Waiting on the Supremes / Climate Change Summer Open Thread

In an hour or so, we'll know whether the ACA survived intact, is crippled, or got taken out and shot.

My wife, who doesn't exactly live and breathe politics the way I do, had a dream last night that it was Thursday evening, she hadn't been near a computer or a TV all day, and she had no idea how the Supreme Court ruled on health care reform.  She was trying hard to find out how it came out when she woke up.

Anyhow, here's some Supremes to get you going:

 

 

Out my way, the forecast is for high of 102° tomorrow.  Raspberrry-picking season is just about done here in southern Maryland; up to a few years ago, we were only seeing the very first ripe berries right about now.  In anticipation of tomorrow's heat, here's another oldie from when I was growing up:

 

Comments

[Paula B]

Great song choices, l-tc! Two of my faves.

SCOTUS could take a lesson from The Supremes: Good hair and fancy threads aren't enough. You've gotta have soul to be relevant -- or even remembered -- 50 years later.

If things go the way I hope they will, tomorrow's song could be Dancin in the Streets.

[Sir Charles]

I guess we awoke with the same thought in mind.

Fingers are firmly crossed.

The up side to this is that I can actually read the opinions and bill clients for it, unlike my usual blogosphere wankery.

[oddjob]

The up side to this is that I can actually read the opinions and bill clients for it, unlike my usual blogosphere wankery.

:)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Much thanx for the Spoonful cut -- even though I still have a broken spind card, it's nice to see it up. (The whole "Creeque Alley" crew made a LOT of great music, The SPOONFULL, The BYRDS, MAMAS & PAPAS. All hanging out at the Night Owl back then, with -- as a lover of mine put it -- 'that kid from Minnesota who always wanted to play his harmonica when we were trying to play chess.')

Five minutes to the first decision -- which won't be the ACA one.

[low-tech cyclist]

Paula - if the ACA survives intact, I'll have Dancing in the Streets up before lunchtime, if SC doesn't beat me to it! We can only hope.

SC - this morning, I woke up with "Summer in the City" going through my head, and was thinking in the shower about how evocative it is.

I'd actually forgotten that today was the Big Day at SCOTUS until my wife told me about her dream as we were driving to work. I knew then that I had to pick a Supremes song, but wanted something everybody hadn't heard a thousand times already, and this one jumped out at me.

Here's hoping Anthony Kennedy doesn't have the guts to overturn decades' worth of settled law for a second time in two years...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

If the decision is a complete disaster for the ACA -- the whole thing gone -- anybody got a cut of (hello Boston) EARTH OPERA's "American Eagle Tragedy"?

[Sir Charles]

One of my colleagues and I just had a funny dialogue:

Him: Did you see Tom Goldstein thinks the mandate will aurvive on a 6-3 vote?

Me: No, that's great.

Him: Well he made the same prediction about X case.

Me: Oh.

X case, as we shall call it, is one that we hired Goldstein to argue for us before the Court and we lost by a resounding 9-0. As I said to my colleague who had helped shepherd the case through the process, well, at least you've brought comity to the Court.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

1st Decision is Alvarez. First Amendment rules, 9th Circuit upheld, "ScAT dissent" -- Scalia, Alito Thomas.

And from SCOTUSblog and Lyle Denniston "The PIO has two boxes of opinions on his desk, one small and one very large. Presumably the large one is the Health Care Case."

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Anybody got any feel at all whether they might 'punt' (using the AIA to delay a decision until the 'tax' is actually being paid)? Semms unlikely, but politically the smartest and best move.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Opinion is down, but even the SCOTUSblog people are parsing it slowly. "Very complicated" but the mandate survives.

[Paula B]

Individual mandate survives as a tax.
L-tc, I'm puttin on my dancin shoes.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Mandate is constitutional, Roberts agreeing. The Medicaid provision is limited, but not eliminated.

(To tie in the two songs above, remember THE MAMAS AND THE PAPAS did "Dancing in the Streets" as well.)

