In an insult to the intelligence of his readers, Nick Baumann of Mother Jones takes on the old chestnut - when is a law not a law?
His gist:
Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years
The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.
Hold on - the "right" (including, of course, many lefties) is freaking out over the religious freedom issue; we aren't hearing from most employers or mainstream corporate America on this.
Pressing on:
President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.
Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.
In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
And when is a law not a law? Let's cut to Times coverage of the EEOC lame-duck announcement (which followed the Bush v. Gore decision):
''It's not binding on the courts, but they will give it deference,'' said Ellen Vargyas, a lawyer at the commission. ''The hope is that employers and employees will look at this and want to comply with the law, that this will be their guide.''
Not binding? The EEOC adopted a non-binding rule which the Bushies basically ignored. The EEOC rule was upheld in one court case (Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co.) and in a different venue rejected by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, as described in a Weekly Standard article to which Mr. Baumann links:
Just two years ago (2007), the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, apparently the only federal appellate court to take up these questions directly, answered the employment discrimination question with a no. "While contraception may certainly affect the causal chain that leads to pregnancy, we have specifically rejected the argument that a causal connection, by itself, results in a medical condition 'related to' pregnancy for PDA purposes," Judge Raymond Gruender wrote for a 2-1 majority in Standridge v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
These were not cases that hinged on a First Amendment religious freedom argument and neither reached the Supreme Court, yet clearly "the law" was unsettled at best. We are left to wonder how the Roberts Court, with six Catholics, might have dealt with such a case. Presumably the advent of ObamaCare made appeals seem moot.
Speaking of BS, Quiz time:
"I was a severely Conservative Republican Governor."
Who said it?
Posted by: daddy | February 10, 2012 at 03:42 PM
I KNOW! I know!
Posted by: Jane | February 10, 2012 at 03:44 PM
How can you insult the intelligence of a Mother Jones reader?
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 10, 2012 at 03:47 PM
That's unpossible Captain,
Posted by: narciso | February 10, 2012 at 03:50 PM
of course! The non-binding law law!!!
"Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. "
Posted by: matt | February 10, 2012 at 03:52 PM
Is that a trick question, CH?
Like "How much does a ten cent ice cream cone cost?"
Posted by: GMAX | February 10, 2012 at 04:04 PM
Not binding? The EEOC adopted a non-binding rule which the Bushies basically ignored.
Reality doesn't matter. I predict this will be the meme on the left, just as much as Bush's plastic turkey and Obama as constitutional scholar.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 10, 2012 at 04:04 PM
BBC now reporting on Kim Jong Un's assassination.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 10, 2012 at 04:08 PM
JimmyK-- the MEME - Now you......
OK OK:
TomM-- fantastic snark calling BS on the Left
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 04:15 PM
"The scheme works because birth control save money. If you were an flinty-eyed insurer, which group would you rather insure? People with guaranteed access to free birth control, or people without? Of course, you'd rather insure the folks with birth control coverage because they're less likely to get pregnant and have babies, which would cost you a lot more than the birth control. You could give away the birth control and still come out ahead.
Of course, just because birth control is relatively cheap doesn't mean it's free. It costs about $21.40 to add birth control pills, IUDs, and other contraceptives to an insurance plan. That money is going to have to come from somewhere."
http://inthesetimes.com/duly-noted/entry/12730/contraception_compromise_insurers_take_one_for_the_team/
Yup. Someone has to pay. I don't have diabetes but I guess I'll have to pay for insulin for those slackers.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 04:17 PM
If it is BBCLiveNews twitter - it is fake, not real BBC, Captain.
Posted by: centralcal | February 10, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Why is the Navy naming a ship after Gabby Giffords?
Posted by: centralcal | February 10, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Again, in the spirit of Margaret Sanger (and Mark Kleiman), I fully support the government sterilizing ("mandatory access to free birth control" for the squeamish) the non-productive prole underclass of society to save government money, regardless of the moral, religious, or ethical dimension of the decision.
