why i'm in favor of single payer, and other topics...

by russell

As most folks probably know, I write code for a living.  I build software.  It's a funny industry, by which I don't mean funny-ha-ha, and is prone to strange enthusiasms.  It can be a little volatile.

I currently work for a company that's been around for a while - probably about 12 years, depending on when you start the clock.  The owner started by reselling a software-based service, using licensed software running on a small server farm in his basement, then acquired some IP and an engineering team to deal with it, and over about a decade built it into a not-bad little privately owned company, with a very healthy revenue-per-employee ratio, a nice recurring revenue business model, and lean but pretty effective operations.

Nice!

Of course, just running a nice profitable business is no longer a thing, these days everybody wants to cash out, so over the last year and a half or so we've been purchased twice, once by a bunch of finance nitwits who wanted to be a Big Deal in the "cloud space" (we are not a cloud company), and after those guys more or less ran themselves into the ground, we purchased again by a smarter crew who bought the assets on the cheap, because the first guys were running out of (other people's) cash and needed some kind of lifeline, however temporary.

"Bought the assets" means stuff, not people, so most of the employees have been cut loose.  A handful of folks, including me, are being kept on for a couple of months to do "knowledge transfer", which basically means train our replacements.  We'll get a minimal bonus if we stick it out for three months, but most likely none of us will be here that long, one way or another.

All of this is back story, offered for your reading pleasure, and to afford me an alternative to mumbling to myself while swilling Jack on ice in a dark dive somewhere.  Thanks for your indulgence.

What I'm really writing about here is what happens next.

I've already found another job, and will start there later this month.  After getting this done, my first question was, "does my current insurance continue after I leave Current Employer until I start at New Employer, or is there a gap?".  Because I live in the US of A, and like most folks here I get my insurance from my employer.

I've gotten a couple of answers to that question so far - "No" and "it depends" - so the next thing I looked into was re-negotiating my start date at New Employer so there wouldn't be a gap between end of current job and start of new job.

I send an email, HR person at new job says "Call me, it's easier to explain that way".

So, I call.  New Company HR person says, "Actually, your coverage with us doesn't start until the first day of the second full month of your employment with us". I chewed on that for a minute and realized that what she meant was "May 1".  So, not just a gap, but a large gap.

While I was sorting all of that out, New Company HR person continues on to say, "What most folks do is go without insurance, unless something happens, in which case they sign up for COBRA, which is available for 60 days, and which will be retroactive in case you need it for things that happened before you bought it".

I was somewhat taken aback by this, not realizing that this kind of paper-trail time-travel was on offer, but I realized the logic of it.  COBRA can be spendy, and why buy it before you need it?  I also realized why she didn't want to email me the answer - it's probably not in her interest to be on record as advising folks how to game COBRA coverage.

And, I also realized what a freaking cluster***k live in these United States is becoming.  Or, is already.

People ask why I think single payer is a good idea.  I think it's a good idea because what we do now is a sleeveless shambles.  It's inefficient, it's convoluted beyond belief, it requires smart-ass gaming to make it work at all.  If people's health wasn't at stake, it would be comical.  Sadly, it's not comical.

And yes, in a perfect Chicago school world, the unfettered market would make a thousand flowers bloom.  Unfortunately, what we've already seen is the "unfettered market" actors refusing to insure existing conditions, and/or going over people's paperwork after taking their premiums for decades to find some weird disqualifying typo so they can refuse coverage.

I, personally, am going to be fine.  The industry I work in is healthy and growing, my skill set is in demand, I have a good resume, I have a new job in hand.  My job and industry pay pretty well, I'll cash out some vacation time on my way out, I can cover a month of COBRA if I absolutely need to.  It'll work out.  I'm quite lucky.

I have no idea what most folks do, or how they get by.

Comments

[Tom]

I got fired. I signed up for Medicaid. Thank goodness for that.

[wj]

When I got laid off (about a decade ago), I did COBRA for a while. Then I went naked for a while -- pre-existing condition made that the main choice.

Then I got together with a couple of friends in similar positions, and created a "group" (actually a company with minimal activity). At which point, suddenly the insurance companies didn't care about our various pre-existing conditions . . . because it was, you know, a group.

Now, I'm on Medicare (aka single payer for those who vote reliably), and the others got employed and got coverage that way. So we've wrapped up the "group". But the gaming hasn't stopped.

My wife is on Obamacare. But the difference in premiums is substantial for a single person vs two halves of a married couple. So we are both signed up. Except we select a plan for her, but I never quite get around to selecting one for me. So she gets her coverage at a reasonable rate. (I don't pay premiums because, of course, I don't have a plan....;-)

[ral]

I was a principal and then president of our small software consulting company for about 18 years. A major reason for forming the company was to obtain health insurance coverage as a group.

Nowadays I work for Cisco so this is no longer an issue for me.

Of course, single payer is the sensible answer and so, also of course, I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.

[hairshirthedonist]

Socialism, death panels, culture of dependency, why-should-I-have-to-pay-for-someone-else?, etc., etc., etc.

[sapient]

It's not necessarily "single-payer" that makes other countries' health systems more sensible. For example, France has one of the best health care systems in the world, and it's not single-payer. Check out the difference in health care prices.

I wish the health care system in the US weren't so complicated and annoying, but we need to work on Obamacare, which is an excellent start. We can't really evaluate it very well when it was so thoroughly undermined by Congress.

I certainly wouldn't object to some hugely progressive Congress suddenly appearing and passing Medicare for All. Unfortunately, we even have problems with Medicare as long as health care prices are out of sight.

