The Affordable Health Care for America Act
Nov 8th, 2009 | 82 responses
Yes, it’s an historic achievement:
Health-care reform passed the House, quite literally, at the eleventh hour. It passed with a slim, two-vote margin. But it passed. That is more than has ever happened before. More than Truman or Nixon or Carter or Clinton managed. More than Rayburn or O’Neill or Gingrich managed. It is success, at least for this stage in the process. It is history, even, though it’s hard to sense the importance of the moment when you watch members of Congress spend the day squabbling over the true meaning of the word freedom.
Here it is, all 1,990 pages of it. It was passed by five votes (220-215).
Here is H.R. 3962, the Republicans’ alternative bill. It was defeated by 82 votes (258-176).
Here is the text of the Stupak Amendment (first posted in comments by Leonidas).
Some points of clarification for the above amendment are in order:
- The amendment forbids the use even of nonfederal funds to purchase supplementary insurance coverage for abortion services.
- The amendment places restrictions on the provision of supplemental insurance coverage for abortion services by private insurance companies (QHBP means “Qualifying Health Benefit Plan”), even if those QHBPs are not using federal funds to cover such services.
- The amendment contains exemptions for the life of the mother resulting from a physical disorder or a physical illness or a physical injury, and for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Life-threatening mental health conditions, as well as physical problems that a doctor determines will not result in death but will likely have serious health consequences for a woman if a pregnancy is continued, are not included.
Rayne at Firedoglake lists the 64 Democrats who, in her words, “ask[ed] for primary opponents.”
This bill does a lot of really good things. It’s strong, robust health care reform that truly deserves the word “historic.” Having said that, Scarecrow explains how it’s possible to feel thrilled and betrayed at the same time:
It’s like winning a huge battle, but half of your friends were killed or wounded.
36 million more people will be insured or become eligible for Medicaid
There will be a trillion dollars raised to help subsidize this over 10 years.
There will be multiple measures to help control the costs of Medicare
We will stop subsidizing private insurers in Medicare Advantage
Closes the donut hole
Allows Medicare negotation for drugs
Includes the seeds of a public option; lets it expand later, maybe
Prohibits denials based on prior conditions; ends rescissions except for fraud; improves loss ratios
Provides coverage for preconditions in the interim through government program (a hidden public plan)
Provides long-term care coverage (another hidden public plan)
Billions in funds more for education for doctors/nurses
Creates and funds more rural clinics
Begins dozens of health prevention programs, pilots, surveys
Creates entities to evaluate and recommend better treatment, cost saving
And on and on. — more good things, and some bad thingsIt’s a massive achievement, but women, mostly poor, paid an unconcionable price.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
82 Responses to “The Affordable Health Care for America Act”
Andy, Almoderate was quoting from my comment about the language that IS in the amendment and the language that ISN'T in the amendment. The language “physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself” IS in the amendment. The language *I* described and Almoderate quoted is NOT in the amendment. And that is the point.
“Individual responsibility” is not the problem. Corporate responsibility is the problem. Freedom is not lost by knowing you will not drop dead of a heart attack or succumb to cancer because you could not afford health care and didn't have insurance to pay for it.
We — all of us who are citizens of the U.S. — ARE, collectively, the American people. We are not just individuals running around unconnected to and unaffected by and unresponsible for anyone but ourselves. We all — and that includes you — pay the price for ignoring that reality (a price that is very, very real). You derive benefit from being part of a human, societal, economic, governmental system that includes 300 million people other than yourself. Every single day, you take from the system and derive good stuff from the fact that you are one person in a larger society where what happens to others affects the entire system and everyone in it. Yet, when it comes to paying into the system, you declare there is no system.You want the benefits of living in an organized political and social collective system without the costs. It doesn't work that way.
“The 50 million Americans who are uninsured cannot afford private insurance. That is the point.”
But the act barely addresses that affordability (allowing Medicare part D to negotiate drug prices is the only attempt), other than to subsides our current outrageous prices. Again, our costs are going up because employers and states are unnecessarily involved when they shouldn't be. I've stated my ideas several times, and will again if you've forgotten them. As it stands, lobbyists are by far bigger winners than the people, which is why no administration has been able to make meaningful reform, and this one isn't either.
