Tuesday, September 15, 2009

RE: The August Slide: Health Care & Obama

Anonymous Danny said...

ROFL don't know why I bother since I'm convinced rationality is not what the right is looking for in this specific debate (again, I'm talking about health care *only*...how I wish issues could be looked at separately and not in the spoke of partisanship) but for what it's worth and because misinformation kills me...

I could shed some accurate light on more but I'll just shed light on the main piece of evidence for most of your post: Lewin Group study.

If only you provided a link to the accurate PRIMARY source of the Lewin group study, rather than the Heritage Conservative's analysis of the bill. Sigh. Since not, I'm here. The Lewin group study analyzed variations of a public plan when this whole debate started. They did not analyze the actual bill. (You won't be happy to know, or perhaps you do know, that the CBO did analyze the ACTUAL bill and came out with some fairly "nice" numbers that go against what you say...more on that later after I talk about Lewin study). The number you mention from the Lewin Group assumes that the public plan is going to include large employers also. To my knowledge, that is not true. I'm pretty sure that's not true actually. Large employers are not going to participate in the exchanges. Even your number is wrong. I'm surprised you chose the 80mill. Lewin group estimated that 100 million people would end up enrolling in the public plan IF IF IF IF larger firms participated in the exchanges.

Now, to the CBO (the people you used as evidence when the said the bill would cost too much but I guess refuse to use as evidence now...). The CBO analyzed THE BILL OUT THERE NOW (aka no large firms participate in exchange), and predicted that approx. 5 million people would switch from employer coverage to public plan.

Now, before my next point, all the above is based on fact. But to go even further, it is worthy to note that the Lewin Group is owned by a private insurance company (United Health), but I'm not even claiming bias in my argument (which I could). Interesting that now the Republicans can't play the bias card with the CBO estimate bc 1. would look like fools and 2. they used the CBO to their advantage in prior arguments! So now what should they do? IGNORE THE CBO AND GO TO LEWIN WHO IS ANALYZING SOMETHING NOT ON THE TABLE! WOOHOO FOR HONESTY.

Also, congratulations in advance since now the right-wing "ObamaCare" slogan will FINALLY have some merit to it!!! Obama is going to give a talk to Congress this week as I'm sure you know. Up until now it has actually been the congressmen making the decisions and the bills (yeah, remember that "death panel" part of the bill. that was put into place by a Republican from Georgia. The irony...). Yup, this wasn't the Clinton years where Clinton led the charge. This was a way different approach but leave it to who else than the right-wing to simplify health care into death-panels, socialism, and ObamaCare rather than acknowledge the complexities.

To end on a positive note, looking forward to the Whole Foods stuff next week. Unbelievably absurd reaction from the left... (but, again, bc I can't get over it, if you compare absurd relatively to the right-wing "kill your grandma, forced abortions" nonsense in this hc debate it pales in comparison).

Blogger Pearce Godwin said...

Danny, thanks for the comment. I've researched your claims and would like to respond. You highlight important truths and complexities, but you are incorrect in your criticism. While I clearly have a conservative point of view on the issue, I seek to be honest, straightforward and avoid evidence filtering. Confirmation bias is dangerous in decision making as well as policy assessment. Thank you for ensuring that I hold to this aim.

First of all, contrary to what you claim, the Lewin Group did analyse the July 15th draft of the actual bill. What I linked was a memo written by Lewin outlining their study.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/upload/Lewin_public_plan_National_all.pdf
The same document is cited by each fact check I've read. If a more primary, raw report on the study exists, I haven't seen it. And yes, Lewin is owned by UnitedHealth, which is good reason for a critical reading of their methodology and conclusions but no reason to dismiss their findings out of hand. WaPo addresses their ownership http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202216.html Lewin acknowledges that it creates a perception of a conflict of interest but vows that it has no effect on their work. Politifact.com notes "Lewin Group is respected by many health care analysts and operates with editorial independence, but it is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which also offers private health insurance."

I have also found the CBO analysis you cite and found the reasons for the discrepancy with Lewin's analysis interesting. You are correct that one of the two major points of divergence is the assumption of eligibility, small employers only vs. everyone. The other is the pricing gap between the public plan and private insurance. Lewin assumes the public plan will cost consumers 20% less than private insurance; the CBO assumes 10%.

The actual bill does not answer these questions, rather leaving them up to the "Commissioner." Therefore, we cannot know which analysis is more accurate and likely to prove true if implemented. We can use common sense, logic and contextual evidence to make a good guess. Lewin assumes that in year 3 the Commissioner will open up the exchange to all employers, which is allowed by the bill. See page 2 of the memo linked above.

I think the CBO is a very solid authority on legislation and would not selectively use their analysis. However you must understand that the CBO analyses only what is spelled out without making assumption about future behavior, no matter how likely or rationally anticipated based on contextual evidence. The Lewin Group took this extra step to analyse what the bill would most likely mean in practice as time goes on. I believe their assumptions are based on sound reasoning. Refer to my writing on the original purpose of the public option... it's not meant to be restricted to individuals and small employers. Also, my number is not wrong. I used the number Lewin found, under their reasonable assumptions, would lose their private insurance and move to the public option, 83.4 million, the number you refer to is an estimate of all people on the public option, 103 million.

For a more detailed explanation of the difference in the two studies, read the Investor Business Daily.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333674253179704
They explain that the devil is in the assumptions and logically show why Lewin is likely closer to the truth of what will happen. Lewin has also addressed the CBO report and explained the discrepencies.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/01/morning-bell-the-road-to-government-run-health-care/
I linked this piece in my original post.

You are free to think the public option would be wonderful, but the bottom line reached by both Lewin and CBO is that Obama's assertion that "you won't lose your private insurance" is categorically false. Americans deserve the truth of what Obamacare would mean. Then they should decide if it's a good idea for the country.

