MattZ

Huh? I would have preferred that your parenthetical expand upon what you meant by "funny old cases" rather than "easy." Fwiw, Stevens lists 7 "funny old cases" (aka, precedent) that the majority has brushed aside in the fourth paragraph of his dissent.

... and the poor will always be less healthy, in part, because Doritos are so much cheaper than apples. And Coca-Cola is cheaper than Grapefruit Juice. So, sure, lifestyle plays into it, but it's not as simple as saying that people who eat Doritos sleep in the bed they've made. Even if I get your point (and agree with it) (i.e., people need to take responsibility for their own health and often dont). ETA: the people who can't afford health insurance also probably can't afford to live a healthy lifestyle -- even if they want to. So it becomes circular.

I'm not buying it Poon. And here is why: Scalia and Thomas won't stop telling us how they just review the cases before them, and they are strict constructionists, and respect precedent. And it's all a load of dung. They know how they want these cases decided before the cases ever get to them. And it has nothing to do with appellate review or standards of review or what have you. They are every bit the judicial activists that they accuse their liberal counterparts of being. Many of these cases are decided along party lines -- and the 5 who vote yes, whether it's liberals or the conservat

Poon, i think your instincts are right -- that the talking points are clouding the specifics. It also seems to me that unions could benefit as much as corporations. Which, as I said above, is why I am not weighing in on the merits of the decision or the implications. But I won't pass up an opportunity to rip on good ol' Antonin for being a hypocrite.

Thanks. And actually, if you replaced "conservatives" with "Scalia", it would have been perfect.

well, the first amendment is a tricky thing, so I won't wade in on the merits of the ruling or the implications of it. I just love how the conservatives get bent out of shape over the refusal to respect precedent except when they are doing it.

Man, what's up your butt?

Ahh yes, those darn activist justices overturning 20 year old precedent. Oh wait, Scalia and Roberts and Thomas did this? Riiiiiight. ETA: I dont think that CNN article addressed the hypocrisy that I sarcastically highlighted. Here's this bit from the nytimes: [The case] asked the parties to address the much more consequential question of whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates

I see your point, but only to a point. And here's why. We all choose where we work. Doctors too. Now, I won't be so presumptuous as to pretend that I know your situation, and without getting too metaphysical here, there are different levels of "choice." But the fact remains, that a doctor opposed to Medicare, can either open his/her own clinic (as you suggest), or go work for a clinic that someone else owns that doesn't take insurance. It's true, as you say, that Medicare isn't going anywhere. But you can go somewhere. I really don't want that to sound like the standard retort in poli

I can relate to a lot of this. I play guitar but I dont know when I become a musician. I write (bad) songs but don't know when I become a songwriter. I will call you one, if you call me one. (I think Bob Dylan said that. Or, something.)

Ok, sure, but he isn't villifying every single living Republican. He's being hyperbolic, which, in the context of every other thread around here is par for the course. I dont think I am rationalizing here. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Ummmmm, right?

This thread is great. Would love to hear songwriting tricks of everyone here too, though. As for WWDD, I have to admit that I have tried it (although I never knew anyone else did). Of course, it doesn't work. Dylan likes C > C/B > Am though. And Am > Am/G > F. Not that that helps all that much.

cool story, dtram. Thanks for sharing.

Plenty of doctors don't accept insurance. If you are anti-Medicare, can't you simply refuse to accept insuance? (I realize this doesnt apply to someone coming to you in an emergency). I am out of my league a bit here because I am far from an expert on these topics, but this seems like an intriguing paradox. Rail against government provided healthcare while insisting that you get paid more from it? What am I missing?

So you are against Medicare in principle, but even moreso, against Medicare cuts? Of course. It's just garden-variety capitalism. Free-market capitalism is a fiction. It doesn't exist.

Yes, but uncool2pillow, my point is that this is exactly what is happening with capitalism. Wall Street bailout, Health Care bill w/o public option, etc. Wealth continues to be concentrated at the top, and it is being funded by the people (ie, taxpayers). This is being branded as socialism. It isn't socialism.

Well, then many conservatives don't know what socialism means. Which explains a lot, actually. ETA: I am grabbing this from wikipedia just because it is easy: Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3] Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a

Straw man aside, that's not socialism.

Only in America is a taxpayer funded Wall Street bailout and a health care bill without a public option and windfall profits for insurance companies, considered socialism. Since when is it socialism to take from everyone to give to the wealthy?

Oh, sorry.

Conan wants to host the Tonight Show. There's your downside. It's really that simple. It was also that simple 7 pages ago.

Yeah, sorry, I guess it wasn't a particularly insightful observation. Let me offer some more banal and passive-aggressive observations in the form of questions: I guess these voters would also do away with universal health care in MA if they had the option? And since they don't have that option, would turn down health care if they lose their job and get sick?

So let me get this straight. This election in MA is operating as a proxy for the national debate on healthcare. And the people voting against it (ie, by voting for Brown), live in a state that already provides them with healthcare? Have I got that right?

I will eat Unagi for lunch today.

best wishes, Greg. Major vibes.