Texas Doesn’t Secede…This Time
There are more uninsured residents of Texas — 6.1 million and counting — than there are people in 33 states. The state’s elected officials might be expected, therefore, to cheer a federal health care law that is likely to deliver billions of dollars from Washington to Austin and cover millions of low-income Texans.
In Austin, legislative hearings and agency planning sessions proceed despite Gov. Rick Perry’s vow to fight “on every front available” against a law that he characterizes as “socialism on American soil.” Bureaucrats apply for federal grants and collaborate with the Obama administration at the same time that Attorney General Greg Abbott strategizes to eviscerate the law in court.
“That’s sort of the operational norm in Texas,” said F. Scott McCown, executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for safety-net programs in the state. “Your leadership may be railing against Washington, but federal supremacy still requires that the people in the trenches get the work done.”
Perry runs on “fighting on every front” while Democrats address a huge problem in his state, a problem he knew needed fixing, because every governor knew.
Conservative governors get to dodge political risk and accountability with one-liners about “shredding the Constitution” while Democrats in the federal government address their health care problem, a problem they could have addressed at the state level, but didn’t.
Even-handed commentary will focus on Perry’s supposed reluctant acquiescence to federal supremacy, the legal matter, continuing the myth that Texas is one of a loose collection of 50 states, soldiering on independent of the other 49 and the feds, mostly burdened by the relationship.
Perry refused comment on this story. Of course he did. Telling the truth about the deep and abiding relationship his state enjoys with the federal government contradicts conservative dogma and makes it impossible for him to make secession speeches.
And Democrats aren’t helping any:
The Democratic nominee for governor, Mayor Bill White of Houston, has not made an issue of Mr. Perry’s approach. He said in an interview that he also opposed the health care law because of its potential impact on the federal deficit.
Health care reform going to the states is a good opportunity for Democrats to start countering Republican’s abstract theories on state’s rights by telling the truth: that this relationship is long-standing and mutually beneficial, every politician at the state level knows it, and that’s the real reason it isn’t going away.
July 29, 2010 10:47 am
Posted in: Assholes, Domestic Affairs, Uncategorized
110 Comments
110 Responses
MikeJ - July 29, 2010 | 10:56 am · Link
To tie in with the previous thread: if anyone gets a chance to ask a question of a republican running for office ask if in addition to wanting to repeal HCR and WSR they want to repeal the PATRIOT act.
Could be fun.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 11:01 am · Link
Reminder
POTUS on the view.
Southern Beale - July 29, 2010 | 11:04 am · Link
I’m still waiting for someone to ask these assclowns how a mandate to buy private, for-profit health insurance on the open market is “socialism on American soil.”
Why doesn’t anyone ever ask?
Steeplejack - July 29, 2010 | 11:08 am · Link
Kay, could you provide sources/links for your blockquotes? In general, I mean, not just these.
It helps me if I know the context and can go back to read more if I want to.
Steeplejack - July 29, 2010 | 11:10 am · Link
@Steeplejack:
Okay, saw your link at the bottom. I think it would be better to move it up.
Zifnab - July 29, 2010 | 11:11 am · Link
@MikeJ: No it couldn’t. Any savvy politician will just meander about how he doesn’t know enough about the PATRIOT Act and feels he’d need more time to review it and blah blah blah.
The best Bachmann moments come unprovoked.
Marmot - July 29, 2010 | 11:22 am · Link
Nice post Kay. If the wingers here in TX knew that the state bureaucracy was happily sauntering forward with health care reform’s requirements while Perry blusters about it being soooo horrible, then, well … who’m I kidding. They’d still think he was a stand-up guy for freedom. Or whatever.
Bulworth - July 29, 2010 | 11:24 am · Link
Wonderful. I bet he favors extending the Bush tax cuts, too. deficit be damned.
norbizness - July 29, 2010 | 11:25 am · Link
If we could get the Latino vote energized, White wouldn’t have to make such moronic pronouncements (and Perry would be dead meat), but fat chance they’ll get energized with such a dull gringo running. It’s Catch-23, which is precisely one better than Catch-22.