I'm thrilled that Obama has finally decided to stand up and lead on his signature issue. The fact that he has, indeed, left the sausage making to the Democratic leaders in congress on healthcare, the stimulus, the omnibus, etc. unchecked has demonstrated troubling weakness and lack of firm principles. Barack Obama is the President, not Nancy Pelosi; he should act like it on these domestic issues.

As for death panels and other claims made some conservatives, while often inflammatory and sometimes gross exagerations, there is almost always some truth and validity behind the claims which is cause for legitimate concern.

On "death panels"- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082003035.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
And Palin defending her phrase http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
Liberals acknowledge that she had a point, and she has won the argument.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html

On abortion funding- http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

On other fears- http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/24/morning-bell-myths-and-facts-about-obamacare/

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

RE: Government Motors, The Obamathon, Health Care, Economy & More

Anonymous Danny said...

Not going/trying to turn this into an Israeli-Palestine thing bc you only spent one small paragraph on it but let's try to find a more sensitive op-ed than Krauthammer? Or at least if you are not going to analyze the situation (analyzing the situation would make the blog post incredibly long) but while I can write pages on this I'll try to provide some of the other side of the story:

The beginning of Krauthwhatever's letter is crap/meaningless. All countries cannot be treated the same way...Obama had a great quote that Israel is still our staunchest ally but best friends have to be critical at times. Who have been the best presidents for Israel? Answer: their "worst enemies"...Carter, for example. Reagan with Jim Baker for example. George Bush was considered the best friend of all time...LOL his contributions definitely lacking compared to other presidents. Not sure if the amount of money/aid/support we give to Israel is known to the readers. U.S. has given so much unconditional love to Israel. Not going to start posting links for other reasons but it is far beyond our aid to any other country. Now that is fine. They are our GREATEST ally. I understand that. Though, when Kerry, Clinton, Carter et al. go to Gaza and see what their weapons did you want to keep the Bush status quo? Sorry! Morality, common sense, the will to finally try to resolve a conflict get in the way. Calling ending settlements a myth? So insensitive for the reasons given. Who brought up Hamas??? Answer: USA/ISRAEL in the late 1980s. Shocking, right? No? that can't be right? 100% right. U.S. wanted a more "religious" government as opposed to Fatah bc they thought they would be praying in their mosques all day. U.S./Israel brought in democratic elections. Hamas got elected. Now, for understandable reasons, U.S./Israel hates it. Let's take a minute and think about the people who have suffered for so long though? What in the world do you want them to think in this situation? They do what the West wants and now they are screwed? Enough said there. Final point is the last sentence in the post about endorsing a Palestinian state...too funny. With all the preconditions he put on that let's say he endorsed a Palestinian colony. Even some Israeli newspapers are acknowledging that. I'm sure tons of unconditionally supporting right-wingers are going to blast this as anti-Israel (far from it I am actually...) I just thought I'd give another side to the situation than the paragraph in the blog post. Palestinians need to make concessions too (let's start with recognizing an Israeli state) but I'm not going to waste my breath bc you will find what the Palestinians "need to do" in one of those links.

Blogger skiendog said...

pearce, i need a blog like right now about your opinions on the N Korea / American Journalist situation. im starting to think im the only one who believes those idiots almost deserved what was coming to them. what the hell were they doing over there? people are calling them, brave, heroic, etc... and i cant help but feeling like they were being idiots in the first place.

i think 12 years of a labor camp is a little stupid, especially considering they didnt consult with the US Gov. about the sentencing. i mean, what would happen if the US started imprisoning everyone who came here illegally for 12 years labor? we'd have a coast-to-coat autobahn built in a matter of days. actually, that isnt a bad idea.

back to the point at hand. if what we are hearing is correct, that those girls were on the N Korea side of the line, then i cant help but suspect that N Korea is just in some questionable feelings of... say... what the hell are they doing? spies?

id love to see the girls returned, unharmed, but i think that they have some prison time to serve if what we are hearing is correct.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Heated Debate Over MN Senate Race

Anonymous MN Andy said...

Pearce, you should take a look at the MN Senate Race. Today arguments were heard in front of the MN Supreme Court. http://www.twincities.com/ci_12494611?nclick_check=1 This is a prime example of activist judges doing what they do. Sen. Coleman has a strong grounds for appeal to the US Supreme Court if MN doesn't get it right. Equal Protection violations happened all over during this race. If this gets to the Supreme Court there is precedent for the case that Coleman is making. Also, there is the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution, but I doubt many Dems have read that little piece of paper lately. I just want to make sure you are keeping up on this race. America doesn't need Al Franken being the 60th vote in the Senate.

June 1, 2009 12:24 PM

Blogger mikeyr2 said...

Republicans will never make a good case against "judicial activism" given that, amazingly, they themselves morph into 'judicial activists' when it suits their purposes. The full-court press to overturn Roe v. Wade precedent is but one example. Another glaring example is the highly activist Bush v. Gore decision, decided far from impartially, but on party lines.

On this basis, it is ironic that MN Andy rails against the 'activist' judges of Minnesota when the "precedent for the case Coleman is making" is in fact one of the most activist decisions of all time (Bush v. Gore). In that opinion, furthermore, Rehnquist--realizing that his decision could never stand the test of time--specifically stated that it was NOT to be considered precedent. Minnesota and Florida are apples and oranges. Unlike Florida, the election laws of Minnesota governing recounts are fully clear, and they were fully followed. This is why the (as politically impartial as you can get) panel of one Democrat, one Republican, and one Independent judge voted unanimously in favor in Franken...and why the MN Supreme Court will do the same.