[Paula B]

Glory hallelujah!

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Bottom line WHOLE THING UPHELD, Medicaid provision limited. And I wonder how crazy Antpnin gets this time. (And if he'd walk off the bench -- we should be so lucky -- in disappointment. Hmm, if he were a little younger, fascinating to picture a Romney-Scalia ticket)

[oddjob]

ScAT dissent

LOL! Pun duly noted! :)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

"Roberts' vote saved the ACA." according to SCOTUSblog. Does that mean he was to the left of Kennedy? Still waiting to find out.

[kathy a.]

yay!

[oddjob]

I am pleasantly surprised. Despite the precedents I honestly didn't expect any of the SCOTUS conservatives to uphold the mandate.

[Sir Charles]

It is evidently a 5-4 vote.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The Medicaid part is interesting. The Congress can wiyhhold NEW funds, but cannot cut off funds already existing.

Still no word on dissents/concurrences.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Dont usually do this, but my 'capcha' was 'ciberSc' -- the mini-God of randomness has a sense of humor, as always.

[oddjob]

To no one's surprise the Club for Growth has a cow.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Okay, Roberts joined the majority on finding it Constitutional under the taxing power, the others would also find it allowable under the Commerce Clause, but Roberts wouldn't. Apparently Kennedy was a straight NO vote.

[Paula B]

I guess Romney and the GOP will have to blame that radical left-wing SCOTUS for this decision.

If I ever wanted to thank you for anything, Mitt Romney, it would be today. For all the wrong reasons, you made health care reform a reality. Giving credit where credit is due...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Pople thought Kennedy was working with Roberts on the opinion. In fact he was writing a scathing dissent holding the whole act Unconstitutional. Hmm, wonder if he's any better than Scalia in remaining sane while ranting.

[oddjob]

"Mandate Gone"

(Screen capture from Drudge Report which Sully entitles "Premature ejaculation".... :) )

[Corvus]

Whew! I was tentatively expecting, more hoping, a 6-3 vote on the mandate, with Kennedy deciding to join and Roberts going along with him to save face, but I was not expecting Kennedy to be in the minority and Roberts being the one to save the mandate. Still, thrilled.

Ah, god, I feel victory from liberals upholding the constitutionality of a provision invented by Republicans as a false compromise. Politics is so degrading.

[oddjob]

Ah, god, I feel victory from liberals upholding the constitutionality of a provision invented by Republicans as a false compromise. Politics is so degrading.

Every little step along the way......

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And, may I remind you, that the President opposed on the campaign trail -- the only 'policy dispute' between him and Hillary.

But welcome back, hooray, and stick around a bit, guy!

[Joe S]

Kennedy has always been more of a libertarian. If I could guess, I'd say he's like the writers for Reason Magazine. He's going to come out on personal liberty issues better, but he's always been about limiting federal power and protecting the "freedom of contract/property rights." I was always worried about this case because of Kennedy's view of "Lochner" style arguments prohibiting economic regulation.

Roberts, in my estimation, will be fairly doctrinaire on race/gender/national security issues-- but he seems to be less of a libertarian than the other conservatives when it comes to economic regulation. That's good for constitutional law. This country could have gone into a long winter if Roberts had a slightly different outlook.

[Sir Charles]

Hi Corvus,

Yeah, I was shocked that Roberts had to bring this thing over the finish line without Kennedy. Unbelievable.

I love that CNN got it wrong on their web page. The new "Dewey Wins" headline for our time. Not shocked that Drudge got it wrong. Asshole.

[oddjob]

IIRC during the Obamacare signing ceremony Biden said that this was "a big f-ing deal". It was a big deal but in reality today's SCOTUS decision is the big f-ing deal.

[Joe S]

Roberts strikes me as writing the opinion I always expected Scalia to write. Scalia has always been for strong national government and economic regulation until now. The man has sadly gone bonkers in his old age. I never agreed with Scalia but I always respected him as a jurist until the past few years.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

We missed this, but on the First American case, it was dismissed.

