In the coverage of the attempt on Kavanaugh did the trans status of the defendant ever get reported back then? If it was I sure missed it. Of course anti trans wasn't a thing back then.
I remember being shocked at the lack of decorum by Joe Wilson when he shouted "You lie!" during President Obama's SOTU address. What halcyon days those were.
No. However, just like in the US and many countries of you are not a "legal" person in that country and found yourself in a life threatening situation eg car accident or gun shot, the closest hospital would treat you by law, and you would be sent the bill.
What more evidence do you need that MAGA is a death cult than:
Trump contemplating a pardon for a convicted serial child sex trafficker/abuser? (There's no scenario that this plays well...)
The GOP getting their followers to reject outright things that benefit them (healthcare) for a lie that it might help someone else?
GOP denials that factual statements are lies (that the ACA will not benefit "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States"; the 14th Amendment "all persons", etc.; vaccines save lives/prevent misery).
The Attorney General's evasive answers about the Epstein files in her testimony today confirm that there is material in the files that the people who've seen it consider both horrific and incriminating for Trump. If that weren't the case, a simple "no, Senator" to many of the questions would have sufficed. The files are a sword of Damocles hanging over the regime.
While I tend to agree with you, why weren’t the files released by Biden? If they were so damaging to Trump, why would he and his handlers not have felt it was their duty to release them? My guess is there is a lot of bad stuff about Trump in there, but that there is also a lot of bad stuff about very rich and powerful people, and Democrat icons, in there as well. There is simply no plausible explanation otherwise for why both administrations covered this up.
The militancy of Bondi is stunning - she is completely indifferent to any question of substance and importance. She could give a fuck what people think or have concerns about. She is there for an audience of 1. Trump has laid waste to the American form of government. I am really concerned that we may never return to anywhere near normal. We are in serious shit.
None of them give a flying f*ck what anybody thinks of them, other than their boss, and that includes Trump. That is what has made them so powerful and effective. We are seeing in real time what can be accomplished if you have a high tolerance for embarrassment and no shame. The only thing that motivates any of them is how happy and satisfied the MAGA base is - and that base is also immune to shame and embarrassment, both for themselves and their avatars.
Have to say I disagree with Cathy Young's take on the would be Kavanaugh killer's sentence. 8 years seems more than long enough for someone whose only real "crime" was having bad thoughts and considering implementing them - but who then wasn't caught before following through, but turned themselves in and confessed said bad thoughts. I have plenty of bad thoughts every day, and while I definitely don't take them to the level this person did I really don't like the idea that eight years and lifetime supervision are insufficient punishment. Also, January 6th, pardons, blah, blah, blah.
An especially pernicious variant of Republican lies about immigrants and healthcare has to do with emergency department visits. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA, passed during Reagan’s second term), Hospitals that receive Medicare reimbursements (which most do) “…have three obligations….:
1. “An individual requesting emergency care or one for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable to do so must receive a medical screening examination (MSE) to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists*. The participating hospital cannot delay examination and treatment to inquire about methods of payment, insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may start the process of payment inquiry and billing only once it has ensured that doing so will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. “When an emergency departmentdetermines that an individual has an EMC, the hospital must provide further treatment and examination until the EMC is resolved or stabilized and the patient can provide self-care after discharge or, if unable to do so, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals cannot discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or if the patient otherwise discontinues payment during the course of stay.
3. “If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. That includes long-term-care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility. A hospital has no obligation under EMTALA to provide uncompensated services beyond the screening exam unless it determines that the patient has an EMC.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act )
(*nb. Under EMTALA, presenting to a hospital emergency department in active labor is, prima facie, an emergency.)
EMTALA does NOT pertain to any other medical care, and it does NOT promise anyone free medical care. There will still be charges and billing. Hospitals can (and certainly do) send for collections or sue those who fail to pay.