June 1, 2009 3:13 PM

Anonymous MN Andy said...

mikeyr2: You say I am picking on Bush v. Gore for this. True, but you are not clear on what I am saying. There was more than one ruling in that case. I am referring to the 7-2 ruling the court made in order to provide equal protection of voters (you should look this ruling up...it clearly addresses the issues that Coleman is facing in MN). I do not see how that can be seen as activism. That is call standing up for the 14th amendment. You seem to be making bold statement about the case. I was able to sit through the entire process and it was not as fair as you may think. There are ballots that were cast that are not being counted because of election rules. Then in other cases, the same rules were not followed in different parts of the state, but those ballots are being counted. I do not think that equality is the name of the game here. This issues is clearly addressed in Bush v. Gore. There were two parts to that case. The counting of the ballots is what matters in the Coleman case. Since there is no time limit on this case, the 5-4 decision is irrelevant in MN.

You say "Unlike Florida, the election laws of Minnesota governing recounts are fully clear, and they were fully followed." You are wrong. The fight that is happening in MN is based on the absentee ballot rules. These rules were not followed. It is clear that they were not followed. Al Franken's lawyers have said that they were not followed. But, they also say that it's too late to do anything about it. There are thousands of voters who would have had their votes counted if they had lived in a different city. There are also thousands of voters who should not have had their votes counted. Election judges who were in charge of reviewing the ballots to determine if they followed the rules have testified that there were different standards followed than what the law says. This is why I argue that these judges are activists. They are allowing the election law to be broken. They are creating new standards for how elections will be handled. I would say that the 14th amendment has more to say here than just saying "oops it's too late to fix the problem."

The basic idea of one person one vote is not being upheld in these rulings. I don't think that MN election law can over rule anything that the Constitution says. Franken is benefiting from judges breaking the rules.

June 1, 2009 4:06 PM

Blogger Michael Rosenberg said...

For absentee ballots AND other ballots, Minnesota's laws are much clearer than Florida's about general procedure for which can be counted and which can be thrown out. In fact, the trial court affirmed this a few months ago when they ruled that the state-wide standards were completely clear.

I am aware of the 7-2 portion of Bush v. Gore, but even this was explicitly not intended to be taken as precedent. But even if you WERE to take this as precedent, that specific precedent covered a state recount...not the counting of illegal absentee ballots before a recount. Again though, Florida is not Minnesota, and the Minnesota trial court already found no evidence of systematic discrimination such that an Equal Protection claim could be valid.

Coleman was arguing, at least a few months ago, that because some absentee ballots were counted illegally in some parts of Minnesota, therefore, other ballots should be counted in the same illegal manner throughout Minnesota. If some jurisdiction had accidentally--and illegally-- counted the absentee ballots of teenagers and felons, Coleman would say that the way to remedy this would be to compound this illegality by counting the ballots of teenagers and felons anywhere else. The trial court didn't buy this argument, and I suspect the MN Supreme Court won't either.

Election problems happen all over the United States. But the errors in Minnesota's case were mistakes that simply don't rise to the level of malfeasance and systematic discrimination that are requisite for a legitimate Equal Protection claim. The real activists, in this case, are those who seek to so generously apply the claim as to subvert its real purpose...who want to Actively overturn the final decision of the Canvassing Board AND Trial Court--both of which, again, were truly about as impartial as these entities could get.

June 1, 2009 5:03 PM

Anonymous MN Andy said...

I am not even going to respond to what you wrote Michael. You are only picking on bits and pieces of the case in MN. You are making arguments based on what I would assume are the media reports. You are wrong in what you are saying. I sat through every day of the canvass board meetings. I was there. I do not need some hack in DC telling me about MN election law. I have a feeling I know a little more about it than you. Read what I wrote. Laws were violated in this case. Democracy is not being served with the judges decisions. Sure they are ruling in the case, but that doesn't mean what they say is right. Just like what you just said. YOU ARE WRONG.

June 1, 2009 6:29 PM

Blogger Michael Rosenberg said...

I may not live in Minnesota, but I have followed the case and read the trial court's decision. (In my opinion,) there is no basis for an Equal Protection claim here, and no proof that errors changed the election's outcome. I was hoping we could be more civil, but I can understand your disappointment with court decisions that didn't, and probably won't, resolve in Norm Coleman's favor.

June 1, 2009 6:56 PM

Anonymous MN Andy said...

Keep thinking you know what you are talking about. And I wouldn't have to be 'uncivil' if you presented your argument in a better manner. I wasn't looking to get into it with anyone. You just started talking about something you don't know anything about. I can't let a lie keep going. I do not think the trial court's decision is enough to base your claim. I think you are missing a good amount of information. If one person gets a vote counted that should not have been counted and another person doesn't get their vote counted based on the same situation, that is grounds for an equal protection claim. There are thousands of stories like this in MN. There were witnesses in the trial that made these claims. There were election judges who claimed that they allowed votes to count that were in violation of the election law. I think you should go back and look at more information before you tell me what you think. I think I am a little more informed than you about this.

June 1, 2009 10:25 PM

Blogger Michael Rosenberg said...

Given that my interpretation of both Equal Protection and Minnesota election law totally reflects that of an (informed) trial court and that of an (informed) State Supreme Court, I could just have easily--probably more easily--have argued that you, in fact, "don't know what you're talking about". But so far, I have avoided such ad hominems.

You say that "if one person gets a vote counted that should not have been counted and another person doesn't get their vote counted based on the same situation, that is grounds for an Equal Protection claim." Following this logic through, if just one felon in Minnesota mistakenly got his vote counted, and literally every other felon in the state--rightfully--did not, then there is grounds for an Equal Protection claim. If just one person has her vote eaten up by a machine that suddenly malfunctions, and all other votes are counted properly, then that too is grounds for an EP claim. Your interpretation of "equal protection under the law" is so generous and expansive that if you were to apply it impartially, you would find legitimate claims absolutely everywhere, and as a result, you would seek to nullify just about every election that has ever taken place in the United States.