[Paula B]

What is the significance a lack of affirmation under the Commerce Clause? Anybody?

[Corvus]

Aw, thanks. You know, I can't remember when the last time I was commenting was, but ever since the trial, I have been all but avoiding political commentary out of doom and gloom, and thus haven't really had much to say. But this makes me feel a lot better.

[Paula B]

on Twitter from Charles M. Blow ‏@CharlesMBlow
Mitt mutters under his breathe so low that only the closest can hear: "It's actually Romneycare. I thought of it first..."

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Here's the decision. Two dissents, Kennedy and Thomas, and one concurrence, by Ginsburg.

[Corvus]

Paula, the gist I get from Scotusblog is basically nothing, the law is upheld, just under slightly narrower reasoning. Maybe it has some effect on precedence, though, I don't know.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

I don't think there is any immediate practical significance to the law not being upheld on Commerce Clause grounds. It will go into affect on the alternative reading by Roberts, which always struck me as the easy way to get this thing done -- Congress decided to make it interesting by not calling it a tax.

But in the longer term, I think it means that Commerce Clause litigation will continue to be at the heart of what the federal government can do and how much the right can push back at federal intervention in the economy.

The mandate, however, strikes me as a fairly unique act, so I don't know how much broader applicability this finding will have.

[oddjob]

...[Scalia's] lapses of judicial temperament — bashing “a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda” in a written dissent, or offering views on this and that in sarcastic public speeches — detract from the dignity of his office. They endanger not only his jurisprudential legacy but the legitimacy of the high court.

Conclusion of WaPo editorial (from today or yesterday) about Scalia's unprofessional recent behavior.

[oddjob]

"It's actually Romneycare. I thought of it first..."

LOL!

[Paula B]

Thank you, SCOTUS, thank you, Mitt Romney, thank you, Barack Obama! It's now Everybodyscare!

Callin' out around the world, are you ready for a brand new beat?
Summer's here and the time is right for dancin' in the street.
Dancin' in Chicago (dancin' in the street)
Down in New Orleans (dancin' in the street)
In New York City

All we need is music, sweet music,
There'll be music everywhere
There'll be swingin' swayin', and records playin,
Dancin' in the street

Oh it doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there.
So come on every guy, grab a girl,
Everywhere, around the world

There'll be dancin', they're dancin' in the street.
This is an invitation, across the nation,
A chance for folks to meet.
There'll be laughin' singin', and music swingin'
Dancin' in the street

Philadelphia P.A., Baltimore and D.C now,
Can't forget the motor city,
All we need is music, sweet music
There'll be music everywhere
There'll be swingin' swayin', and records playin,
Dancin' in the street

Oh it doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there.
So come on every guy, grab a girl,
Everywhere, around the world

They're dancin', dancin' in the street
Way down in L.A., every day they're dancin' in the street
Lets form a big strong line, and get in time,
We're dancin' in the street.
Across the ocean blue, me and you
We're dancin n the street

Thank you William Stevenson, Marvin Gaye and Martha and the Vandellas.

[Bill H]

I'm glad we're all so thrilled that health insurance companies are going to be selling so many policies. Yes, I know this is better than nothing, and all that, but unlike everybody else here, I actually hate health insurance companies and legislation that makes them bigger and more powerful, more in control of the health care delivery system, does not strike me as the best that we can do.

I know, there is all the wonderful things about how they cannot turn down people and must keep kids until age 26... Awesome. They have to have all of these clients paying them premiums whether they want those clients or not. Where are the regulations limiting premiums? The 80% thing? No, actually that's a regulation insuring that they do make a profit.

Where are the regulations saying that a hospital can't charge you $300 for a blanket that they let you use for five minutes before surgery? Where are the regulations that say a hospital can't charge $1000 to one insurance company for a procedure and $3000 to a different insurance company for the same procedure?