EMTALA was enacted to prevent patient dumping (I.e., refusing care or sending to some other facility without rendering stabilizing care or without notifying the receiving hospital and ensuring they will accept the transfer), hence its scope is limited to the above circumstances. EMTALA has been amended a number of times over the years, but those basic obligations remain in effect.
It would defeat EMTALA’s purpose to delay or deny necessary emergency screening and stabilizing treatment to conduct citizenship verification for the same reason conditioning emergency care on first successfully passing a wallet biopsy is prohibited.
"It will prove that Americans care more about choking off aid to undocumented immigrants—even where the aid is already prohibited—than we do about helping fellow Americans."
I wish I were more optimistic in the sense and empathy of my fellow citizens. This tactic has worked depressingly well for centuries. Leave it to Americans to pave over the pools, shutter the schools and die younger than they needed to while feeding their bigotry lies and nonsense.
This is a reductio ad insanity of the traditional liberal / conservative split, with the libs wanting to make sure that the deserving poor got their fair share, and the conservs wanting to make sure that the undeserving poor didn’t get more than their fair share. The difference is, back then, both sides had merit.
Oh my. I have treated many individuals with mental illness who had thoughts of violence based on their delusions. They can also assume a new gender identity as part of their mental illness. (This is not the same as being fundamentally transgender) We did not try to argue them out of it anymore than one can argue away other delusions.This individual who wanted to assassinate Kavanaugh is mentally ill and needs mandatory mental health treatment. Incarceration of any length will not be as effective as antipsychotic medication. Oh how I wish for a public which understood this.
Andrew, Will, Cathy and Jim, Thanks for bringing us this excellent reporting. Your had work is appreciated. Mike Johnson is the epitome of a charlatan. What makes him even more despicable is his Eddie Haskell persona. How bad is it that you depend on people's ignorance and apathy to tell blatent lies knowing they are blatent lies and then deliver those lies with a smug arrogance and Vance like frequency? The Dems stance on health care is great but they need to expand their horizon and take a hard stand on all the other transgressions of this administration. There's no absence of ammunition.
1. Regarding the "illegals getting things they shouldn't," I believe part of the reason the Republican argument works is because certain conservative mindsets find rule-breaking very painful. Thinking of the way Haidt had laid out the divide in mindsets, some people prioritize hierarchy/authority/ purity and some people prioritize equality/fairness. In the first category tend to be conservatives and religious people who prefer traditional rules etc. And for them, rule-breakers are violating their beliefs and moral codes. I've often said that they'd rather lots of people who deserve benefits don't get them, if even one person who doesn't deserve benefits is accidentally included. I prefer the inverse - better to protect the undeserving than to leave people who need help stranded. Because we'll never have a system that 100% targets only the deserving... we're all human and imperfect, so we create imperfect systems. If I'm choosing where to make a mistake, I know where I land. But... how can liberals even work with that? "Mistakes are inevitable," isn't the best messaging around.
2. I'm really surprised at saying 8 years is a light sentence for this plot. It made me think of domestic violence situations. If someone is actively threatening their partner, telling them they will kill them, stalking, and walking by their house while armed, the only thing that will happen to the threatener is maybe a restraining order. Even when there is physical violence, and plenty of warning signs, often nothing is done. And even if someone goes and commits a violent act short of killing, but with threats of escalation, still the punishment for that violence is not 8 years. So I'm puzzled that 8 years seems too short for this person NOT actually making an attempt on someone's life, and turning themselves in. I thought it sounded about right, the 8 years. And it should be something like that when other people do it, too, not only if the victim is a Supreme Court justice.
Thank you for your comments, particularly point #1. Like you, I fall on the side of “we must make sure that those in need receive help” even though it means that some rule-breakers slip through occasionally.
Sometimes I’ve wondered whether it might help clarify the situation if those so opposed to “rule-breaker” benefits could be forced to stipulate a numerical cut-off that suits their world-view. In other words, if the public benefits policies were written so stringently that 2 truly needy people had to be denied benefits in order to keep 1 rule-breaker from benefiting, would that be that ok? Or maybe write the rules more rigidly— deny 10 of the truly needy any benefits to ensure that 1 person can’t get around the safeguards— is that ok? Or 50 denied? Justify your cost-benefit analysis, you who are so concerned with making sure that the “undeserving” can’t sponge off your tax dollars.