It was a close race. A recount was overseen by a bipartisan panel--and Franken won. A bipartisan trial court affirmed the validity of the outcome. Now, even the Republicans on the Minnesota Supreme Court seem poised to do the same. Why? Because the Coleman camp has never been able to prove that a) any systematic discrimination or voter disenfranchisement was ever evident, or b) any of the alleged irregularities were enough to definitively sway the election outcome.

No election is perfect. Even if your claims were valid, they would hardly justify overturning the election results. In fact, the remedy you seek would be the greatest Judicial Activist decision of them all: have a Court invalidate an entire election that has already been legitimately recounted and certified on the basis of a hazy Equal Protection claim.

June 2, 2009 8:29 AM

Anonymous MN Andy said...

The city of Minneapolis did not reject an absentee ballot due to an unregistered witness, when in fact there were unregistered witnesses. This was agreed upon by many different witnesses during the trial court which you seem to base all your understanding. Out of thousands of absentee ballots in the city, none were rejected for this claim, where as in Carver County, hundreds of ballots were rejected based on this LAW. Minneapolis election officials broke the law. In an election that is separated by such a close margin, this is not just a small issue.

Plus, I cannot help that you are easily offended. Don't get mad when I call you out for being wrong. I am not even going to get into the claims you are making about 'bipartisan.' That's something of its own.

What I want you to do is look up the absentee ballot rules for MN. Tell me the four steps that a ballot must follow to be valid. There have been countless times when ballots were rejected for no reason, and other times when they were not rejected because of a bad election judge. How many ballots were added during the trial? What makes these ballots any different than other ballots? The judges in the trial were picking and choosing ballots. In a race this close, that is not how it should be handled. Also, the trial court does not have the jurisdiction to remove ballots from the count. There is only on way to fix that, a new election. They are not in the position to call for the new election.

You are just mad that you are not right. Keep trying to prove me wrong. When you do, give real examples, not just ideas that everything was bipartisan and the judges said this and that. Had the judges been right, there would have been no appeal to higher court. You make a lot of wild claims about what the court has said and what they will do. Prove what you are saying. You have a limited scope of information you are pulling from. Look at all of the court documents that have been filed since November. When you do that, get back to me. You can't just look at a trial court ruling and say that that is the word of God. I bet you think Nanci Pelosi is telling the truth with the CIA memos. You seem that naive.

June 2, 2009 12:15 PM

Blogger Michael Rosenberg said...

It is interesting that you accuse me of making wild claims immediately after saying this: "Had the judges been right, there would have been no appeal to higher court."

I'm sorry, but anyone can file an appeal. Legitimate rulings get appealed every day. The existence of an appeal, quite clearly, does not prove the original ruling wrong.

Contrary to your belief, this is not about me. And actually, the burden of proof never rested with me. It rests with the plantiff seeking to overturn certified election results. Neither the Coleman camp in its briefs, nor you here on this blog, ever proved a scheme of systematic disenfranchisement, fraud, discrimination, or vote tampering. All you have shown are minor inconsistencies among jurisdictions in election procedure: the type that occurs inevitably in every state and every election, and the type that result from reasonable differences in the election systems among jurisdictions. You have no proof whatsoever that the election outcome would have been definitively reversed had your cherry-picked ballots been counted. During the recount, remember, when both parties managed to agree to count a certain group of absentee ballots that had been wrongly rejected, it just so happened that Franken's lead expanded beyond what it already was. When the court ordered more absentee votes counted, Franken's lead increased yet again. What makes you think his lead won't continue to increase?

You say "[adding ballots] is not how it should be handled," but this approach of picking and choosing ballots is precisely what your side has been advocating all along. Your side did (and still does) want certain ballots added, including those that I just mentioned that ultimately worked against you, as well as certain ballots removed.

You believe the lower court must have been wrong because, well, Norm Coleman filed an appeal. I believe the lower court was right because its decision has a sound basis in law. It's relatively clear cut: Equal Protection does not cover reasonable differences in jurisdictional procedure. Election officials in Minnesota did the best job they could given the resources available. There was no intent whatsoever to discriminate against voters. Perhaps most importantly, even if laws were unintentionally broken (which they were not), Coleman has not proven that the outcome of the election would be affected.

You seem to believe two imaginary things: One, that a perfect election is attainable. Two, that you are right--given that, after all, Coleman did appeal...and you were there.

June 2, 2009 3:49 PM

Anonymous MN Andy said...

You still have not given reason for me accept what you are saying. Make a claim and support it. And me being present throughout this has given me more information than you have. I did not claim that that was the reason I was right. I used that as support for the claims that I was making, because I was present when information was presented. I have knowledge of what is going on. You do not know what you are saying. So prove what you claim.

And these ballots that "my side" wants added are not just random ballots. These are ballots that were rejected on election night because they didn't fit the standards. But, I guess letting thousands of ballots into the count that were in violation of the law is ok to you. I guess we don't need laws in this country. In a race that is so close, these ballots can make a difference. I'm not saying that these are Coleman votes. I am saying that these are votes that should be allowed. No one knows what these votes are. But, if others were counted, then these rejected ballots should be counted as well. This is where the Bush v Gore decision comes into play. If the law was broken, then break the law for everyone, not just a few voters. There needs to be a clear standard to follow when counting a ballot in an election. There were 87 standards that were used on election night. This was a fault to the election system in MN, which by the way was run by a Democrat. Since breaking the law is not an option, then the best result would be a re-vote. Make it clear what the law says, and stick to that law.

