20 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.

1. Michael H Schneider

   July 15, 2012 • 7:17 pm

   Some opinions are worthless, some are worthwhile. Not all opinions are equally worthy.
    
   My article was an opinion, plain and simple, something Heath Haussamen encourages and something I wholeheartedly support and applaud him for.
    
   As a small child I held to the opinion that 7 times 6 was equal to 44. No one was particularly impressed.
    
   I’ve also heard someone opine that the antonym of proprioception is porphry. And that the proper form of a modus tollens argument is:
   p1 All S1 are P
   p2 All S2 are P
   Therefore All S1 are S2.
   None of these opinions are particularly worthwhile, either.
    
   Opinions may be well grounded in fact and logic, in which case they are likely to be worthwhile. Or they may be flights of fancy, held despite a complete lack of facts or logic. Those opinions are worthless.
    
   Consider this:
    
   I think the way it was … passed (in the dead of night)… speaks volumes about how our legislative and executive branches have handled the whole situation. 
    
   According to the NY Times, the Senate passed it at 2pm. (1). That’s the dead of night? The times also says the House passed the bulk of it at 9:02pm (2). Late, but the dead of night? So yes, the statement that it was passed in the dead of night might be an opinion, but it’s not well grounded in facts.
    
   I’d also object to the opinion that “…not to mention the typical small-business owner that was counting on an outcome that would keep the Federal Rottweilers away from the meager scraps in his feeding bowl.”
    
   Here’s how the AKC describes the Rottweiler:
    
   Robust and powerful, the Rottweiler is happiest when given a job to perform. His intelligence, endurance and willingness to work make him suitable as a police dog, herder, service dog, therapy dog, obedience competitor and devoted companion. An inherent protector, the Rottweiler is self-confident and responds quietly and with a wait-and-see attitude to influences in his environment. He must be medium in size and his coat is black with rust to mahogany markings.
    
   I think that’s an okay metaphor for the government – especially the business about being an inherent protector, intelligent, and willing to work. I’m not sure what mahogany markings look like in a government. But maybe that’s simply bad writing rather than a worthless opinion, in that the metphor may not convey the intended meaning (3)
    
    
   (1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/health/policy/26health.html
   (2) http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/194
   (3) I’ve always wondered about Shakespeare’s phrase “the dogs of war.” Most everyone I know takes it as a metaphor or simile comparing soldiers to vicious dogs but I’ve always wondered whether it was more close related to metaphorical uses such as fire dogs (andirons) or lathe dogs or the dogs that close hatches on submarines. That is, mechanical contrivances used to hold something back, which depend on friction, and which can be loosened so they slip and release what they’re holding. But that’s just my opinion. Certainly no  one ever talks about the Poodles of war.
2. stephan helgesen

   July 12, 2012 • 10:53 pm

   Interesting comments all. Good to see the passion on this subject. Sometimes we need to push beyond the borders of our own comfort zones and that can only be done with critical thought. My article wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive analysis of ‘Obamacare.’ Goodness knows we have plenty of experts who can do that for us, and we can choose to listen to them all or pick the ones we like. As for me, I lived in four countries with socialized medicine and read up on how those healthcare systems were enacted, and I saw them implemented, first-hand over three decades. But that’s a whole other story for another time. My article was an opinion, plain and simple, something Heath Haussamen encourages and something I wholeheartedly support and applaud him for. Whether you’re for or against the bill is almost immaterial. I think the way it was debated (or not), the way it was passed (in the dead of night), and the way it is (or will be) administered speaks volumes about how our legislative and executive branches have handled the whole situation. My read is that they are acting more like an oligarchy than trustees of our sacred Constitution. But, of course, that is just my opinion and not an in-depth analysis. Fire at will.
3. Juan Carlos Holmes

   July 12, 2012 • 12:45 am

   Actually, JusticeP, that wasn’t the question; the question was whether or not I was, “disputing the points presented by Andrew Breitbart?” which would be markedly difficult due to his having died over four months prior to the publishing of that truly hysterical article that you attempted to link to.  It is interesting that you seem to be changing your own question retroactively, despite the original being publicly available on the very same page, including the rather bizarre non-sentence that followed it.
    