Again, our costs are going up because employers and states are unnecessarily involved when they shouldn't be.
I'm not sure what you mean by states being unnecessarily involved — unless you're referring to state regulation of insurance companies, which is rather important to prevent insurers from selling policies that have huge coverage gaps. With regard to employers, I might need to research this to know for sure, but if memory serves the reason employers started offering health insurance coverage as an employee benefit was precisely because the cost of purchasing insurance privately was so high even then. In other words, it was a response to rising costs, not the cause of them.
Kathy,
I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't think my ideas are possible at present since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in real reform. Here's the sentence you seem to have missed: “Unfortunately, the established political parties aren't interested in the kind of systemic reform I advocate for because they each have powerful vested interests.” You originally – and speciously – claimed I didn't have any solutions – I think I do, but they are not politically possible given the vested interests that support your party and the GoP. I'm actually quite cynical on that score and believe that the system will, at a minimum, have to stand the precipice before real reform occurs, but I think it's much more likely we'll go the way of Argentina first. Our Congress too often doesn't act until after a crisis occurs.
So go ahead and criticize my politically impossible ideas all you want, but you should at least acknowledge that your solution doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems in the system either. It's quite amazing for you to lecture me about costs – the drum I constantly beat – on one hand while the other hand supports a bill that is likely to affect costs in the wrong direction. If you want to engage in wishful thinking and believe this bill you support will somehow reduce costs or even the rate of cost growth, then don't let me stop you. Maybe you'll get lucky and the train will somehow derail before it hits us – or at least those of us who will still be around to bear the brunt and clean up the mess.
Actually I did – I listed the three general principles I think are necessary. Those are changes that would really be structural change. If you were expecting a thesis or detailed explanation, sorry to disappoint you, but this is just a comment thread after all.
Maybe you missed the part where I said that would come after the necessary structural reform, which I believe should be the priority above all else – a priority the current legislation ignores. Of course if we simply adopted the model I suggested without those structural changes then it would fail – just as this current legislation will fail should it become law. At the risk of repeating myself, we need systemic reform, not the window-dressing that both political parties advocate.
Of course, but you completely missed what I was saying which related to the fiscal aspect of health care coverage. If you can't understand the financial implications of unlimited liability vs capped liability then I don't know what to tell you. Capping liability by requiring government to cover costs above that cap would tend to reduce premium costs. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was comparing the value of life to the value of a car or a house, but whatever.
Every single day, you take from the system and derive good stuff from the fact that you are one person in a larger society.
And I derive a lot of bad stuff too, to the extent the system delivers people worse outcomes than people could achieve on their own. Which is, from my observations, at least half the time.
You want the benefits of living in an organized political and social collective system without the costs. It doesn't work that way.
It works precisely that way, at least the part of it the government offers as subsidized services. You know, those things you're always screaming for more of?
Everyone wants the benefits without the costs, so government programs that decouple the two create a dangerous moral hazard. When you offer people entitlement programs and “free” services, by and large they're happy to avail themselves of them. We Californians have the empty coffers to prove it.
Sadly, that doesn't make the cost go away, it just passes it on to some schmuck who may or may not be better able to bear it.
What I'm trying to determine is if this new law will use the same standard as the hyde amendment. The language I quoted is from that.
First, your constant need for 'cites' simply says you think everyone is a liar. That offends me.
Second, your inability to find the simplest of available data implies either laziness or inability. You tell me which it is.
Third, your constant reliance on incorrect analysis simply because it comes from an organization you trust, rather than going to source documents, speaks to the same likely causes as my second complaint.
So, as anyone who might have spent the LEAST amount of time actually learning about what they are trying to shoot their mouth out about knows, the United States has been free of a national debt for only two years, 1834 and 1835. (page 2)
Again, you are confusing and mixing the concepts of National Debt with Budget Deficits.
So, for the second time in a few days, from the 2010 White House Budget Historical Tables (page 128), put out by the Obama Administration, which I hope meets your exacting standards for 'credible sources':
Now, when Bush took office, the National Debt was $3.410T ($5.629T gross – $2.219T held in government accounts), and when he left office it was $5.802T ($9.986T gross – $4.183T held in government accounts), a difference of $2.392T. Divided by 8 years in office, that is an average of $299B per year. Nothing to be proud of, certainly.