[ral]

... why-should-I-have-to-pay-for-someone-else?

Not understanding the concept of "insurance."

:-)

[Countme-In]

This:

"People ask why I think single payer is a good idea. I think it's a good idea because what we do now is a sleeveless shambles. It's inefficient, it's convoluted beyond belief, it requires smart-ass gaming to make it work at all. If people's health wasn't at stake, it would be comical. Sadly, it's not comical."

The only thing I could add would be four or five eff words.

At the root of all of this, is the sadistic, quintessentially American attitude that anyone who doesn't work doesn't deserve insurance or medical care, and being unemployed through no fault of one's own is a reason for the republican hordes to spit upon them and demand they die in the streets, in case anyone is under the illusion that conservative sadism is preserved for the lazy in this country.

This is why health insurance was tied to one's employment originally.

But the lazy should be insured too. Maybe the country will be lucky and the lazy will be too lazy to seek care and we'll make out like bandits.

The entire idea of a "group" is also anathema to the American "ethic", whatever the eff that is, especially one that includes folks, who because of pre-existing conditions or their relative lack of ability to afford medical care, might raise the groups' premiums.

Like George Carlin observed. If you are pre-born in this country you've got it made in the hearts and minds of these people, but once you're born, you're f8cked.

But the first part of that isn't really true. If you are a fetus inside a poor mother's womb in America, few conservatives in the political and media establishment really give a f*ck about you, except for maybe limiting your access to prenatal care and making sure your mother can't access birth control methods to prevent the next pregnancy.

Course, what they also want is for these to stop breeding like rabbits, by sheer willpower.

[Countme-In]

The healthcare insurance industry hates repeat customers, unless you are a healthy premium-paying customer, and tries to discourage the chronically ill from seeking repeat patient care.

Like the restaurant owners in Mafia films, as long as you pay for protection but don't really bother the local Don for muscle, you're O.K. Call on him one too many times, and now business is business as just about everyone says as they get you ready for a good rogering and maybe your establishment is worth more burned to the ground because of some pre-existing fire code violation.

I hardly ever access my health insurance, knock on wood. But the wood I knock on ain't cheap. So, when I get to the end, and I've transferred all of this wealth to these people without asking very much in return, do I get a refund?

[russell]

It's not necessarily "single-payer" that makes other countries' health systems more sensible.

Yes, quite so. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not married to single payer per se. Whatever works, and lots of things have been demonstrated to work.

What we have, not so much.

I see the ACA as a necessary and critical first step, and I also think it's caught up in, and to some degree knee-capped by, the overall shambolic train wreck that is the delivery and funding of health care in this country. I'm glad it was passed, I see it as a tiny beachhead in what actually needs doing, and I hope the incremental benefits it creates are recognized as such.

Basically, my position is that people shouldn't have to go through idiotic, nudge-and-a-wink contortions to be able to continue going to the doctor if they lose their job, or change jobs, or work at a trade or in a field where group coverage at a something-like-affordable-rate-if-you-squint-hard is not available.

I don't see access to health care as a right, in the sense of a "we hold these truths to be self-evident" inalienable god-given right. It's just a plainly useful Very Good Thing, like roads, potable water, schools, libraries, and a functioning sewer system.

It should be available to everybody in this country, because we are freaking rich, we can afford it, and not having some kind of basic, rudimentary coverage available for everybody ends up wasting everybody's time, money, effort, and attention.

Cuba, dirt-poor third-world failed commie state Cuba, has better health care than we do.

It's just stupid. I hate plainly stupid things, especially when well-known remedies (see sapient's link, for which many thanks!) are ready to hand.

We already spend unbelievable sh*t-tons of money on it, more than almost anybody else on the planet, per capita. You should at least be able to go one freaking weekend between job and the next without having to go through some kind of triple-bank-shot machinations to make sure you don't go f****ing bankrupt if you break your leg.

[Countme-In]

Look at the Republican murderers doing their best to raise premiums to Obamacare customers, so they can winch that Obamacare is unaffordable, you know, compared to not having insurance.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/14/1499808/-Republicans-still-fighting-to-increase-Obamacare-premiums

[cleek]

we have a population that's too stupid to not vote for an obvious fraud like Trump. we're not getting decent health care any time soon.

[Countme-In]

Nate Silver wonders:

"Wonder if Trump's recent behavior is intended to produce an implied threat that a contested convention could become violent."

Stole that from Balloon Juice.

I love this sh*t:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/48ntj1/cmv_republicans_should_allow_guns_at_their/

I hope they do. And I hope they kill each other on the floor of the f*cking Quicken Loans Arena.

Maybe they can exchange bon mots between burst of automatic gunfire regarding whether private actors' property rights Trump the unrestricted carry and use of firearms on private property, but by no means may guns be restricted around me on a public sidewalk, or in a bar, or at the Lincoln Monument, where I'm sure millions of confederate Republicans would love another shot at Abe.

I wonder who the Ohio National Guard allegiances will be with when they have to go in there? Will they shoot the Trumpsters, or will they aim their fire at the traditional Republicans.

It's hard to say, but irresponsible not to speculate.

Maybe they'll kill the right people this time around. Ya think?

But, I suspect it will only be unarmed hippie and black and Hispanic protesters who will be gunned down. Maybe the Cleveland cops will be deputized by the RNC to find out which protesters are enrolled in Obamacare and disappear them, which after all would save the Republican candidate the trouble of sending out their Obamacare expiration notices if elected.

Raise your hand with a First Amendment sign, BANG!, you're dead. Raise your hand with a weapon in it? Oh, that's fine.

