Just a little something to keep y’all busy on a day when I have little time for blogging:
Cindi details the irrationality of SC leaders — This is about Medicaid expansion. No reasonable person unblinded by partisan rage can read this and still make excuses for what our elected leaders have decided. And if you consider that a challenge, have at it — but you are doomed to fail. Cindi explains why in her usual devastating style. But maybe if you come up with an original argument, she’ll let you sign her cast. Or give you a swift kick with it, or something.
Metts gets a year in prison, $10,000 fine — Do you think this is fair and right, based on the principle that law enforcement officials must be held to a high standard? Or do you think this is yet another case of locking up people we don’t need to?
Supremes hear arguments on whether there’s a right to same-sex marriage — Our opinions don’t matter in this — only those of the justices do — but if you have something to say, here’s an opportunity. Even though nothing has happened, several outlets are leading with it, such as the WSJ, the NYT and the WashPost.
And whatever else grabs your interest….
Related Posts
A different topic here, but since I know you read WaPo, wondered if you saw Kathleen Parker’s op-ed piece in last Sunday’s edition. An interesting story about one of South Carolina’s own, cellist Claire Bryant from Camden, now making it big in New York City and bringing a group of other Juilliard grads to work with inmates at Lee Correctional Institution.
I didn’t see it until it was in The State this morning. A nice piece, and it’s good she gave the program such exposure.
Nothing about Baltimore? Is there any leader in the black community who can stop the idiotic behavior? do the looters think that white America is sitting in front of their tv’s saying “Oh. I get it now!” while they watch people use the guise of “protest” to wreak havoc on their own community? I watched a half dozen young thugs jumping out of a store window with their arms full of snacks and other items… am I supposed to feel anything for them but disgust?
And I’ll bet they aren’t even healthy snacks, dagnabbit!
The Wire actors and producers are exhorting folks to stop.
I’m pretty much a liberal on most social issues… But the looting, fires, etc. in Baltimore I watched on TV yesterday couldn’t have all been simply spontaneous. Someone has got to be coordinating a lot of this nonsense in some fashion.
Exhortations to stop won’t be heard by looters on the street. And why did cars continue to pass through the area, anyway??
One thing struck me…those news choppers giving continuous live feeds generally have pretty long lenses and sophisticated image stablization technology. They’d be doing a lot more public service by getting tight shots on faces in the mob and providing them to authorities. I defy anyone clearly identified coming out of the CVS or the liquor store with an armful of goodies to offer any kind of legal defense of the actions.
I hope Dominic West is remembering to use his American accent, instead of his own. That would just be weird…
I saw this post with a different view of Baltimore citizens:
http://mic.com/articles/116702/10-images-of-the-baltimore-riots-you-won-t-be-seeing-on-tv
On the rioting, I read somewhere that 2 or 3 national gangs had come together to instigate the riots. Did anyone else hear or read about that?
Yeah, I came here to post just that! NPR covered several of these, also, so it isn’t just whatever News.Mic is.
And I’ll bite on Cindi’s irrefutable argument. All that money that is coming from the Federal government – where is it coming from? Is it funded by spending that exceeds the revenues of the Federal government (deficit spending)? If so, then that is the best reason to reject it. When the Federal government decides that spending on healthcare is more important than on the military and foreign aid, then we can talk about creating an even larger deficit.
Nope, you don’t get to sign the cast…
As Cindi said, “a single state’s refusal to expand Medicaid is not going to make a noticeable difference in the federal deficit or debt or the rate of taxation or spending at the federal level.”
But more to the point, state officials aren’t elected to make federal spending decisions. They are elected to make decisions that are most responsible for their state. And refusing to accept the Medicaid expansion is grossly irresponsible, very much a dereliction of their duty.
It’s one of the starkest examples I’ve ever seen, maybe THE worst, of elected officials putting petty partisan resentments ahead of the public good. It’s not about policy at all — it’s about poking that awful Obama person in the eye…
It’s not just South Carolina rejecting Medicaid, is it? It’s 21 states. So why pretend like it’s just South Carolina?
And, as usual, The State likes to target Haley specifically but leave the legislature as some faceless, nameless organization…
“Gov. Nikki Haley and a lot of Republican legislators ” is used TWICE.. who are in the “lot”? Who’s in charge of that group? Could the legislature accept Medicaid expansion without Nikki Haley? Of course… but it’s Nikki’s fault. Meanwhile, she rarely if ever gets her way with that “lot of Republican legislators”.