Then let’s talk about the billionaires who are the ones who actually have sponged up $50 trillion of our hard-earned money in the last 50 years!
Crimes against certain federal officials fall under different laws than crimes against civilians. Supreme Court justices are probably covered by those laws.
They find it painful…unless it’s laws they break all the time. I’m from Trumpland. Ubiquitous crimes back home: speeding, drunk driving, tax evasion, gun storage and transportation, waste disposal, fires/burns, poaching, trading hunting tags, etc etc.
The people you’re describing are mostly W-2ers. Nobody who isn’t itemizing is evading taxes. It’s pretty much impossible. The trailer park trash who are drunk driving and trading hunting licenses aren’t cheating on their taxes.
Tax evasion is an upper class sport. It’s not hunting. It’s golf.
"It will prove that Americans care more about choking off aid to undocumented immigrants—even where the aid is already prohibited—than we do about helping fellow Americans."
Part of the self reliance myth that the right loves to preach is that nobody needs or deserves any help from anybody. That’s why all those farmers in the midwest refuse to accept government subsidies when their markets get cut off and all those hurricane and tornado victims never accept help from FEMA and the Red Cross.
In the coverage of the attempt on Kavanaugh did the trans status of the defendant ever get reported back then? If it was I sure missed it. Of course anti trans wasn't a thing back then.
I remember being shocked at the lack of decorum by Joe Wilson when he shouted "You lie!" during President Obama's SOTU address. What halcyon days those were.
Does Canada give free healthcare to people who are there illegally? Just asking for a friend.
No. However, just like in the US and many countries of you are not a "legal" person in that country and found yourself in a life threatening situation eg car accident or gun shot, the closest hospital would treat you by law, and you would be sent the bill.
That was a joke.
"The history of these attacks is instructive."
Republicans keep lying because it keeps working. It's that simple.
We're a long way from Jefferson's informed citizenry, we're fucked.
What more evidence do you need that MAGA is a death cult than:
Trump contemplating a pardon for a convicted serial child sex trafficker/abuser? (There's no scenario that this plays well...)
The GOP getting their followers to reject outright things that benefit them (healthcare) for a lie that it might help someone else?
GOP denials that factual statements are lies (that the ACA will not benefit "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States"; the 14th Amendment "all persons", etc.; vaccines save lives/prevent misery).
Drink the Kool-Aid, it's fine!
The Attorney General's evasive answers about the Epstein files in her testimony today confirm that there is material in the files that the people who've seen it consider both horrific and incriminating for Trump. If that weren't the case, a simple "no, Senator" to many of the questions would have sufficed. The files are a sword of Damocles hanging over the regime.
While I tend to agree with you, why weren’t the files released by Biden? If they were so damaging to Trump, why would he and his handlers not have felt it was their duty to release them? My guess is there is a lot of bad stuff about Trump in there, but that there is also a lot of bad stuff about very rich and powerful people, and Democrat icons, in there as well. There is simply no plausible explanation otherwise for why both administrations covered this up.
The militancy of Bondi is stunning - she is completely indifferent to any question of substance and importance. She could give a fuck what people think or have concerns about. She is there for an audience of 1. Trump has laid waste to the American form of government. I am really concerned that we may never return to anywhere near normal. We are in serious shit.
None of them give a flying f*ck what anybody thinks of them, other than their boss, and that includes Trump. That is what has made them so powerful and effective. We are seeing in real time what can be accomplished if you have a high tolerance for embarrassment and no shame. The only thing that motivates any of them is how happy and satisfied the MAGA base is - and that base is also immune to shame and embarrassment, both for themselves and their avatars.