Frank - July 29, 2010 | 11:25 am · Link
The health care law is paid for and will actually decrease the deficit over the next 20 years. Not sure where White is getting his information. Breitbart? FoxNews?
norbizness - July 29, 2010 | 11:26 am · Link
@Bulworth: The good news is who gives a rat’s ass what the relatively powerless Texas governor thinks about national affairs?
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 11:31 am · Link
Sorry to interrupt, but Obama just (nicely) slapped Elizabeth, and therefore her wingnut talking point, into a corner.
A nice morning’s entertainment.
Staging a Comeback - July 29, 2010 | 11:33 am · Link
I would pay a year’s salary if that’s what it took for Texas to secede. Seriously.
Bulworth - July 29, 2010 | 11:33 am · Link
@Keith G: which was…? Was it about Shirley Sherrod and The Hatch Act? Good grief.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 11:34 am · Link
@Frank:
I imagine he is being a pol and saying what needs to be said in Texas on an issue that really is not part of a governor’s portfolio
Staging a Comeback - July 29, 2010 | 11:34 am · Link
He’s a Democrat running in a wingnut state. It doesn’t benefit him politically to challenge conservative belief here.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 11:36 am · Link
@Bulworth:
Stimulus…job loss vs saved jobs. It left a mark.
Pangloss - July 29, 2010 | 11:38 am · Link
I say Obama picks out a state and makes them an example.
“Did you see what happened to Oklahoma, Texas? It would be a shame if the same thing happened to you…..”
Clambone - July 29, 2010 | 11:38 am · Link
Clicking over to the story, doesn’t the picture make it look like the Texas GOP is run by Starro the Conqueror?
It isn’t, is it?
jurassicpork - July 29, 2010 | 11:41 am · Link
Would we really be worse off if we let them leave and replaced them with, say, Guam or Puerto Rico? The positive PR and lesser embarrassment would alone make such a switch worthwhile. The only possible drawback I see to Texas seceding is the domino effect that we saw when SC seceded in 1861. We let Texas secede, it could very easily lead to a 2nd civil war.
Anyway, just making a final, last-minute appeal for help. There have been a few kind donations made to Pottersville and we’re almost out of the woods but not quite. Seems the new car ain’t quite what we thought it was and needs works and my insurance company keeps raising my premiums month by month. Mrs. JP, who’s been laid off for two weeks now, will start getting unemployment benefits in a week or two and mine, thanks to Obama and the Democrats, ought to kick in around the same time. But for the time being, we’re struggling to pay the rent, utilities, keep gas in our malfunctioning car, make insurance and AAA payments and still keep food in our stomachs. Any help would be greatly appreciated until our financial situation will be mitigated by the middle of August.
NonyNony - July 29, 2010 | 11:41 am · Link
@Clambone:
You know, if Starro the Conqueror were running the GOP it would certainly explain a lot. Of course they don’t have starfishes on their faces, so it’s an unlikely explanation. Still – evil alien starfish telepathically controlling the GOP might be a decent explanation for why they don’t seem to be from this planet sometimes. And might explain their fervent opposition to anything to stop global warming – perhaps their evil starfish master desires a warmer climate for his conquest…
master c - July 29, 2010 | 11:43 am · Link
obama crack on the view.
wow, he is great.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 11:47 am · Link
@Staging a Comeback:
Such statements feel good to type, I am sure.
The vast majority of Texans realize that secession talk is the equivalent of locker room bragging about cheerleader banging, or in the terms of my adopted state: All hat and no cattle.
Use your pay check to come down here and visit.
Marmot - July 29, 2010 | 11:57 am · Link
@Staging a Comeback:
Oh, seriously? I suppose writing off all of us Texas progressives, the majority-Latino border counties, and the Democratic-voting city centers would simply be an acceptable price to pay.
I’m sure you saw something scary about Texas on TV once, though.
NobodySpecial - July 29, 2010 | 12:00 pm · Link
@Marmot: I’m pretty sure the United States would accept political refugees.
And I lived in Texas. Yeah, there’s something scary down there.
Hugin & Munin - July 29, 2010 | 12:05 pm · Link
Jeez, here come all the emo-Textards whiningabout their hurt fee-fees.
Well, everything is bigger in Texas, including the assholes.
