Not so deep thoughts in blogging
November 2, 2010
The headline could just as easily read, “Execution of 1/3 of all left-handed people could be free under health care law”. That’s kind of the problem of passing gigantic expensive laws that nobody understands. – Mark Shea
Yes, I’m sure he will claim he is being hyperbolic. The problem is that the claim “nobody understands” is simply fallacious and just reflection of his own deficiency. Given that he has been offering commentary on the health care bill for over 6 months, his lack of understanding is a matter of sloth or incompetence. It most certainly isn’t a measure of prudence. That he expects his criticisms to be taken seriously over the matter at this point is just a reflection of his arrogance.
Advertisement
35 Comments
Comments are closed.
MZ…
Did you know that contraception would be free under Obamacare? That’s what he was commenting on. Did you know taht it would. Will it?
I am sure such things will keep popping up precisely becuase no one fully understands that behemoth of a bad bill….
The other big problem is the “could” which people use to make people afraid of something they have not studied. When I read the original article, the thing I found out is that we are not talking about the health care reform itself, but an attempt of someone to add to it — elements not in the bill itself.
It’s like saying — “born alive act could lead to euthanasia” because someone gets some sort of Logan’s Run idea and they decide to promote birth and early death.
Considering the amount of people that have opened up the bill itself and read it, I imagine Mark Shea is right on. Seriously, with a huge bill like that there a lot of avenues tht people don’t predict b/c they can’t/don’t take the time to go over it. Not sure why Mark is being incompetent just b/c he hasn’t read the thing.
Mr. Ruse,
At some point, it is the height of idiocy to speak of what Obamacare covers and doesn’t cover. Obamacare doesn’t provide a single service. As is applicable here, what Obamacare does is add an interstate market for health insurance. Presently, intrastate coverage is regulated by individual states’ commissioners of insurance. Interstate coverage not provided through an employer will be regulated under HHS. That is so not shocking and logical as to be mundane. Presently, some states require intrastate plans to provide contraceptive coverage, either explicitly by itself or coincident with our provided coverages, such as coverage for erectile dysfunction.
Mr. Denton,
There are tons of avenues people hit because they don’t read the bill. There is gross difference between being wrong because you misunderstood something and being wrong because you could care less about being right. People that don’t care to be right who turn out not to be right are hardly revolutionary or noteworthy. People following a guy who simultaneously parades his ignorance and makes outrageous claims founded in nothing is something I just can’t understand.
This is post is petty and ridiculous, M.Z. The article Mark linked to says the following:
A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient, as required under President Barack Obama’s overhaul.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., author of the women’s health amendment, says the clear intent was to include family planning.
But is birth control preventive medicine?
Conflicting answers frame what could be the next clash over moral values and a health law that passed only after a difficult compromise restricting the use of public money for abortions….
How the Obama administration will apply the law remains to be seen. It could allow insurance plans wide discretion on meeting the coverage requirement. A panel convened by the Institute of Medicine will hold its first meeting Nov. 16 to begin work on recommendations to HHS. The department has until next August to make its decision.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control
In other words, a panel of experts is meeting to determine how the language of the law should be applied. This happens all the time. And until the panel decides how the law will be applied, it is not clear whether the law will have the effect the article (and Mark’s post) discusses or not. If Mark is lazy for not reading the bill, what should we say about someone who can’t be bothered to read a typical AP-length article before firing off ill-directed attacks?
I’ve read the article.
It amazes me that someone can’t understand what I’m criticizing in an under 10 sentence post.
Who here has read the bill? All 2700-odd pages? Not me. I think Mark Shea is right: nobody understands the bill. Because nobody has read it. Not the people who wrote it (lawyers) or the people who voted for it (our congressmen) Not the voters who supported it or campaigned against it.
And I cannot blame any of them for not reading and not understanding. It is not laziness or incompetence. The thing is 2700 pages long. It is evidence of normal adjustment that one does not prioritize the reading of 2700 pages of legalese. Even people who are supposed to read bills like its their job, (congressmen) because it is their job, get a pass from me on this one.
It seems to me the only thing more asinine than being against something you don’t understand is being FOR something you don’t understand.
I will continue to blame people who attempt to offer substantive commentary on topics for which they are ignorant for being ignorant. If that makes me a bad person, oh well.
I will continue to blame people who attempt to offer substantive commentary on topics for which they are ignorant for being ignorant. If that makes me a bad person, oh well.
Well, but your post fails as effective criticism for a number of reasons. First, because the issue Shea was addressing (providing contraception) actually isn’t clear in the legislation because only subsequent decisions by a panel of experts will determine whether the legislation provides for it. Secondly, because the other point Shea was making was that comprehensive legislative overhauls are generally very difficult to understand (which I deal with on a daily basis vis-a-vis providing guidance on the recent financial reform bill – I wish you luck trying to figure out how the panel of experts will implement that piece of work).
