Our Dysfunctional Health Care System part 2: Single Payer & the Ted Cruz Con.

To start, here's what I've been saying for some time:

All payer, single payer, Medicare for all, universal health care is simple: All doctors are your doctors, all hospitals are your hospitals. No bills, co-pays or deductibles. We could cut costs by a third to half of of what we're paying now. We won't. Are we insane?

And yet, as this reaction to a recent story about Medicare Advantage demonstrates, many people don't seem to understand our health care system...at all:

MSNBC's Ali Velshi gave us the best presentation yet showing us how backward and downright bizarre the Republicans free market idea of health care is; we're the only country doing it. He followed that up with the effect cut backs on Medicaid would have on dementia and Alzheimer's seniors on Medicare:

My favorite candidate running against Paul Ryan recently tweeted this simple truth:

Another great look at the myth of health care greatness before the ACA was discussed belwo on WPR's On Point. I edited the discussion to hit on the main points, especially the "free market" control wielded by insurance companies, which is anything but:



The Ted Cruz ACA "Poison Pill" Con: The Senate's BCRA is going to get passed, even if 22 million people will lose their health care insurance.

The Ted Cruz plan will please his GOP base; by purposely making ObamaCare's plans collapse. When they do, Cruz can say, "I told you so:"

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) conditioned his support (of the BCRA) on an amendment proposed by his colleague Cruz. The gist is this: Health insurers could sell non-Obamacare plans as long as they also sold Obamacare-compliant insurance. The proposal does (eventually) erode Obamacare's protections for people with preexisting medical conditions, because it would likely segment the insurance market into healthy and sick pools. Healthy people would buy non-Obamacare plans, while sick people would buy the more robust Obamacare coverage. That would drive up premiums for the ACA marketplace.

Clever. It would also make people appreciate their stripped down high deductible junk insurance policies.

Not Letting the Free Marketplace Work: For a party touting the wonders of the free marketplace, they sure know how to mess with it. While complaining about some insurers leaving the ObamaCare marketplaces, they never waited around to see other insurers take their place. That's what markets do:

Centene fills Missouri's empty counties. You might have missed it in the rancor over the health care debate in Washington, but health plans have been stepping in to fill Obamacare's bare-shelf markets. Missouri is now the latest state to benefit, after Centene announced it would sell plans there next year.

 That's right, the latest state.

Republican "Health Care" Tax Cut Plan and Stock Market Payoff: If you're going to make insurers lots of money, buy their stock:

Health industry stocks, including insurance giants like UnitedHealth, have surged as Republicans have moved forward with their repeal effort, which rolls back broad taxes on healthcare firms while loosening consumer regulations.

Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma purchased between $50,000 to $100,000 in UnitedHealth stock ... Rep. Mike Conaway, a Texas Republican and member of Speaker Paul Ryan’s leadership team, added a health insurance company to his portfolio ... An account owned by Conaway’s wife made two purchases of UnitedHealth stock, worth as much as $30,000, on March 24th, the day the legislation advanced in the House. 

As we’ve reported, the House of Representatives has actively fought efforts to enforce the law after the Securities and Exchange Commission attempted to investigate one congressional staffer accused of passing healthcare information to a set of hedge funds.

Here's one former Republican making an amazing admission:

Scott Walker's pick, Ted "Lucifer in the Flesh" Cruz, proves he's still a bad judge of character

It's fun to watch "stand with Walker" drones struggle to explain their party leaders choice of Ted Cruz. Even funnier still were the words John Boehner used to set the record straight about the Senate's most disliked SOB.

With Borg-like precision, Republicans marched in lockstep to vote for Ted Cruz, a guy they really hated, just because Scott Walker said so. Then they tried to explain away what was essentially a Trump protest vote, as if they were sincerely trying to elect the best man.

After six Walker associates were convicted in the first John Doe investigation, Walker again proved that he was still a bad judge of character, appearing in this Wisconsin get out the vote ad for Cruz:



Check out Boehner's actual words...and the crowds reaction:

Ted Cruz' not so secret Right Wing Socialist agenda.