Bill Murray - July 29, 2010 | 12:05 pm · Link
@Staging a Comeback: which is why we have such problems with an ill informed electorate
eta: well not the only reason, but certainly a contributor
Josie - July 29, 2010 | 12:06 pm · Link
@Staging a Comeback: What Keith G. and Marmot said. Texas has plenty of good progressives who are fighting daily for a better government. Perry only represents maybe a third of the people here, according to the votes in the last election. The rest ignore him or think he is an idiot. We got rid of Tom Delay and will eventually rid ourselves of Perry, also. You shouldn’t lump us all together in your pronouncements.
NonyNony - July 29, 2010 | 12:07 pm · Link
@Staging a Comeback:
First of all, there are a lot of good people in Texas. There are a lot of shitheads in Texas too, and they tend to get the press, but there are shitheads in every state. And why should the shitheads get to keep the state? It’s like rewarding them for being shitheads. I’d rather let the good people have the state and make the shitheads either live with it or move.
And that brings up the second point – if you let the shitheads take Texas what do you think’ll happen next? They’ll probably start a war with their neighbors because that’s what shitheads do. So they’ll probably attack Mexico (even shitheads think twice about attacking the US directly). Why would we want to inflict that on Mexico? Don’t they have enough of their own problems?
In short – the shitheads in Texas are American shitheads, no matter how loudly they insist that they’re actually Texas shitheads. Letting them win wouldn’t just be bad for us, it would be bad for the good people in Texas and it would be bad for our neighbors too.
Marmot - July 29, 2010 | 12:09 pm · Link
@NobodySpecial: You once lived somewhere in an area larger than France, and now see fit to condemn the entire state as “scary”. Sounds to me like you’re just easily frightened. And possibly had some pre-existing stereotypes you like to confirm.
I’m mystified why that’s so often the case. But the fact is, this state is a lot like the rest of the country: low population-density areas are conservative and vote Republican; more ethnically diverse areas and those with higher population densities vote more Democratic. There’s just a LOT more area here than in the Quaint States.
Josie - July 29, 2010 | 12:09 pm · Link
@Hugin & Munin: Wow – you sure showed us a thing or two about how to post an intelligent and well written argument.
kay - July 29, 2010 | 12:09 pm · Link
@Marmot:
It isn’t specific to Texas.
I just think it’s a charade, and it’s going on in 16 states. No one is going to call out the National Guard to intervene in a federal-state health care dispute, but conservatives insist on using this over the top language that harkens back to bloody battles over civil rights.
If I hear one more time that we’re having a “discussion” about the proper role of the federal government I’m going to scream.
It’s not a “discussion”. Nearly everyone involved is flat-out lying. If we want to “discuss” it we’re going to have to admit what’s actually going on, first.
ET - July 29, 2010 | 12:12 pm · Link
I wonder, if states had been given a choice to participate or not what would have happened in the future. Say states like Texas or Oklahoma had said no what they would look like politically in 10-20 years. I mean there would have to be a sizable constituency in any states that support it even if the overall state rejected it and it is possible that more and more people would be having envious thoughts. Would that show up politically and how?
As the situation exists, Republicans can whine and campaign on how bad it is and repeal without any consequences that were created if the plan wasn’t in place.
SiubhanDuinne - July 29, 2010 | 12:13 pm · Link
@KeithG #2: I watched the entire program (for the first time in my life, I think, though I’ve seen the odd excerpt here and there). POTUS as always was funny and smart and personable, and truly the women didn’t throw him any hardballs, so it was all good if not very long on substance.
Sheer coincidence that I happen to be taking the day off and happened to be home to watch it. I didn’t even know what time it came on, or what channel, but your post prompted me to scroll through the channels until I found it.
thomas - July 29, 2010 | 12:20 pm · Link
@Staging a Comeback:
and take the other 12 with them agian.
Marmot - July 29, 2010 | 12:21 pm · Link
@NonyNony:
Exactly. And on top of it all, Texas—the geographical area, not the stereotype—is awesome, Central Texas in particular. It’s beautiful—seven different terrain types (IIRC)—from coastal plains to Rocky Mountain desert to pine forests to flat grassy plains. Its wildlife is similarly varied and awesome, including some of the largest bat colonies in North America, among other peculiarities. And a lot of this state is HOT, which I love.