Is Hugh Leatherman Valdemort or something? The State has no guts when it comes to going after him. Why is that?
Well, as she points out, the rejecting states, including SC, are the poor ones, while Connecticut is benefiting.
And I’m not “pretending” anything. South Carolina is only responsible for South Carolina’s decision — not for what foolishness other states may get up to.
And Doug, I know it bugs you that governors are more prominent advocates for their positions than individual lawmakers are. But they are. If Nikki had wanted to be lumped in with the rest, she should have remained a back-bench House member.
And when it comes to naming lawmakers who embrace this insanity, I don’t know where to start. The problem is not that this lawmaker or that lawmaker holds this indefensible position. It’s that enough of them to prevent action do. Picking this or that person to blame lets the rest of them off the hook, and they don’t deserve that.
There are only a few Republicans who set the agenda. The rest are sheep.
Are you saying that if Haley was for expansion, it would get done quickly?
On Metts, I generally believe that it does not serve taxpayers to put a white collar criminal in a nice, expensive prison.
My alternative, which may sound odd, is to give him a common-criminal sentence of 30 days — or even less — in his former local guard house, with a half-day special viewing in his antique buggy jail outside the sheriff office. This would be ultimate humiliation. . Also, his fine was far too small. In short, his true punishment is also very light. It is more like going to a rehab center for a few months.
When I first read the new report I thought Metts was fined $100,000. That still would have seemed light given the charges involved.
I also mistakenly believed that a sentence of a year and a day would be stiffer than one of just a year. However, it appears to be just the opposite. The point here is not how long Metts goes to prison for, it is simply that he does go.
The idea that there is no legitimate, good-faith argument for rejecting the Medicaid Expansion is close-minded. Rather than simply dismissing the opposition’s arguments, it may be better to address them.
Here are a few: (a) Medicaid was designed to be a safety net for the poorest and sickest people. Expanding the program to able-bodied people with low income forces the poorest and sickest people to compete with the newly added people for the same pool of care. (b) After the first three years of 100% federal match, actual costs will increase for states. (c) A Medicaid expansion will force a cost increase to private insurance, as Medicaid underpays. As you increase the volume of underpayment, providers will have to charge higher rates to others to maintain equilibrium. (d) Medicaid may have “no significant effect” on health outcomes vs. being uninsured.
These may all be debatable points I just made. I’m sure advocates for Medicaid will disagree with them. That’s fine. However, rather than simply waving them away, it might be better to engage the arguments and address them.
If litigation has taught me anything, it’s that you can’s simply laugh off an opposing counsel’s argument, no matter how far-fetched or wrong-headed you think it is. You have to address it and explain to the Court why your opposing counsel’s legal theory is incorrect. Simply smirking and giving the My Cousin Vinny line isn’t enough (although I would certainly like to say that on occasion).
I’m against expanding Medicaid because I think it will ultimately cost more money and produce little (if nothing) in the way of actual, tangible results and have some unintended negative effects, as I’ve briefly set forth above. Maybe I’m wrong. However, I’m not going around being dismissive and sneering at people who want to expand Medicaid.
Brad, I think you’re sincere in your belief that expanding Medicaid will be a net positive for the state of South Carolina. I simply thing you’re mistaken. I don’t think you’re advocating it for any ulterior or illicit purpose. So often, I see the dynamic of political debate as follows:
Person advocating for (a generally) Leftist Policy: I think we should do X.
Person opposing this policy: No, I don’t think doing X is a good idea. I think you’re mistaken in some assumptions.
Person advocating for (a generally) Leftist Policy: You’re evil! You’re opposing X in bad faith because you hate [fill in a person or group of people].
Person opposing this policy: No I don’t hate [inserted group of people]. I just think you’re wrong.
Person advocating for (a generally) Leftist Policy: You are irresponsible, a hater!!, and a bad person.
Which “My Cousin Vinny” line? The one that comes to mind when I hear the arguments against expanding Medicaid is the line he said when the judge reminded him he was inappropriately dressed: “You were SERIOUS about that?”