UPDATE- 4/16/16: Good news, Ted Cruz promises not to ban dildos if he becomes president, how silly! The Hill:

WABC radio host Curtis Sliwa asked Cruz if he would ban “the sale of sexual toys, dildos, or anything that sexually stimulates you,” after Mother Jones revealed that Cruz defended a ban on the sale of dildos as Texas’s solicitor general.

“Look, of course not, it’s a ridiculous question, and of course not,” Cruz added.

The headline in Mother Jones was enough to get my attention:

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos: His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."

David Corn chronicles the tortured logic of right wing social engineering. Here's a condensed version:

In one chapter of his campaign book, A Time for Truth, Sen. Ted Cruz proudly chronicles his days as a Texas solicitor general … Yet one case he does not mention is the time he helped defend a law criminalizing the sale of dildos.

In 2004, companies that owned Austin stores selling sex toys and a retail distributor of such products challenged a Texas law outlawing the sale and promotion of supposedly obscene devices. Under the law, a person could go to jail for up to two years. But a federal judge … ruled that selling sex toys was not protected by the Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed.

Cruz's solicitor general office had the task of preserving the law. In 2007, Cruz's legal team, working on behalf of then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (who now is the governor), noted, "The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices" … Cruz's legal team asserted "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." 

The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex." The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution.

My favorite line?

Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship."

In a 2-1 decision issued in February 2008, the court of appeals told Cruz's office to take a hike. No, government officials could not claim as part of their job duties the obligation to reduce masturbation or nonprocreative sexual activity. And the two judges in the majority slapped aside the solicitor general's attempt to link dildos to prostitution: "The sale of a device that an individual may choose to use during intimate conduct with a partner in the home is not the 'sale of sex' (prostitution)."

“Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices, government interference with their personal and private use violates the Constitution."

But Abbott and Cruz wouldn't give up. Abbott and Cruz quickly filed a brief that argued "engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy" ought to be legal because it could "enhance their sexual experiences." 

Republicans in the tank for Cruz and Bradley, Democrats should take on Conservative Talk Radio.

The Democratic Party has for some time looked like a football teams defense that's been out on the field too long. That never ends well. But it's their own damn fault, because unlike a football team, they came out to play without an offense. Big problem.

That leaves our Borg-like Republicans lots and lots of time to do whatever they want.

Cruz? Yes, that's what their Leaders Want: At first, I thought it was odd how every Republican I talked to backed the flaccid candidacy of Marco Rubio, the absent Senator. But odder still, ever since he's dropped out, Wisconsin Republicans are now suddenly behind Ted Cruz. Just like that. Isn't it funny how conservatives who rattle on and on about freedom and liberty, can't wait to take their orders from their leaders - vote Cruz.

Mean Girl Rebecca Bradley's bigoted, divisive, politics...they like it!!!  The new Marquette University Poll showing Bradley pulling ahead in the race for supreme court justice was due mainly for her hatred of gays and Democrats. As it turns out, Bradley hit all the right notes saying what conservative voters have been thinking and talking about for years. Her short tempered nasty demeanor and victimhood made her the undisputed choice for the states highest court. Right wing "originalism" is now the generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution, having received no criticism by our intimidated "fair and balanced" media and Democratic Party.

These are just two examples that speak volumes about the R.I.P. Democrats. But like Supernatural's Sam and Dean, there's always a way to come back from the dead. Here's just one idea...

Democrats should Demand Radio Time, put the pressure on Conservative Talkers: Talk show hosts Sly and The Devil's Advocates are the only liberal alternatives in Wisconsin, and both programs feature Republican guests. That doesn't happen in conservative talk.

When I did my own talk show, WIBA management insisted I have a conservative co-host to counter what they thought were my anti-American liberal ideas. I ended up loving the idea because it gave me an insight into how conservatives think and how they argue. Just ask State Sen. Frank Lasee, who sat in the studio a number of times, and endured a few heated but respectful debates. Former Rep. Steve Nass, now a senator, once got so angry after an interview he blasted me a few minutes later on the floor of the Assembly.