I’ll be damned if the wingers can have it.
eemom - July 29, 2010 | 12:25 pm · Link
Absofrigginlutely right. Lying liars lying to idiots, as usual.
There’s lots of room for argument about what the Constitution means, but not the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause is pretty doggone clear.
Marmot - July 29, 2010 | 12:27 pm · Link
@kay: You’re right—it is just a charade. For the benefit of the wingers of all the involved states, largely. It would be nice if everyone would call the Republicans on their bluff, but there’s not much interest in it nationally, seems to me. That might at least shame the wingers at all levels to pay attention to consistency.
Corner Stone - July 29, 2010 | 12:29 pm · Link
@Keith G:
Additionally, White is really moderately conservative. Or IOW, a pretty normal version of the Texas Democrat.
He’s also pretty smart so I doubt he believes this to be true and is just passing a topic off that he has no jurisdiction over.
Corner Stone - July 29, 2010 | 12:30 pm · Link
@Hugin & Munin:
Hey! I resemble that remark.
But I don’t whine about my feelings. Anyone who wants to write off TX doesn’t know very much about the state or its people.
Corner Stone - July 29, 2010 | 12:33 pm · Link
@Staging a Comeback:
You should try and find a better use for that $16,000.
Pangloss - July 29, 2010 | 12:42 pm · Link
I’ve seen three episodes of “King of the Hill,” so I think I know Texas pretty well.
Cassidy - July 29, 2010 | 12:49 pm · Link
@Hugin & Munin: Regardless of politics, you can always count on a Texan to a) think their state is amazing, and b) be thin skinned to criticism about Texas. I mean, shit, if I’m going to pay imported prices for Shiner Bock, the least you could do is go away and be a foreign country.
What? All three of you?
Jay in Oregon - July 29, 2010 | 12:51 pm · Link
@Clambone:
You are officially cool in my book for saying that. :)
As for that picture, do you know who else uses a yellow star on a red background?
Pangloss - July 29, 2010 | 12:52 pm · Link
@Corner Stone:
Texas routinely elects the absolute worst, most destructive jerks in America. Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, George W. Bush, Joe Barton, etc. The nationalistic songs, the “Don’t Mess With Texas” bumper stickers, the John Kyl commercials, cowboy hats, etc. Now we have to listen to Rick Perry continue to threaten secession if the rest of the country doesn’t conform to Texas’ will.
And even after all that, the Texans can’t understand why the rest of the country is ready to say, “Allright, fuck you, we don’t want you anymore.”
Mark S. - July 29, 2010 | 12:52 pm · Link
I’m not writing off Texas. By 2020, it’ll be blue and the GOP will be history.
Corner Stone - July 29, 2010 | 12:58 pm · Link
@Pangloss: Kind of selection bias there, aren’t you podna?
And why would we run commercials for an AZ Senator?
Mnemosyne - July 29, 2010 | 12:58 pm · Link
@Pangloss:
Don’t forget them re-writing the nation’s textbooks to take out minor figures like Thomas Jefferson and emphasize the threat of Godless Communism. In 2010.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 1:00 pm · Link
Ahhhh John Kyl?
Wrong state, Einstein.
Corner Stone - July 29, 2010 | 1:01 pm · Link
@Pangloss:
How much comparative power on the national stage does Perry have? None.
Joe Lieberman has done much more to shape this country to his will than has the powerless hairpiece from TX.
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 1:02 pm · Link
I think it’s safe to assume H&M has unresolved “issues” dating back to Junior High School.
However, considering 3,528,633 of us voted for Obama, some of the stereotypical TX bashing does get tiresome. No big deal, but at least have the yarbles to let us know from which state you’re anonymously throwing the rocks.
Midnight Marauder - July 29, 2010 | 1:02 pm · Link
That’s because he has a few other things on his plate he’s more concerned about right now, I’m sure:
Paper: Perry land deal benefited from courtesies
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 1:02 pm · Link
@Corner Stone:
Sigh.
We are but a rose among a union of thorns.