Now, In Obama's first year the WH's own estimates (same chart) show a national debt of $8.531T, or a ONE YEAR INCREASE of $2.279T! By the end of his first (and hopefully only) term, the national debt is estimated to have grown to $11.468T, an increase of $5.666T (which is more than than double what it was when he took office). That is an average increase of $1.417T per year, and that is before Health Care Reform or Waxman-Markey, and the lower than projected tax revenues as the recession (depression) is exacerbated by this insane spending spree, all of which will add multiple trillions of dollars more.
Now, to your other point of confusion, budget deficits, i.e., the amount in any given budget year that government spending exceeds revenues. On that matter, indeed at the end of the Clinton years there were two years of budget surpluses. But look at the annual budget deficits under Bush, and the WH and CBO projections for Obama.
Here is the source document for this chart, again, prior to Health Care Reform or Waxman-Markey, and the lower than projected tax revenues.
I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't think my ideas are possible at present since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in real reform.
Uh-huh. So. If your ideas were possible at present, how would they get done? What specific steps would you take to implement them? How would this look in terms of actual policy?
Actually I did – I listed the three general principles I think are necessary.
Uh-huh. But how would they serve to deliver health care to uninsured Americans at a lower cost? What makes you believe that setting a payout cap at $100,000 for private insurance companies would induce them to sell policies with lower premiums that provide comprehensive coverage? How would your principles help uninsured Americans to purchase insurance on the private market? I mean, I see your general principles and they are very nice, but I can't say if I think they are good or bad ideas if I don't know how they will change anything.
Uh-huh. But, um, how would they
It works precisely that way, at least the part of it the government subsidizes. You know subsidies, those things you're always screaming for more of but lack the means to pay for?
You're missing my point. I'm not talking about subsidies. I'm talking about how you — and all Americans — are affected in all sorts of ways good and bad — in your daily life from the fact that you live in a society governed by law, custom, and policy — as opposed to say, if you lived in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan, or if you lived on a small island alone in the Pacific Ocean somewhere. I'm talking about more than just police and fire protection, garbage pickup and streets without huge potholes. I'm talking about every single thing you do from the moment you get up till the moment you go to sleep at night — your food, your job, your commutation method, your home, your relationships, everything. Let's give an even better example. Let's suppose you live in San Francisco — alone. You are the only person in San Francisco. There is no government, no human infrastructure at all for making things happen. How long do you suppose you would survive, and be able to do all the many humdrum things you do every day that you flatter yourself are entirely your doing and do not depend on anyone or anything else?
I'm guessing — maybe — two weeks.
First, your constant need for 'cites' simply says you think everyone is a liar.
Oh, no, AR, that's not it at all. It's just that I've had it drummed into me over 12 years of public education, four years of college, two years of graduate school, two years of specialized professional training, and oodles and oodles of books and other information on research methods over the years, that when you make a specific claim of fact, you must back it up with proof if you want to be taken seriously — and, in addition, that when you are drawing conclusions from facts, stating opinions, or arguing against or for a position on a given subject, you must provide sources, cites, references, etc., to support your arguments. Not all of those necessarily at one time, but I've been taught that if you draw conclusions from a list of numbers or otherwise without any supporting documentation at all, then you will not be taken seriously. I try to stick to that rule as much as I can. It's not that I think you're lying. It's just that assertions and claims of fact and opinion have to be independently confirmable by parties other than yourself. That's all it is, really.
That offends me.
I am truly sorry that this offends you. I apologize that this is what I need from those who would try to convince me that they are right and I am wrong.
Kathy, I certainly am missing your point. While I acknowledge the principle that society is interconnected, I don't see its usefulness in deciding which parts of your life I should stick my nose into. As you can see I have a mighty one.
OK, I have given you all the facts and figures and cites to show you were mis-characterizing the difference between budget deficits and national debt, and that Obama is spending us into oblivion. Other than some lame 'but he HAS to because of Bush' excuse, care to comment on fact he is crippling us, our children and our future grandchildren under an unprecedented debt load that will take generations to overcome? I don't see WW III coming to pull his ass out the economic fire like WW II did for Roosevelt, either.
