Sunday, November 17, 2013

The Obamacare post

What a miserable mess.

My friend Derf summed it up nicely in this strip, but no worries. I will enumerate my complaints herein.

I am disgusted at Obama and his administration for:

1) the dismal lack of communication/education regarding the ACA and the subsequent confusion that has plagued the law from the onset.

2) the abject technical failure of the roll out.
The discourse regarding these failures often includes a reference to the three luxurious years Obama had to avoid them. Three whole years! 


In those three years a couple of tiny details hindered the ACA. Okay, maybe they weren't so tiny. First, there was Supreme Court decision in June 2012 which spilled into the presidential election. Both events were extended dramas we painfully endured until the threatening does the ACA live or die! toggle switch was flipped.

It's easy to say neither spectacle should have affected development of the ACA, but does anyone believe that the entire program didn't suffer while those sorts of razor-sharp pendulums swung above it?

As a backdrop to the battles of 2012, we've had the GOP's war on health care reform from the onset. It included an impressive monolithic opposition, a slew of red states refusing to set up their own exchanges and myriad local efforts to hinder outreach. The list goes on and on.

A few years ago a pundit nailed it. Although I can't recall the details, essentially he said that for a program as big and complex as the ACA to succeed, the entire country would have to work together, including every level of government from state capitols to Pennsylvania Avenue. We have not and (for now) the ACA is floundering. Badly. And whether you like the present health care reform or not, you will pay the price if it fails. This debacle belongs to the entire country no matter which side of the aisle you're on, just like the Iraq War did.

We're all Americans.

Had the conservatives not waged war, but instead rolled up their sleeves as they did with Medicare in 1965 (after fighting its inception and conceding defeat), and worked for the last three years improving the law, things would look a lot different today. The result would not have been perfect, but it would have been better (see: Romneycare). Of course, that's not how it played.

When the Right's euphoria over the troubled ACA subsides, conservatives are going to be left with the not-so-little problem of offering up a health care reform plan of their own. Why have they failed to formulate said plan? After all, they've had three whole luxurious years to do so. The reason is simple: the ACA is conservative health care reform and always has been.

That's correct: conservatives have spent the last three years battling to topple their own solution to health care reform. The proof is the yawning absence of an alternative. Folks, if they had a good idea, we'd have heard it by now. They don't. They never did. Think back on how quickly those enthusiastic chants of Repeal and Replace! were truncated to ... erm ... um ... Repeal!

The only real alternative now is the expansion of a single payer program, which is all I ever wanted. As it stands, one third of the country is already enjoying a big fat GOV socialized health care program by way of Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare. Ironically, the GOP's fervent opposition to reform may lead the country to the one option conservatives hate more than Obamacare.

Holy hospitals, Batman!

A lot of folks are upset over policy cancellations. What a stunning change of heart. I don't remember many in that group being up-in-arms about people losing their coverage before the ACA. Methinks those indignant Righties don't care much about the actual cancellations, although they do like them. Those cancelled policies represent yet another opportunity to attack Obama because he said they wouldn't happen.

You lie!

Truth: the cancelled policy debacle is one of the things that should have been sorted out over the past three years, and likely would have been (along with a host of other problems) if not for the GOP's airtight opposition.

For better or worse, Obama and his signature legislation have sustained some pretty significant wounds in this war. His call for insurers to extend those cancelled policies last week is part of the bleeding.

Yeah, yeah.

A couple of months ago, the big crisis was chemical weapons in Syria. Last month it was the GOV shutdown. Now we have this mess. Maybe it will fade in a couple of months, maybe not. But while it's not my reform of choice (which is single payer for one and for all), I'm still holding out hope for the ACA.

I don't know what will happen, but turning back is not an option. People are no longer going to accept denial of coverage based on a preexisting condition. They are not going to accept the deletion of their otherwise uninsured adult children from their policy. States like Ohio are not going to give back the Medicaid money. Insurance companies are not going to throw out the work of the last three years without legal hellfire. The list gets longer every day. People may not be signing up in droves, but they are signing up.

Dear GOP, please put down your guns. The more you stab at the ACA, the bloodier we're all going to get. It's time to make this goddamn thing work.

Talk about your wishful thinking.

*  *  *


Tony Rugare said...


Kalei's Best Friend said...