Marmot - July 29, 2010 | 1:04 pm · Link
@Pangloss: Dude you just proved Corner Stone’s point. “Don’t Mess With Texas” is an anti-litter campaign!
Besides, I guess you can count among your list of “the most destructive jerks in America” Molly Ivins, LBJ and Lady Bird, Barbara Jordan, Jim Hightower, Lloyd Bentsen, etc. etc. Sadly, I seem to remember the majority of our fair nation voting in favor of GWB and a number of other wingers, both Texan and non-.
That you have a very short and selective memory is, of course, not Texas’ fault.
Morat20 - July 29, 2010 | 1:09 pm · Link
Write off Texas? It’s a decade, two at most, from being a reliable blue vote.
Assuming the Democrats can keep the Hispanic vote. If they can’t, then the GOP has reformed into something semi-sane and the Democrats will be more worried about California.
Austin’s blue. San Antonio’s blue. Houston just flipped—and the trend is to get bluer. Dallas is…well, filled with old people. We’ll just have to wait them out.
The hispanic population is booming, and the GOP has lost a giant chunk of their grip on the statewide offices.
If you wanted to write off Texas, you should have done it 20 years ago, when the lunatics managed to seize control and keep it on sheer inertia. We’re actually getting RID of them now, slowly but surely.
Violet - July 29, 2010 | 1:12 pm · Link
@Corner Stone:
Yep. Exactly. White can’t do anything about it, so he’s taking a moderately bland position that the Republicans can’t attack or make any political hay with, and moving on to a topic he can do something with.
Bill White is the best shot the Dems have had at winning a major state office in Texas in a long, long time. He was a pretty good mayor of Houston, and he’d be a pretty good Governor of Texas. I’m thrilled he’s in the race and doing fairly well against that idiot Perry, despite Perry’s obvious advantage of being a Republican.
master c - July 29, 2010 | 1:13 pm · Link
Dallas is different than the rest, more like Oklahoma.
TaosJohn - July 29, 2010 | 1:18 pm · Link
While we’re on the subject of health “care,” my sister in Austin is dying from terminal liver cancer and reports that hospice wants $500 to $5,000/mo! Can this be true? Effing TEXAS doesn’t have free hospice care?? Bleed the dying on their way out the door???
What a cruel, stupid, ratfuck of a country we got here. I’ll bet no one even knows how to run a guillotine.
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 1:20 pm · Link
@Pangloss: WTF is your problem? It took 271 electoral votes and the Supreme Court to put Bush in office and a majority give Delay and Armey any power. Remind me, which President managed to enact and enforce National Voting Rights Act, and which state he was from? Seriously, how does your bs advance the Democratic cause?
master c - July 29, 2010 | 1:23 pm · Link
My Dad died in Missouri and there was no hospice for him in Jackson County. KC is reliably blue, but funding gets cut all over, everywhere.
Corner Stone - July 29, 2010 | 1:25 pm · Link
@TaosJohn:
I can’t confirm either way but in the Houston area I’ve known a handful of people to require hospice care and were never charged for any of it. Probably because they were elderly:
Texas Non-Profit Hospice
Mnemosyne - July 29, 2010 | 1:26 pm · Link
@TaosJohn:
Texas law allows the hospital to remove you from life support against your family’s wishes. It famously happened to a 6-month-old baby during the whole Terri Schiavo fiasco but you didn’t hear a peep from the “pro-life” crowd.
Not surprisingly, it happens more often to people who are on Medicare or can’t afford to pay.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 1:33 pm · Link
@TaosJohn:
I’m in Houston. Hospice care needs to be a higher priority at both state and federal levels.
That said, in these parts there are community organizations that can be very helpful. In a better world this would not be necessary, but it might be the case that there are resources in Austin that can be tapped into.
Locally, I work with the HIV care community and know that here we have local resources that help with hospice care.
My thoughts go out to you and your sis.
edited
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 1:41 pm · Link
@TaosJohn: I’m sorry your sister is going through such an awful thing. I can’t think of any state that offers free hospice to all its residents.
