely on the 3-5MM people in the self-employed individual market, while people on nice employer plans, including Congress, skate? Honestly I don't know where you come up with these silly desperate excuses. Have you no ability whatever to acknowledge when a mistake has been made?
Believe you supplied the answer with your last question, Tex...
True. And on further reflection, the emptiness of this creature's position could not be more clearly demonstrated than by the fact that he can uphold it only by discounting the reports of people with personal experience, while grasping frantically at the imaginary experience of others, who probably outnumber the real people who were hurt, because it just HAS to be true or else all is Chaos. Or by pretending that everyone expected the bad parts of the law all along, so why be surprised. Or by contending that Republicans magically caused all the bad parts to be written by psychic action at a great remove. Or by arguing that of course Congress lied about its willingness to subject itself to this garbage coverage, because who would expect such privileged people to settle for anything so substandard at such a ridiculous price? If a lie is transparent enough, isn't it almost like being honest?
All this after the law was originally justified because it would improve coverage and save money. Pathetic mental acrobatics. Well, at least it gutted the Democrat party. They may claw their way back, but for some years they were quite unable to inflict any more of their legislative wish list on us. The best they could do after 2010 was legislate by judicial fiat, and even that brought them Trump, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
And indirectly, it put me into office, too.
Texan99: the fact that he can uphold it only by discounting the reports of people with personal experience
Indeed, we do not discount your personal experience, but neither do we treat a single instance as necessarily representative of the entirety.
Indeed, we have readily admitted the program has problems, problems which can be addressed. Republicans have not proposed a workable alternative that protects people with preexisting conditions, rationalizes healthcare for the poor, and helps restrain costs. Instead, they have worked to destabilize the system in order to cause its collapse.
Texan99: Congress agreed to go on the exchange plans as a PR stunt to show they wouldn't be so bad.
They agreed to it because of the political furor based on a false portrayal of the program worked. Large organizations would continue to provide their existing benefits, as long as they met the minimum standard, which nearly all did.
Texan99: As for the nonsense about how anything horrible about the ACA somehow can be attributed to the zero Republicans who voted for it, sell that dreck somewhere else.
Indeed, working together would have probably resulted in a better bill. Republicans were determined to undermine the effort explicitly for political advantage.
Texan99: As for the idea that it's somehow OK that I used to have a PPO and now the exchanges offer only crummy HMOs, because PPOs are going out of style or some such nonsense, please.
Please. As already noted, it's due to market forces resulting in the sick choosing more comprehensive plans and the healthy choosing less comprehensive plans. It's a problem with the existing program.
Texan99: If people didn't buy insurance until they were expensively sick because they couldn't afford it, does it genuinely make sense to you to take away the insurance of the people who DID fit it into their budgets, and then make them pay for the people who didn't or couldn't?
"Take insurance away"? Not sure what you mean. There is a gap in subsidies for some classes of individuals, something which could be fixed with some modifications within the existing framework without tearing it all down, which seems to be the current Republican policy.
Texan99: take away the insurance
You probably mean take away existing policies, not that you don't have insurance. The bill had a grandfathering clause, but it was clearly not sufficient. A small percentage of people, such as yourself, had their insurance coverage disrupted. Far more people were helped than hurt, which is not atypical, but still, the protections could have been stronger. The problem is that the dysfunction in Congress makes adjustments to the program well-nigh impossible.
Grandfathering was not merely flawed, it was almost universally unavailable. It may be true that a small percentage of total insured Americans lost coverage, but it is not true that a small percentage of those in the individual market did. Nearly everyone in the individual market did, yes, in the sense of losing the coverage they had in place and wanted to keep. Did they replace their coverage? Many did, but it was very, very crappy insurance and much more expensive. I have never met or even heard of anyone in the individual market who was not bitterly unhappy with the change. And there is zero evidence that more people were helped than hurt. You simply made that part up.
Texan99: Grandfathering was not merely flawed, it was almost universally unavailable.
36% were still grandfathered as of 2013 when grandfathering was supposed to end. As of 2017 all plans have to be compliant with the new rules.
Texan99: I have never met or even heard of anyone in the individual market who was not bitterly unhappy with the change.
70% of enrollees through the exchanges are happy with their plan.
re More Evidence Organic Farming is Bad
The author may get excommunicated from the Church of Global Warming and Environmentalism for that kind of thinking.
The ACA was intended to disrupt. It was designed to empower/enrich a large segment of the population with cheap or free health insurance AND it was designed to "tax" a large segment of the population to pay for that free or cheap health insurance. It was a tar baby from it's inception and had to be passed in the dead of the night. When it appeared that the SCOTUS would surely recognize that it was not constitutional (i.e. could be implemented by a state but not by the federal government) everyone was stunned at the gymnastics of John Roberts to find a reason, i.e. the power to tax, that it was constitutional. What was then a huge disappointment led to what we see today that once that "tax" portion of the ACA was removed that in spite of judge Roberts incredible legal gymnastics that now indeed the ACA was no longer constitutional... period. There is no other possible legal and honest conclusion that SCOTUS could make. However I fully expect SCOTUS will indeed find a reason, another reason why the ACA is constitutional BECAUSE we lost the constitution and SCOTUS decades ago and we now live in an elite oligarchy. The constitution is dead except where it can be used to support the elite oligarchy.
I'm no legal scholar, and perhaps I'm simple minded, but I thought that Roberts avoided taking on the tar baby that had been handed to him, to decide on the constitutionality of a toxic issue. He decided on it by handing it straight back to the miscreants responsible for creating it: The taxing authority, the US Senate. I myself am one of the many many millions like Texan99 who is in the worst possible position: I am self-employed and wholly responsible for finding quality health care at the junk yard flea market called the Obama Healthcare Marketplace. It's an annual nightmare. And each year, I can look forward to paying more out-the-door for premiums, than I do for my mortgage and utilities. And that's before getting any kind of sickness, or dental work, or vision work, or chipping away at the mountain of deductible. There should be people like that MIT pencil neck hanging from lampposts over this travesty.
Yes, the intent of the ACA was to take huge amounts of money from hard working people like you to pay for free health care for Obama/Democrat voters. That part of the ACA works exactly as intended.
I do not know what Roberts intended. My gut feeling is because he was new on the court and had been accused of being "too" liberal by Democrats he thought this was the way to make himself feel more "centered" and show that he was no one's "boy" and he was independent. I dunno, I could be dead wrong. But what he did made no sense to me.
The recurring theme at the time of the (non) debate over the ACA bills was whether or not the USA should call Healthcare a "human right". The progressive Left was all for declaring this a "right", the conservative and Tea-Party right were not. I think that Roberts thought the Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, was not the venue to decide this - since constitutional rights are God-given an unrescindable - hence he booted this rancid POS straight back to the offending dog to take ownership of. It's amazing to me how Roberts is now held as the villain. How convenient. The Republicans deserve nothing better than rich scorn and loss of office over their spineless squandering of legislative majority over the past two years. The opportunity was there. Who looks at their insurance spending and can make any sense of it, have you tried? It's impossible. The costs associated with Health Care are completely opaque and impenetrable if you are a consumer. With this premise, it's impossible to have coherent discussions with the insurers to understand what you're paying for. Stripping that self-protective barrier from the industry and forcing consumer transparency would have been a decisive first step that would not have affected benefits and yet would have provided Republicans with the street credibility to gain the trust from a bi-partisan voting block to continue. Meanwhile they enjoy their gold-plated health coverage and pensions.
A companion piece to Mueller's 'Enterprise...'