Let's just say my confidence has been knocked down to the point where I will NOT believe whatever comes out of another politician's mouth.. He's backpedaling on the cancelled insurance for some and it will never work.. The ball of mess has just gotten bigger...Kind of like the character Pigpen.

Kirk said...

Defenders of Obamacare always point out that it was invented by Republicans.

Could THAT be the reason it's not working?

Bill said...

Actually, the reason it's not working is because none of the Republicans who voted against it (that would be all of them) are now supporting it. I think.

Mrs. C said...

Thank you once again, Erin, for your cogent explication.

Erin O'Brien said...

Hi gang.

Kalei, I sure can't blame you for that stance.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Democrats should have read the fucking bill bill before they passed it in the dark of night?

Joe said...

Yep, it is the Republican's fault the Democrats passed a bill they failed to read. It is the Republican's fault the Democrats refused any Republican input or amendments. It is the Republican's fault we are not seeing $2500 reduction in our premiums. It is the Republican's fault the Sec of HHS is a nitwit. It is the Republican's fault the administration hired Michelle's college buddy to develop the website. It is the Republican's fault Obama's teleprompter told him to say you could keep your insurance.

What a crock of shit. Do all liberals live in fantasy land? What next? Perhaps if the Allies had not opposed the Nazis there would have been no WWII? If we would have helped the Germans instead of opposing their expansion we would have prevented 50 million deaths?


Erin O'Brien said...

Yay! Angry righties swearing and invoking the Nazis!

Why are you guys always so mean?

Also: I love how people act like the DEMs pulled a quickie passing the ACA. No one seems to remember the bloody public one-year battle over it.

Also: Romneycare.

Also: Single. Payer. Now.

Also: Romneycare.

Also: Still waiting on the GOP's alt plan ...

Also: (ahem) Romneycare.

Anonymous said...

1.Lower the enrollment age for Medicare to 0. Close 699 of 700 off hsore U.S. Military bases (leave American Samoa for obvious reasons) Problem Solved.

2. @Anon. The failures associated with ACA have nothing to do with who read/didn't read the 2000+ pages of the legislation that passed strictly along party lines. What a tired old cliche'.

3. @Joe. Many would label me "liberal." I do not live in a fantasy land. The ACA has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. strategy toward the Nazi's in WWII. What a tired old cliche'. (Sorry but when there are mulitiple tired old cliches per thread I find myself using the same tired old disclaimer)

4. The Dow just hit 16000 for the first time in history. Boeing just took record orders of 150 billion for planes at the Dubai Air Show yet they don't know where the planes will be built because the workers Union in Seattle will not conceed pension cuts to a CEO who has a guaranteed 260,000 dollar a month package waiting for him upon departure. The constituencies of the two major parties are both the same-Wall Street and associated gravy sucking pigs. If the ACA is so fucking bad for America where is the cacophony of voices in opposition from the insurance industry? Wellpoint Inc. @ 90.22, NYSE. It's all theatre. Read a book, get a clue. The oligarchs are grinding the proletariat under their boothills.


Anonymous said...

Correction: Boot heel.


Erin O'Brien said...

And as the Dow reaches unprecedented heights, it costs about $22,000 per year (room/board/tuition/books) to send a kid to an in-state college.


... and health insurance for an average family costs about $16,000+ a year.


Before you blame that cost on Obamacare, you'll need to take a good look at this chart from Forbes.

At least the ACA includes the 80/20 rule and the Cadillac tax in an effort to tackle cost. Will they work? I have no idea.

Erin O'Brien said...

The Forbes chart was embedded in this article. You might want to take a close look at the whole thing.

Erin O'Brien said...

And Joe, as for whether or not I live in a "fantasy land," take another look at the numbers I posted above.

Feel free to tell me differently, but I can't think of one big-vision plan to address the problem of health care reform from the right side of the aisle other than Romneycare.

Fantasy land? Who do you think is going to try and tackle this nightmare? Magic pixies?

Anonymous said...

Hiya Erin-do you enforce Godwin's here? If not perhaps it ought to be considered. You never know when one or another twit is going to lose all sense of proportion and then shame his/her entire tribe with a really, really, really stupid comparison of German history, 1932-45, with something current that isn't even remotely comparable.
But that's not why I called:

I was wondering if the Platinum Package of Plentitude health insurance available to the members of the Congress has really good mental health coverage? Cognitive dissonance coverage in particular?