Austin is a pretty progressive community, there will be programs available to her and the cost will be dependent on her financial need. I imagine your best bet would be to start with her doctor’s office, they’ll be able to get you started. Again, sorry and good luck
Cassidy - July 29, 2010 | 1:47 pm · Link
@TaosJohn: Most hospice agencies have United Way funds available to offset or cover the costs.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 1:51 pm · Link
About the Texas bashing
You outsiders take a moment imagine being out of work and having HIV or AIDS in your community.
What would happen?
In Harris County, Texas, you could go through a 15 minute intake meeting with a wonderful person (I have met many of them) at one of two public HIV specialty clinics in the county.
By the end of that day, a team of caseworkers and counseling staff will have met with you as well a a doc who probably works with the Baylor College of Medicine.
Once the tests come back and some additional paperwork is filed, you will be receiving the standard of treatment anti virals free or at limited cost courtesy of the State of Texas.
Things are never as black and white as some of you wonderful people think.
kay - July 29, 2010 | 1:52 pm · Link
@Morat20:
It wasn’t really about Texas. I could have used Ohio. I went to an event where the incumbent Democratic governor led with boasting that Ohio offers a state plan for high risk insurance, and has for years.
Except no one could afford it. Which is why it’s a small pool. And no one can afford it.
This relationship is more transactional than ideological, in Texas and Ohio and elsewhere, and I wish all the interested parties would admit it, so we could get on with the terms, and we could all stop helping conservatives pretend otherwise.
Staging a Comeback - July 29, 2010 | 2:06 pm · Link
@Corner Stone:
Add a zero to the end of that…who is making asumptions now, hmmmmm???
I consider myself liberal and I enjoy this blog, but many of the commenters here I find to be humorless, stereotypical, poker-up-the-butt assholes, including every single one of you who flipped out at an off-the-cuff remark about a state whose overall politics are unpleasant at best and whose politicians make a living sucking off the federal government’s tit while pretending to be John Wayne. Jesus H. Christ. Well, if that’s your thing, go for it-although the piling on like a bunch of cowardly, internet-hid bullies says more about who you all really are.
So all of you prissy, PC, anonymous reactionaries…go fuck yourself, k? I’m out of here, and will most definitely not to back to engage in any flame wars with you all.
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 2:32 pm · Link
@Mnemosyne: Really?
Was this a function of one of those death panels I keep hearing about. Or was the decision made by a panel of bio-ethicists acting in the best interest of the child?
Not surprisingly, it happens more often to people who are on Medicare or can’t afford to pay.
Not surprisingly, if John’s sister had unlimited funds, John wouldn’t be enduring the anxiety that he is.
Obviously it never happens to families with unlimited resources, so what’s the point of this inflammatory bit of b.s.?
It’s an ugly truth, but when the state keeps a child born with nothing but a brain stem on life support, sometimes for two or three years, many other children will be denied far more basic care for lack of funds.
Or perhaps you think the state’s interests should never supersede parental desires? I guess eliminating child welfare agencies and family courts would free up a lot of cash.
Common Sense - July 29, 2010 | 2:32 pm · Link
At least Texas isn’t California. Thanks for Reagan and Nixon, guys. Cunningham was a nice touch too. There’s a liberal state for ya.
Texas isn’t seeking a law forcing Hispanics to show their papers. Rhode Island is.
Bill Murray - July 29, 2010 | 2:42 pm · Link
@PTirebiter: but there are 6.1 million without insurance, so you you didn’t even have 60% of them to vote for Obama. Sure the 6.1 million probably includes children and felons on supervised release but still .. something stupid about “Textards” that aren’t related to me. Sorry I ran out of joke before the punchline about Good Hair
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 2:46 pm · Link
@kay: I agree but it’s hard to fault White for wanting to win. I think Marmot’s got it right, with a lot of our voters it isn’t lack of information, it’s willful ignorance. They simply will not be persuaded so White has to appeal those independents who might base their votes on other issues. The people who, while opposed to health care on idealogical grounds, still see the insanity of a board of education captured by religious zealots.
I wish the Democrats would expose the hypocrisy head-on in a national campaign. Make the lies a little less acceptable while minimizing our red state candidates’ exposure.