I like the fact that you are just assuming what I am saying. You said, "Election officials in Minnesota did the best job they could given the resources available. There was no intent whatsoever to discriminate against voters." Does that mean that this should all be over looked. Just because they did there best. Well, there best wasn't good enough. Had they done their job, there wouldn't be questions about absentee ballots. I want you to explain that statement to me as well. Since you do not live in MN, tell me how you feel they did. Since I know nothing about MN on election day. Tell me what you know that I do not know.

I find it interesting that you like assuming what I am saying. Is it because you don't like that someone called you out on this? I was not intending for this to be a back-and-forth, but you decided to open your mouth. I also like the idea that you keep thinking that this was all sound law. Explain that to me. I keep asking you to back up what you are saying, but you can't. You can say all you want that the law is being fallowed, but in order to make an actual argument about this, you need to support what you are saying. I have not seen you support your claims. A weak argument is all you have. Put a little effort into your claims. You do not know enough about this topic to be responding. So just give it up.

June 2, 2009 4:18 PM

Blogger Michael Rosenberg said...

Your responses have been almost entirely focused on personal attacks, not the law. Your being there is not support for the claims
you are making; and your merely saying "you have knowledge of what is going on" is not support for the claims you are making.

I hate being redundant, but you are making it necessary. The burden of proof to overturn the election results does NOT rest with me. It rests with you and Norm Coleman, period; and you have not proven your case. Again, Bush v. Gore does not come into play, because the decision itself says so. Just one line from that decision provides all the support I need: "The question before the Court is not whether local entities in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing decisions.'"

If you want to stop jurisdictions from exercising reasonable discretion in determining which absentee ballots to count, and if you want stricter standards for future elections, then I suggest you take this up with the Minnesota state legislature. But the courts will not overturn a certified election on the meager basis that the results MIGHT have been different if a Coleman-approved standard had been in place throughout the state. Ironically, too, while you say your side wants a clear standard, Coleman's preferred standard in his briefs is one of a hazy "substantial" compliance instead of strict compliance.

By the way, if you got your wish for a new election, Norm Coleman would be even more likely to lose now than he was back in November. For Coleman's own sake, you shouldn't even want a re-vote. So, I suggest that you and Coleman just give it up. Before long, anyhow, it looks like you will be forced to.

June 2, 2009 5:37 PM

Anonymous MN Andy said...

I have supported my claims about the law. You on the other hand have not. I cant help that personal attacks are easier when dealing with someone like you. I cant help that you are not supporting your argument. Coleman has nothing to do with what you are saying. You made a claim...now back it up. How has the law been upheld in this case? I have asked you time and time again to explain this.How has the law been upheld when votes were allowed into the count that should not have been? What has the court done to protect voters? I will keep asking this question until you answer. You keep avoiding my question because you do not have an answer for me. The 14th Amendment trumps all of your arguments. Don't respond unless you have a real answer to my question.

June 2, 2009 5:45 PM

Blogger Michael Rosenberg said...

It is not illegal for different jurisdictions to implement their own election systems, and it is not illegal for jurisdictions to use their discretion in how they uphold MN election law. Minor irregularities and differences in election procedure do not equate to breaking of the law.

And again, even if the law were broken, as you believe, it cannot possibly justify breaking the law everywhere else in the state.

Besides, it is in inevitability that if you dig deep enough in any election anywhere in the world, you will find votes making it into the count that shouldn't have. It's a fact of life. Mistakes happen. Machines malfunction. Unless there is solid proof that those very votes swayed the election in and of themselves, the results stand.

June 2, 2009 5:58 PM

Anonymous MN Andy said...

MN Election law (which you seem to know nothing about) has rules regarding how a ballot is to be counted. These rules were broke. That is a violation of MN Election law. I am not saying that someone should go to jail for this, but that there should be a clear understanding of the law. When there was a rule that was ignored by a city (Minneapolis) that is the largest in the state, that is a problem. The problem only becomes larger when the vote total is as close as it is currently. Are you saying that as long as you are not caught doing something wrong it is fine?

Plus you still are not answering my question.

June 2, 2009 6:11 PM

Blogger Michael Rosenberg said...

Yes, and it is true that some jurisdictions follow strict compliance and others follow substantial compliance.

Note: Substantial--NOT Strict--compliance is the exact standard that Coleman is advocating for in the briefs. By your own logic, Coleman is advocating breaking the law!

Oh, but I know more about Minnesota election law than you think, and here is what it says: for the 14th Amendment to be at all relevant in Minnesota, *within a given jurisdiction*, there be either a) an intentionally discriminatory standard for counting ballots, or b) a completely haphazard, arbitrary standard.

One different election judge may have used a slightly different approach than another, but what matters is that the approach of each was reasonably complaint and fairly applied. No evidence in Minnesota suggests anything happened otherwise.

June 2, 2009 6:32 PM

RE: Sotomayor for SCOTUS? Affirmative Action & More

Blogger Danalee said...

I wrote a paper on the downfall of Brown v Board of Education 50 years later, that the same problems exist today that did then. I'll have to find it and ammend this comment later.

But my personal views are firmly against affirmative action. I disagree with race and gender being on college applications to begin with. That information should not be given until the applicatant is admited and plans on attending the university or college. Why hold the applicant pool to a standard of certain percentages of race? Why separate people in such a way? I've always felt it just continues the problems we've worked so hard to overcome, with equality and social acceptance between all cultures, genders, and races.
It really is reverse racism- we don't think they are beneath us but we feel we must hold them to a special standard based solely on their race. Why give them special treatment? Sure it's POSITIVE special treatment, but it's classifying them as different than everyone else.
America is more of a tossed salad, especially with affirmative action still around, the black vote going to Barack BECAUSE he is black, and the justice nominee being revered because she is a hispanic woman. The melting pot idea is accepting the fact that they are different races and genders, but not treating them any different, be it better or worse.