Once the state breeds out all of the undesirables, the rest of us will be able to enjoy utopia.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 04:23 PM
brcause of the big ocean in Arizona:)
Posted by: BB Key | February 10, 2012 at 04:24 PM
If it is BBCLiveNews twitter - it is fake, not real BBC, Captain.
Ok that's what it is.
It's pretty insulting to judge John Roll and the other people who were murdered or injured that Saint Gabby is having a ship named after her. Not to mention military heroes.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 10, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Jane et al,
Dennis Miller show today is live at CPAC. Dennis is not hosting but on now is Breitbart and Virginia's George Allen.
Enjoyable and informative show today.
Posted by: daddy | February 10, 2012 at 04:25 PM
CC-- please tell me you're joking.
Dana-- you finally make a fair point. Someone always has to pay. The question is when are medical costs best handled by a free market insurance model and when does the market break down and the costs are best handled as a 'social' cost. That's the medical cost debate in a nutshell. Obamacare takes a sledgehammer to that debate and makes 'health insurance' a centralized top/down mandate that takes freedom of choice and options out of everyone's hands, coupled with cronyism and political meddling. That's why I argue for its repeal everyday.
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Drudge_Report Drudge Report
Navy to name combat ship after Gabby Giffords...
Posted by: centralcal | February 10, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Daddy,
Newt was late, Breitbart next.
Posted by: Jane | February 10, 2012 at 04:29 PM
BretBaier Bret Baier
Navy announces ship to be named for @gabbygiffords --USS Gabrielle Giffords
No, I am not kidding, but I am flabbergasted.
Posted by: centralcal | February 10, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Why is the Navy naming a ship after Gabby Giffords?
Oh no. What nonsense. She is being used for a phony lib story. It will be embellished through the ages about the evil tea party threat - led by Sarah Palin - that rose for awhile & was beaten back by the brave progressives. Oh no.
Posted by: Janet | February 10, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Why is the Navy naming a ship after Gabby Giffords?
Don't worry, it's unarmed.
Posted by: lyle | February 10, 2012 at 04:33 PM
It's pretty insulting to judge John Roll and the other people who were murdered or injured that Saint Gabby is having a ship named after her. Not to mention military heroes.
It most certainly is.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 10, 2012 at 04:34 PM
To wit: "Vince Sampson, president, Education Finance Council, said during a panel at the IMN ABS East Conference in Miami Monday that lenders are no longer pushing loans to people who can’t afford them." Re-read the last sentence as many times as necessary for it to sink in.
Posted by: Neo | February 10, 2012 at 04:34 PM
"No, I am not kidding, but I am flabbergasted."
Reagan was shot and they named an aircraft carrier after him.
But I see your point :> )
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 04:34 PM
Well, this post tackles the contraception cost issue head-on. But the bottom line is that there isn't any data yet. (There's a short-term cost followed by possibly larger savings later.) Given the track record of the folks in charge, my bet would be . . .
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 10, 2012 at 04:35 PM
OK-- I saw a wire report -- there will be a USS Giffords. To the POTUS and Secretary Mabus, I choose my words carefully:
GO F&*#K YOURSELVES.
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 04:35 PM
off?
Posted by: Porchlight | February 10, 2012 at 04:36 PM
It will be embellished through the ages about the evil tea party threat - led by Sarah Palin - that rose for awhile & was beaten back by the brave progressives.
That garbage can't be allowed to pass as the truth. Jared Loughner was an unhinged son of lefty enablers who gamed the system to keep that idiot on the streets. He belongs with other lib trash like Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and John Hinckley Jr.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 10, 2012 at 04:36 PM
I heard a version of this story on NPR this morning and even without researching further knew we were being sold a bill of goods. The NPR story also cited the EEOC decision from December 2000 (which, naturally, they failed to point out was in the last days of the Clinton administration), as well as a bill passed by Congress in 1978, which, if anyone bothers to think about it, was clearly in the first two years of the Carter administration when the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. It was so dishonestly presented it was astounding, even for NPR.