Quicken? Aren't they the tax people? Maybe there is still some irony to be squeezed out of this violent clown show.

Won't they be out of business if Cruz is elected? I guess we'll know then who took Cruz out from the Manchurian Candidate rafters.

I hope Cleveland makes Chicago 1968 look like pre-Putin Crimea.

I hope the Cuyahoga River runs red.

[Marty]

Before ACA, and even now in some cases, I would take contracts as a W-2 rather than a 1099 contractor at least 6 months out of every 2 years. As a W-2 contractor I could buy insurance through the company, qualify for COBRA and know what insurance I would have, more or less, for two years. Once I had it at one company the next contract could be more lucrative because I could get 1099 rates.

It really isn't gaming the system to wait to see if you need the COBRA, it is designed that way to encourage you to sign up for the new company insurance, and you can't have both.

The biggest surprise in COBRA is you are signing up to stay on the employers plan, so when they change the plan in the middle of the 18 months you have to take what they come up with just like you work there. Or cancel.

All in all COBRA is a good thing.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

I hope the Cuyahoga River runs red.

Please. As a former PA resident I would think you'd have more respect for local customs. The culturally correct hope to make the Cuyahoga red is to burn it.

[Marty]

The culturally correct hope to make the Cuyahoga red is to burn it.

It won't burn anymore, that was an infrastructure project.

[wj]

At the root of all of this, is the sadistic, quintessentially American attitude that anyone who doesn't work doesn't deserve insurance or medical care . . . .

This is why health insurance was tied to one's employment originally.

Actually, no. (As so often, I'm not quite sure if you knew that, and just ignored it for the sake of the rant.)

Employment-based health care came about during WW II. The government (intrusively!) restricted wages. So employers needed some way to lure employees -- and health insurance wasn't wages and so wasn't controlled. And then (in 1943), the IRS (more government intrusion) ruled that employer-based health care was tax free (i.e. not income subject to tax).

[cleek]

on man, The Gap is the worst. my wife had cancer many years ago, so she will always have a "pre-existing condition". before the ACA, that pre-existing condition along with any gap in coverage could be used by future insurers as reason to deny her coverage. so we were constantly on and off COBRA and trying to time insurance coverage as we moved from job to job.

the best thing the ACA did, for us personally, is to get rid of the PEC issues.

[Marty]

the best thing the ACA did, for us personally, is to get rid of the PEC issues.

Amen. You, me and several million others.

[russell]

All in all COBRA is a good thing.

IMO COBRA is a great band-aid. I'm glad it's there.

the best thing the ACA did, for us personally, is to get rid of the PEC issues.

It might be the best thing the ACA has done, overall.

[wj]

Certainly getting rid of the PEC issues has had the biggest impact on those outside the poorest.

Sure, there were lots of folks in low-paying jobs who didn't have work-based coverage. Or just didn't have work. But when you look at people who are relatively well off -- and vote -- that was where the impact was. And is.

[hairshirthedonist]

All of this is back story, offered for your reading pleasure, and to afford me an alternative to mumbling to myself while swilling Jack on ice in a dark dive somewhere.

Why do you need an alternative?

[Marty]

"All of this is back story, offered for your reading pleasure, and to afford me an alternative to something else to do while mumbling to myself whileand swilling Jack on ice in a dark dive somewhere.

That's better.

[joel hanes]

The great darkness: W was President, my job at a well-known giant SW company was becoming steadily more depressing, and then intolerable, two family members were dying of cancer, and one day I could not take another day and quit my job.

I looked at the cost of COBRA and said "screw that" and went uninsured for eighteen months, until I got a new job. Luck was mostly with me.

[russell]

That's better.

LOL.

Luck was mostly with me.

I'm old now. I've cashed in all my "this is your lucky day!" tickets already.

[bobbyp]

"It won't burn anymore, that was an infrastructure project."

And a fairly successful one, I am given to understand. Darn that socialism.

I'm looking forward to 3 fingers of Pendleton tonight as I watch the primary results. My dark dives days came to an end some time ago...unless there is a good card game in progress.

[Ugh]

Trump!

[Ugh]

Marco Rubio truly believes in his heart that the winner of the GOP primary in Florida will win the GOP nomination for President.

Which maybe means Trump won't get the nomination, given Rubio's track record.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Which maybe means Trump won't get the nomination, given Rubio's track record."

I think we have to go with the "gold standard" of predictive ability.

What does Bill Kristol have to say about it?

[Ugh]

And Rubio drops out, despite claiming earlier today that tomorrow it was "ON TO UTAH!" Whatever, what a fraud.

[Tony P.]

cleek: the best thing the ACA did, for us personally, is to get rid of the PEC issues.

Marty: Amen. You, me and several million others.

Ted Cruz: "I will repeal every word of Obamacare."

'cause Ted is a real conservative with Christian(TM) values, you see.

--TP

[Countme-In]

"I will repeal every word of Obamacare."

If your neighbor tells you, I'm going to kill you, what do you do?

If Hitler says, I'm going to murder the Jews, what do you do?

If Stalin says, I'm going to starve the Ukraine, and murder Ukrainians, what do we do?

See, there are three hundred million weapons in possession of the citizenry in this country, roughly counting, and a guy stands at a microphone and pledges to murder 15 million Americans, some of them in our families, some of them our neighbors, all of them fellow Americans, some of them on this board, and nothing f*cking happens.

The gun ranges are silent. Flies land on the untouched AK-47s at the gun depot down the street. The Malheur fills up with sh*theads. Camo rots in the closet.