An insurance company must spend 80% on cost, but a hospital is not limited in anything like the same way. Its costs might very well be only 40% of the amount that it bills. Drug companies might have costs that are only 35% of what people pay for drugs.

So the insurance companies pay the outrageous hospital costs, pay the outrageous drug costs, pay the $2,000,000 doctor salaries, and then add 20% to that and pass it on the the people who are being treated. And we are cheering lustily because instead of fixing that broken system, we simply require more people to participate in it.

Is this a great country, or what?

[oddjob]

"In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance."

(From A Little Perspective: Congress First Mandated Health Insurance in 1798)

Hat tip, Sully.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The dissent seems to be a joint product of all four, not just Kennedy's with the others joining in. I think I can see samples of Alito and Scalia already.

I skipped down to see Thomas's dissent, which is just him repeating yet again 'But the Commerce clause DOESN'T permit that' in a way he's yet to get support for.

If I get a chance, will look at the dissent -- and the opinion -- more closely later.

[Paula B]

Bill H---Some people are never satisfied. You're not going to burst my balloon!

[low-tech cyclist]

WOOHOO!!!!

I was in a one-on-one meeting from 10am to 11 (hammering out details about an ACA-funded project, ironically enough); I told my colleague that our meeting was a relief, really, it would keep me from refreshing my browser every 15 seconds until we knew which way the decision had gone.

I confess I'm STUNNED that Roberts was the 5th vote. My only WAG is that he cares just enough about his place in history to have realized that history wouldn't have regarded him or his Court kindly if he'd killed the ACA, that everyone would have looked back at today as the defining moment where the Supreme Court outed itself as a strictly partisan body, and permanently became nothing more than one of the spoils of winning the Presidency.

"Dancing in the Streets" coming up!!

[oddjob]

Is this a great country, or what?

Your point is well taken, but after a century of trying and repeatedly failing I'm not going to complain at the moment.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Bill H: First, I resent -- as will everyone else here -- that we don't 'hate the insurance companies.' We do. Nobody here would prefer Obamacare to Single-Payer, to Medicaid for all, to VA eligibility for all, or almost any other plan. Unfortunately, there was never any question -- even had Obama showed actual leadership on Health Care instead of the mess he gave us -- that it was -- now -- impossible to get the votes to pass it, and we wouldn't have had them WITHOUT the filibuster.

We had two choices, keep suffering under the old system -- which even Republicans in 2008 were arguing needed to be fixed -- or get the best bill you could -- okay, a half-assed barely decent one and better leadership would have given us a better bill.

I actually see a comparison with DADT, which was, originally a compromise 'best thing we could pass' that would have lasted longer if it had been administered as planned. Because it wasn't, because it WAS a failure, the push for gay rights -- not just 'right to serve' but 'right to marry' -- got a gigantic boost over the long run.

This may be adequate, it may need replacing, but by passibg this and getting approval from SCOTUS, we at least buried the old system.

More on the political impact in a few minutes, (as usual, I hope it's only that, but the day is starting here) but I think Roberts actually made the right decision from the Republican Point of View. This was like the other Justice Roberts' 'switch in time saves nine' because I think a reversal would have gone down as a 'self-inflicted wound' and would have been so drastic (reading the other brief) that anyone who had benefitted would have been condeming SCOTUS.

Now the question will be which position comes up on the Etch, 'repeal and replace' or 'repeal and don't replace.' The savvy thing is the first, but Romney will pick the second, and there go a few more votes down the drain for him. (He won't pick up new ones by opposing the ACA, all the opponents are already in his camp or wriggling out the right side.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

ltc:
MAMAS AND PAPAS version, please!

And your comment and mine about Roberts seem to dovetail nicely.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Weird, the captcha actually gave me a Washington phone number, which I called just for the hell of it, but it was busy. Think it was a 649 or 549 but didn't write it down.

[oddjob]

As a taxation issue, would it be possible for a future Republican Senate to vote to do away with ACA using the budget reconciliation process where the minority can't filibuster?