Neither of these points is effectively critiqued in your post, which asserts that only laziness could account for an inability to understand the thousands of pages of legislative eloquence in the recent health care reform bad person, and that no one should comment on it who has not read the bill. That doesn’t make you a bad person; it’s just sloppy and ineffective blogging.
If you don’t want to argue that the execution of left-handed people is an absurdly ridiculous understanding of the legitimate domain of implications of the health care bill, that is your business. That is all I’m saying. The rest is some debate you would like to have. The idea that executing left-handed people is a possible policy implication of this bill is a patently ridiculous point to begin rational debate on the topic. The fact that you won’t plainly condemn Shea is an indictment of you.
The fact that you won’t plainly condemn Shea is an indictment of you.
For making a joke?
Do you get your jollies from joking about the President killing left handed people?
Do you get your jollies from joking about the President killing left handed people?
Only if it’s conditional, limited to 1/3 of them, free, and Congress and the Senate also sign off on it. Then it’s hilarious (j/k). In any case, I don’t see any reason to “condemn” this particular use of humorous exaggeration in service of a fairly banal observation about the legislative process.
John Henry
When people start using “could” as a fear tactic, without indicating anything which substantiates the “could,” yes, there is a problem. “Could” is an easy word to use. Today the world “could” be hit by an asteroid. But if I claim that without giving reasons for why I think the could is a good probability, the “could” is fearmongering.
So on one hand the health care law is too long and complicated, though I do believe there are many congressional staffers who fully understand the bill and have fully explained it to there congress men and women (that is how this works, not even Evelyn Woods could read all of every piece of legislation voted on in congress). But on the other hand the bill is flawed because it did not specify every medical procedure and medicine that would or would not be covered.
I see why this debate is confusing.
Why is the execution of left-handed people an absurdly ridiculous understanding of the legitimate domain of implications of the health care bill, when the execution of preborn children of varying ages is going to be something all those insurance companies MUST cover for free? Unless you are a victim of your own sloth or incompetence, you know that the killing of embryos is unequivocally included in the FDA’s, Planned Parenthood’s, and Kathleen Sebelius’ definition of “contraception.” Ever heard of Ella? I didn’t think so.
Today the world “could” be hit by an asteroid. But if I claim that without giving reasons for why I think the could is a good probability, the “could” is fearmongering.
Are you kidding?
The headline could just as easily read, “Execution of 1/3 of all left-handed people could be free under health care law”.
You think the above is “fearmongering” rather than an obvious attempt at humor? Come on, Henry. It may or may not be a funny joke, but it ain’t fearmongering.
Who here has read the bill?
I have.
All 2700-odd pages?
Yep
Not me.
Well then, with all due respect, I have to say that I feel I am therefore more qualified to explain it than you.
I think Mark Shea is right: nobody understands the bill.
I don’t feel I am a nobody, so I think Mr. Shea is wrong.
There is a difference between not understanding the bill and having a clear understanding that the bill leaves certain matters to be decided through a particular process set up in the bill.
John Henry actually shows an understanding of the process the bill sets up though he mistakenly suggests this is a defense of Shea.
As I could have told you before it passed, the bill outlines a process that will determine the basic package of benefits. This is called subsidiarity. Given that most private insurance includes contraception as a benefit (without much of an objection by Republicans) it was concession to contraception opponents to leave this to further discernment rather than just have these policies mimic what the private market does.
I am sorry Mark does not have the wits to understand this new law. I don’t find it all that complicated. What I do find complicated is how (if he even tries) Mark will make the case to the Republican Party that they should take up the cause of opposing contraception. Severed from the abortion issue, I have not found a whole lot of enthusiasm from the GOP on this issue.
If I were to claim that John Henry could rob a bank, and spend the money on hookers and blow in Tijuana, I doubt we’d singing hosannas over my creativity in the theoretical sphere. Instead, I’d probably stand accused of implying a malicious intent on John Henry, which would (and could) be an accurate descriptor of my intent.
This all reminds me of how the prerogative to stand on principle is reserved for the powerful and demagogues. If those opposing parts of the bill wanted their beliefs reflected in it, they could have made their support available. This would have meant living with things you didn’t want to live with but also getting things you wouldn’t otherwise have. Republicans weren’t powerless in the process. They chose not to exercise their power.