All as a guy promises to murder. ISIS should be so bulletproof.

So what good are the weapons if they don't stop a mass-murderer in his tracks.

What exactly are you going to use these weapons for if not to interdict that kind of murderous tyranny?

I mean, we don't have big stereos any longer we need to protect from theft. What, Trayvon gonna get ya?

Or are your guns just jack-off devices? Just a Constitutional fetish?

I mean, why not confiscate the damned things, if you're not going to f*cking use them for what they were intended?

To protect.

[Countme-In]

Himmler might ... might ... accept the nomination if Hitler and Goebbels seem distasteful come convention-time:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-ryan-wont-rule-out-gop-nomination

[russell]

Also sprach Trump:

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Trump said if he got a large number of delegates yet was denied the nomination: "I don't think you can say that we don't get it automatically. I think you'd have riots. I think you'd have riots. I'm representing many, many millions of people."

Houston, we have a problem.

[Countme-In]

I was just going to post that.

Martin Luther Trump, he ain't. Manotma Gandhi.

If Obama has any guts and cred, he will have Trump arrested on federal charges of inciting riots and domestic terrorism, by noon today.

And then if Trump's thugs want it, declare martial law.

And I hope they want it.

Remember, as long as Trump personally doesn't shoot anyone in the street, nearly the entire Republican establishment has committed to supporting his candidacy.

As for Houston, the city, it will be Republicans killing Republicans in the streets.

That will keep them preoccupied for a short time until the Democrat wins the Presidency, and then they will come after us.

The sizable Democratic and reasonable conservative population in Houston maybe ought to stay indoors during the proceedings.

If Clinton beats Trump or Cruz, the latter two's followers will move from rioting to genocide.

And Erick Erickson et al, who are trying to get a third party candidacy off the ground, will join in the violence against their enemies ... us.

After all, one of the items about Trump that sticks in Erickson's craw is that the former has made a few moderate noises, like a unintelligible cave troll might, about Medicare, Social Security and the birth control/women's health efforts of Planned Parenthood.

Leaving aside Trump for a sec, Cruz and Erickson's are murderers of the first water.

That they want to observe the niceties of an election before they start killing only makes them seem the anti-Trump.

Here are some impressions of the participants in Trump's rallies by Dana Milbank and others:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/03/where-did-they-get-these-ideas-part-xxv.html

I love the "looks of ecstasy, some visibly trembling" observed among the white bohunks hanging on every one of Trump's threats.

These are people getting ready to kill. All of them are armed, as are Cruz and Erickson's cadres.

Is it becoming clear why?

At this point, America would be lucky if the lot of them turned out to a suicide cult, like the Jim Jones zombies.

[russell]

Huckabee on the cancelled Trump rally in Chicago (as posted on Facebook):

It was disheartening to see some of my fellow Republicans who claim to be defenders of the Constitution trying to pin some of the blame for the mob’s actions on Trump. Yes, maybe he should be more careful about what he says. But if you believe in free speech and individual responsibility, then you shouldn’t fall into the trap of blaming one person’s actions on another person’s words. No matter what Trump said, it doesn’t give anyone the right to violate his free speech or threaten his supporters, any more than what the protesters say about Trump gives his supporters the right to punch them in the nose. If we’re going to let people blame their actions on other people’s words, then we should’ve arrested the Beatles for what Charles Manson did.

Huckabee may be committing a felony assault on several figures of speech here, most notably that perennial favorite, 'analogy'.

As well as, by dragging the Beatles into it, walking on the fighting side of the Count.

But he's just one of many examples of folks rallying around Trump in recent days, as he gets closer and closer to being the (R) nominee.

Huckabee's daughter was recently hired as a senior advisor to the Trump campaign, so I guess there's that, too.

[Countme-In]

It would be interesting to find out Huckabee's views on the influence of Nugent's "Cat Scratch Fever" on the mass murders of school children.

Obama nominates Garland.

McConnell, Hatch, and Ryan say Garland is a dead white guy walking.

They're holding out for this hopeless romantic after the election, someone who agrees with them and who the American people can get behind, because you certainly don't want this Republican Judge getting behind YOU:

http://juanitajean.com/hoochy-east-texas-style/

[cleek]

here's Huckabee on BLM:

From Baltimore to Beverly Hills, this movement has incited violence, chaos and disrespect. It’s time for President Obama and the Democrat Party to stop pandering to a movement that riots and supports violence against police. How many law enforcement deaths will it take for the political class to stand with the people who put their lives on the line to keep us safe?

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2015/9/the-appalling-recklessness-of-the-black-lives-matter-movement-and-the-democrat-party

[Marty]

then you shouldn’t fall into the trap of blaming one person’s actions on another person’s words.

In the end, the blame is quite shared in the sense that both sides have started to talk about violence as an undeniable, if not quite acceptable, response to certain outcomes.

But if we want to talk analogies, lets talk about how the riots in Ferguson were the result of a bunch of things that made them understandable, if not quite acceptable.

Despite the Counts edge of acceptability rants about Republican leaders and Trump being Hitler, the reality is that we are approaching a day of accountability for the fanning of flames on all sides.

Trump is no more responsible for that than Al Sharpton. The flames of anger at the other are not stoked only by old, white, conservative men. They are the centerpiece of all of our political discourse. Each disagreement being portrayed as the most hateful interpretation on both sides.

The alternatives we are now facing are the product of that marketing. The real problem is that we have created a society where talking about others in the extreme way is ok. People don't disagree on immigration, they hate the rule of law or they are racists. People don't disagree on abortion, they hate women or they hate unborn babies. People don't disagree on welfare, they hate black people or they hate black people. People don't disagree on the ACA, they are murderers or they are thieves. Whoever wins is whoever can make the other side look more evil.

