More from the writings of Thom J.
I am no believer in the amalgamation of parties, nor do I consider it as either desirable or useful for the public; but only that, like religious differences, a difference in politics should never be permitted to enter into social intercourse or to disturb its friendships, its charities or justice. In that form, they are censors of the conduct of each other and useful watchmen for the public.
If we keep together we shall be safe, and when error is so apparent as to become visible to the majority, they will correct it.
Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.
Jefferson did not think that the "minority party" had special rights. He strongly believed that "With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail."
and continued that "those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many."
Jefferson was a man who fought for democracy and who risked everything he had to achieve it. While he did have strong feelings about the rights of his fellow countrymen, the perks of "minority political parties" was not something that kept him up at night.
The funny thing about the Senate is you do not get much done unless you can find 49 colleagues to vote with you.
Poor Ted is only 48 friends short of having a career in the Senate.
It's a rare gift for a man to have so few friends that now he can't even stop the Senate from doing the work we pay it to do.
Good job, Rafael Eduardo! Well done, sir!
It is pretty radical to try out "majority rules" in a democracy, I suppose.
It is the perfect setup for the next round of Debt Ceiling Roullette. If the children in the House try shutting down the government again I would expect the "nuclear option" to be expanded to the Supreme Court fairly quickly. Unfortunately, the Tea Party members aren't quick enough to recognize that things could get even worse if they can't learn to work and play well with others.
Sharing power with the minority in the Senate only works when you are playing with grown-ups. Just one Ted Cruz makes taking those powers away the only sane thing to do.
Both Healthcare.gov and Romney's ORCA app will be studied for years in how not to do technology in the public sector. It's a useful conversation and needs to happen.
I worked for Social Security in the mid 1990s and the problem we had at the office wasn't that we had old computers. It was that we had NO computers.
The office was still operating on secretaries and carbon paper. I was not at all surprised by the photos of the VA disability backlog showing mountains of paper file folders. The VA isn't the only office with that problem.
There needs to be a federal equivalent of the Army Corp of Engineers for technology. The world has changed but the government has not.
It's pretty easy to do the math.
Medicare's administrative expenses are 4%.
Private insurers' administrative expenses are 12%
Insurers have enjoyed a near-monopoly with very little real competition for years. Perhaps the competitive aspect of the exchanges will actually trim the fat out of the insurance markets but we are a long way from the way real competitive businesses operate.
There are a lot of ways to improve ObamaCare but the clown car operating as the House of Representatives will have to quit tripping over their big feet and funny noses before anything useful happens.
Prairie dog writes:
Where does the money come from, if not from other taxpayers and premium payers?
Very true. That is where the money has always come from. The question is where does the money go?
When a person who qualifies for subsidies signs up the premium is still paid. The cash goes to the insurer. The insurer pays their overhead, bonuses, and shareholders. What's left is sent to the hospitals and doctors.
There is a redistribution but it is from the middle class to the wealthy, not from the rich to the poor.
The truth is that redistribution has been going on for a long, long time. Paying doctors and hospitals to cover the uninsured showing up in the emergency room has been a surcharge on your premiums for years.
If by "redistributing wealth" you mean that the rich are going to have less and the poor have more then you are speaking total nonsense.
It isn't unfair to say that there will be "redistribution". The subsidies that are preserving the insurance industry from the overwhelming expense of an aging population are redistributing tax money to that industry.
If that sounds more like a "Republican" idea than a "Democratic" one you would be right. It was the Heritage Foundation who designed that model.
Heritage Foundation Policy Paper:
Insurers Raise Profit Guidance:
Oooh! Oooh! I love talking point Bingo!
Lessee - Libya, F&F, IRS . . . BINGO!
Some of the early critics were right when they pointed out that the ACA was a government subsidy to preserve the insurance industry that health care relies on.
That is fundamentally correct.
If the subsidy goes away, then the insurance industry will be unable to pay for services needed by a growing elderly population. That is why of all the voices we hear about rolling back Obamacare, none of them are coming from the insurers.
If Obamacare doesn't work the insurance industry is looking at oblivion and we will likely go to Medicare for all.
I, personally, think single payer is cheaper and has better benefits then splitting the pie 40 (or 400 or 4000) ways and subsidizing insurers. The Republicans who want the ACA to go down are, whether they know it or not, advocating for a single-payer system.