Posted by: Kurt | February 10, 2012 at 04:37 PM
PS: that idiot husband of Giffords can go F#%$&K himself too for being part of this sham.
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 04:42 PM
At least the Navy would never name a ship after César Chávez.
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 10, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Giffords husband is Navy and the other choice was to name it the USS John Murtha. I'll take Giffords over Murtha anyday if that's the choices.
[Full disclosure I am just guessing at this since the Navy was considering Murtha but the phone has been ringing off the hook from Marines and Sailors. This may be a compromise].
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 10, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Yeah, that's the one that left me nonplussed. (Along with the John P. Murtha.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 10, 2012 at 04:46 PM
"Diabetes is costly in human terms for almost 16 million Americans with the disease. Diabetes is also costly in economic terms: $98 billion a year in direct medical and indirect costs in the United States.1 The prevalence of diabetes increased markedly in the United States from 1990 to 1998, including a 76 percent rise among people aged 30 and older. Experts report that diabetes will continue to increase in this country."
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/business.htm
"Well, this post tackles the contraception cost issue head-on."
And if you're not diabetic......you get a waiver........lol
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Reality doesn't matter. I predict this will be the meme on the left, just as much as Bush's plastic turkey and Obama as constitutional scholar.
Already is showing up in comments at PJ.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | February 10, 2012 at 04:47 PM
Wait... What?!?
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/12/07/21652/congress-scolds-navy
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 10, 2012 at 04:47 PM
Well, this post tackles the contraception cost issue head-on. But the bottom line is that there isn't any data yet.
One thing you can be sure of with these studies: The birth of a child is a cost, with no benefit. That's the mindset.
Steve Jobs would have been aborted or "controlled" along with millions of other potential Einsteins, Mozarts, and Salks.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 10, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Free insulin. Problem solved.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 10, 2012 at 04:48 PM
Holy Moly, TK....a non-birfer link. lol
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Beautiful question by Breitbart (and apologies for not getting the name of the Congressman he asked it of)
Breitbart asked this (not exact wording but here's the essence)
" From all the MSM we always hear that Repub's have to compromise, but never do. We are always that Repub's are uncompromising bad guys. Congressman, in all your dealings with Obama over these last 3 years...in all the meetings and proposals and everything else, has he ever once come across with any legitimate compromise from his side to Repubs?"
"Never."
Posted by: daddy | February 10, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Giffords husband is Navy and the other choice was to name it the USS John Murtha. I'll take Giffords over Murtha anyday if that's the choices.
How bout ANY young man or woman serving in the Navy. Any one. It can be the ship named in honor of every person that ever served....whether they won medals or not...they served.
Posted by: Janet | February 10, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Better USS Giffords than Attack Submarine Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 10, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Is there a religion which objects to insulin being covered by health insurance?
Posted by: Ignatz | February 10, 2012 at 04:54 PM
rse,
This one is for you!
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 10, 2012 at 04:55 PM
I believe at one point it cost about 30 trillion Zimbabwean dollars.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 10, 2012 at 04:59 PM
One thing you can be sure of with these studies: The birth of a child is a cost, with no benefit. That's the mindset.
Well, a little searching turned up the underlying study, and that's exactly how they calculated it:
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 10, 2012 at 05:05 PM
"Baumann". In the original German this means "fellow-traveling hack." ;)
Posted by: MarkJ | February 10, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Uh, cecil brought up cost, Iggy. Take it up with him
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 05:09 PM
how about naming a Navy ship after a MoH recipient instead? Or if someone, the chief surgeon at a FOB?
They re-named it the USS Nucular Scary Rabbit, Dave....
Posted by: matt | February 10, 2012 at 05:10 PM
That sounds about right, CT. After all, the cost of a declining fertility rate is only demographic suicide of a society, which is not an issue for many of the current proponents of the Administrative Nanny State.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 10, 2012 at 05:10 PM
You know if this free contraception deal works out maybe we can be down to one third of our population in a 100 years like Japan is projected to be.