I don’t know whether you’re right that Medicaid was originally “designed to be a safety net for the poorest and sickest people.” I’m not a Medicaid historian.
Let’s say you’re right. I say that’s irrelevant. Because the federal government — which gave us Medicaid — has made the policy decision that NOW Medicaid will be used as a mechanism for extending medical coverage to people who lacked it under the OLD iteration of Medicaid.
At one point during debates over Obamacare, it was proposed to use Medicare as that mechanism for covering more people. That was rejected. This was not.
And no, those aren’t original arguments. I don’t think I’ve broken any new ground. However, I would simply note she doesn’t address them all, head on.
Cindi’s main points seem to be:
1. We should expand Medicaid because it won’t make much difference to the federal government’s budget.
2. We should expand Medicaid because the working poor deserve it.
3. Expanding Medicaid will bring in additional tax money and create more jobs.
A few points: I think the relevant question is what an expansion would do to SC’s budget, not the federal budget, so her first point strikes me as entirely beside the point.
Maybe the working poor deserve some sort of help, but Cindi doesn’t address how expanding the same program that was originally designed only for the sickest and poorest will negatively affect those people.
I think the idea that the additional money will create additional jobs and tax revenue is exaggerated, just as claims that the stimulus would be super-great were exaggerated. If you’re all-in for Keynesian economics, then great. If you happen to disagree with Keynesian theory, then you likely don’t see quite as rosy picture here. This is probably the most intractable area of disagreement. Arguing about economic theory is usually a futile endeavor.
She doesn’t address the idea that Medicaid might not produce better outcomes than being uninsured.
You are absolutely right that “the relevant question is what an expansion would do to SC’s budget, not the federal budget.” Cindi would agree with you completely. But since the people who try to justify SC’s foolishness are forever going on about their principled opposition to all this federal spending, she felt obliged to bring it up in order to brush it aside. I refer you to Doug’s comment above about federal spending.
As for “We should expand Medicaid because the working poor deserve it,” no. I didn’t see that in her piece, and would have been shocked if I had. That’s not a Cindi style of argument. Warren might say that, and others who used to be on the board might as well. But Cindi doesn’t go in for the tender-hearted stuff. We used to call her the “designated mean bitch” on the board, although not nearly as often as she called herself that.
“As for “We should expand Medicaid because the working poor deserve it,” no. I didn’t see that in her piece, and would have been shocked if I had.”
From Cindi’s piece:
“They’re absolutely right. The Legislature should find a way to use the Medicaid program to cover the working poor, rather than keeping Medicaid coverage in our state limited primarily to pregnant women, children, parents of young children and the disabled. If you set aside the moral questions…”
I was paraphrasing, but I think I captured the essence of her point there. Again, it’s a fine point. Cindi seems to be okay with advocating for the expansion based on a moral dimension. I think she just needs to address the issue of the folks already on Medicaid.
And see, I read that as Cindi shoving aside the moral dimension to move on to other points…
Right. She’s making a one-sentence point about why we should do it on moral grounds. Then she’s saying even if you don’t agree on the moral grounds, here’s why we should do it on economic grounds. She’s making two independent arguments. But as Lavar Burton always said to me on Reading Rainbow: You don’t have to take my word for it.
Go ask Cindi; I think she’ll be happy to say that there is a moral argument to be made.
But seriously…
Bryan, do you ACTUALLY believe that this isn’t about Obama?
Do you think we’d have the same “principled” resistance if this was identified with George W. Bush? (And don’t say that’s far-fetched — remember his expansion of Medicare to cover prescriptions?)
This is about how much Republicans sincerely despise Barack Obama.
And what’s this “leftist” stuff? Did I not loudly complain when Democrats were so passionately opposed to anything Bush was for? I seem to recall writing about Bush Derangement Syndrome a number of times…
Disproportionment Share Hospitals and Uncompensated Care payments. Approximately two thirds of Medicaid expenditures go to the elderly, blind and disabled, another 20% to children. The best reasons to expand Medicaid may be too “wonkish” for most to understand.
Personally, I thought expansion of coverage was not a good idea until costs were addressed, but I may have been wrong; the jury is still out on that (in my opinion; others will disagree). The current trend is costs are increasing but at a decreasing rate; some will say that is good, some will say that is not so good. But we do have an interesting nationwide experiment in process. Before long, there will be a great deal of data comparing States that chose to expand and those that did not.