Most surprising to me was their desire to come back for another debate. Funny still, they thought they had won their often disjointed silly debate with me. Heck, maybe they did with their voters. My objective was to expose what I thought were flawed ideas and logic, by using their own words against them.

My point; Democrats should go on the offensive, demanding radio time on conservative talk stations. They should publically challenge them to a debate, publically ask them why they're not being invited on their shows. And never let up. Why wouldn't they want to try and win the argument? What's the problem with letting callers ask their own questions, gain some insight into how Democrats think, where they're coming from, encourage critical thinking?

OFFENSE: A Democratic offense would force Republicans to spend time fighting back, cutting into the time they have to hatch their next dystopian one size fits all edict. Democrats may stand for something, it's just that voters don't know exactly what that is.

Cruz liked the way Walker dismissed Act 10 protesters; Cruz calls Trump coward, in bar fight over wives!!

As WPR reported:

Cruz Says He Was 'Inspired' By Walker During Act 10 Protests: "Wisconsin is known for producing fighters," Cruz said. "When Gov. Scott Walker stood up and led the fight against the union bosses of the public employee unions, and when millions and millions of men and women across Wisconsin stood with Gov. Walker, that fight inspired millions of Americans across this country. It inspired me, it inspired Heidi."

In a down-the-rabbit-hole interpretation of the 1st Amendment, Cruz portrayed every protesting Wisconsinite standing up for workers, as corrupt "special interests."

"It showed that when we stand together as 'we the people,' we can beat the special interests and we can end the corruption."

Cruz wants to be President? To hear one candidate for president call another candidate a "coward," in an argument over their wives...seriously, what is happening in this country, and why is the Republican Party still relevant:



And then this happened...

N.H.'s Mindless Zombies Pick Trump!!! Wisconsin Mindless Zombies drooling.....

Something to think about if Trump or Cruz becomes president: This is what the whole world will think about that choice, because our own brutally "honest" conservative media (Daily News) said so...The Blaze:

Xenophobic GOP Presidential hopefuls want to screen out and welcome Syrian Christians only.

I haven't seen the Republican fear level this high since 9/11. Our run for cover, freedom and liberty loving gun toting conservative "leaders" can't retreat fast enough from the looming ISIS terror.

Sen. Ted Cruz: "There is no meaningful risk of Christians committing acts of terror. If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation."

Even though it received almost no coverage yesterday, Jeb Bush's comment about identifying Christian refugees stands out as one of the most scary and embarrassing positions yet. Remember, this is an "adult" running for president:

Reporter: "So what does the focus on Christian families actually look like?"

Bush: "What, you're a Christian, you can prove you're a Christian, it's..."

Reporter: "How?"

Bush: "I think you can prove it, if you can't prove it than you know...you err on the side of caution."

And of course there's always xenophobic Donald Trump with his more tempered approach:

Trump: "I'm gonna bomb the shit out of them. It's true...I don't care...I don't care, they've got to be stopped."

And this Instagram comment:

Trump: "Refugees are pouring into our great country from Syria, and we don't even know who they are. They could be ISIS, they could be anybody. What's our president doing, is he insane? 

As for both Cruz and Bush's comment "there are no Christian terrorists in the Middle East..." they're strongly suggesting Christian terrorism doesn't happen, even in the U.S.. Homegrown Christian terrorists exist, whether they're using religion as a justification or just your typical conservative anti-government extremist. Here are just a few examples:

Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre  ...  The murder of Dr. George Tiller  ...  Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting  ...  The murder of Dr. John Britton  ...  The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, The murder of Barnett Slepian by James Charles Kopp  ...  Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts 1994  ...  Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010  …  The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984  …  Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995  ...  The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting Everything  ...  The Ku Klux Klan Has Ever Done  ...  The Massacre At Zion Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C..

Radical Islam vs Radical Christian: "Radical Islam," a favorite xenophobic term used by Republicans everywhere, is meant to challenge political correctness.