Sure, AR. Here is my comment. It's a question, actually. What would you have him do? Assuming you agree the health care delivery system is in crisis, people are not spending money because the unemployment picture is still so bad, climate change is nearing a point of no return, and… well, I guess that's enough for a start. Do you think Obama should stop all spending until the economy gets better, Americans become able to afford insurance, and climate change fixes itself? What would you have him do, precisely?
Of course, if you don't agree with my premises, then you will probably say “do nothing,” which would make sense if none of these issues are actually serious problems. But assuming you agree that they are, how would you solve them w/o spending money?
Forget it, then. I don't know how better to explain it.
I mean “a few dollars” literally. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I imagine that the cost of abortions makes up a very small fraction of total health care expenses, and therefore the cost of the supplemental abortion insurance would be a very small fraction of the cost of the basic insurance plan. I understand you find it morally objectionable to make poor women pay even a few extra dollars toward abortion coverage, but it seems like a reasonable compromise considering those who oppose abortion also find it morally objectionable that their tax dollars would go to such a procedure. Just to cut down on the back and forth, if you are going to counter with “but abortion is legal”, I would counter with “and the law says that federal dollars can't go toward abortion”.
“I apologize for the tone of my reply. I am allergic to long lists of numbers, presented in isolation regardless of their origin, in a situation where numbers do not tell the whole story.”
OK. I know not everyone is a numbers person, and since you are AR are in a somewhat heated debate I won't hold your tone against you.
I tried to lay out the numbers in prose form in my response to AR. As I said, I don’t think it’s useful to talk about numbers from 2008-2010/2011ish, since those are recession numbers. Of course the deficit will be higher during those years both because of decreased tax receipts and some degree of stimulus. We could debate whether short-term stimulus and bail-outs are justified during a recession, but that’s a different discussion. If we want to talk about long-term deficit spending, we have to look at Bush’s numbers pre-2008, and Obama’s estimates post-2011ish. If you look at those numbers, it is simple math to see that Obama’s deficits are about twice as large as Bush’s numbers (and yes, I checked and those numbers do include spending for the Bush wars).
Republicans (at least the non-crazy ones) aren't saying that the bill be increase the deficit by 1 trillion. They are saying that it will increase the debt over the next few decades. So yes, the question of over-all debt is more important than any single year's deficit, but we are talking about the former. Maybe it's confusing because in order to talk about the effect of the policy on the overall debt, you have to look at the individual years' deficits over that period of time. (ie. The sum of the deficits for all tens years = the increase in the debt over those tens years).
“What would you have him do, precisely?”
I know your asking AR, but if you don't mind this is what I'd have him do:
#1) Don't promise that you're going to cut the annual deficit (and I'm not talking about 1 year, I'm talking about the average annual deficit) in half when you are actually going to multiply it by at least 2.
#2) Pass a stimulus bill that is cut down to stimulus only, not unfunded long-term spending. As an exercise, I found $112 billion dollars that could have been taken out of the stimulus while only decreasing short-term spending by 20 billion, and I explain in my post how that is only the tip of the iceburg: http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/w…
#3) Produce health care reform that prioritizes lowering the cost of health care, instead of just shuffling it around. I've said before that I support efforts to improve the fairness of our health care system, but if cost is not also controlled then it will be for naught as far as our economy and debt are concerned. There have been numerous previous threads where conservatives vs. liberal ideas on how to decrease costs have been debated, so I won't get into that for now.
However, I will agree with you (and disagree with AR) in terms of the short-term spending. I'm not as upset about the 2009 deficit as I am about the 2014 one and beyond.
This is not how it would work at all, AD. Did you read the article by Jessica Arons at The Huffington Post that I linked to earlier? Here is the link again, and here is a quote from it:
“Forget it, then. I don't know how better to explain it.”
This is actually something I've thought quite a bit about. This is going to sound a little crazy and off topic, but I can't resist the chance to actually agree with Kathy on something: I picture the human race as living on a huge 3-dimensional spider-web suspended high in the trees (OK, I know you think I'm crazy). Our society has built this web and we live our entire lives on it and we have become so accustomed to it that if we were to fall off of it and land on the ground we would shrivel up and die in seconds, unable to even walk on the foreign material known as “dirt”. I have thought about the “you wake up and everyone is gone” scenario. I am fortunate enough to have sufficient money to live in a comfortable home, drive a reliable car, etc. But if I had to build my own home, raise my own food, etc, my standard of living would be a small fraction of what it is today. I do my small part to keep up the web, which in part is my job where I help produce something that is worthless by itself but adds value to our lives when used in conjunction with everyone else's work (now you see where I get the “web” metaphor, as every individual strand is worthless by itself).