“Bryan, do you ACTUALLY believe that this isn’t about Obama?”
Sure. I’m a reasonable interlocutor. I will concede that that some part of the opposition is reflexive. I’m sure that plenty of people think: Obama = Bad, and act accordingly. However, if you support the policy in question, simply dismissing all of your opposition as being reflexive does you no favors. It’s equally reflexively weak.
“Do you think we’d have the same “principled” resistance if this was identified with George W. Bush? (And don’t say that’s far-fetched — remember his expansion of Medicare to cover prescriptions?)”
Good point. You’d lose some resistance. However, I don’t recall that movie being universally cheered, either.
“And what’s this “leftist” stuff? Did I not loudly complain when Democrats were so passionately opposed to anything Bush was for?”
Just generally describing the dynamic that I see in political debates. You were beginning to fall prey to it here, but you often don’t. Just trying to get you back between the navigational beacons.
Rather than simply dismissing the opposition’s arguments, it may be better to address them.
-Bryan
That’s fair. So let’s get started.
(a) Medicaid was designed to be a safety net for the poorest and sickest people. Expanding the program to able-bodied people with low income forces the poorest and sickest people to compete with the newly added people for the same pool of care.
Not sure that’s even true. I thought is was always a safety net for the poor regardless of health. Regardless I don’t think that’s a useful point because “the pool of care” is essentially ALL of us regardless of income or how it’s paid for.
b) This is a standard talking point used by conservatives that is really more of a distraction than anything. The actual CARE needs to be paid for by someone so there isn’t any ADDITIONAL cost, it just comes out of a different funding source. Either the individual, the hospital, the state or the feds. I’ll expand on this when I get to D.
(c) “A Medicaid expansion will force a cost increase to private insurance, as Medicaid underpays.” Again, the totality of the CARE that is delivered is paid for somehow by someone. This is a very important point. I’m not sure what the point of these types of arguments are about. If a poor person is being treated WITHOUT any insurance the tab has to be picked up by someone. Isn’t that obvious? So if private insurance does go up (a point I don’t necessarily believe but accept here for the sake of argument) then the cost MUST be picked up elsewhere.
d) Medicaid may have “no significant effect” on health outcomes vs. being uninsured.
The holy grail of conservative talking points. Apparently this comes from the famous Oregon study. What is never mentioned about that study is that it DID find a significant improvement in the financial well-being of the group of people who received the insurance and for the hospitals that treated these patients. That’s why hospital overwhelmingly supported the Medicaid expansion.
So what’s at work here. Two possibilities. Either the non-Medicaid group did not change the way they approached healthcare choices even though additional preventive options were available. Or, they did take advantage of the treatments and they were simply ineffective. If the later is the case we have a bigger problem in our approach to medicine than the way costs are paid. It implies a significant amount of ineffective screening programs. That is something that would cut across all income groups. I suspect the former is more likely.
In that case we’re back to the way the sum of healthcare is paid. As should be clear the cost arguments are completely bogus. What the expansion of Medicaid does is provide a mechanism for paying for care other than the very inefficient methods that have always been in play. The actual dollar amount of the care should be either the same or lower if efficiencies kick in. Taking the Medicaid money is therefore a net benefit to those states that accept it.
I just skimmed over the WashPost story, and I was pleased, as I always am, to see that the justices’ comments and questions — from and to both sides — were rational and based in the law.
In so much of the coverage building up to this, all sorts of irrelevant things were mentioned. I lose track of how many advance stories mentioned the shift in public opinion on same-sex unions — as though public opinion had anything to do with the Constitution, or law in general.
I find it soothing, and reassuring, when the legal minds take over. Wherever the Court ends up — and it seems like they could go any which way — I like the reminder that ours is a society based on laws…
” I like the reminder that ours is a society based on laws…”
Too many laws.
Ever try the alternative?
Never had the opportunity. Would you allow me to erase some of them? I could start with half the tax code, blue laws, and laws related to ingesting substances (not those related to misdeed that occur while under the influence).