We'll have saved big money on those pesky babies, but I'm not sure how well SS and Medicare will work with 90 million cranky geezers and and 10 million middle age slackers.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 10, 2012 at 05:11 PM
Or for one of the Fort Sam Houston martyrs.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet | February 10, 2012 at 05:13 PM
JimmyK's post yesterday about Tim Blair fits in well with TM's topic about disingenuous BS from media hacks.
Aussie PM Gilliard was attacked by angry Abo's after a completely false quote, falsely attributed to opposition leader Abbot, had been fed to the Abo's to rile them up. The ABC, in beautiful BS fashion, is essentially trying to say that the guilt lies not with the liar that intentionally passed on the false quote, but lies somehow with Mr Abbot and the falsified quote that was falsley attributed to him.
Anyhow, here's Tim Blair's post, worth reading again for it's humorous pictures satires if you missed it.
Thanks JimmyK.
Posted by: daddy | February 10, 2012 at 05:15 PM
Why don't we get people to set up a charitable fund to voluntarily provide young Obama supporters with free contraception for life? Let's call it No Mas.
Posted by: Clarice | February 10, 2012 at 05:17 PM
B-1 Bob Dornan is crazy.
Posted by: daddy | February 10, 2012 at 05:18 PM
LOL, Clarice. I like the way you think.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 10, 2012 at 05:19 PM
No Mas. Perfect!
Posted by: redgypsy | February 10, 2012 at 05:28 PM
Thanks jib. Michigan has been ground zero for the development of many of the bad ideas that deliberately changed the nature of colleges of ed. That's why certification is being mandated tighter than ever. It's a nonsense course of study in terms of academics but unbelievably lethal.
And henry-Since my last link I thought about what I heard and the behaviors I observed and then developed a search based on the underlying applicable theory. Up sprang one of the most stunning documents in my arsenal.
Got em good and in a way that brings so much together that was already quite intertwined. At least in my head and on the written page.
Cheers. It is officially happy hour for me.
Posted by: rse | February 10, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Just to add a couple of details to daddy's summary: the feeder of the false quote, last I heard, was one of Gillard's own staffers. The riots spread to where Gillard was speaking, and she got hustled out by security, losing a shoe in the process, Cinderella-style. Hence the pictures.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 10, 2012 at 05:31 PM
TomM-- congrats on the Insta-Link to Free Lunch!
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 05:31 PM
Controller Chiang Strikes Again
See Table 1
Economic Factoid: California represents 1/8th of the total economy of the United States
Assignment: Using the tax collection data presented in Table 1, construct a non-risible hypothesis advancing the notion that the economy of the United States can be in any sort of recovery when the general revenue account of a state representing 1/8th of the total GDP is contracting at an annualized rate of 17.5%.
Show your work.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 10, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Doesn't "I'm severely conservative" sound like a medical condition?
Jane was just tweeting about Breitbart at CPAC talking about dinner with Bill Ayers. The other night on my drive home he called in to local talk radio and absolutely raved about the meal he was served. Said it was one of the best meals of his life and praised Ayer's cooking abilities to the heavens. Of course, the rest of the evening, the guests, the conversation, not so much.
Posted by: centralcal | February 10, 2012 at 05:35 PM
"Is there a religion which objects to insulin being covered by health insurance?"
No, but...pregnancy is a disease resulting in a monetary burden on national health and as such affects everyone. Perhaps proper screening* and licensing** can determine who shall be allowed to reproduce.
*for detection of any religious gene
** public employees only
Posted by: Frau Tapfere Neue Welt | February 10, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Jim Rhoads,
Hell, they won't give them Purple Hearts!
I like the idea of naming after MOH receipients but to name it after Giffords or Chavez or Murtha is plain despicable. But this is the Chicago way.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 10, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Dinner with Billy the Bomber: "Said it was one of the best meals of his life"
A big mess of soma?
