Wednesday Highlights

Good morning. Yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah

  1. More IRS tricks and missteps.
  2. A 14 y/old photographer and some of his pictures.
  3. Le Tour and changes in the last century.
  4. Some of the  groups not audited by the IRS, ’cause they didn’t have “Constitution” in their tagline.
  5. Testifying in regards to IRS investigation.
  6. Zooom.
  7. Game warden and his guns.
  8. Modern healthcare … as we move into the “who you know” regime.
  9. Hitler and language.
  10. Teh race card, and an example of not getting it at all.
  11. The surprise exam.
  12. Mistaken notions on what constitutes war noted.

8 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. 8.Modern healthcare … as we move into the “who you know” regime.

    Indeed, it seems to be coming from Republicans though. There’s objective criteria for who gets on transplant waiting lists. Because this one case happens to have caught the attention of some Republicans, they are effectively saying some other child should die because their plea for a lung transplant failed to ‘go viral’ among Republican pro-life types.

  2. Boonton,
    Ms Sebelius did not say “I can’t” intervene, but “I won’t”. She did not point to rule of law to defend action or not action but pointed only that (because this wasn’t someone she knew or a favored donor to the Democratic party) she would not intervene. Hence my remarks that healthcare by Democratic preference is moving to a “who you know” vs “rule of law/market” regime.

  3. Boonton,
    “they are effectively saying some other child should die because their plea for a lung transplant failed to ‘go viral’ among Republican pro-life types.” … and actually what they said wasn’t that some other child should die, but that perhaps the criteria on the list management is incorrect and perhaps children should get priority over those who are far older.

  4. The criteria according to the article is that children over 12 are in the list for adult lungs but under 12 they are only put in the list for pediatric lungs. Since pediatric lungs do not show up as much as adult ones, the girl would obviously rather be in the larger pool. That’s perfectly understandable but the ‘it’s who you know’ problem is at play on the GOP side here. The argument for special treatment for the 10 year old would mean possibly a 12 year old being denied a lung should one become available. If the lung fails in the 10 year old because of her age and size then you have a double tragedy of two deaths where one could have been avoided.

    This 12 year old who dies is invisible since she or he isn’t the darling of some Republican politicians. In fact no one will even know who she is as she will simply be listed as another person who died waiting for an organ.

  5. Boonton,

    That’s perfectly understandable but the ‘it’s who you know’ problem is at play on the GOP side here.

    I was unaware that Sibelius was a Republican. It’s likely news to her.

    The argument for special treatment for the 10 year old would mean possibly a 12 year old being denied a lung should one become available.

    Possibly. It however, aside from your hyperbole, mean that a 12 y/old will die or be denied. The waiting list is not huge. The likelihood of another 12 y/old also on the list is small, especially as seeing as those who would be bumped were specifically noted as being elderly.

    My point stands, Ms Sibelius did not point to the rules. She said “she wouldn’t” not “couldn’t”.

  6. I was unaware that Sibelius was a Republican. It’s likely news to her.

    You haven’t read the article it seems. Sibelius isn’t making decisions about organ transplants. She is being asked to ‘declare an emergancy’ and override the procedures used by Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to benefit a single person who, for whatever reason, has caught the fancy of some Republican politicians.

    Possibly. It however, aside from your hyperbole, mean that a 12 y/old will die or be denied. The waiting list is not huge. The likelihood of another 12 y/old also on the list is small, especially as seeing as those who would be bumped were specifically noted as being elderly.

    There are currently 40 over 12 on the waiting list and the fact is if you add one person to the waiting list then the odds of everyone else getting a lung diminishes should one become available. It would be a valid argument here if you had plenty of lungs and the girl was being told no when there were adult lungs being thrown away that she could at least try. But when there isn’t enough lungs to go around it’s pretty clear what a ‘special’ change in the rules would mean. Someone who would have otherwise gotten a lung now has to compete with the girl for it.

    Granted that person might be old. Granted that person might end up being a better match and get the lungs anyway. I’m not saying I’m against making a call like that but what’s happening here is that person is being left out of the discussion. The politicians advocating sending the old person to an earlier grave aren’t saying the young should have priority over the old. They are painting it as a simple choice between giving a little girl life or not. The other person in the equation deserves to at least be acknowledged here even if it turns out he should be sacrificed.

    AND also note these are the same types who veer towards hysterical claims of ‘death panels’ whenever someone does actually get explicit about what they seem to be advocating.

  7. Boonton,

    Sibelius isn’t making decisions about organ transplants. She is being asked to ‘declare an emergancy’ and override the procedures used by Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to benefit a single person who, for whatever reason, has caught the fancy of some Republican politicians.

    I know that. She hasn’t said “there are procedures” or “I can’t or shouldn’t override the procedures in place”. She said, … in effect, for you (’cause I dont’ know you or you aren’t a donor or whatever …) I won’t. And no … apparently she has backtracked and gone ahead and done it.

    See. Who you know … makes all the difference. That is what I’m criticizing.

  8. She said, … in effect, for you (’cause I dont’ know you or you aren’t a donor or whatever …) I won’t.

    Really? Your article says:

    Sebelius said HHS lawyers disagree with Republicans who insist she can take emergency action. Instead of personally intervening, she has ordered a review of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network’s policy.

    And

    “I can’t imagine anything worse than one individual getting to pick who lives and who dies,”

    I’m not seeing her saying “Ohhh, I can decide who goes on the organ transplant list but only if I happen to personally know them”. I see her saying the exact opposite, she can’t make any such personal decisions. She can only ask that the policies and procedures be reviewed.

    And she doesn’t seem to have backtracked. The latest news is a Federal judge issued an order to put the girl on the transplant list, which is not the same as Sebelius simply deciding personally who goes and who doesn’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>