That may well end in bloodshed. In one place, then the reality of all this BS will suddenly become clear. People don't want their sons and daughters sent off to war, how many do you think will die in a civil war before someone says this is stupid?

[Countme-In]

"When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and turn and I go for a ride
'Til I get to the bottom and see you again
Yeah, yeah, yeah"

Have to admit Paul's lyrics describe precisely Huckabee's grifting political career in which he slides right to the bottom every election cycle but finds another grift and takes it from the top to give us yet another profitable ride for himself.

Like Sir Walter Raleigh, Huckabee is such a stupid get.

[cleek]

i would've posted that quote on Huckster's FB page, but i don't actually want his legions of asshole supporters to know my name.

[russell]

both sides have started to talk about violence as an undeniable, if not quite acceptable, response to certain outcomes.

I'm still looking for where Clinton or Sanders have said that there will be riots if they aren't nominated.

I'm still looking for where Cruz or Kasich have said as much, for that matter.

It ain't a side thing, it's a Trump thing. Huckabee's just hitching his wagon to what he thinks is a star.

[ral]

[Marty] Trump is no more responsible for that than Al Sharpton.

Pretty loose analogy, Marty. Al Sharpton has 0% chance of being nominated for President.

Sure, the Count fans flames around here but who cares what we think?

[Marty]

the only difference between Trump and Sharpton is Trump is running for President this year. You can focus on the obvious differences, but the Democratic politicians and their surrogates have been talking about violence in the streets as an understandable response for decades. Trump will come out and say he doesn't condone violence in the streets, he was just observing what could happen, and then he will sound like everyone else. All of which, of course, misses the point that both sides use hate speech regularly.

[ral]

Eh? "... talking about violence in the streets..."? To whom and to what are you referring?

I hang out around here rather than elsewhere because mostly we don't have hate speech.

I am kind of tired of hearing "both sides do it." This is a false equivalence. I wrote once before, eventually a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. We have passed that point.

[russell]

the only difference between Trump and Sharpton is Trump is running for President this year.

a trivial, insignificant detail.

You can focus on the obvious differences, but the Democratic politicians and their surrogates have been talking about violence in the streets as an understandable response for decades.

I think the point you are actually trying to make is not-unreasonable, but you're not advancing it with this claim.

(D) politicians don't use language equivalent to Trump's.

(R) politicians don't either, by and large, with the notable exception of talk about "2nd Amendment solutions". A significant exception, I'll grant you. But in general, they don't go on about punching people in the face, or paying for the legal bills of folks who assault other folks.

Trump is kind of unique.

That may well end in bloodshed

No sh*t.

It's not something to encourage, or look forward to.

[Marty]

no we haven't, there were weeks of justification of the riots in Missouri and elsewhere by the left wing pundits and politicians, and that was following decades of those justifications. That follows months of threats of riots if the courts didn't come back with the right verdicts. If there is a difference in kind it is that the left supports actual violence in the streets.

[Marty]

Russell, there are two points in there: one is recognition of the deterioration in comity that leads to the current environment, of which Trump is a product. The second is that violence, particularly the threat of it, is an ongoing tool of the left to get its way, so I think there is some pearl clutching going on here.

[russell]

violence, particularly the threat of it, is an ongoing tool of the left to get its way

Not since the Weathermen blew themselves up, as far as I can tell.

There's a fairly large difference between understanding the reasons for public violence, and encouraging and abetting it.

I can understand why some of Trump's people are pissed off. I'm pissed off about some of the same things. What I don't accept is Trump egging them on.

If you're saying you buy the whole "Trump's not condoning, he's just observing" thing, I frankly don't believe you.

[Countme-In]

"People don't disagree on welfare, they hate black people or they hate black people."

I know you mistyped, but it probably seems like that to most black people.

We have two choices -- either blame the black people or blame the black people.

Nothing new there.

In fact, during the Tea Party revolt against Obamacare in 2009/2010 (where armed conservatives showed up; no armed liberals showed up to counter) wherein Obama was depicted as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose by white Socialist Medicare recipients, instead of this: "People don't disagree on the ACA, they are murderers or they are thieves." could have been stated as "People don't disagree on the ACA, they are black people or they are black people," and gotten to the nub of the matter.

As for Sharpton, I recall declaring him an anti-Semite on these pages years ago. F8ck him and f*ck his media gig and f*ck those who gave it to him.

Sharpton is going to love him some Trump.

As for Ferguson, despite the depredations by the local police force over the years on the local population, I agree in this once instance with the grand jury report that the police officer had little choice but to use force, if we must arm our police, on the guy who attacked him, who by the way, was a bully on the loose.

But how many other similar incidences of unarmed blacks being gunned down without anywhere near the provocation do we have at our disposal to riot over?

Rahm Emanuel could use a riot or two to chasten his arrogance.

"How many do you think will die in a civil war before someone says this is stupid?"

Fair question.

At this point in time, one, maybe two unarmed liberals before we give up.

I'd say we've have to go through several thousand armed hardcore conservative cadres, who are now whipped into a frenzy, before we got to a sensible one who suddenly realizes his COBRA has expired and the trip to the triage tent might be a little more than his pocketbook can handle, and puts his hands up, not to mention that violence on his record might make him ineligible for Medicaid.

Mt thesis is simply this. The conservative movement, in all of its incarnations, has reached the end of its rhetorical tether. There is only one place to go if they fail this time and that ... is violence.