It seems that there are members of our august legislature who, having been unalterably opposed to making affordable health insurance coverage for the 40-million or so Americans who had none that are NOW simultaneously being called upon to feign distress over a far smaller number of Americans who are or may be losing their policies.

These dueling imperatives are leaving quite a mental mess behind and some of those folk's attics were pretty cluttered to begin with.

I hope all of the insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists are taking care as they drop off their bribe...err...campaign contributions to also drop off ample supplies of Valium, Thorazine and aspirin to our legislator's offices. It's only fair.


Anonymous said...

"Platinum Package of Plentitude" made me smile. Granted it is a cynics smile but a smile nonetheless.

@MR.-As best as most psychologists can determine Antisocial Personality Disorders don't experience Cognitive Dissonance. Ergo they are more in need of prisons than psych hospitals. Unfortunately our culture is loathe to punish their shenanigans. It is, after all, The American Way. (See: JPM 18 billion dollar settlement. No one goes to jail.)


Bill said...

OK. So Obama knew that millions of people would lose their private policies and lied about that. Now we know that he also knew that millions more would lose their company sponsored policies. He didn't mention that in his recent apology for the first lie. Now we find out that the census faked the unemployment numbers prior to the 2012 election to make the President look better. If it weren't for quantitative easing, people might not like the President.

Anonymous said...

So Bill trolls liberal websites and makes snarky comments that have no bearing on anything being discussed. If people knew what a dick he is they might not like him.


Bill said...

So someone reads a blog comment from Bill that they can't argue with but irritates them. They use the same format Bill used and end by calling Bill a name that high school kids used to insult each other with.
Liberal tactics really never change. Lose the argument and call names or insult people. True, Martin Bashir like, commentary. I love it. Really! The President either lying or ignorant about his own ACA, has no bearing on anything being discussed about ACA. Jailing JPM executives does. Uh huh.

Anonymous said...

"Lose the argument and call names or insult people"-The Conservative Strategy. Imitation the sincerest form of flattery.

JPM comment tagged specifically for MR.



Anonymous said...


Currently there are two terrific made-in-Cleveland bootlegs on YouTube that are both whatever the next level from 'stellar' is.

One is Genesis 1976 at the Cleveland Music Hall. Their breakout tour, the first after Peter Gabriel went solo. Recorded by WMMS for broadcast, the sound quality is staggering. On some of the quieter passages you'd swear the boys were playing your living room. Probably the best 'Carpet Crawlers' I've ever heard and that includes a LOT of Gabriel shows.

The second is Yes at the late Richfield Coliseum, September 19 1978. A lot of folks at fan sites cite this as the best Yes boot ever recorded. Another WMMS gem. The first time the band took their in-the-round production on the road. One hears a lot of camaraderie and unity in this show, which made their break-up a year later an unwelcome surprise.



Anonymous said...

And now, in the interest of truth, a few facts about the 'census fake' story, for people who prefer to know more about a news story than its headline.

First off, the story's provenance: this story from John Crudele appeared in the New York Post, which means News Corp., which means Fox and Rupert Murdoch. One may or may not choose to take that into consideration in assessing the quality of Mr Crudele's 'journalism.'

Next: The Post's headline that reads "Census 'faked' 2012 election jobs report" is not actually addressed in the body of Mr Crudele's story. Sorry, righties, but it's just not there. There is not one single verifiable fact produced about alleged 'rigging' of the 2012 election jobs report. It's just not there. In the classic words of Annie Savoy, "You could look it up."

Next: Crudele's story mentions a single employee from the Bureau of Labor by the name of Julius Blackmon, as the employee caught turning in fake data. Mr Blackmon was caught doing this in TWO-THOUSAND-FUCKING TEN. Not 2012. Not six weeks before the election.

Next: In Crudele's article Blackmon claims he was ordered to manipulate the unemployment surveys by a 'higher-up' but, quite curiously for such a momentous order, he cannot remember a name, a date, or even what department the 'higher-up' belonged to.

Next: Mr Crudele cites a single anonymous 'knowledgeable source' to back his claim that this activity carried over to the 2012 campaign. There is zero corroboration for this claim.

Next: The unemployment numbers are generated from two sources: the Household Survey (which is the survey discussed here) and the Payroll Survey*, which consists of direct contacts with employers.
Historically, these two surveys closely mirror each other and this instance is no different. If any notable fraud or chicanery took place, the two surveys should differ greatly from that historical trend for the 2012 election season. They don't.