   Semantics and poor syntax aside, what seems remarkable is that you are taking the opinion piece to which you attempted to link to as a news piece.  Since it is almost entirely devoid of actual facts, you are attempting to demand that I contradict one writer’s citation-free analysis – which you take as gospel – with contradictory facts – of which there are few, since most of what Mr. Caddell writes is itself purely fictional.  This is rather like asking me to disprove a particular religion; since your politics appears based entirely on faith rather then demonstrable reality, it would not only be pointless to try to dissuade you from your quite-frankly firebrand dedication to beliefs that lack proof, but would – from my standpoint – be a morally questionable act should I manage to somehow succeed in breaching your wall of denial; as your beliefs are based on what essentially amounts to a religious fervor, the realization that very little you believe is true would be tantamount to a loss of faith, something for which I personally feel unjustified in causing in any other human being.
    
   For anyone less blinded by a fanatical devotion to right-wing revisionism, it is worth noting that the piece to which JusticeP attempted to link was written by a man who has predicted the downfall of the Democratic Party almost annually for the past quarter-century, claimed that Governor Romney getting into a shouting match with a relatively-benign protestor last August was a “great moment for [Romney]“, accused the National Security Advisor of security leaks without presenting any proof whatsoever (or even so much as a basis for his theories), once called the New York Times the “secret police”, and is constantly used by Fox “news” as proof that they are “fair and balanced” because he is a “Democratic pollster” – even though he left the Democratic Party twenty-seven years ago and hasn’t worked for a single Democrat since.
    
   JusticeP, meanwhile, has taken Mr. Caddell’s word for the gospel and asked me to contradict facts presented in a piece that – at fifty-four paragraphs long – waits until the twenty-eighth paragraph to present a single fact, and even then presents it completely incorrectly and out-of-context; Mr. Caddell – himself a former pollster who knows better, and can thus only be accused of an intentional misstatement – states that a poll said that only 24% of Americans think the Supreme Court’s healthcare ruling would make the country better off even though the poll in question actually says that 45% of Americans support the ruling, and that Americans are essentially evenly split over their opinion on the mandate specifically, whether or not their taxes and healthcare costs will increase, and how the President has handled healthcare policy in general – and many of those last are liberals who feel he hasn’t gone far enough.  Mr. Caddell’s response to a partial reading of a single poll is to write a column devoid of factual content that exists only to suggest a linguistic slight-of-hand in referring to a plan copied almost in its entirety to one signed by the presumptive Republican nominee by a cutesy shorthand phrase inaccurately invoking the President’s name, a column which cites actual data only twice – both times citing polls, and both times incorrectly (the second being in the forty-sixth paragraph, in which Mr. Caddell claims a month-old pre-ruling poll says something about the President’s approval on healthcare, even though respondents were asked no such question; he literally, in the grandest tradition of the late-Mr. Breitbart, made it up).  He even gets the length of the Affordable Care Act incorrect – though, oddly, he screws up the oft-repeated and irksomely anti-intellectual conservative talking point by understating the law’s length, which has to be a first for such a website.
    
   This is the piece that JusticeP claims “made headlines”.  JusticeP, a citation-free opinion piece published only on a single disreputable website, ignored by legitimate news sources (and even its own right-wing counter-parts) and written by a man with no current credentials is hardly “making headlines”, and it is certainly not news.  For the sake of what I still optimistically – and perhaps naïvely – hope is an informed electorate, I fervently hope that you have never accidentally stumbled into a voting booth.
4. JusticeP

   July 11, 2012 • 2:44 pm

   JuanCarlosHomes:
    
   The questions was, are you disputing the points put forth by the author of the article? And if so, why and what.
5. Juan Carlos Holmes

   July 10, 2012 • 5:27 pm

   JusticeP:
    
   You have shown no actual interest in “facts”; the very fact that every source of “news” you have chosen to reference is a partisan site with specific intent and demonstrated histories of inaccuracy shows that you actively choose your sources of information based upon whether or not they confirm what you have already chosen to believe rather than for they reliability.  As for anything said by Mr. Brietbart personally, it would be difficult to refute any statements he has made recently, as additions to his body of work have declined dramatically since his death.
    