[kathy a.]

bill, i'm not pleased to have insurance companies in the middle of it all, but there was no way to even get this much accomplished w/o them. since costs remain a huge problem, i see no reason why there cannot be movement on containing costs.

my son was uninsured for a while, and that really sucked. he was attacked, did not see a doctor for injuries because he was broke, and developed an infection and was very sick. i finally forced him to see a doctor, get x-rays, and get meds (picking up the tab) -- the infection was quite dangerous.

so, i'm really glad my daughter is covered by our plan, because as a recent college grad, she cannot find work. and things happen. and i'm really glad pre-exisiting conditions will be covered, because i expect to collect more of them as i age.

[Corvus]

I wonder if the severity of the dissent played an influence on Robert's decision. He saw the blanket condemnation of the entire law as legally unsound, and since there seems to have been no dissent on this from the other four conservatives, He decided to go with the other four justices. I wonder how the majority would have shaken out if there had been one anti-mandate vote in favor of severability, four against severability, and four in support of the law. I mean, how do you create a majority opinion from that?

[Sir Charles]

Bill H,

Not to stand up for the insurers, but they actually do negotiate with some degree of aggressiveness over what they will pay hospitals for. In the world of self-insured union health and welfare funds, we typically rent an insurance company's network and let them negotiate discounts with providers and it is a job they do fairly well.

It's not enough -- for a variety of reasons -- but there are definitely controls on what providers can charge for services as a result.

Corvus,

I suspect Roberts joined with the liberals precisely because of the extremism of the right wing justices, which was to simply gut the law in its entirety.

We dodged a bullet very narrowly here.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Two minds with similar conclusions. Sir C above and Steve Benen: "I can't read Chief Justice John Roberts' mind, but it wouldn't surprise me if the extremism of the four dissenters effectively forced him to break ranks -- had Kennedy been willing to strike down the mandate while leaving the rest of the law intact, this may well have been a 5-4 ruling the other way."

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Here's a link to the live Obama speech on health care.

[low-tech cyclist]

Any thoughts from our legal eagles on the Medicaid aspect of the ruling?

Roberts: "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."

What - Congress can't amend its previous carrots and sticks? It almost sounds like he's applying a version of stare decisis to Congress. This makes no sense at all to me.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

l-tc: Not that difficult even for an 'amateur legal parakeet' like me. Cobgress can amend anything going forward. They just can't go back and renege on a previously promised amount of money because the states didn't agree to a regulation which was not in effect when the promise was made. Seems reasonable, but I haven't read Ginsburg's reasoning on the other side.

Oh, and just in passing, and totally OT, but after the 'Rainbow cookie' (which only exists in pictures, you can't really get one, damnit) shouldn't everyone buy a pack of Oreos today? (If you don't love the regular ones -- and the 'dub'l stuff' well, let's be polite and pretend they don't exist -- the 'golden Oreos' are quite nice for commercial cookies -- and I'll admit I only like commercial cookies, not bakery ones.)

[oddjob]

Like John Calhoun before him wingnut in chief Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) urges the states to engage in illegal nullification regarding the implementation of Obamacare.

[kathy a.]

LTC, i think roberts' reasoning is that withdrawing all medicaid funding for non-complying states is too big to be an "amendment." the expansion is a complete overhaul of medicaid, in his view.

so, the feds lost a big stick for compliance by states. a modest up side is that poor people who are currently covered in states featuring your battier legislatures will not be dropped entirely.

perhaps in the fullness of time, even the nuttier-than-thou legislatures will see the wisdom of expanding coverage with federal help. there are public health implications. there are fairness problems -- and in these here economic times, we all know people who want to work, or find a better job, and can't. and, there is not a lot of cost-effectiveness in making people wait until they are sick enough to go to the ER at public expense. hey, a person can hope.