Next: Crudele's story characterizes the numbers fudging as "creating people out of thin air." This is not true (or even possible) for this story, nor any other survey conducted by the same office: surveyors are handed a set of contacts to make, and they cannot just fill in anyone they wish: the worst case here is that a surveyor could make up answers for an individual already on his contact list.

Next: for the purposes of this poll the country is divided into six districts. Mr Blackmon could have only impacted one of the six districts. And in fact that district (centered around the Philadelphia area) did not reflect a lower unemployment rate. It was static.

I could put up a lot more
information but I'm getting tired. I was able to gather this information in somewhat around 60 minute's research time. And here's the great thing about the Internet, my fellow Americans: ANYONE CAN USE IT TO GATHER AND/OR VERIFY FACTS. Anyone. Of course, when I say 'anyone,' I'm referring to anyone interested in truth and the facts. I suppose everyone else can go back to the New York Post's headlines.


*-I am shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you, that a fine 'journalist' like Mr Crudele didn't feel that that fact was germane to the conversation.

PS: If anyone is interested, among other sources I looked at the sites for Atlantic Monthly, Business Insider, International Business Times, the New York Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Media Matters. Mediaite, the National Journal, Slate, Salon, the HuffPo, and memeorandom.

Erin O'Brien said...

I think I conceded the ACA's massive troubles pretty clearly in the body of my post. They aren't going to get better until someone fixes them. Bill continually proves my point. The Right doesn't want to talk about solutions, they want to talk about Obama's downfalls.

Since January 2009, the GOP has had one goal: destroy Obama and everything he touches. We will all pay the price.

As for Obama's "lies," the word implies intent and malice. I don't think it applies. I just can't believe Obama would think to himself, well, I'll just go out there and lie about these troubles ... after all, no one will notice ...

No, that does not excuse him.

You want to talk about malicious and intentional lying, talk about Curveball and George Tenet and WMD.

Anonymous said...

"The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new."

Samuel Beckett-"Murphy"


Bill said...

E: Yes. You did concede the ACA's massive troubles. Obama owns the ACA and all of the problems associated with it. It's not failing because it has opponents. Not one Republican lawmaker voted for it. Place the blame where it belongs. Repeal the law, do something to stop the bleeding. (120 seconds)

Bill said...

Unrelated but weird: Bill Clinton and Gloria Steinem, among others, are both receiving the Medal of Freedom from the President, today.

Erin O'Brien said...

Repeal? Will you care about the millions of uninsurable people then? Did you care about them before?

What's the GOP's Plan B, Bill?

Anonymous said...

"Repeal the law, do something to stop the bleeding."-Bill

Death stops the bleeding. Bill knows this because he was friends with a Corpsman.


Anonymous said...

The problem with providing insurance in any form by either party does nothing to address the real problem. The real problem is the inflated costs driven by lawyers, until you get the basic problem under control any plan will fail. Example, I had a heart attack five years ago, the initial bill was $46,000.00, the final settlement was $16,000.00 allowed by my insurance company and Tri-care. I was in the hospital less than 24 hours. Two years later,another problem, went in on Friday out on Monday, bill was $120,00.00, exactly the same process and final settlement was $26,000. Now tell me where is the real problem?

James Old Guy

Bill said...

JOG. I see no problem with the system. You received the care you needed (thank God) and you're here to comment on this wonderful blog. The initial bills were going to cover the uninsured who got the same excellent treatment you received. The insurance companies negotiated with the hospital. It works and no one is ever refused treatment at a hospital.

Erin O'Brien said...

"The real problem is the inflated costs driven by lawyers."

I agree about the costs, not so sure it's just the lawyers to blame.

I got a call from my doctor's office out of the blue (Cleveland Clinic). Time to schedule a routine appt, the girl said.

"What will it cost?" I asked.

Dead silence.

I proceeded to give that girl a very hard time. You want to have some fun? Ask your doc or nurse how much that test is going to cost when they recommend it.

Way too many people don't care about the costs because their insurance plan (which they pay out the ass for) covers it. They feel entitled to more drugs, tests and procedures than they need.