But when I used the term "radical Christian" on my conservative friend in Milwaukee, he blew up, justifying past Christian killings.

Try using the term "radical Christian" sometime. I guarantee a heated irrational reaction.

Presidential candidate Marco Rubio made this bizarre and clueless leap; comparing the Islamic religion with Nazism, a political ideology. Surprise, Rubio's comment went unchallenged by George Stephanopoulos:

GOP Debate Crowd hates protecting Americans from Wall Street Banks.

Nothing says "moral bankruptcy" more than the Republican audiences booing over the idea we would protect retirees life savings from another Wall Street Banks collapse. Have we become so cold and callous we now value "philosophical concerns" - small government and deregulation - that we're okay with plunging Americans into poverty due to greed and irresponsible Wall St. banks?

Apparently yes. Business Insider took a look at pollster Frank Luntz's crowd reaction to Gov. John Kasich's defense of saving families from losing it all, especially for something as bizarre as "philosophical concerns:"

Kasich aggressively defended his position that he would bail out banks in the event of a potential financial collapse. Kasich was interrupted by a booing audience after he criticized Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) …

“When a bank is going under and people are going to lose their life savings, you don’t say you have to deal with philosophical concerns. Philosophy doesn’t work when you run something.”

It wasn't just audience members who didn't seem to appreciate Kasich's message: Veteran pollster Frank Luntz said that Kasich registered the "lowest score ever" in his focus group.

Truly jaw dropping. But Cruz and Carly Fiorina seemed to care more about the closing of smaller banks than recovering the public's money. Just a reminder; those smaller banks closed because of their own risky loans; and because Americans made a consumer decision to go elsewhere, like their local credit unions. The banks burned us and the public acted accordingly.

Debates hosted by party Opponents is bad because....?

The complaints below are premised on the idea that the CNBC GOP debate moderators came across like their partisan liberal opponents, and that it was so unfair whine, whine, whine....

I say, what's wrong with that? I would have no problem with moderators acting like either liberals or conservatives, asking tough gotcha questions. It's a debate for gods sake.

And that's what makes the following admissions by Cruz, Giuliani and Gutfeld so bizarre, they don't want to be challenged, they just want safe party line questions.

Geez, can't take the heat wimps....here's an even better way of saying it:

Cruz supplies Presidential Comic Relief....

My conservative friend called me and asked if I had seen Ted Cruz' announced run for president. I'm not sure if he was kidding:

Ted Cruz offers us "Health Care Choices Act," returning us to the good old days.

Cruz Care: It's called the most “complete” GOP health care plan yet, compliments of crazy right winger Sen. Ted Cruz. It doesn't just bring back the failed system we had, but makes it worse with every "free market" trick that promises profit over care. 

What you won't get: There are no free health checkups, no guarantees of coverage for preexisting conditions, no ability to keep kids on the family plan till age 26, and no acknowledgement that the health care industry changed its business model for payment based on outcomes, not tests. The ACA helped stablize costs with these changes. It’s like the last 4 years never happened. 

Even worse, people can now buy what they "need," stripping down coverage that will leave them bankrupt if they get the wrong illness or are in the wrong kind of accident. They’re junk policies you can buy across state lines, an amazingly ridiculous GOP idea for the last 30 years. It's a race to have no coverage at all.

In Cruz's plan below, you’ll notice  how it focuses on insurers in "host" and "secondary states." It has little to do with you and me. Cruz's bill is called the Health Care Choices Act. The basic plan does the following:

It would repeal Title I of ObamaCare, which would undo much of the law, including the mandate to buy insurance, the insurance marketplaces and subsidies to help people afford coverage. 

It then firms up the insurance side:

The act also amends the Public Health Service Act to provide that insurance policies approved and sold in one state (designated the "primary state") may be allowed to be sold in any other state (i.e. "secondary state") but only if the health plan and insurer comply with certain basic requirements of the secondary state. Consumer protections such as complying with the secondary state's fraud and abuse and delinquency requirements.