[kathy a.]

jim demint is covered by a government-funded health care plan. so is everybody else in congress. and the executive branch. and the judicial branch.

i am covered by a government-funded health care plan, because my husband works for the state.

when my husband was in the military, we had government-funded health care. when i worked for a state agency (and a state contractor agency), we were covered by government-funded health care.

my grandmother -- who had dementia and could not walk the last 6 years of her life -- was covered by medicare and medicaid.

when my parents had their final illnesses, they were covered by medicare.

why is government-funded health care a problem? why is it good for "us" and bad for "them"?

the "free market" is anything but "a health care system of, for, and by the people, not government or special interests." anybody who has butted heads with an insurance company about whether something is covered -- or whether they can be covered -- knows that the system is rigged against the consumer. how is it that demint sees people needing health care as "special interests," whereas insurance companies with extensive profits and financial resources are framed as the heroes? it takes somebody special to frame dying uninsured as a "liberty" interest.

[oddjob]

Senator DeMint is very special...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

kathy: my apologies for being touchy on this, but I am. Anytime anyone brings in the ER on discussions like this -- even in a negative way -- it strengthens the myth that 'the poor don't have to worry, they can just use the ER as their general physician -- at our expense.' (It's even used in anti-immigrant screeds.)

To insist yet again: At an Emergency Room all you get is Emergency treatment, simple tests, simple -- and usually symptomatic -- remedies, and advice to 'make an appointment at the ____ Clinic' for anything more.

Only if they see you need to be admitted right away will you get something more. Then they'll give you everything you need and it counts as 'emergency care.' Except they can still bill you for it.

It is NOT 'free.' You are billed for the services. Hospitals are barred from sending collection agencies after you or refusing to treat you no matter how many bills you have outstanding. But the bills -- afaik -- remain on your record, and if you manage to become 'not poor' they will keep you from getting credit.

And the clinics I mentioned above can harass you, can refuse to treat you, can even refuse to treat you without money up front.

This matters, believe me it does. (And if you have an 'emergency' that requires a $30,000 operation -- as i did with my foot -- hope they screw up so badly that the bill can be settled on a 'you don't sue me and I won't sue you' basis -- again as happened with my hospitalization for the foot surgery. If not, get ready for years of collection harassment -- at least.)

[Bill H]

I appreciate that those who disagree with me are being as civil as they are and that I am not being called vile names. The opinions being expressed are very good points, and I acknowledge that my opinion is not by any means unmixed.

My experience is that good can so often be the enemy of better. DADT was not necessary, and it permitted a bad system to remain in place for longer than was necessary. This nation trailed the rest of the world by more than a decade because DADT permitted us to do so.

How many medical conditions get worse because we treat the symptoms without curing the disease? We are curing the symptom here while the underlying problem continues to fester and rot. We are kidding ourselves putting bandaids on a broken leg, allowing ourselves to pretend that the problem has been solved.

In similar vein, 800,000 illegal aliens are not going to be deported, which lowers the heat on getting something done about real immigration reform.

The heat needs to be kept on, the real problem needs to be kept out in the open where it can be seen and the pain of it felt, or we will never address the underlying causes.

[Mandos]

How many medical conditions get worse because we treat the symptoms without curing the disease? We are curing the symptom here while the underlying problem continues to fester and rot. We are kidding ourselves putting bandaids on a broken leg, allowing ourselves to pretend that the problem has been solved.

...

The heat needs to be kept on, the real problem needs to be kept out in the open where it can be seen and the pain of it felt, or we will never address the underlying causes.

The problem is the confidence with which you believe your preferred solution (one I share) will be the one chosen to solve the problem. It is perfectly imaginable to me that rather than ever institute any form of decent health care system in the USA, a good chunk of the population would rather forego health care at all.

This doesn't make sense to you and me, but it is an increasingly clear implication of the existence and direction of the Tea Party movements.

[oddjob]

DADT was not necessary

At the time the politics were such that the alternative would have been a continuation of the flat out ban on homosexuals serving that had existed since the 1950's or before.