   However, consider that this is the same man who funded known-liar and crook James O’Keefe, destroyed the career of Shirley Sherrod by committing a demonstrable act of slander, eulogized the late Senator Kennedy by calling him a “prick”, was a constant firebrand for the birther movement, accused the Occupy movement of condoning rape, tried to invent a wild conspiracy theory in which the President’s administration somehow preemptively directed members of a public union to assault an otherwise-unknown and completely non-influential Tea Party member who was creating a disruption at a 2009 town hall before the disruption even occurred, tried to take down members of the NEA for violations of a law that doesn’t say anything remotely resembling what he claimed it said, and tried to claim the administration was colluding with ACORN based upon a visit to the White House by ACORN’s former CEO that never happened.  In most of these situations, he continued to make his claims long after they were demonstrated to be lies, and his website has continued his legacy of manufactured controversy, repetitious reporting of events that never occurred, and intentional misstatements specifically designed to cause damage to the reputations of people – not policy or beliefs, but individuals – with whom they disagree.  That’s not someone interested in an adult conversation; that’s the schoolyard bully.
    
   If this is your idea of a news source, then you are clearly uninterested in mature debate over the facts and are instead interested in perverting reality to fit your worldview.  “I believe it,” is not the same as evidence.
6. JusticeP

   July 10, 2012 • 2:48 pm

   Juan Carlos Holmes are you disputing the points presented by Andrew Breitbart?  Is enlighten me to what the true facts are, not just your opinion.
    
7. qofdisks

   July 10, 2012 • 12:56 pm

   JP, it may be called “Obamacare” but, we all know that the PPACA is hatched from a conservative think tank and first implemented by Gov. Mitt Romney in the state of MA.  Whatever the propagandists call it, we all know what we are talking about.
8. Juan Carlos Holmes

   July 10, 2012 • 11:33 am

   JusticeP:
    
   There was a point to Mr. Helgesen’s column?  All I saw was a contrived analogy to pop culture’s vampire obsession, repeated use of abbreviations apparently designed to avoid having to type out the oh-so-dreadfully-long word “Justice”, a misquote of then-Speaker of the House Pelosi, descriptions of accepted procedure as “arcane”, repetition of the oft-debunked meme that a law that exempts small businesses from its provisions would somehow be burdensome to those small businesses, description of thoroughness as “gobledegook”, and demonstration that he not only doesn’t know terribly much about the law in question that he didn’t pick up third-hand from mouthpieces of it’s detractors, but he apparently doesn’t have too much understanding of either the Constitution or the purpose of the Supreme Court.
    
   Incidentally – while we’re on the subject of third-hand knowledge from disreputable sources – trying to prove your point by attempting to send me to an article published on the website of Andrew Breitbart shows that you are less interested in facts than you are in parroting opinions that fit your pre-existing worldview.
9. JusticeP

   July 10, 2012 • 6:43 am

   Juan Carlos Holmes
   July 9, 2012 • 9:36 pm

    
   “EXCLUSIVE-CADDELL: Taxes and Trust-The Achilles Heels of Obamacare and Obama, Part I”
   You might notice from the above quote that made headlines this morning that several of us might technically be incorrect in saying “Obamacare” referring to the “law”, but everyone knows what we are talking about.  Sorry that you missed the points of the article and focused on a technical flaw.  It seems that this kind of action is what is leading many into the destructive pattern our country has taken.
10. powakee

    July 10, 2012 • 4:46 am

    I don’t think anyone was fooled into thinking that the United States developing a national health care program would not be easy.  I do think a whole bunch of people fooled themselves into thinking it was an either or issue and those people found out that 3 out of 3 branches of government said it could be done.  Now the argument is switching to the details.  Helgesen is just wishing it went the other way.  There will continue to be people arguing about the either or issue forever.  (Heck, there are still people arguing about ‘the great society’).  It makes good ‘happy hour’ talk.  But, during the daytime, when we are working, we will all be working on the details of making the health insurance plan work for everybody. 
11. Juan Carlos Holmes

    July 9, 2012 • 9:36 pm

    “Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty… Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.”
     