We all depend on each other to keep up the integrity of the web. Occasionally something happens (natural disasters, planes flying into buildings, wars, etc.) to blow holes in our web that causes devastation and a hurry to fix the hole and reinforce it so that such holes are more difficult to happen in the future.
So, I know what you mean Kathy. However, I think it has more to do with our society than our government. We have social interaction when that social interaction benefits both parties (ie. I'll build you a home if you will feed my family). The metaphor starts to break down, in my opinion, when we are talking about government imposing policies to force us to have those social interactions (ie. you'll pay for my health care whether you like it or not). The line is not necessarily always clear, however, so I take your point.
(I'm resume my normal relatively sane commenting now)
“Did you read the article by Jessica Arons at The Huffington Post that I linked to earlier?”
No, but I did now. The author reaches that conclusion only be completely dismissing the supplemental abortion coverage aspect which is the heart of my argument. This is how the article dismisses it:
Yes, that's part of what health insurance is: planning for unexpected events. And an insurance company has an incentive to make it as easy as possible to opt for the supplemental insurance. I imagine it would be as simple as checking a box on an application form.
#1, you don't know that that's true. You are projecting into the future not knowing what other factors will come into play.
#2 I don't share your definition of what is “stimulus spending” and what is “unfunded long-term spending.” There were millions of dollars cut from the stimulus bill that were in fact, stimulative and should have been kept in. Almost all public spending stimulates the economy in a no-spending recession. The bill should have been double the size it was, and the fact it is not is one reason it's not working as well as it should be.
#3 There is no way to “prioritize” cost-cutting without (a) increasing the number of Americans who have coverage; and (b) creating *real* competition to the private insurance industry. If you want more cost-cutting, then you should be hoping the Senate retains the strong public option that's in the House bill. Even better yet, you should be calling for single-payer. But obviously that's not on the menu right now. But the conservadems and Republicans who refuse to vote for health care reform if the public option is in it, are either hypocritical or uninformed, because the moment you take the public option out, the cost goes up. So we could actually end up with a bill that covers fewer people, does not provide real competition for the private insurance industry, and costs *more* than the just-passed House bill would. There is no way to have serious cost-cutting without a public option, and the more people it covers, the more it will cut costs.
Wow, AD. I love this. If this is crazy, I think you should stay here.
And of course now I am insanely curious to know what that something is that you help produce that is worthless in itself but adds value when used with everyone else's work. How intriguing! Is it a secret? Or can you tell?
“I'm not sure what you mean by states being unnecessarily involved — unless you're referring to state regulation of insurance companies, which is rather important to prevent insurers from selling policies that have huge coverage gaps.”
Yes, I'm back to McCarran-Ferguson again. As long as people are given complete information, I would far rather be given the chance to determine if a policy has a “gap” or just something I don't want or need. Single men, for instance don't need maternity coverage, but it's mandated in some states anyway. To me, it's elitism to think that the state is going to be able to make better purchasing decisions than I can. It also allows for lobbyists to force favoritism to their industry, which is the driver behind these kinds of mandates.
“With regard to employers, I might need to research this to know for sure, but if memory serves the reason employers started offering health insurance coverage as an employee benefit was precisely because the cost of purchasing insurance privately was so high even then. In other words, it was a response to rising costs, not the cause of them.”
No. No. No. Medicals costs were far lower back then, in both real and inflation adjusted dollars. Medical insurance was uncommon and medical care was much cheaper, and less regulated. As I've stated several times before, it was tied to employment because wages were fixed, but employers wanted a way to attract better employees. Rather than lift the wage limits, congress allowed employers to offer additional benefits, and made health insurance non-taxable when offered through the employer. Unfortunately, when WW II ended, and the wage limits were lifted, the tax benefit wasn't lifted.