I may have gone on tangents because I am so against any grouping of people being treating unfairly or over fairly, and isntead think we should look at them as individuals without regard as race. I'm lucky enough to have gone to school in Florida, where affirmative action is not used and neither is race. They are strictly equal opportunity, where if you are qualified you are admitted. I had a greatly diversified class with black, hispanics, indians, asians, women, men, gay, lesbian, any and everything, simply because with that many people in one place there is bound to be an "appropriate amount of diversity".

(ps- they do have direct feeder programs at my alma mater from low-income high-risk high schools, but they don't consider race just their economic and social backgrounds)

June 1, 2009 8:23 AM

Anonymous MN Andy said...

The issue I have with Sotomayor is that she talks about race as an important factor for her decisions and then she backs those statements up with her decision on the Ricci case. She seems like another attempt by the Obama administration to force affirmative action back into the forefront. It seemed as though the American people were starting to step away from the discrimination that is affirmative action. I guess Obama wants to make sure that doesn't happen. At a time when the economy is struggling the way it is, I think that people should be worried more about who is best to do a job, not who is the correct race for the job. I may even be as bold as to say that affirmative action may have had something to do with the economic situation. Qualifications went out the door for many major corporations in recent years because it could look bad if a minority is turned down for a position. I don't like Sotomayor as a pick. The Supreme Court needs to stay away from politics, and anyone who thinks affirmative action is a good policy should not be a justice.


Blogger mikeyr2 said...

When looking at her past statements and cases, Sotomayor's judicial philosophy is far from 'troubling', as you say.

You reference the Ricci case as a problem for Sotomayor--but her only problem, as criticized by the chief judge, was the sparse reasoning (very rare for Sotomayor) in handing down the decision...not the rationale itself for the dismissal. Given your own conditional support of affirmative action for the time being--and I applaud you for diverging from conservative orthodoxy here--it would seem you would support the Ricci decision.

I want to focus more on her second comment, because contrary to popular belief, it is not only defensible, but completely accurate. The Court of Appeals *is* where "policy is made". Of course the primary role of the judiciary is to interpret the law; however, what happens when the law is not clear? Well, very understandably, these courts CLARIFY the law, set precedent, and in so doing, make policy. Courts have literally made the policy of what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure, the entire notion of Miranda rights, privacy rights, and the list goes on.

So here's the deal: Republicans have access to hundreds of thousands of lines of text in her many legal decisions, and they have thus far been able to make an issue out of TWO LINES in the speeches, not decisions, she has made--one of which is debatable, and the other of which is as true as "the sky is blue". Of course, I shouldn't leave out the one decision (Ricci), which fortunately continues a societally beneficial policy that you agree with. Sorry, but it doesn't sound like they are going to "win" any argument.

If something in our political DNA wants "impartial umpires", then part of our DNA is delusional, for there is no such thing. Judges are not computers; they are human beings who harbor diverse emotions, experiences, and yes, even political leanings that contribute to their decision-making capacity.

Republicans will never make a good case against "judicial activism" given that, amazingly, they themselves morph into 'judicial activists' when it suits their purposes. The full-court press to overturn Roe v. Wade precedent is but one example. Another glaring example is the highly activist Bush v. Gore decision, decided far from impartially, but on party lines.

Blaine McCaleb pearce, i need a blog like right now about your opinions on the N Korea / American Journalist situation. im starting to think im the only one who believes those idiots almost deserved what was coming to them. what the hell were they doing over there? people are calling them, brave, heroic, etc... and i cant help but feeling like they were being idiots in the first place.

i think 12 years of a labor camp is a little stupid, especially considering they didnt consult with the US Gov. about the sentencing. i mean, what would happen if the US started imprisoning everyone who came here illegally for 12 years labor? we'd have a coast-to-coat autobahn built in a matter of days. actually, that isnt a bad idea.

back to the point at hand. if what we are hearing is correct, that those girls were on the N Korea side of the line, then i cant help but suspect that N Korea is just in some questionable feelings of... say... what the hell are they doing? spies?


id love to see the girls returned, unharmed, but i think that they have some prison time to serve if what we are hearing is correct.



Blogger Pearce said...

Well, that was a fun debate to watch. Back to what Mike had to say about Justice Sotomayor in the second comment. I maintain that Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy is troubling enough to necessitate serious scrutiny, as should be given any Supreme Court nominee, when she goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee next month. I have not said that I will oppose her confirmation to the high court; however, her words and cases, principally Ricci, concern me. You are incorrect that the only problem with her Ricci ruling was its scant justification. Based on writings about the decision it would appear that her scant reasoning was precisely due to the fact that the judicial ruling was so weak. She hoped to brush it under the rug and, therefore, did not offer a thorough defense of her ruling. I am sure she was dismayed when the Supreme Court, the one on which she will likely sit, decided to take up the case. All observers that I am aware of, by the way, believe that her decision will be overturned when the Supreme Court comes back with their decision in the coming weeks. The Supreme Court of the United States does not overturn a lower court judge on the basis of “sparse reasoning” but rather due to bad judgment in light of the law. Also, my conditional support of affirmative action is not in conflict with my unequivocal objection to Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in the Ricci case. The Ricci case was not one of a black firefighter being chosen over a slightly better qualified white firefighter. In this case, the white firefighters who had struggled and succeeded on the test were inexplicably discriminated against without any overriding good in giving a minority a position of leadership within the firehouse. Because no Black firefighter made a sufficient score to earn the position, no one, not the Whites, not the Hispanics, was given the promotion they rightfully earned. As Peggy Noonan asks, “What is affirmative action and when is it quota making? Was her decision in the Ricci case “empathy” or was it a very selective sympathy that resulted in the victimizing of human beings who were not members of a politically favored ethnic or racial group?” I stated my support, for a short time longer, of affirmative action. I have never supported racial quotas which are a much more egregious and far less defensible example of racial discrimination. This is what was at play in New Haven, if not worse. For a detailed analysis of the case, please read the National Journal piece by Stuart Taylor @ http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090613_4064.php


As to appeals courts making policy, your point that “these courts clarify the law, set precedent, and in so doing, make policy” is well taken except for the fact that they do not and cannot actually make policy. Policy is law written by the United States Congress and other legislative bodies around the country. You are absolutely correct that appeals courts are forced to made decisions and set precedents in the gray areas where existing policy is unclear; however, it is important to note that what they establish is precedent which may or may not be treated as policy and is not policy unless and until a legislative body makes it so. This is where Sotomayor was wrong in what she said at Duke, stating a view that flies in the face of our Constitution and defines judicial activism.