As for contraception, anyone who isn’t a demagogue has to look at the present state of affairs before evaluating what won’t or will happen. Once implemented, the anticipated use of exchange products is under 10%. This and only this is the place where HHS will determine if contraceptives are a part of mandated coverage. Even if they aren’t mandated, my understanding is that there is nothing stopping a plan offered through the exchange from offering contraceptive coverage on its own just as there is nothing against offering 90% coinsurance. Superfluous benefits of course will not be eligible for subsidy. Under all the other plans that will still be in existence after the exchanges go into effect, the present rules regarding contraceptive coverage will still be binding.
Laws have consequences. Many of them unintended. The larger the bill and the more moving pieces there are, the more likely it is that the unintended consequences will be significant. Mr. Shea used a humorous and obviously ridiculous example to underscore this point. That’s not ‘fearmongering’ nor does it need to be ‘condemned’. Y’all are taking hypersensitivity to a new level.
Contraception is murder?
Mark Shea has offered the defense that I’m indeed correct that he isn’t to be taken seriously, and he really doesn’t like Vox Nova and thinks we are really bad. Expect the drones in his combox to compliment him on his deft use of the ad hominem.
John Henry,
But Mr. Shea didn’t come up with any significant unintended consequences. While you did outline the procedure for developing the basic benefits package, he declared it to be beyond his intellectual abilities.
The law also outlines a process for private insurance companies to sell insurance on state exchanges. I can’t tell you right now which insurance companies will be selling policies in my state, but it is not a matter of “gee whiz, this law is so gosh darn complicated, I can’t understand it.” A process has been laid out in the bill ansd it is yet to be implemented.
I don’t deny Mr. Shea the right to speak for himself. I am sure understanding this law is something way over his head. Its just not the case for everyone else in society.
Shorter Mark Shea:
Let 32 million people suffer from a lack of insurance. Let 40 million people continue to face rationing by cost based on inadeqaute insurance. Let insurance companie deny and drop coverage to people who need health care most. Let’s not bother about saving 150,000 lives. No, forget all that, because serious policy reform is actually a complicated undertaking, and I’m too lazy and uninformed to bother about it. After all, why concern myself about really complex policy when I can call people names instead?
Just out of curiosity, MM, where did I call you or M.Z. a name? Document please. And it’s no fair counting where I quoted M.Z. calling me slothful, incompetent and arrogant. Just to help you, here are the two posts being referenced, the first of which spoke of no person, but simply chuckled at the headline’s description of the quantum indeterminacy of the results of the health care bill and the second of which simply expressed amusement at M.Z. calling me names and at your transparent and indiscriminate boosterism for the Dem party. True, I did poke fun of the cowardly tactic of hiding behind fake IDs at the Catholic Fascist blog in order to score little points (a tactic that disgusts even some of the other Vox Novans). But that’s not “name-calling”. That’s noting a fact of past behavior on this blog.
So: document. Or retract. Or run off to the CF blog and write something catty. Any of the three will make me happy. However, I expect that instead you will simply moderate this reply out of existence.
Just out of curiosity, MM, where did I call you or M.Z. a name? Let’s not be silly. Perhaps you have a trusted friend that can aid you.
M.Z. calling me slothful, incompetent and arrogant I claimed the logical possibilities of someone claiming an inability to understand a bill they offered commentary upon over a six month period to be either (not and) sloth or incompetence. If you don’t want to be accused of incompetence, don’t offer extensive and repeated commentary over that which you are incompetent. At some point you need to avail yourself of the opportunity to cure your incompetence or we are left to think that you don’t care to engage in intelligent debate. Your arrogance is in presuming that no one else is competent to discuss these matters. This isn’t name calling, but honesty, albeit a not too flattering honesty.
Catholic Fascist blog I have noted previously my absence of participation in that venture.
So: document. I really don’t think you are the person to be making that kind of demand.
I can’t wait till Mark Shea joins the Vox Nova team.
Last time I checked, Mark Shea, associating somebody with Nazis was considered name calling, or poor form at the very least. You know, there was a time when I respected you. You fought the good fight on issues like torture. But engaging with you is poisonous. Heck, I can even civil debates with the American Catholic folks, because they focus on the issues. With you, it is always about insulting the person, usually in the context of some smug putdown. And you rarely engage the issues, because you feel you are above the issues. MZ nailed it.
I rarely engage you anymore because I feel dirty doing so. You drag me down to your level. It’s an occasion of sin that I need to avoid. But if you ever want an honest debate, you know where to find me.
Debate Club at Auschwitz does not, so far as I know, associate you with Nazis. It associates you with academics. Here is Zippy’s apt description of your methods, methods hard to distinguish from the methods of the Right when they get all academic about torture:
I have called the blog Vox Nova “debate club at Auschwitz” because the contributors generally take an airy academic inclusive approach to publicly discussing abortion, in this day and age with the mass scale horror all around us, on a blog which specifically advertises itself as Catholic perspectives. One of the contributors publicly stated that subsidiarity justifies the pro-choice position, for example, and other contributors have defended him. The point to the “Debate Club at Auschwitz” label is precisely that ambivalent public airy academic discussion in the presence of an actual moral horror which should be unequivocally rejected is inappropriate, like a debate club airily and academically discussing the Jewish Question at Auschwitz.