I was paying very close attention at the time. Your assertion is simply wishful thinking. The wiser action on Clinton's part would have been to leave the matter alone, but having brought it up as one of the first things on his agenda made DADT the best possible worst outcome in a political space where none of the outcomes were going to be good ones. It was a particularly poor matter to begin his presidency with and doing that was a stupid thing to do.

[oddjob]

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
- Winston Churchill

[kathy a.]

prup -- really, honestly, i get it about emergency care as the care of last resort, and how that is not a solution. my son would not go to the ER when he needed to, because he knew it would be a couple thousand dollars, and they would hound him and his credit forever. he was working full-time, but uninsured and his pay did not extend to a lot of "extras."

i'm fortunate that when he really got sick and finally told me about it, i was able to overcome his pride (he was feverish), take him to the doctor and to get x-rays, negotiate a lower "uninsured" rate both places, and pay for that myself. he refused more expensive tests than the x-ray. we had a hell of a fight that day. it was the closest i've come to kidnapping. as bull-headed as my beautiful son can be, he was trying to be financially responsible, in a situation where he could not do it without help.

i do not understand why someone in a comparable situation -- but without a relative with a credit card -- is undeserving of basic care.

[Bill H]

"At the time the politics were such that the alternative would have been a continuation of the flat out ban on homosexuals serving that had existed since the 1950's or before."

Which does not validate DADT. The fact that we were not willing to do the right thing does not mean that helf measures made things better. Without DADT would the situation have persuisted until now? I don't know the answer to that, of course, but I suspect it would not. DADT allowed a lot of people to pretend there was no problem.

"I was paying very close attention at the time." Where do you think I was? I was a fairly recent veteran of the Navy at the time, and was outraged that Clinton would sign something so hypocritical. There was never a chance in hell that the military was going to comply with that nonsense, and it never actually did. It "asked" in a host of underhanded ways and got rid of its gays at the same pace as before that noxious bill.

And, actually, in the 1960's there was no real ban. Gays were in the crew of both submarines I served on, and no big deal was ever made about it. DADT hurt them more than it helped, because it made an issue of the whole thing.

[oddjob]

And I suspect it would have. Conservative religious values drove them to opposition and that would have remained the case.

There was never a chance in hell that the military was going to comply with that nonsense, and it never actually did.

With a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff threatening to resign there also was no chance in hell that homosexual Americans were going to be allowed to openly serve. It wasn't DADT that made an issue of everything, it was the promise to rescind the ban that did that.

[oddjob]

Romney responds to the SCOTUS ruling by making stuff up

[low-tech cyclist]

On acceptance of gays in our society, each baby step that's happened has made the next step possible. Each little step has helped more people realize that gays are normal people, and aren't some bizarre sex perverts, at least not any more than the rest of us are.

I disagree in general with the notion of the best half-assed thing you can get right now being the enemy of the ideal but unattainable. Not only is it cruel to those who might benefit from the half-assed solution to ask them to forgo that benefit in the hopes of pie in the sky later on, but when the half-assed solution turns out (a) not to be the end of the world that its opponents claimed, and (b) actually does a great deal of the good its proponents claimed, not only does the half-assed solution get accepted, but people start asking if it could be improved. And usually it is.

[nancy]

Brief off-topic side trip. Nora Ephron was my favorite feminist back in my youth for many reasons, not the least of which, she didn't spend her time in humorless dispirit. She was feminist and fun -- at the time, the genuine fun part seemed in low-supply. (Equal pay? ERA now? But pluck eyebrows or not? Shave legs or not?) Men, food, writing, family, the creative life, fashion, friendships, all communicated, personally, to me, little midwestern student, sometimes in the pages of Esquire no less. I'd have liked to have been her friend. Lance Mannion has a piece up offering his thoughts and a nice collection of other remembrances from James Wolcott and Garry Wills, among others. RIP, Nora.

[Crissa]

Hospitals, btw, will totally send collections agencies after you, whether or not they're allowed to.