Posted by: Frau Tapfere Neue Welt | February 10, 2012 at 05:41 PM
Also, Breitbart told CPAC today that he has videos of Obama (the radical) from his college days and that they are going to come out.
Ha, Frau! Actually, on the radio he went on and on about the soup, the ribs (didn't say if they were pork or beef), the dessert - he just raved about the food.
Posted by: centralcal | February 10, 2012 at 05:44 PM
Sorry, forgot to add link of video clip:
I got video of Obama in college
Posted by: centralcal | February 10, 2012 at 05:47 PM
I heard Breitbart and Carlson on either Boortz or Hannity talking about their dinner. They said it was all choreographed by the Ayers and Dorhns along with hand-picked lefty academics as the servers. They were playing but welcoming. Nothing new except a little gotha about how Ayers met the Obama children and he sort of got caught out on his answer.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 10, 2012 at 05:47 PM
RickB-- OMG-- if you showed that cash statement to a CPA he'd probably opine that on an accounting basis there is doubt it can continue as a going concern. California is a gigantic Greece.
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 05:50 PM
I have a bunch of SEALs that haven't had ships named after them. Michael P. Murphy. Danny Dietz. Matthew Axelson. Just to name 3.
Posted by: Sue | February 10, 2012 at 05:51 PM
yes, Sue....
Posted by: matt | February 10, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Sadly, Sue your SEALs are heroes and that just won't do. You see, ships are to be named after Democrat politicians, silly girl.
Posted by: centralcal | February 10, 2012 at 05:54 PM
I know. I just like to bring them up every now and then, so they know I haven't forgotten them.
Posted by: Sue | February 10, 2012 at 05:58 PM
CC-- any indication of what's on the Breitbart video?
PS: when I think of all the Marines, Naval Aviators and SEALs who did heroic selfless things in Iraq to save fellow Marines or the innocent from the Baathists and AQ, and instead these characters name a ship for a hack politician... I'm sick to my stomach.
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 05:58 PM
I got a million good ideas just like that one. If only PUK were still with us for real and not just in guiding spirit, there's be a billion trillion of 'em.
Posted by: Clarice | February 10, 2012 at 05:59 PM
I'm sorry Giffords was shot. I'm glad she lived. She didn't do anything deserving of having a ship named after her. Michael P. Murphy did.
Posted by: Sue | February 10, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Sue -- all true. Giffords is not the issue here, it's the miscreants who are engaged in this shambolic ship naming like it's a Post Office in the Southside of Chicago.
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 06:01 PM
a religion that objects to health insurance?. Christian Science?
RSE, cool. I can't wait for your book!
Posted by: henry | February 10, 2012 at 06:10 PM
--...when the general revenue account of a state representing 1/8th of the total GDP is contracting at an annualized rate of 17.5%.
Show your work.--
Rick,
I can't even show my work for 17.5%.
I come up with a decline of 10.2%, which still stinks to high heaven.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 10, 2012 at 06:18 PM
When is a law not a law?
"Sweet land of Waiverdom, of thee I sing..."
Posted by: Frau Tapfere Neue Welt | February 10, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Wait-- I just read the news headlines. Send the employees and insurer to PP to get contraceptives. That's it? that 'Bam's compromise? Is he having a laugh? shambolic, and now he can't even say he misunderstood religious conscience. Disgrace.
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Never mind, Rick, I figured it out.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 10, 2012 at 06:21 PM
Frau T-- fabulous snark. Brilliant.
Posted by: NK | February 10, 2012 at 06:21 PM
Should we be looking at Warren Buffett more carefully? LUN
Posted by: matt | February 10, 2012 at 06:25 PM
They so wanted an event like this, related in the film Z;
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis
Posted by: narciso | February 10, 2012 at 06:26 PM
See what happens when pop finds a disrespectful post on Facebook by his teenage daughter.
One laptop was seriously harmed in the making of this video.