It isn’t an accusation that the Debate Club is gassing the Jews, or is in favor of gassing the Jews. Rather, it is an observation that there are times and places where it is simply wicked to engage in airy, public, ambivalent academic discussion of certain kinds of moral horror. One of those times and places is here and now; one of those subjects is abortion. Deliberate engagement in airy ambivalent inclusive public academic discussion is perfectly capable of itself – the discussion – being a form of wickedness, in certain circumstances.
The same thing applies to the Right’s public airy academic ambivalence on torture in the face of the fact that we have tortured prisoners, at least one and probably more of them to death, in the GWOT.
The unwinding of the pro-life movement from the inside by strongly associating it with despicable moral wrongs that appeal to the political Right, the home of the genuine pro-life movement, is Satan’s plan. We get to choose whether we will cooperate with that plan, or not.
That includes not waffling over the supposedly puzzling question of whether waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding prisoners as we have done is torture, without any question or ambiguity. You are either with the torturers, or against them.
I can appreciate that you might not want to be associated with academics, but I’m not sure I’d call that name-calling. At any rate, your humorlessness is funny. I had no particular interest in entering the health care “debate”. I was simply, as is my custom, registering a small bit of amusement about a headline. That this should so bestir you to outrage at my impiety is, as John Henry noted, a remarkable gauge of your pettiness.
But it being the day after the Home Team took it on the chin, I’ll just chalk it up to post-election blues. You care about this stuff way more than I do.
Mark Shea and his groupies are very, very annoying snide locker-room agitators, who love to drag people down to their own level.
Just out of curiosity, MM, where did I call you or M.Z. a name? Let’s not be silly. Perhaps you have a trusted friend that can aid you.
I’m late to this party, M.Z. Could you please tell *me* where Mr. Shea called you a name?
To put you mind at ease, I’m not particularly unsettled about the election result. Unlike you, I can support a side without being invested in their winning. For all your posturing about not supporting any one party, you are awfully vested in election outcomes. One of the benefits of my transition to treating the world as it is rather than how I would like it to be is that I don’t obsess over deviation from ideal.
I don’t consider myself particularly humorless, although I should confess that I completely missed the humor in similar style hyperbole such as Bushitler. Perhaps, you are correct in that I should look with pride at being placed in a debate society at Auschwitz. Perhaps you are correct that no ill intent is intended.
I had no particular interest in entering the health care “debate”.
This is manifestly not the case and a dishonest claim. If that provides you an out from this exchange, then feel free to take it.
Mark Shea’s reply is further evidence of the point I am trying to make, and why it is impossible to talk to him. Notice the complete lack of issues and substance (and an honesty about his lack of interest in issues and substance in general)- a long (winded) attempt to mock, with a preening self of self-satisfaction running through it.
I had a quick look at his blog, which reminded why I should not look at his blog. In quick succession, posts mocking the Affordable Care Act because he is too lazy to read it, posts mocking global warming because doesn’t seem at all aware of the terrible problems facing Africa today on account of climate change, and something on ACORN (ACORN?? I’m waiting for George Soros and the Black Panthers to show up!). All with his famous sense of detached “bemusement”, combined with mockery directed against people who actually want to get their hands dirty with the details of policy.
I still hope that some day, real dialogue will be possible with Mark Shea. I’ve reached out in the past, and even offered to meet him when he came to DC, but to no avail.
I’ve reached out in the past, and even offered to meet him when he came to DC
?! Really? I honestly have no memory of this. I don’t have any particular plans to be in DC, but when I get out there again (assuming I do), I’d be happy to have lunch. I just had Matt Talbot to our house for a lovely visit a week or so ago. A very good guy.
As to the rest, my blog reflects a lack of interest in some of the issues you care about. It also reflects the fact that I typically work a 12-14 hour day and so my blogging has been, of late, on light matters. I’m finishing two books, as well as gearing up for other big huge projects that consume my time, plus raising a family and keeping the wolf from the door (you know, doing all that stuff that politicians who say they care about the working poor are supposed to care about). So yeah, when I take a little time to unwind with a bit of blogging, I crack small jokes about headlines that amuse me and don’t stop to ask myself “Will this outrage M.Z. and offend the pieties of MM?”
Sheesh!
Jokes that frequently ignite a flood of ignorant remarks from the homophobe jocks in your combox, which you encourage. And you are so proud not to lie awake at night worrying about global warming. All of which is mightily ANNOYING.