Or how about zoning laws that get changed whenever a deep pocketed developer needs them to? Case in point – the head of the Richland County Planning Commission is attempting to get a tree covered parcel of land across the street from Blythewood Middle School re-zoned to allow a convenience store to be placed there. Now let’s dig into the details of these laws that are supposed to protect citizens:
“The Chairman of the Planning Commission, Patrick Palmer, recused himself from voting on the rezoning request since he is the broker handling the sale of the property. Palmer is the Director of Retail Services for NAI Avant Commercial Real Estate in Columbia. It was reported in the April 17 issue of The Voice that Palmer is also a partner in Sycamore Development, but he told The Voice on Tuesday that he is not. He would not say who the owners are. However, the S.C. Secretary of State’s office lists his father, Hugh A. Palmer, as the registered agent for Sycamore Development.”
This was discovered thanks to the always excellent investigative reporting of the Blythewood Independent Voice weekly newspaper. Its publisher, Barbara Ball, has done an amazing job over the years exposing the backroom dealings of local politicians and bureaucrats.
Zoning is indeed the apogee of community standards laws. It’s supposed to be changed as the community changes. Of course, zoning boards tend to be laden with pro-real estate business types, since they have the greater interest in zoning matters and also the means to make the sort of campaign donations that get them appointed to zoning boards.
I bet I have attended at least ten times as many zoning hearings as you, Doug. Are you going to attend to speak against the change?
I went to a zoning hearing once as an interested party. This was 30 years ago, in Jackson, TN. My wife and I attended because a piece of property directly behind our house was being rezoned to commercial (I think; it’s been a long time).
We just wanted to ask some questions about it. And we did.
At the end, the mayor asked whether we wanted to go on the record as being in opposition. Rather horrified, I said no — we just wanted information. I was very uncomfortable, as the news editor at the local paper, being a participant in something that might turn into a news story…
That is such a self-aggrandizing cop out: you have a right to personal interests even if you are a journalist. You aren’t the ONLY journalist!
If a matter affects you personally and specifically, you have every right to speak for yourself, on the record. Let a colleague cover the story.
I have a job that keeps me out of state most of the time. I have registered my concerns with my home owners association (since they were the ones who informed us of the meeting) and there will be representatives attempting to block this obvious scam.
That’s why Barbara Ball is my hero when it comes to newspaper publishers. She isn’t afraid to put her name out there on any issue.
Kathryn, any “colleague” who covered it would have worked for me. I supervised all the reporters. Hence my concern.
But I’m not so priggish now as I was then. I fully believe in journalists having the same rights as other citizens.
And the same responsibilities, too. I have qualms when journalists refuse to provide certain info to law enforcement. Which makes me really conflicted. My good friend Cindi once went to jail to protect a source. I admire her, while having doubts about the principle involved…
By “alternative” I think Mark means being ruled by men rather than laws…
Which is what Doug’s excursion here neatly wrapped in a bow.
Not following you, Mark. What excursion?
Your excursion into the land of personality (or political influence standing) over uniformly applied law. Appointed commission members ALWAYS have skin in the game; even when they are “neighborhood representatives”.
Zoning will always be more art than science, however, if I can agree with your main point and disagree with your adherence to what was once zoned. The parcel you referenced is zoned for medium density single family now. That’s houses on 8,500 SF lots. So with roads and open space one can probably get 4 per developed acre. Figure just over 100 houses. But why was it zoned that in the first place? Parcels very near it are presently zoned low and high density (houses on 5,000 SF lots) single family. It’s a jumbled patchwork. And you know what? To a degree that is a good thing. Zoning does need to be a living, breathing thing. Times change. Densities change. Needs change. At present there are no convenience stores between Blythewood, Elgin and Clemson Rd. That’s a big triangle of now fairly dense residential development. Does the area “need” a convenience store / gas station / Subway (or whatever, maybe a dry cleaner) shop? If so, should such a development be at this particular intersection across from a middle school?
Would I want the Palmer’s developing in my neighborhood? That’s an obvious no. But they bought the land and something is going to get built there. BTW, they also own most of the land along O’Neil Court – and look how that turned out for them. 30 years after the tail end of that area’s development their parcels are mostly pine forests; they held on and held on marking their paper appreciation until the land became more of a liability than an asset.
Path of progress land speculation is an area sport around Columbia. It’s been that way for a long time. And yes, the results reflect that mentality.
What is this “uniformly applied law” you speak of? Is this in the land of make believe where men are ruled by laws?