Posted by: Ignatz | February 10, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Must be some bad sturgeon eggs or something;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/10/fifth-revolutionary-guard-commander-dies-of-heart-attack/#comments
Posted by: narciso | February 10, 2012 at 06:33 PM
Here, in the trivialization of the honor of the Navy by naming that ship, it is most clearly shown what absolute contempt these people have for this nation and its proud and noble history and traditions.
One might merely put this off as borne of smallness of character, a shallowness of perception and mind, that it is but borne of swill of the common, feckless and vain egoism of the Left. Not true: To possess such contempt marks a mind and a soul so intently vicious, so willfully bent against the Good, so base and perverted that it cannot but degrade and debase all that has worth. It lusts after corruption and destruction; it crudely hungers to mock and humiliate all that is high. It sees its own vileness as affirmation of it superiority.
However trivial it may be, naming this ship marks a deep evil let among us.
If she or her husband had any self respect, they would decline this "honor"; that the Navy allowed this shocks.
Do they understand how they are being humiliated? Have they no honor left?
Such decay. Such rot.
Shameful, just shameful.
Posted by: squaredance | February 10, 2012 at 06:39 PM
What is the difference between a RINO and a liberal? Ask mittens.....no, wait....ask mittens.....no wait, ask mittens.
Posted by: j.a.agibinik | February 10, 2012 at 06:42 PM
"You could give away the birth control and still come out ahead."
How odd, then, that they're not doing it already. Perhaps their flinty-eyed analysis is different.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 10, 2012 at 06:42 PM
test
Posted by: daddy | February 10, 2012 at 06:43 PM
"Such decay. Such rot."
DId Ronald Reagan proudly serve during WWII?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 06:43 PM
"Someone always has to pay."
A self-respecting free person should be free to bargain with an insurer for a policy that did not cover diabetes. But our government does not acknowledge the existence of such people.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 10, 2012 at 06:48 PM
As BS goes, this is peak bullshit. They did the same with tobacco settlement money.
Asshole squared: Walker
"http://www.jsonline.com/business/walker-van-hollen-chunk-of-mortgage-relief-going-to-state-budget-uj45185-139070349.html
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 06:48 PM
yeah, he did. Major in the AAC making training films.
Posted by: matt | February 10, 2012 at 06:50 PM
http://www.jsonline.com/business/walker-van-hollen-chunk-of-mortgage-relief-going-to-state-budget-uj45185-139070349.html
"But our government does not acknowledge the existence of such people."
You mean like when Dubya prohibited the gubmint from negotiating the price of drugs under his vaunted Medicare reform?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | February 10, 2012 at 06:50 PM
Baumann is rather dim, maybe not at the Drum level, but a good parrot of the latest meme,
which follows a certain pattern;
http://motherjones.com/authors/nick-baumann
further stories like his take on the Kirikaou
affair is amusing, the leaking of CIA officials is to find which officers had secured 'false confessions' that's an intriguing theory, of course is devoid of fact.
Posted by: narciso | February 10, 2012 at 06:52 PM
"DId Ronald Reagan proudly serve during WWII?"
Yes. But Abe Lincoln did not, and they named a carrier after him as well.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 10, 2012 at 06:52 PM
Full Employment for Tax Attorney's?
While watching Neil Cavuto go at it with Reagan's former Budget Director David Stockman, I received an e-mail from work telling us that "The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011" is kicking in.
"... This provision imposes an additional income tax on these higher-income employees in an amount equal to 2 percent of the amount of wages they receive during the two-month period in excess of $18,350 (and not greater than $110,100)...
"This additional recapture tax is an add-on to income tax liability that the employee would otherwise pay for 2012 and is not subject to reduction by credits or deductions. The recapture tax would be payable in 2013 when the employee files his or her income tax return for the 2012 tax year. With the possibility of a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut being discussed for 2012, the IRS will closely monitor the situation in case future legislation changes the recapture provision..."
"Employees should consult with their personal tax advisor regarding the specific tax impact as it varies based on individual facts and circumstances."
I would kill for a simple Flat Tax.
Posted by: daddy | February 10, 2012 at 06:53 PM