I'm not in favor of it.

I'm predicting it.

[Marty]

"I know you mistyped, but it probably seems like that to most black people"

I did not mistype it.

[cleek]

no we haven't, there were weeks of justification of the riots in Missouri and elsewhere

can you recall why people were rioting ?

[Marty]

"If you're saying you buy the whole "Trump's not condoning, he's just observing" thing, I frankly don't believe you."

No, I don't think he is particularly egging them on in this case, I think it is a specific threat that, one more time, should exclude him from being eligible for the office. I believe it is a felony to conspire to cause a riot.

[cleek]

No, I don't think he is particularly egging them on in this case,

WTH. he offered to pay their legal fees.

commit a crime? no worries! i'll pick up the tab!

[russell]

At this point in time, one, maybe two unarmed liberals before we give up.

FWIW, we passed that number a while back.

Still haven't given up.

[Countme-In]

If King George had better riot control, he'd have avoided the Revolution.

If Lincoln had better riot control, he'd have staunched the Civil War at Fort Sumter.

I grew up in an upper middle class environment. If many of my contemporaries, including a brother, hadn't been treated with kid gloves by the local police at the behest of their influential parents and had been treated more like the poor of all races in this country are for similar crimes by having the book thrown at them and then dunned for ridiculous fees for years in the probation system, we'd have had riots too.

[Marty]

Mitt wins...

https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/how-paul-ryan-will-pick-our-next-president-and-his-name-shall-be-mitt-58233ea612fc#.19m93qvei

[Marty]

cleek,

I'm talking about the statement on riots if he didn't get the nomination. Did you read my whole sentence? It is a fairly specific threat, not egging anyone on.

[russell]

I think it is a specific threat that, one more time, should exclude him from being eligible for the office.

We agree.

[wj]

There's a fairly large difference between understanding the reasons for public violence, and encouraging and abetting it.

I'd say that both can be pretty dispicible. (Although one or the other might be more so, depending on the size of the violence involved.)

That said, there are still significant differences here.

One side could be said to be condoning violence after the fact, by saying that it is understandable. The other not only condones it, but supports it by offering to pay the legal expenses of those involved.

One side says violence in the future will be understandable, if things don't change in the way that it thinks they should. The other calls for violence in the future, if things do not go in the way they want. You can try and argue that Trump isn't (quite) explicitly calling for violence. But the sum of his remarks make that a difficult case to make convincingly.

[Countme-In]

"Mitt wins ...."

So, you're predicting nationwide bipartisan rioting?

I warn Republicans.

Do not steal another election.

"And Congress can pick whomever they damn well please."

Then the people can do whatever they damn well please.

[Marty]

wj, My contention is that the sum total of the statements in defense and "predicting" future violence are just as provocative as the sum of what Trump says. But there is a spectrum that we are moving down. You know, authentic is the new black.

[ral]

I am going to assume that this "Mitt Wins" scenario is either humor, wild-ass hypothesizing, or just intended to provoke "the left."

I live in my own reality.

[Countme-In]

"No, I don't think he is particularly egging them on in this case, I think it is a specific threat that, one more time, should exclude him from being eligible for the office. I believe it is a felony to conspire to cause a riot."

That thing you do where you agree with me is simply maddening. ;)

[Countme-In]

If "Mitt wins" as the article pretends, maybe the Republicans will try to write it off as magic this time:

http://juanitajean.com/oh-pete/

If so, it'll be the kind of magic trick that goes horribly wrong, as when the magician's lovely sequined sidekick pulls the box apart to reveal that the volunteer lady from the audience has in fact been sawed in half and her viscera are plopping wetly to the stage floor like so many glistening fish.

[russell]

My contention is that the sum total of the statements in defense and "predicting" future violence are just as provocative as the sum of what Trump says.

A notable difference is the position of the person doing the "predicting".

You seem to be claiming that "liberals" or "lefties" gain some kind of political advantage if they, for example, say that riots may follow the killing of young black men by police in questionable circumstances.

More than that, you seem to be claiming that their making statements like that is some kind of deliberate political strategy. More than that, a deliberate provocation.

None of that seems particularly anchored in reality, to me. Just saying.

[Marty]

Of course it is anchored very deliberate political strategy, to ensure they retain the minority vote. There has never been a more blatant political strategy.

[cleek]

Of course it is anchored very deliberate political strategy, to ensure they retain the minority vote

that is, as always, a shitty, assholish thing say.

fuck you.

[russell]

All that is needed for the (D)'s to retain the minority vote is for the (R)'s open their mouths on a semi-regular basis.

Deliberately provoking public violence is neither needed, nor is it on offer.

[russell]

fuck you.

We all get under each other's skin sometimes.

Maybe we want to stop short of going quite this far.

Been there and done that myself, so no judgement, just trying to help keep this a place where we all feel mostly comfortable hanging out.

[cleek]

just trying to help keep this a place where we all feel mostly comfortable hanging out.

the suggestion that i, and presumably all other Democrats, looked at the events of the past two years and thought, "hey, how can i use this to retain the minority vote?" instead of "hey, minorities seem to be getting a raw deal from our criminal justice system, we should talk about that" doesn't make me very comfortable.

if i want that kind of inane "keep 'em on the Dem plantation" bullshit, i'll just go find Bellmore.

[cleek]

about the specific wording... i apologize.

[russell]

thanks, cleek.

[ral]

By the way, on the subject of riots and in the spirit of "Mitt Wins," let's not forget the Brooks Brothers riot.

Unlike some products of fevered imaginations, this actually happened.