There are no uniformly applied laws. They are all subject to interpretation and execution by men (mostly). The same men who change the laws when it suits them financially.
I don’t choose to be ruled by anyone (except my wife if she’s reading).
I’m not a sheep nor lemming and I do my utmost best to not try to tell other people how they should live their lives. Others are more perfect than me and know that they must impart their wisdom on everyone else.
Actually, there is at least one area of the law in which public opinion does play a role and that is in the so-called “community standards” test — applied in matters relating to obscenity. Arguably, evolving community standards also play a role with respect to the death penalty as well. So there is an accepted role of sorts for public opinion in the law.
Yep, you’re right about that, with regard to obscenity.
How do you mean that with regard to the death penalty? Are you referring to the evolution of our understanding of “cruel and unusual,” or what?
If so, that’s one that’s kind of swung back and forth. The courts moved away from the death penalty, and then moved back toward it…
But on the obscenity thing… and I’m asking here, hoping a legal scholar will reply… does the “community standards” principle grow out of federalism? Is it a matter of the courts saying, there are things that there should be a federal standard on, and other things that should be left to local communities?
I don’t know… if so, that would seem to be related to the same-sex marriage issue — whether there should be a single federal standard, or whether we should defer to the states and whatever their local standards might be…
I think the “community standards” thing was a poor attempt at codification that grew out of Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it.” I don’t recall any references to federalism in the opinions, but I haven’t read them for decades. I think it was more that what is obscene in Peoria and what is obscene in Las Vegas are two different things. Or Tahoe and Las Vegas.
I don’t think “community standards” means as local as you may be thinking. If so, we would have an unnavigable patchwork of local interpretations when what we really need is more of a widely held societal viewpoint on any such divisive matters. This is why obscenity, gay marriage, abortion, religious freedom and other such hot button issues need a national framework. Otherwise, innocent people get caught up in real ways in other peoples’ political games.
The death penalty is not like the others in this regard. There is no harm with different states – not localities – having differences in how they handle the death penalty issue. It isn’t a question of due process; at the point of application one is already guilty and looking at no less than life in prison.
Well, community standards on obscenity certainly was a hot topic when the internet became widely used. I don’t recall what the final upshot was. Bryan?
Community standards are typically implemented by old fogies with nothing better to do. They are the busy bodies who actually get off on their “power” (which typically is bestowed on them by the Christian God).
I can’t even fathom the mind of a person who WANTS to define the specific hours when WalMart can sell a pair of underwear… or who wants to define the specific area of the buttocks that must be covered by clothing… or who has a strong opinion on how many feet a tattoo parlor must be from a church or school. Those people have to be miserable to be around.
I have the answer to Doug’s concern with the complicated tax code. First eliminate the income tax. It really is very messy. Second impose a modest national sales tax. Everyone has skin in the game. This would be used primarily for FICA and Medicare. Third, add a national property tax. The first $250k of property could be exempt. Since most states already have a property tax there wouldn’t be any need for an additional bureaucracy to come up with dollar values. I would suggest brackets, for example
0-250k – exempt
250k-1m – 10%
1-5m -20%
above $5 million – 30%
Finally, I’d add some sort of stock market transaction tax.
These could be adjusted to maintain revenue neutrality.
This has nothing to do with anything but I had a historical curiosity itch recently and had to scratch it. I learned a while back that John Tyler (10th US POTUS, died in 1862) has two living grandsons. He is easily the earliest president with grandchildren that are alive today. That got me thinking. Who is the earliest president with a surviving child? Anyone want to take a guess? I’ll give you a hint. The child is younger than I am.
LBJ or Nixon?
Kennedy
Somehow in the back of my mind I thought Margaret Truman was still with us, but Wikipedia tells me she left us several years ago, so it seems it must be Caroline Kennedy. I guess Margaret would have been older than Bud.
It’s a good thing Will Folks and the folks are around to do the work The State should be doing…
The primary reason we shouldn’t give any more money to the D.O.T. is because they are not good stewards of the money they get now. How is it that Hugh Leatherman’s son-in-law works for the company that gets a big advertising contract from the D.O.T. and that isn’t an issue?
http://www.fitsnews.com/2015/04/29/scdot-wined-and-dined/
“and the folks at The Nerve.com”