    Since when is a penalty the “soft” sell?  For that matter, since for a majority of Americans’ taxes do not increase at all and for most of the others it will be the first increase of this administration, it seems fairly easy to justify – certainly easier to justify than the counter-claim that the people’s government has no right to promote the general welfare of the people.  Additionally, it should be noted that there is no such law as “Obamacare”.  Might I suggest learning at least something about the issue at hand before parroting random sound-bites from other people who also haven’t bothered to learn anything about the issue at hand?
12. Heath Haussamen

    July 9, 2012 • 4:58 pm

    Michael Schneider, you’re welcome to submit your own guest column. Here are the guidelines:

    http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/commentary-submissions/ 
13. Michael H Schneider

    July 9, 2012 • 4:12 pm

    To actually learn something of the subject, people might want to spend an hour and a half listening to this:
     
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/07/scotus-aca-health-care-decision-panel-uc-berkeley-video-.html
     
    I haven’t heard the whole thing yet. I did find an audio only version and downloaded it to my Ipod, but I don’t remember how I found the mp3 version.
14. JusticeP

    July 9, 2012 • 3:56 pm

     
    Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
    It will be a short-lived celebration.
    Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
    Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
    Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
    Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing Medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
    Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
    Stephan Helgesen I think you are mistaken. Badly mistaken!!!
     
15. Michael H Schneider

    July 9, 2012 • 1:43 pm

    the Federal Rottweilers??
     
    keep the Federal Rottweilers away from the meager scraps in his feeding bowl.
     
    This is meaningless. There isn’t a single word in the entire column that actually helps people understand the political and economic issues. It’s all name calling and impressionistic bombast. Incoherent outrage and over-the-top metaphors aren’t analysis, they aren’t argument, they aren’t facts, they barely qualify as speech.  What a waste of time and space.
16. qofdisks

    July 9, 2012 • 1:31 pm

    “siding with the liberals”
    NO, it is siding with Mitt Romney’s and the Heritage Foundation’s version of health care reform.  The LIBERAL version would have been a form of single payer or at least a public option.  The LIBERALS did not get what they wanted by way of health care reform.
    “There is one thing the 9Js forgot amid their deliberations, and that is the other court that is even more powerful than the Supreme Court. It is the court of public opinion.”
    Actually, public opinion favors the elements of the ACA.  Are you saying that YOU or the public does not agree with the elements of the reform?  Now that the mandate question is settled, which other ACA element are you going to attack?
    God knows, the crazy heartless republicans are putting out feelers.  Since the ruling, they have tried to attack other parts of the act to no avail because the elements of the act are essentially extremely popular (to all but the 1%) for the majority of Americans.  In fact, the only element that I see that Americans are not happy with is the lack of public option/single payer and the slow pace of implementation.  The GOP is spinning wheels trying to find ways to NOT cover Americans and stripping the PPACA of popular provisions.
    Please, which of these specific reforms do you or anybody else here is not in agreement?
    Here it is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
     
    Seriously, the only vampires here are the wealth sucking for profit health insurance industry, the over-charging and gaming of the pharmaceutical industry and providers trying to stay afloat in a vast sea of paperwork.
    The main complaint of the ACA, as far as the majority of the public is concerned, is that it does not go far enough.
     
     
17. Dr. J

    July 9, 2012 • 11:36 am

    I really think people who are carping about the SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare are out to lunch and not understanding the court’s role.  Some of the most clear and true words about our government is written in Justice Roberts’ majority opinion:  “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

    So you carping people, get the “people” together and change it if you don’t like it.  Elections have consequences, the left wing wave that washed over America in 2008 created ObamaCare, make a new wave to wash it away, it can easily be done if you put your votes where your mouths’ are.
18. stever

    July 9, 2012 • 9:58 am

    Yo, did you consider that maybe the Justices just couldn’t stomach the hypocrisy of receiving health care on what amounts to the taxpayer’s dime?

    Yo, probably not
19. Qui Tam

    July 9, 2012 • 9:44 am

    Yo, did you consider that maybe the Justices just couldn’t stomach the hypocrisy of receiving health care on what amounts to the taxpayer’s dime?
20. pauleichhorn

    July 9, 2012 • 7:53 am

    The great sin of America is selfishness.  This meme is continually pushed by our corporate media, and doggoneit, propoganda works.  This is the “I got mine, screw you.”  mentality that dominates the Republican and corporate Democratic parties.  All this in support of a spectacularly inefficient method of health care distribution.  What makes it comical is these anti-health care hawks like to bill themselves as shrewd dealers and budget hawks.  The opposite is true.

Leave a response

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Home │ Contact │ Register │ Log in │ Copyright © 2006-2012 by Haussamen Publications, Inc. Material on this site not to be reprinted without permission.