Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I think it probably is because restaurants are related to interstate commerce. What I don't know is if Congress made any specific findings that racist restaurant owners hindered AA travel. If they did, then it's an easy win. If not, then maybe Thomas says no because Congress "didn't do its job."

I'm fairly sure a local baker is not ISC, at least according to conservative justices. It's a theoretical exercise as there is no federal law at issue.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Right, but under the Act no business no matter how unrelated to interstate commerce it is, can refuse service to blacks. At least that's my understanding.

(Gays, obviously, don't have the same protections)

I was openly wondering if the current court would agree that Congress has the authority to compel business owners to serve blacks, women, Jews, etc. My gut tells me Thomas would say "no" and maybe Alito.

Anyways I was thinking about it because David French (he writes for an obscure, unprofitable newsletter that survives on handouts) penned a column the other day that 1) Defended the baker's right to deny service to a gay couple (naturally, French abhors gay marriage) and 2) Went even further and said that it shouldn't be illegal for same baker to refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple.

His argument, as I understand it, was that the baker is taking a stand against an idea (gay marriage, interracial marriage) and not discriminating against another individual (The baker in this instance would serve gays, just wouldn't supply a cake for the wedding).

I don't really buy his argument that refusing to support interracial marriage isn't inherently discriminatory against a particular race...but it just reminded me of even further down the road arguments against civil rights legislation in general. Anyways...

[Dr. Strangelove]

On another note, The RNC is holding a Trump reelection event/fundraiser at...the Trump Hotel, just blocks from the WH. Trump will attend and speak!

Makes him money both ways! win-win!

[iam416]

Yeah, it's an interesting question re Supreme Court, at least wrt Thomas and Alito. They're certainly not ends justify means guys.

I think, generally, the question of what the government can compel citizens to do is an interesting one. Really is. Number one, there is no government action in the initial transaction, so the Constitution is out. So it's a statutory issue and then that has commerce clause issues and then potentially free exercise issues.

I guess I probably side with the political process with a narrow exception for a sincerely held religious belief. So, I'd side with Oregon unless the baker could show a sincere religious belief. I guess another exception is First Amendmet based - the prog Baker doing a cake for a Trump party.

Probably need to think on it more, but I tend to favor the orocess.

[Wild Hoss]

111 terminally ill patients people have used California's "Right to Die" law in its first six months.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...htmlstory.html

[iam416]

The CBO estimates that 15 million people would lose healthcare coverage under the R plan in the first year....well, not "lose" really -- they would decide not buy it. Personally, I consider that distinction more than semantics, but sure...the Rs are TAKING AWAY THEIR HEALTHCARE!!!!!

Meanwhile, surprisingly little mention of John Bonifield saying what we all know. Heh.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Crash, have a look at this:

Cliff Notes:

It costs more to not insure the poor, elderly and children that it does to insure them.

The motivation for the AHCA is being laid bare ..... reduce government spending (not a bad idea) to create a long term reduction in the debt (good goal) and pay for it with reduction in corporate and personal income tax rates (not good). The reason that it is not a good idea is that the harm done to the US poor in terms of morbidity and mortality is far worse than benefits gained in debt reduction through the AHCA.

Opinion:

Even Geezer said, I don't think most high income earners would have a problem with paying more for HC insurance to allow the poor to pay less (have better access to health care). This in response to the link I provided on the approach to universal HC the Swiss take.

Like most arguments coming from Trump supporters in the HC debate, they are specious and easily countered with stronger arguments supported by the facts.

This article doesn't address the issues of HC costs in the US and how to reduce them that I raised yesterday. i.e., the Congress is not now, nor has it been, grappling with the underlying reasons for the high costs of US HC. What it does do is highlight the comparatively higher cost of not insuring the poor.

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBDm3Ha?m=en-us

[Jeff Buchanan]

In fairness - or fair and balanced - I present what Fox News is pushing as alternative R/Conservative arguments to the D/prog arguments ........

The new Senate HC bill is called the the BRCA (Better Care Reconciliation Act).

I'll let you be the judge.

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBDmdK6?m=en-us

[iam416]

Yeah, I'm quite ok if you consider CNN the counter to FOX. And so is DJT.

[Wild Hoss]

Cable news is a shitshow. The end.

[iam416]

Correct. And since cable news dominates "news" that plays right into DJT's narrative on the media.

[Ghengis Jon]

I wonder how all of this will affect my employer's health care policy, in light of what is being floated in the Senate. My employer (5000 employees worldwide) is self insured. It's cheaper to just pay the bills through negotiated provider agreements than to buy actual insurance for the same level of care. Since the HC bills do nothing to address skyrocketing costs, only which group gets to pay more or less, I expect no effect.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Witch doctors are the way to go...

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jon, I think you are correct (no effect).

As I understand it, whatever they are calling the new HC bill, isn't going to have a substantial affect on commercial HC insurance short term.

However, both Medicare and Medicaid, the programs most negatively effected by the AHCA, do the same thing your company does - negotiated provider agreements.

IOW, an insurance company will bid to take care of a set of Medicare/Medicaid folks for $X pp. If one of them costs the company $250K and they only charge $150K for that person, the company is out $100k.

With a reduction in Medicaid block grants to the states, if this same company offers commercial insurance and that company happens to be the one that insures your company's employees, guess what? You'll probably be asked to pay more for the same coverage you are receiving now, or you'll pay a higher cost share.

All of the HC plan BS coming out of the lips of Senators et. al. is nothing more than about transferring costs away from the Feds while putting a smiley face on it and talking very little about who is going to end up paying out the ass either in dollar terms or in the dollar value of decreased access to HC. The BS is being made more malodorous by the fact that the Congress is not even dealing with the structural aspects of the US HC system that, more than anything, is responsible for it's high cost. Juts transfer the cost somewhere else beside the Fed ..... not our problem anymore.

IMO, this is wrong but Trump supporters that post here and probably every where else feel fine about it, I guess.

[Wild Hoss]

Correct. And since cable news dominates "news" that plays right into DJT's narrative on the media.

That narrative has been around longer than Politician Trump though...his predecessors refrained from diving into that mudpit personally however, whereas he revels in it. As does almost all of the electorate, judging by cable news' bulging ratings.

Yay us.