[Countme-In]

If the Republicans could convince Strom Thurmond to reinstate as a Democrat, they might have better luck with voter retention.

As it is, man, the Democrats have to bend over backwards, don't they, to keep em away from the big Republican tent:

http://gawker.com/pbs-news-story-on-first-time-trump-voters-prominently-f-1765284316

It is true though that some in the black community aren't terribly happy with the Democratic Party taking them for granted.

I'm not sure Black Lives Matter is thrilled with Barack Obama.

[Marty]

the suggestion that i, and presumably all other Democrats, looked at the events of the past two years and thought, "hey, how can i use this to retain the minority vote?

First, I never suggested that cleek or russell or any other specific person, except Al Sharpton and the Democratic politicians have, since the days of LBJ, been "keeping them on the Dem plantation". You don't need Bellmore to know that. The last 30 years of taking every riot and excusing it based on "What do you expect?" is just an example of that, and one that incites the next riot just as surely as Trump offering to pay the legal fees.

I completely understand the reaction that creates the response cleek gave, I have felt it many times reading things here. I'm uncomfortable with lots of things that are written here about Republicans and conservatives. so no big deal.

Second,

[Marty]

or:
Second, I completely understand the reaction that creates the response cleek gave, I have felt it many times reading things here. I'm uncomfortable with lots of things that are written here about Republicans and conservatives. so no big deal.

[wj]

It is true though that some in the black community aren't terribly happy with the Democratic Party taking them for granted.

Let's face it. There are definitely people who believe that Obama is a far lefty who has pushed hard for minority special treatment. However they are all on the right; mostly the far right.

I doubt that anybody on the left would agree with that characterization. If anything, they would say he has been way more conservative than expected.

Which is partly because their own blinders, identical in this case to the conservatives' blinders, assume that a black man will automtically be very very liberal.

That's where black complaints about being taken for granted come from. Democrats will speak to the liberals among blacks. But they ignore the moderates and conservatives there -- assuming they will vote Democratic regardless. And, thanks to the rhetoric that is prevelant on the right, that does tend to happen.

Of course, we see the same thing with Hispanic voters. Many (probably most) of them are social conservatives. Strong ones. Which would make them ripe for recruitment by a conservative party. At least one which wasn't so determined to demonize them.

Yes, you can argue that lots of them still vote Republican. And that is true. But nowhere near the number that would do so if the GOP was willing to actually open its arms. In fact, that might make the Republicans a national majority party.

Of course, that would mean taking a more accepting view of immigration. And a more pragmatic view of the options available for dealing with our existing illegal immigrants. So it seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

[ral]

Some good advice, courtesy of Loudon Wainwright III...

Think twice
Before dropping acid,

[or pressing POST]

Hold out for
... mushrooms insteaaaaaaaad.

[Countme-In]

Cruz demands the death of moderation:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-merrick-garland-trump-deal

The hell with it. Bring on the Civil War!

[Tony P.]

Now that Republicans have a lock on the racist vote, why the hell shouldn't Democrats have a lock on the minority vote? Black people are not stupid.

Of course, in Marty's universe, noticing racial disparities is the real race card. Republicans don't see race -- in the sense that they can look at any disparity whatever and declare "It's not about race" -- so naturally the Democrats are playing black people for suckers.

--TP

[Countme-In]

You know, you could roll a grenade into this room and make America safer:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/glenn-beck-republic-stake-kasich

It's a pigf*cking hoot to watch Cruz get to the right of EVERYONE and absolutely nail it every time.

Civil War here we come.

[ral]

Count, please! That's "the war between the states."

[I can't abide the word "civil."]

[ral]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wossamotta_U

[Countme-In]

The Republican Convention is likely to the War Between The Straights

[wj]

Count, don't you think there is any chance of a "gay, mad, social whirl"? I mean, a convention is supposed to be party time, right?

[cleek]

Marty,
here is the thread:

russell:

You seem to be claiming that "liberals" or "lefties" gain some kind of political advantage if they, for example, say that riots may follow the killing of young black men by police in questionable circumstances.

More than that, you seem to be claiming that their making statements like that is some kind of deliberate political strategy. More than that, a deliberate provocation.

Marty:

Of course it is anchored very deliberate political strategy, to ensure they retain the minority vote. There has never been a more blatant political strategy.

[Marty]

yes cleek, note the use of the words they/their, not only in my comment but in russell's. Referring to the politicians/surrogates, sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Marty]

and cleek, most of that subthread was based on this:

...the only difference between Trump and Sharpton is Trump is running for President this year. You can focus on the obvious differences, but the Democratic politicians and their surrogates have been talking about violence in the streets as an understandable response for decades. Trump will come out and say he doesn't condone violence in the streets, he was just observing what could happen, and then he will sound like everyone else. All of which, of course, misses the point that both sides use hate speech regularly.

Where I was fairly specific.

[Countme-In]

wj:

I have no doubt that if the candidate promises to cut taxes to zero the gay Log Cabin Republicans may throw in with Trump's Hell Angels and KKK confederates and/or Cruz's Chastity Belt Crusaders For Ted The Risen Christ Uber Alles.

It'll be like Altamont, except the Hell's Angels will be rewarded for their brutality by being awarded the contract to replace the Secret Service for the first four years of the Republican Presidency.

One stipulation will be that they beat the living sh*t out of any Democratic Presidential Candidate during 2020 election season and call it valor under fire.