On your last two points, while it is true that the “richness of experiences” that a justice has in his or her lifetime frames and shapes judicial philosophy and decision making, it is expected that the justice be free of any systematic bias that consistently elevates one type of person above another in making decisions. There is a reason that our symbol of justice is wearing a blindfold. To whatever extent possible, our justices are meant to and should be impartial arbiters of the law. To your point about the activist intensions of those who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, the major problem with Roe v. Wade is that it was activist from the beginning in that the Supreme Court ruled on a case that should have rightfully been left to the states. The mere act of overturning precedent does not make a decision activist. If it did, the Supreme Court by definition would be an activist court regardless of its judicial philosophy.

June 14, 2009 3:27 AM

RE: Thoughts on Healthcare by Joe Christenbury


Frank Crocker said...

Joe, I would like to elaborate on several of your points. I will be analyzing several of the problems with the democratic model of health care.

In my opinion, I believe that the decrease in compensation and motivation for doctors is the most pressing issue within the democratic model. Amongst all jobs requiring a professional degree, doctors are the most important. Medicine is the only profession in which employees are dealing in life and death situations every single day. This makes their jobs extremely tedious and difficult.

Lowering the salary of doctors is going to scare away potential medical students, who would discover an easier and more financially rewarding career path, such as in banking. By further lowering the salaries of medical professions, this is going to increase corruption, something that goes hand in hand with government bureaucracy. The motivation to spend thousands of dollars on medical school, to only receive a modest salary, will further diminish the not only the number of doctors, but also the quality. The government will solve the shortage of doctors by lowering the standards on obtaining a medical license, thus allowing unqualified people to attain degrees/licenses and practice medicine, overall driving down the quality of medicine.

Another main point is the downright corruption and unpleasantness that come along with government run systems. Getting a new drivers license is a lengthy and foul process. It takes hours to get a simple card, a hunting license, a birth certificate, etc. etc. Now imagine that the government is in charge of getting a patient a CAT scan, complete with review and an opinion of a qualified radiologist. That would take months and many problems cannot wait that long.

To me, it is downright scary even contemplating the fact that the government has access to my health and family health records. The physician-patient relationship is extremely important on so many different levels. The corruption within the health care system is already rampant, and with government control it would make your`s and your families medical records almost public document.

In conclusion, there is a need for reform in the health care industry in the USA. However, this should be the job of the private sector, thus not allowing government shortcomings and corruption to plague the industry. Doctors are a communities most valued members, as they are in charge of peoples lives and well being.

Joe said...

Frank,

Thanks for your thoughful criticism of the democratic model. I agree with everything that you are saying in your critique of the democratic model of healthcare. It certainly would decrease motivation for doctors, drive down the quality of medicine, complicate the patient-physician relationship, and ultimately place the supply of healthcare in the control of the government. This is bad for the reasons you outlined, and also, because it takes the power and autonomy away from the patient. I hadn't thought about the fact that your medical records would also be privy to the government, and that is a scary thought.

For the aforementioned reasons, it is my hope as well that healthcare reform will come from the private sector. What I was trying to emphasize in my last post was that whether reform stems from the private sector or from the government, there will be people left behind and it may not solve the underlying problems in American health. In the case of reform from the private sector, people will still be left without health insurance and forced to pay out of pocket for care. Hopefully, prices will fall so this will not be as significant of a financial burden as it is today. In the case of government reform, we can eventually achieve universal coverage, all of the negative things you and I have outlined will come to pass. In either case, we will have unfortunate consequences and that is a shame, given how far modern medicine has come.

I think the one thing that can improve Americans' health regardless of how the system is reformed is an increased knowledge of how to live healthily. We desperately need lower the incidence and spread of chronic diseases (the top three causes of death in our country are heart diseases, stroke, and cancer). Much of this can be accomplished through improving our diet and lifestye. If this can be improved, I think it will alleviate some of the burden placed on our health system and improve the reputation of our nation's health to other OECD nations.

Danny said...

Interesting comments. First, if someone glancing at this is busy, but interested, skip my whole comment and click on the final two links at the bottom of my comment.
2nd, I agree 100% with two of Joe's comments: 1. No one will be completely satisfied with any type of health reform and there will always be problems. The fact that it has taken the U.S. so long to collectively embrace health reform is a sign of the massive undertaking (now that conservatives have finally agreed to reform we can be assured the majority feel something must change) and 2. regardless of any reform, improvements in diet and nutrition will have the greatest impact on costs and health outcomes. I am a strong advocate of health policy changes such as a "soda tax." (See http://healthcommentary.org/public/item/231829 & today's NY Times editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/opinion/03weds3.html?partner=rss&emc=rss).

Also, I thought the Singapore model Joe mentioned is interesting. Took a course on health care models in other countries and never came across something like that. Not sure how it would quite work, pros/cons etc. but it seems like it's combining the pros of both public/private into one? With regards to Frank's post, to sum up my response quickly: I agree with the concerns but sacrifices have to be made for reform. Benefits outweigh risks. "In practice, controlling costs invites a lot of political opposition. It means taking money out of somebody's pockets--insurers, hospitals, device makers, etc."