Sigh
Have to say I disagree with Cathy Young's take on the would be Kavanaugh killer's sentence. 8 years seems more than long enough for someone whose only real "crime" was having bad thoughts and considering implementing them - but who then wasn't caught before following through, but turned themselves in and confessed said bad thoughts. I have plenty of bad thoughts every day, and while I definitely don't take them to the level this person did I really don't like the idea that eight years and lifetime supervision are insufficient punishment. Also, January 6th, pardons, blah, blah, blah.
Right? Are we prosecuting thought crimes now? If anything this person needed inpatient mental health treatment not a 30 year prison sentence.
An especially pernicious variant of Republican lies about immigrants and healthcare has to do with emergency department visits. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA, passed during Reagan’s second term), Hospitals that receive Medicare reimbursements (which most do) “…have three obligations….:
1. “An individual requesting emergency care or one for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable to do so must receive a medical screening examination (MSE) to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists*. The participating hospital cannot delay examination and treatment to inquire about methods of payment, insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may start the process of payment inquiry and billing only once it has ensured that doing so will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. “When an emergency departmentdetermines that an individual has an EMC, the hospital must provide further treatment and examination until the EMC is resolved or stabilized and the patient can provide self-care after discharge or, if unable to do so, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals cannot discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or if the patient otherwise discontinues payment during the course of stay.
3. “If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. That includes long-term-care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility. A hospital has no obligation under EMTALA to provide uncompensated services beyond the screening exam unless it determines that the patient has an EMC.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act )
(*nb. Under EMTALA, presenting to a hospital emergency department in active labor is, prima facie, an emergency.)
EMTALA does NOT pertain to any other medical care, and it does NOT promise anyone free medical care. There will still be charges and billing. Hospitals can (and certainly do) send for collections or sue those who fail to pay.
EMTALA was enacted to prevent patient dumping (I.e., refusing care or sending to some other facility without rendering stabilizing care or without notifying the receiving hospital and ensuring they will accept the transfer), hence its scope is limited to the above circumstances. EMTALA has been amended a number of times over the years, but those basic obligations remain in effect.
It would defeat EMTALA’s purpose to delay or deny necessary emergency screening and stabilizing treatment to conduct citizenship verification for the same reason conditioning emergency care on first successfully passing a wallet biopsy is prohibited.
"It will prove that Americans care more about choking off aid to undocumented immigrants—even where the aid is already prohibited—than we do about helping fellow Americans."
I wish I were more optimistic in the sense and empathy of my fellow citizens. This tactic has worked depressingly well for centuries. Leave it to Americans to pave over the pools, shutter the schools and die younger than they needed to while feeding their bigotry lies and nonsense.
Not directly on point, but a possible sign for 18 October, assuming the shut-down lasts that long:
THE FELON CUTS TAXES
FOR HIS BRO-LIGARCHS,
CUTS MEDICAID FOR
THE MIDDLE CLASS;
DISREGARDS VALID
COURT ORDERS
SHUT HIM DOWN, TOO!
This is a reductio ad insanity of the traditional liberal / conservative split, with the libs wanting to make sure that the deserving poor got their fair share, and the conservs wanting to make sure that the undeserving poor didn’t get more than their fair share. The difference is, back then, both sides had merit.
Oh my. I have treated many individuals with mental illness who had thoughts of violence based on their delusions. They can also assume a new gender identity as part of their mental illness. (This is not the same as being fundamentally transgender) We did not try to argue them out of it anymore than one can argue away other delusions.This individual who wanted to assassinate Kavanaugh is mentally ill and needs mandatory mental health treatment. Incarceration of any length will not be as effective as antipsychotic medication. Oh how I wish for a public which understood this.
I say we deport this individual to another "1st World industrialized" nation to get proper care for their mental illness.
Andrew, Will, Cathy and Jim, Thanks for bringing us this excellent reporting. Your had work is appreciated. Mike Johnson is the epitome of a charlatan. What makes him even more despicable is his Eddie Haskell persona. How bad is it that you depend on people's ignorance and apathy to tell blatent lies knowing they are blatent lies and then deliver those lies with a smug arrogance and Vance like frequency? The Dems stance on health care is great but they need to expand their horizon and take a hard stand on all the other transgressions of this administration. There's no absence of ammunition.