The most obvious answer is regulation (to get the care givers in check), higher deductibles and copays (so patients have more skin in the game). I say start with standardized pricing--or at least the SAME damn price for all patients for the same procedure at one office or hospital.

Can you imagine if hospitals had to post pricing for a standard mammogram, cholesterol test, x-ray reading .... ?

They'd have a fit.

Imagine if someone asked me how much my book cost and I said, "Depends. How much you got?"

Bill, the "no one is ever refused treatment" theory is bullshit and always has been. If it were such a great plan, no one would carry insurance.

There is no way this country is going to go for the repeal of the ACA and then forget about any sort of reform. The only real option on the table is to start working on the law, adding regulations and making it work.

So then,GOP, got a Plan B?

Erin O'Brien said...

Also, I won't get into all I know about the medical industry (it's a lot), but be rest-assured the high pricing is all about the monster called Capitalism killing the kindly old Hippocratic oath, the bean-counters telling the docs they need to fill beds and plenty of Americans with hypochondria more than willing to oblige.

Anonymous said...

@ James OG-comment for you below.


The only person identified by name in the 'Census Faked' story, Julius Blackmon, left the Census Bureau in 2011.

I am SHOCKED, shocked I tell you to find that the NY Post and News Corp have created a story around this issue while not mentioning some of the omissions in their own initial reporting.

JOG, my comment for you coming right up-

You are preaching to the choir with your experiences on mind-numbingly too-dumb-for-a-rational-person-to-contemplate health care pricing. This is what happened to me: Four or five years ago I needed treatment at an in-patient facility. The insurance company initially refused to cover the treatment because of all things my vitals were too near normal. The insurance company was paying $2,400 per day to the provider. When I was initially refused I asked what the damages would be as a self-pay; I really could not grasp the answer: $700/day. That's the difference created by all the frickin' red tape, paperwork and CYA of the day-to-day insurance grind. And it reflects I think some of the massive amount of money that could be used elsewhere if it weren't tied to the insurance carrier.

Anyway, JOG, thanks for your post because it jogged my memory of my pretty bad, no-good, really sorta terrible experience.


Anonymous said...

@ James Old Guy-I despise lawyers as much as anyone else:

(Example: What do a lawyer and a sperm cell have in common? Each one has a one in 2 million chance of developing into a human being.)

But they're not the whole problem, at least in my experience. I have been seeing some effed-up things for a while now. Many sectors of the economy that can't be outsourced show steadily increasing prices. Fuel, food, education, and health care, all of these have shown rising prices. The increases seem to bear little relation to the rules or laws that would ordinarily govern supply and demand. It's just not working anymore.


Bill said...

Erin. The opinion, by the good Dr., about emergency room care is very interesting and informative but not totally accurate. I guess each state treats this situation differently. I know, for a fact, that Stanford Hospital emergency room treats non life threatening illness. They prescribe drugs, do blood tests, xrays, ct scans, stitches, etc. Insurance or not. Money or no money. Of course it's not the ideal way to get health care and that is why people buy insurance. They want to have a relationship with a doctor. On the left coast we have clinics for people who can't afford insurance. We have programs for children. Yes. Tax payers, and philanthropists pay for these safety nets but isn't it obvious that ACA isn't working and never will?

I do some work for a VC funded, start up with about 60 employees. I don't participate in their health insurance but a notice was sent today that they avoided the 15 to 20% premium increase, caused by ACA, by renewing the old policy early. Guess what will happen next year when they are forced to go ACA. Yes, I care about the millions of people without insurance. I also care about the many more millions who will, this year or next, receive their cancellation notices.

Anonymous said...

Pissing in the ocean but what the hell...Read something about the math of high risk pools. Saw the CEO of Wellpoint testify on C-Span BEFORE ACA. Probably out there on the web somewhere. Have to eliminate preexisting conditions and have EVERYONE covered for the costs to come down. That's where the individual mandate comes from, not Marx.


Anonymous said...

P.S. Worked in healthcare 30 plus years. People that come to the ER for Primary Care do no health maintenance. They're damn near dead by the time they get there. Costs of treating those folks enormous. Only needed to see one 5 year old little girl with Leukemia brought in by her grandmother. to know what the right thing to do is.


Erin O'Brien said...

"On the left coast we have clinics for people who can't afford insurance. We have programs for children."

I loves me a red red dot living in a midnight blue state touting its liberal benefits.

"Isn't it obvious that ACA isn't working and never will?"