While I share lots of conservatives concerns, the one you described as most paramount, docs salaries, I tend to take with a grain of salt. Primary care physicians in America with the private system we have now get paid zilch. They terrifyingly struggle to maintain practices and America is in a primary care physician crisis. One of the reasons doctors, correction: specialists, get paid so much is because of the ridiculous fee-for-service payment system. More surgeries, more money!!! No quality control, whatsoever. No emphasis on prevention, whatsoever. The fee-for-service system needs to be done away with and most health policy people agree with that. This obsession the right has with maintaining the status quo even if it means driving health care costs through the sun (they are already passed the moon) and further driving quality down boggles my mind. Primary care physicians need to get paid more. AAMC agrees by trying to make medical school more appealing for primary care graduates with various incentives. Specialists even agree, lobbying to congress that while they think primary care physicians need to be paid more, they should not have to suffer. Haha, well tough luck in my opinion. Money does not grow on trees (note current recession) and more money from nowhere can definitely not be put into this joke of a health care system. I'm not some doctor-hater as I hope to be a doc and many relatives are specialists but it's just a simple reality-check in my book. Doctors are meant to treat others. Fee-for-service doesn't cut that.

Also, administrative costs with the American system are incredulous. It is widely accepted this is because of the private system, the different insurers we have, etc. "Administrative costs per capita were $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada; these costs accounted for 31 percent of health care spending in the U.S. versus 16.7 percent in Canada." A public system is sure to fix this and I could provide links to show that as well.

Danny said...

Also, the concern about government having access to health records I had never thought of. After trying to wrap my head around it I am led to believe it is just an exceptionalist argument made with no effort to try & accept a public system. While I am not too familiar with "health care system corruption", you say that it is "already rampant." I'll take you for your word. With that said how would government make this worse? GINA (genetic information non-discrimination act) and HIPAA laws would still apply. Your health information as public information? That's pretty unrealistic and far-reaching in my opinion. I'm going to end this with a very interesting link from a frequent health care commentator on Slate. The 2nd link was just posted and adds empirical values to the bar graph shown in the 1st link in case you're someone who likes those sort of things! http://www.slate.com/id/2215825/pagenum/all/#p2 http://www.slate.com/id/2219682/?from=rss

Joe Christenbury said...

Hi Danny,

Thanks for your comments on my post. I'd like to respond to your thoughts on physician compensation. I do agree wholeheartedly with you that primary care doctors should be compensated more generously. There is going to be a shortage in primary care docs in the future and with the baby boomer generation aging, we will need many more doctors to care for them.

However, I disagree with your statement that fee for service should be discontinued. Just because a doctor has a positive financial incentive to perform more surgeries does not correlate negatively with prevention and quality. Yes, emphasizing prevention and quality are very important but I belive there are other ways to do this than to eradicate FFS. For instance, some docs may order a few extra scans (CT, MRI, etc) for someone who does not need it to make some extra dough. Situations like this may qualify as the kind of wasteful spending you are describing. However, to take away incentives from specialists or surgeons who, through doing more procedures, can impact the lives of many more people than they would if the government imposed a limit on the number of procedures they could perform. Moreover, if specialists were paid a flat fee, how would that improve quality? You'd be receiving the same amount of money whether your results improve or not, and if your services are in high demand, you'd be limited to the number of patients you could see. Essentially, I think this would detract from quality and innovation of specialist and surgery fields.

What I also think is interesting, to argue against a single payer system, is the fact that socialized systems like Canada are seeking to gradually transform their health care system to make it more similar to ours. Here's the article if you'd like to take a look.

Joe Christenbury said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html

Danny said...

Interesting article. I tend to agree with it. It's not a surprise. You also see countless stories here of Americans who choose to go overseas for surgical operations that cost 1/4 as much as they do here. I think that trend can, and does, go both ways. Nonetheless, that does not change the fact that the article's concerns of long waiting lists & rationed care are very just; I totally do not deny that. Regarding those though I'll respond in a bit. In the meantime, and more importantly:

Pres. Obama made the following New Yorker article required reading for all of his staff, It is long so read it when you get a chance. The President required it and it’s good/interesting.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

I’ll just show these three paragraphs out of context from the 8000 words but their purposes are very clear:
“ It is the newest hospital in the area. It is physician-owned. And it has a reputation (which it disclaims) for aggressively recruiting high-volume physicians to become investors and send patients there. Physicians who do so receive not only their fee for whatever service they provide but also a percentage of the hospital’s profits from the tests, surgery, or other care patients are given. (In 2007, its profits totalled thirty-four million dollars.) Romero and others argued that this gives physicians an unholy temptation to overorder.”

“It’s not easy,” he said. But decades ago Mayo recognized that the first thing it needed to do was eliminate the financial barriers. It pooled all the money the doctors and the hospital system received and began paying everyone a salary, so that the doctors’ goal in patient care couldn’t be increasing their income. Mayo promoted leaders who focussed first on what was best for patients, and then on how to make this financially possible.

“Skeptics saw the Mayo model as a local phenomenon that wouldn’t carry beyond the hay fields of northern Minnesota. But in 1986 the Mayo Clinic opened a campus in Florida, one of our most expensive states for health care, and, in 1987, another one in Arizona. It was difficult to recruit staff members who would accept a salary and the Mayo’s collaborative way of practicing. Leaders were working against the dominant medical culture and incentives. The expansion sites took at least a decade to get properly established. But eventually they achieved the same high-quality, low-cost results as Rochester. Indeed, Cortese says that the Florida site has become, in some respects, the most efficient one in the system.”

“As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality...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? “