1. Regarding the "illegals getting things they shouldn't," I believe part of the reason the Republican argument works is because certain conservative mindsets find rule-breaking very painful. Thinking of the way Haidt had laid out the divide in mindsets, some people prioritize hierarchy/authority/ purity and some people prioritize equality/fairness. In the first category tend to be conservatives and religious people who prefer traditional rules etc. And for them, rule-breakers are violating their beliefs and moral codes. I've often said that they'd rather lots of people who deserve benefits don't get them, if even one person who doesn't deserve benefits is accidentally included. I prefer the inverse - better to protect the undeserving than to leave people who need help stranded. Because we'll never have a system that 100% targets only the deserving... we're all human and imperfect, so we create imperfect systems. If I'm choosing where to make a mistake, I know where I land. But... how can liberals even work with that? "Mistakes are inevitable," isn't the best messaging around.
2. I'm really surprised at saying 8 years is a light sentence for this plot. It made me think of domestic violence situations. If someone is actively threatening their partner, telling them they will kill them, stalking, and walking by their house while armed, the only thing that will happen to the threatener is maybe a restraining order. Even when there is physical violence, and plenty of warning signs, often nothing is done. And even if someone goes and commits a violent act short of killing, but with threats of escalation, still the punishment for that violence is not 8 years. So I'm puzzled that 8 years seems too short for this person NOT actually making an attempt on someone's life, and turning themselves in. I thought it sounded about right, the 8 years. And it should be something like that when other people do it, too, not only if the victim is a Supreme Court justice.
I agree with your first point regarding the death penalty, but not with things given away that I pay for.
Thank you for your comments, particularly point #1. Like you, I fall on the side of “we must make sure that those in need receive help” even though it means that some rule-breakers slip through occasionally.
Sometimes I’ve wondered whether it might help clarify the situation if those so opposed to “rule-breaker” benefits could be forced to stipulate a numerical cut-off that suits their world-view. In other words, if the public benefits policies were written so stringently that 2 truly needy people had to be denied benefits in order to keep 1 rule-breaker from benefiting, would that be that ok? Or maybe write the rules more rigidly— deny 10 of the truly needy any benefits to ensure that 1 person can’t get around the safeguards— is that ok? Or 50 denied? Justify your cost-benefit analysis, you who are so concerned with making sure that the “undeserving” can’t sponge off your tax dollars.
Then let’s talk about the billionaires who are the ones who actually have sponged up $50 trillion of our hard-earned money in the last 50 years!
Crimes against certain federal officials fall under different laws than crimes against civilians. Supreme Court justices are probably covered by those laws.
They find it painful…unless it’s laws they break all the time. I’m from Trumpland. Ubiquitous crimes back home: speeding, drunk driving, tax evasion, gun storage and transportation, waste disposal, fires/burns, poaching, trading hunting tags, etc etc.
The people you’re describing are mostly W-2ers. Nobody who isn’t itemizing is evading taxes. It’s pretty much impossible. The trailer park trash who are drunk driving and trading hunting licenses aren’t cheating on their taxes.
Tax evasion is an upper class sport. It’s not hunting. It’s golf.
"It will prove that Americans care more about choking off aid to undocumented immigrants—even where the aid is already prohibited—than we do about helping fellow Americans."
Is this still a question?
Part of the self reliance myth that the right loves to preach is that nobody needs or deserves any help from anybody. That’s why all those farmers in the midwest refuse to accept government subsidies when their markets get cut off and all those hurricane and tornado victims never accept help from FEMA and the Red Cross.
You forgot the sarcasm font at the end of your comment, s/...but otherwise spot on!
But the aliens! The aliens want our health care!!!!!
👽👽👽👽👽👽👽
Why would they want our health care? Maybe they ought to sneak into countries with better health care.