#1: Again, I'm using Obama's own estimates, which I take as a best-case scenario since the CBO's deficit estimates are higher. If Obama can beat his own estimates so much that he can actually make good on his promise (which would mean deficits around 500/2 = 250 billion rather than 1 trillion), and also all of his other promises, we should probably elect him to be king.
#2: We probably don't want to get into a debate on the stimulus right now. My rough definition of “unfunded long-term spending” was spending that was set to happen 2 years or more after the stimulus took effect. The CBO broke down those numbers so it was quite easy to distinguish between the two.
#3: Like I said, we've debated conservative vs. liberal ideas on how to cut costs many times before. All I can say is that the CBO estimated that the Republican alternative (which is pretty impotent as well, I have to admit. We could have done much better on the conservative side just as you think single payer would have been better on the liberal side) would reduce costs 5-10% or so while the CBO made no such claim about the Democrats bill. I'm not sure that the Democrats even asked the CBO that question, which is telling.
“And of course now I am insanely curious to know what that something is that you help produce that is worthless in itself but adds value when used with everyone else's work. How intriguing! Is it a secret? Or can you tell?”
It's really not that interesting, Kathy. My point is that we could all say this about the things we do. Very few professions (education, medicine, etc.) can actually point to specific one-on-one interaction that directly benefits the lives of individuals. The rest of us are inclined to look at what we do and think, “Am I really making a difference in the world?” We are taught to idolize famous people who do great things. We tell our children that if they put their mind to it they can become President, even though the vast majority of them will not even if they DO put their mind to it. Certainly we should strive to be the best we can, but I believe an over-emphasis on this type of thinking can be destructive. More collective good has been done in our society by ordinary people doing their work well (in or out of their job, I mean) than by the occasional exception that goes above and beyond.
I produce software. Or, to put it more accurately, I produce lines of code that, when mingled with millions of other lines of code, results in a piece of software that makes other professionals more efficient, thus allowing them more time to give their services to individuals that need them. So, my work has value within society, but by myself (without customers who can use the software to do things that i can't, and without suppliers like computer manufacturers) my talent for programming would be useless.
No, I do not share that view.
Of course not. That cannot be done. I do however think he, and to be fair, Congress, should stop creating so many new $T+ spending programs. I opposed TARP, the Porkulus bill, the car bailouts, etc. I WOULD have supported a stimulus bill that wasn't just the Democrats funding all their pet projects, i.e., a TRUE infrastructure and jobs creation bill (not one that 'saved' 935 jobs in a department that only has 508 total employees).
Unemployment has gotten significantly worse than either the 'no stimulus' or 'with stimulus' projections. Why? Simple. Actions have consequences. When business owners, especially small business owners, are fearful of what is going to happen with inflation, taxes, energy costs (and the government has flat out stated their goal is to make energy costs go up to 'force' people to conserve, and make alt energy more cost viable by comparison), and the government forcing a HUGE increase on their health care costs, they stop hiring, put off expansion, and even let people go.
The business community, large and small, are showing they feel no confidence the government is currently concerned abut their problems, and is instead focused on passing these wide-ranging, expensive programs that will hurt their businesses, and crush the economy for years to come.
So, yes, unless they want to focus on actually helping the economy instead of pushing the 'progressive agenda', I certainly do think we would be better off if they did nothing.
Wow. I had missed that reply.
What am I supposed to say? Sorry for using facts to support my contentions?
Facts that YOU forced me to cite, as you kept harping that I wasn't providing the source for the one-line figures I talked about?
If you are willing to accept the fact that I do not make up numbers out of thin air, I will stop throwing long, complex source documents at you, and we can debate the underlying assumptions.
But as long as you keep implying I am a liar and making numbers up, or using 'unreliable sources', hell yes I am going to keep showing your lack of knowledge.
OK. my turn to call you out. The Huffington Post as a 'reliable and unbiased source'? Get real.
Wow, AR, talk about selective quoting.
I did not force you to do anything, AR. Neither did I imply you were a liar or that you made numbers up. And in fact, you can do as you please with regard to citing sources, or with regard to political argumentation, or with regard to any other aspect of intellectual approach, philosophy, or standards.
Thank you for discussing these issues with me, AR. It's been interesting.
Yes, so much easier to walk away when you are called out on your BS. Typical Liberal response – I am losing this argument, so I will pretend that the other side is being unreasonable.