What is Reasonable...Cruz tries to minimize our care. In the courts, the word "reasonable" has almost no limit to what it could mean. That's why Cruz gave insurers every opportunity to make money, delay action and take reasonable steps to screw us. It's a loophole you could drive a truck through:

‘‘(B) Failing to acknowledge with reasonable promptness pertinent communications with respect to claims arising under policies.”

‘‘(C) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and settlement of claims arising under policies.”

“(E) Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation.”

‘‘(F) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable period of time.”

‘‘(H) A pattern or practice of attempting to settle or settling claims for less than the amount that a reasonable person would believe the insured individual or his or her beneficiary was entitled”

‘‘(J) Failing to provide forms necessary to present claims within 15 calendar days of a requests with reasonable explanations regarding their use.”

What does Paul Ryan have to offer? Not much...check it out here.

Kind of like putting Government hating Republicans in charge of Government....

Crazy Cruz compares taking money out of elections with Banning Books. Yea, that's what Democrats want to do...

Many were right when they first compared Sen. Ted Cruz to Joseph McCarthy. He even looks like the guy.

While the public overwhelmingly wants to take money out of our elections, politicians like Cruz want to take us in the opposite direction. Does an inanimate object like money have a First Amendment right to free speech? It's crazy.

But even worse: Is this tweet one of the most irresponsible and loathsome attempts at fear mongering yet by a sitting senator?

The activist conservative Supreme Court completely messed up the context of the First Amendment. Chris Hayes explores that belief:



But the current wave of amendments do have their problems:

MSNBC: Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine, of the proposals being considered … As Hasen detailed in a paper from last October, an amendment proposed by Democratic Sens. Jon Tester of Montana and Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania would limit constitutional rights to “natural persons,” and which could have the inadvertent impact of allowing the State of New York to bar publication of The New York Times.

Another proposal, from New Mexico Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, which Hasen described as “marginally better,” would create an exception for the press – which would be confusing, given that the line between who is and is not a journalist continues to blur as technology disrupts the media industry.

Jamie Raskin, a Democratic state legislator from Maryland and law professor at American University said, “Look at the political realm they want to give to the American people: Corporations are treated like people, they can give on an unlimited basis directly to candidates, they can spend on an unlimited basis and they don’t have to tell anybody. Then they whine if anybody even calls a corporation out for doing it, saying that somehow their First Amendment rights have been violated. That’s a pretty special First Amendment they’ve got.”

There’s a universe of reasonable campaign finance restrictions between legalized bribery and establishing a Ministry of Truth, but none of them are likely to pass anytime soon. More effective limits on money in politics however, may have to wait for a Supreme Court friendlier to campaign finance reform.

It's Time to Kill the Sunday Morning Talk Shows!

This is how the networks reward tea party politicians who steer clear of major media interviews, by panting “exclusive” and "star" when they're graced with their presence. Wow, a one-on-one...we're so lucky? 

I stopped watching Sunday morning talk because of this. For whatever reason, they don't have time for common sense followup questions. So in these free campaign ads disguised as news, Ted Cruz can say without challenge, sweeping policy absolutes that would take a knowledgeable persons breath away.  

NO Response from Stephanopolus: For example, Cruz would like to shove a European anti-ballistic missile system down Russia's throat as payback. Even worse, Cruz proposed depleting our surplus natural gas supplies by selling it to the Ukraine, shutting off Russian suppliers. Sounds long term and sounds like a great deal for corporate America, who would love to sell gas at a higher price there and increase prices on our depleted supplies here. Watch George Stephanopolus let it all fly unchallenged with the all important Hillary Clinton question...insane:

Overwhelming Approval of Obamacare at Ted Cruz Facebook page.

If you can visit the Cruz Facebook page featuring this question:

Comment after comment not only support the law, but tells a story. Just amazing. Here's a sample:

Cruz picks wrong author, wrong book.

Republicans are on the wrong side of just about everything.  Even a simple children's book became another ironic moment for ObamaCare opponent Sen. Ted Cruz. Here's Chris Hayes with a nice look at the big fail: