Politics As Usual

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I personally think you have to be imbalanced to like Michael Moore's stuff, but if everyone likes this new one maybe I'll give it a shot.

All the early press out of Cannes said it was far and away his worst work yet.

Having sat through "Bowling for Columbine" - i find this hard to fathom.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Having sat through "Bowling for Columbine" - i find this hard to fathom.

Even I knew better than to go see that movie, sucker.

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
Even I knew better than to go see that movie, sucker.

"Go see"?

I believe I merely hit the "down arrow" a few times, then "enter".

What? They still don't have cable in the crack house?

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

What? They still don't have cable in the crack house?

We don't even get Air America - something about the cinderblocks in the windowframes. I plan to speak to the management forthwith.

But, unlike you, I still have the 90 minutes (or whatever the running time was) to spend smoking crack, so I win. Unless you were smoking crack while you watched it, which would explain a lot.

[sgtclub]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me.../saudi.kidnap/

[muslim urges captors to free American captive, citing that he is responsible for the American]

[sgtclub]

Clinton describes Lewinsky scandal as "terrible moral error." You got to hand it to Billy, he is smooth. However, we don't impeach Presidents for being immoral, we impeach them for breaking the law.


http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/17bill.htm

[Replaced_Texan]

Not for Profit Hospitals

I don't have a link, because this is from a listserv.

Congress is going to have hearings on the tax status of not-for-profit hospitals in a few days.

On a personal note, I think someone should look at the not-for-profit status of the Texas Medical Center, because as far as I can tell, the only thing the TMC (the entity, not the area) does is build parking garages and charge $9 a day.

Daily Health Policy Report
Coverage & Access | Group of Plaintiffs' Attorneys File Suit Against
Several Not-For-Profit Hospitals, Alleging Violation of Charity Care
Guidelines
[Jun 17, 2004]

Plaintiffs' lawyers on Wednesday filed civil class-action suits in federal courts in eight states against roughly one dozen not-for-profit hospital systems, alleging that the institutions haveviolated their obligations as charities by overcharging uninsured patients, the Wall Street Journal reports. While the cases have small variations, they are all essentially breach-of-contract suits focused on the idea that not-for-profit hospitals have "an explicit or implicit contract" with the federal government to serve uninsured patients to receive "significant" tax breaks, the Journal reports. The suits allege that the hospitals have violated their contracts by charging uninsured patients "premium" rates, even though insurers, HMOs and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid pay discounted rates, according to the Journal. Some suits also cite particular hospitals' use of tactics to collect unpaid bills, including placing liens on homes and assessing interest, fines and legal fees (Wall Street Journal, 6/17). The lawsuits, which allege that hospitals are "sitting on large, untaxed sums," seek the creation of a trust fund that the hospitals would finance to provide affordable medical services to the uninsured, the New York Times reports (Abelson/Glater, New York Times, 6/17). Richard Scruggs, one of the attorneys involved in the lawsuits, said, "This is going to force a major re-evaluation" of not-for-profit hospitals, adding, "We want them to be doing what they are supposed to be doing." Scruggs also participated in the federal lawsuits against the tobacco industry in the 1990s. He alleges that the uninsured patients receiving care at the hospitals cited represent a "class" that is entitled to damages. For the suits to continue to trial, a judge will have to certify their status as class-action, a lengthy process that might take years and is not always successful, the Journal reports (Wall Street Journal, 6/17). Don Barrett, another attorney involved in the case, said that the suits are "part of a coordinated attack on [hospitals'] reprehensible practice[s]" and that more suits are expected to be filed (New York Times, 6/17).

Not-For-Profit Status
According to the Journal, the lawsuits' "push to the fore a thorny debate in academic, health care and legal circles on what a hospital needs to do to maintain its status as a charitable institution." John Colombo, a professor of tax-exempt organizations at the University of Illinois College of Law, said, "If a not-for-profit has substantial charity care for the poor, that will be enough, and no one will question their exemption" under Internal Revenue Service section 501(c)3. He added, "The problem lies with those hospitals that don't have substantial charity-care programs. The question is -- are hospitals exempt even if they don't have charitable care, and the answer is there is no clear answer." A House subcommittee has been investigating not-for-profit hospitals' services for uninsured patients and is planning to hold hearings in June during which hospital CEOs are expected to testify (Wall Street Journal, 6/17). In addition, attorneys general in some states have investigated or filed lawsuits against hospitals regarding their billing practices (New York Times, 6/17).

Hospitals' Reaction
American Hospital Association spokesperson Alicia Mitchell said that the lawsuits are "baseless and misdirected -- diverting focus away from real issue of how we as a nation are going to extend health care coverage to all Americans." AHA has encouraged hospitals to adopt voluntary reforms concerning billing and collection (Wall Street Journal, 6/17). Mitchell added that hospitals cannot afford to provide free health care and that the lawsuits would affect already limited financial resources, the Times reports (New York Times, 6/17). Most hospitals said Wednesday that they could not comment without first reviewing the allegations. Provena Covenant Medical Center's CEO Mark Wiener said that his system, Provena Health, "always cares for the patients first -- finances come later," adding that it is working to improve its financial-assistance program for uninsured patients. Mike Thomas, vice president of East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System, said, "We are stunned that anyone would question [our] commitment and approach to meeting our not-for-profit responsibility to deliver charity care" (Wall Street Journal, 6/17).

Other Response
Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University professor of economics and public affairs, said that hospitals' unpaid bill collection tactics have "brought on them the wrath of the community over their tax exemption." Eugene Elder, a lawyer for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld who has represented hospitals, said that the issue of how hospitals treat the uninsured is likely to keep drawing attention because "[m]ore and more people have become sensitized" to the issue as they experience the high price of health care and "it's easy to get outraged." Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at Columbia Law School, said it is not clear how strong the suits are. He added, "There are a couple of moving parts that are hard to define. What is the legal obligation to provide charity care?" (New York Times, 6/17).

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Clinton describes Lewinsky scandal as "terrible moral error." You got to hand it to Billy, he is smooth. However, we don't impeach Presidents for being immoral, we impeach them for breaking the law.


http://us.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/17bill.htm

I don't understand this post. What's so smooth about 'fessin up and admitting something was wrong?

Or perhaps it's just your misread/mischaracterization of the article. Clinton "admitted he made a "terrible moral error" by having an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky."

The affair was a "terrible moral error." Not the scandal. He wasn't talking about the scandal. Or the impeachment.

Indeed, he was apparently quite aggressive about the ensuing impeachment debacle:

"I didn't quit, I never thought of resigning, and I stood up to it and beat it back. The whole battle was a badge of honor. I don't see it as a stain, because it was illegitimate."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't understand this post. What's so smooth about 'fessin up and admitting something was wrong?

Or perhaps it's just your misread/mischaracterization of the article. Clinton "admitted he made a "terrible moral error" by having an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky."

The affair was a "terrible moral error." Not the scandal. He wasn't talking about the scandal. Or the impeachment.

Indeed, he was apparently quite aggressive about the ensuing impeachment debacle:

"I didn't quit, I never thought of resigning, and I stood up to it and beat it back. The whole battle was a badge of honor. I don't see it as a stain, because it was illegitimate."

The implications is that legally he did nothing wrong. That's my problem with it. And his statement regarding impeachment only bolsters that. In effect, he is saying, "yes it was morally wrong, but I wouldn't quit because it wasn't legally wrong."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The implications is that legally he did nothing wrong.

I think it takes a lawyer to think that's what he's trying to say. But then if you're parsing Clinton's statements to look for a legal defense, it suggests a prosecutorial mindset to start with.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The implications is that legally he did nothing wrong. That's my problem with it. And his statement regarding impeachment only bolsters that. In effect, he is saying, "yes it was morally wrong, but I wouldn't quit because it wasn't legally wrong."

What you said was, "However, we don't impeach Presidents for being immoral, we impeach them for breaking the law." So the impeachment proceedings in the House --- which are, under our Constitution, an accusation --- were sufficient to establish the law was broken, notwithstanding the Senate trial that acquitted him? Meanwhile, elsewhere in the GOP, Oliver North was a fit candidate for the Senate because the technicality on which his criminal conviction was overturned somehow vitiated the moral reprehensibility of lying to Congress under oath?

Republicans and Clinton are like dogs and a bone.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Republicans and Clinton are like dogs and a bone.

Woof.

And now for something completely different.

Here is an excellent letter posted on Andrew Sullivan's website:

• You would, I think, be amazed at how many people in Middle America (if the Middle Tennessee area counts as that--I think it does) are politically frustrated in much the same way you are. It's not the ideologues--they've picked their sides--people who are both social and fiscal righties are for Bush; people who are both social and fiscal lefties are for Kerry. It's the ones in the middle, people who might describe themselves as center-left or center-right, maybe they are fiscal conservatives but social moderates, for instance, who are as sorely frustrated as you seem to be.
  
  I have talked to many people--professionals from all walks of life who have never missed an election before who are seriously thinking of just sitting this one out. They are not "undecided" as that terms is usually used (i.e., people who haven't been paying enough attention to care and thus don't know anything). They are undecided in the opposite way--they have been paying A LOT of attention and know pretty much everything...not much of it good.
  
  Here's what they want:
  
  1. A President for whom the War on Terror is by far the top priority and who will execute it with cold efficiency and competence. They don't mind if mistakes are made--they even expect them (omelet-making and all)--but by God they wnat someone to 'fess up to them and make them right.
  
  2. A President who doesn't kowtow to every freaking interest group that beats down his door--unions, religious groups, activist groups, etc.
  
  3. Along those same lines, they want a President who has goddamned opinions that are clear, forthright and his own. They don't like Kerry because he really--when you get right down to it--has no principled opinions, and they don't like Bush because listing to him talk wiothout a prepared text (and sometimes even with a prepared text) is pretty excruciating, especially for people in the so-called "creative class" with whom I'm largely dealing.
  
  4. They don't--as hard as it may be for people on both the social right and left to understand--give two sh*ts about abortion and homosexuality one way or other in the context of the presidential election. I talked to one person who said she wanted to go four years without a sitting president ever talking about these two topics one way or the the other. This was a very devout, adamantly pro-life woman. You know that Dennis Miller quote making the rounds, somthing about he doesn't care if two guys get married, he does care about the terrorist who wants to blow up the place they're getting married in? That's EXACTLY how these people feel.
  
  5. The biggest frustration among many of these people is that they feel like President Bush abused their trust. These are people who either voted for Gore or reluctantly pulled the lever for Bush, yet rallied around him after 9/11, often to their detriment, as their more lefty peers heavily criticized them for supporting him. They maintained that support and defended Bush to the hilt through much of last year, especially for the Iraq War, and especially after the capture of Saddam. Now they feel mildly betrayed...since they went out on a political limb for a man whom they feel took them for granted and seems to have no idea that that's the case.
  
  Yeah, there's a lot that can happen between now and November, but right now there are a lot of people ready and willing to stay at home, a concept they wouldn't have even pondered before in their lives.

Couldn't have said this better myself.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The implications is that legally he did nothing wrong. That's my problem with it. And his statement regarding impeachment only bolsters that. In effect, he is saying, "yes it was morally wrong, but I wouldn't quit because it wasn't legally wrong."

Conversely, Reagan felt that he shouldn't quit over something that wasn't (he thought - I disagree) morally wrong but was legally wrong.

I'm more comfortable with Clinton's standard than Reagan's.

Now if your point is that Clinton is wrong about everything being legal, that's a much stickier question, because then Reagan's standard must come into play for Clinton as well. Clinton admittedly sidesteps this issue (at least for now) by attacking the legitimacy of the entire investigation. But if one thinks it is the business of the independent prosecutor to investigate immoral (but not illegal) actions, then the subsequent arguably illegal actions are problematic. Even if it isn't the independent prosecutor's business, it's problematic.

But I think that still a lot of Clinton supporters view the whole thing as a type of political entrapment (but not really entrapment in the legal sense).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it takes a lawyer to think that's what he's trying to say. But then if you're parsing Clinton's statements to look for a legal defense, it suggests a prosecutorial mindset to start with.

This IS Clinton we are talking about.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
What you said was, "However, we don't impeach Presidents for being immoral, we impeach them for breaking the law." So the impeachment proceedings in the House --- which are, under our Constitution, an accusation --- were sufficient to establish the law was broken, notwithstanding the Senate trial that acquitted him? Meanwhile, elsewhere in the GOP, Oliver North was a fit candidate for the Senate because the technicality on which his criminal conviction was overturned somehow vitiated the moral reprehensibility of lying to Congress under oath?

Republicans and Clinton are like dogs and a bone.

Are you arguing the law was not broken?