The Convention after party might be a combined lynching/orgy/street fight with the Palin kids, the Bachmann kids, and Dennis Rodman being Moe-slapped silly by Mike Tyson, until the dinner bell is rung and a barbecued Republican terducken consisting of John Kasich stuffed inside Marco Rubio stuffed inside Mitt Romney is served and torn to shreds by the ravenous mobs with an eye toward the blood pudding dessert in November.

Trump will be scratching his own behind while wearing Ben Carson and Chris Christie as sock puppets on each claw. Cruz's wife will end up face down in the punch bowl while being palpated from behind to confirm her virginity by an over-zealous county clerk who took Ted's speechs literally.

Maybe Fellini and Tarentino could be in charge of providing documentary footage of the spectacle a la Leni Riefenstahl as conservatives get their vengeance freak on.

This election will make being Republican an official pre-existing medical condition as declared by the AMA and the lot of them will have to join their very own high-risk insurance pool, because I'm certainly not going to subsidize this fatal disease.

[Countme-In]

I fully expected when I read this headline quote from Carson that his very next statement was going to be "because, after all, I am a child molester."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/carson-child-molestor-trump-comments

Has there been in recent memory such an accomplished individual in such a demanding profession who has so humiliated himself and revealed himself to be such a simpleton outside of everything besides brain surgery and in such a short period of time?

It's like everything besides brain surgery IS brain surgery to him.

It's pathetic.

No doubt Trump will hand Carson a bullhorn after the election and put him in charge of the White House Office For Inciting Riots because as Trump probably thinks, hell, Carson's "people" have been rioting for Democrats for so long that he might be good at it.

This is what happens when you spend any length time in a closet alone with Ted Cruz.

First, you get sprayed for bugs and take a shower, and then you riot for Trump.

[Countme-In]

This reminds of the New Yorker cartoonist who features a series of cartoons of a guy with his feet in cement about to be thrown off the end of a pier by a couple of Mafia meatheads and whatever hilarious captions accompany, except McConnell is the muscle and Garland is the schlub victim.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/grassley-to-meet-with-garland

I could be convinced that a riot in McConnell's front yard would advance the cause of civilization.

[Countme-In]

Try this instead, but both will do:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mcconnell-refuses-hold-meeting-garland

[bobbyp]

Seems that I was busy today and missed all the fun.

Democratic politicians and their surrogates have been talking about violence in the streets as an understandable response for decades.

You know, the funny thing is, no few numbers of black people have been saying that very same thing since the 60's. Why, it's as if they "don't know any better", and have no human agency.

As for "keeping them on the plantation", this idea also denies them agency, as it implies they can, in incredibly large numbers, be easily bought off or scammed.

You'd think they just can't figure out what they want, right?

For some reason, I can't help but think black people (generally speaking) would find this line of so-called reasoning to be very offensive.

[wj]

As for "keeping them on the plantation", this idea also denies them agency, as it implies they can, in incredibly large numbers, be easily bought off or scammed.

Well, consider the source. And what their attitude on the subject of the objects (sorry!) is.

[wj]

NOTE: I wasn't suggesting that is Marty's view. Rather, that of the folks who are the original source of the comments about the "Democratic plantation."

[bobbyp]

What next? That old canard about "why do they burn down their OWN neighborhoods?" Why, you ask? When the prisoners riot, they burn down the jail, do they not?

Think about it.

So, if you rolled a grenade down 5th avenue....

[russell]

The last 30 years of taking every riot and excusing it based on "What do you expect?" is just an example of that, and one that incites the next riot just as surely as Trump offering to pay the legal fees.

First, "what do you expect?" is a not-unreasonable reaction to an extremely wide range of socially dysfunctional behavior. Including, but not limited to, riots in black communities.

Blue collar white men are about the only demographic whose average life span is declining. Significant causes of that apparently include suicide, alcoholism, and drug abuse. That is a fairly predictable outcome, given the economic and social marginalization of that demographic.

In other words, what do you expect?

If a politician points that out, are they justifying - let alone encouraging - suicide, alcoholism, and drug abuse? Or increases in divorce, domestic violence, single parenthood and/or out of wedlock childbirth that also accompany economic marginalization?

Or are they just pointing out the obvious?

If a politician then advocates for policies to help those folks out, are they just "keeping white trash in the trailer park"?

All of that is to address the first clause of your claim.

I hardly know how to address the second. The distinction between a prediction and a threat appears to escape you, I'll just leave it at that.

Since I've asked cleek to walk back his rough language, it occurs to me that I owe - have owed - a similar apology to sapient. Some time back, we got into it, his comments got under my skin, and I invited him to f*ck off.

That was unnecessarily abusive language. My belated apologies.

[Marty]

Lawyers fees aside, the point of discussion here was Trumps prediction of riots in the event of his losing the nomination at the convention. So predictions that provide permission to people to riot are the primary topic. So I really don't have to distinguish between predictions and anything else. "There are going to be riots" and "What do you expect" are common language on both sides. I expect people to not break the law and endanger other people and property. That's not the same as some 60 year old marginalized white guy shooting himself, talking about torturous analogies.

The language is designed to condone violence.

[hairshirthedonist]

I haven't read this thread in its entirety or in detail, so maybe I'm putting something out that doesn't exactly address the point anyone was trying to make, but here it goes.

If you're running for the office of President of the United States of America, and you expect riots to occur if you're not nominated, you should be making it very, very clear that you do not approve of people rioting and you should be strongly discoursing people from doing so. You should be very careful not to say things that could be interpreted as condoning, approving, encouraging, or even being indifferent to, people rioting on your behalf.

That is my opinion, and it is mine, along with my many theories.

[hairshirthedonist]

discouraging, not discoursing. I would never discourse anyone.