After just two months? No, I don't think it's obvious that the ACA will never work (.. um ... Romneycare ... )

And this is perhaps my favorite part of your comment: a group of Venture Capitalists send out a notice to their employees that Whew! While we got in under the wire this time around, folks, just wait until next time! Obamacare is really coming to get you! Really! Not yet, but you just wait!

Uh huh.

Also, still waiting to hear Plan B.

Erin O'Brien said...

Not sure whether or not it's pertinent, but two cents from Robert Reich's via facebook:

"I keep hearing references to a pending "inter-generational war" as boomers seek to hold on to Social Security and Medicare at the "expense" of children and young people who need everything from better nutrition to preschool to more affordable college. Baloney. First, America is rich enough to fulfill the needs of the elderly as well as the young. What we lack is the political will to tax the wealthy, close tax loopholes, and end corporate welfare. Second, Social Security isn't a budget problem (to the contrary, until recently its surpluses financed the rest of the government). And Medicare, rather than being a problem, is really a potential solution to the real problem of rising health costs; because its administrative costs are far lower than those of private insurers, everyone would benefit (including our young) if we had Medicare for all. The inter-generational warfare theme is just another device used by those who want Americans to fight over a small slice of pie whose major portion is going to a few at the top."

Anonymous said...

Yo Erin,

Then there's this Re: California.

(Sacramento, CA)
Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor
says a budget that less than three years ago had a $26 billion dollar deficit is now headed for a $2 billion surplus. That’s on top of an extra $3 billion in extra revenue earmarked directly for schools and community colleges.

Now run on over to Red State and read all the posts about everyone fleeing California for Texas because it's becoming a 3rd World Country.


Bill said...

I was just pointing out a real world example of how the employer delay works. This company picks up 90% of the premium for their employees. Who knows what they will do next year? This scenario is happening for 50 to 100 million people by next year at this time. You can make a joke out of it but it won't be funny right before the mid term election.

Bill said...

This supports what I mentioned about employer plans

Erin O'Brien said...

Here is the goddamn truth no one wants to hear: we put off reform for way too long and the mess is really big. If you are between 30 and 60, you're very likely going to bear the brunt of righting this miserable ship.

As for your example, Bill, 90 percent reimbursement? Jeezy!

Bill said...

I know, Erin. That is pretty generous. I think about 40 of the 60 employees earn a modest hourly wage that would be almost impossible to live on in the, very expensive, Bay Area. The benefit program is huge for them. A premium increase or throwing them into the ACA would/will be a big deal. It's not clear which hospitals will be in the network(s).

I understand, now, that the Obama administration is delaying the employer mandate a month or so to make it AFTER the 2014 election. Why?

Anonymous said...

Good evening all-

Stanford University's medical facilities were mentioned above, and an important reason for their largesse in pro-bono work is that Stanford's one of the biggest teaching hospitals in the country. They literally need the work. They're also supported by Stanford's endowment of nearly $19billion Depending on one's transportation situation in the Bay Area it's a terrific option if one can in fact get there. UCSF, Laguna Honda, or Highland hospitals might give a rounder idea of what the pro-bono care picture is in the area.


* if you can, find somebody who works for Stanford's endowment trust. Over the last decade they're beating the market by nearly 40 points.

Year after year Stanford, Yale and Harvard fight it out in the top three rankings. Between Stanford University and the Med centers they have the support of an $18.7B endowment*.

I was pleased to discover that all of the top ten schools for primary care are state schools.

Bill said...

Another inconvient truth or unintended consequence of Obamacare

Anonymous said...

Off Topic:

Unintended consequences of Priest's.


"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote.


Bill said...

Evidently the Pope has determined that the problems of the poor can be addressed with more money. He is trying to figure out how to get more money to them if markets and financial speculation are eliminated. He'll get back to us.

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see the Vatican list St. Peters bone fragments on Ebay with the proceeds to charity but I guess that'd be speculation.


Erin O'Brien said...

A really smart and evocative commentary on the ACA from someone a lot smarter and better connected than me.

Bill said...

Major Garrett is definitely well connected but smarter than you? Absolutely not. He did "bottom line" the ACA issue. I liked it.

Anonymous said...

Red, A Dictionary:

"(R)ejecting...absolute autonomy" now means "Eliminated."

Stay tuned for further bulletins.