Felonious Wench - July 29, 2010 | 2:47 pm · Link
@Mnemosyne: I live in Houston. This is a better explanation of the law and the case itself. http://lawprofessors.typepad.c.....t_sto.html
And the concerns around the case: http://www.utmb.edu/imh/announcements.asp?id=38
Sun’s mother had mental health issues. She thought the child was divinely conceived and had no father, that he was a god. Sun had a medical condition that is invariable fatal, usually in the first days after birth. He was slowly suffocating to death, and there was no hope for survival. Ethically, his doctor felt continued care would cause undue pain and suffering to this child in the short time he had left. And no other facility was willing to take him.
Do I think this overrides a mother’s right to make decisions about her child’s life, however short? No. But this child was suffering, drowning, and his mother was delusional about the possibility Sun would recover. This was a tragic, tragic case. How would you have resolved it?
dj spellchecka - July 29, 2010 | 2:51 pm · Link
morat20: “Write off Texas? It’s a decade, two at most, from being a reliable blue vote.”
i’m not at all sure about this…in 08 the voters in both cali and texas showed the same demographic split…63% white, 37% non-white, yet obama won cali by 14 points and lost texas by more than that…the difference? the white vote…in cali obama won it by around 10 points; in texas he lost it by 50! [75-25].....even if everybody moving into texas ended up in austin, i don’t see how that can be turned around….
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 3:09 pm · Link
@Bill Murray: Well, at least you seemed a little uncomfortable with your
McMegan-esque attempt to use numbers in your argument. But, nah… still doesn’t work. Try this, “there’s still something stupid about Goptards in Texas, and its got nothing to do with me.”
Factually correct, with all the catharsis of a well deserved insult, but without the wholly unnecessary and counterproductive collateral damage of friendly fire.
Mnemosyne - July 29, 2010 | 3:13 pm · Link
@Felonious Wench:
Unless the mother is so completely unfit that she has had her parental rights severed or transferred to a guardian for the child, she has the right to make the decisions. Full stop.
Do we really want to go back to the days where medical boards would decide who was worth saving and who wasn’t?
Mark S. - July 29, 2010 | 3:15 pm · Link
@dj spellchecka:
Because the Latino vote is growing rapidly:
If it looks like Obama is going to win in 2012, the Dems would be smart to start spending money in Texas. It could pay huge dividends in the future.
Morat20 - July 29, 2010 | 3:16 pm · Link
@dj spellchecka:
Did you look at those demographics and how they’ve changed over the past decade or three? Democratic share of the vote? Percentage population white/hispanic/black/other?
It’s pretty straightforward: The hispanic population is growing much faster than the white one. Hispanics tend to vote Democratic, mostly because they’re keenly aware of the GOP’s views on people who don’t look white enough.
Ergo, assuming the current trend of “GOP irritating minorities” continues, Texas will inexorably turn more and more blue.
Secondly, and more on point—the Democratic share of the vote has been rising over the last decade. We’re NOT California—too much of Texas is rural. BUt the urban segment is growing far faster than the rural segment, the minority segment is growing faster than the white segment, and we’re about 15 to 20 years away from being a minority-majority state.
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 3:21 pm · Link
@Pangloss: @Pangloss:
Sorry dude, I missed your qualifier. I thought you were just throwing out another ill-informed, hackneyed, off the cuff insult ala Staging a Comeback.
Again, I apologize and you’ve forced me to reevaluate my loyalties.
Mnemosyne - July 29, 2010 | 3:24 pm · Link
@PTirebiter:
Of course, the case I linked to was about a child who had a fatal genetic disease, not one without a brain stem. Here’s another one from Texas in 2007 who also didn’t lack a brain stem.
Maybe you should try to actually argue the limits of healthcare rather than zooming straight to the cases where there is zero hope of recovery and pretending that all of these cases are like that.
The state’s interests only supersede parental desires when it comes to the interests of the child. I think it’s a very slippery slope to decide that the state should be allowed to intervene in order to let a child die because its parents can’t afford to pay for its care.
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 3:36 pm · Link
@Mnemosyne:
Unfortunately, in reality, you’re putting this one unfortunate mother in the position of effectively making that decision for someone else’s child. Are you comfortable with that?
Mnemosyne - July 29, 2010 | 3:43 pm · Link
@PTirebiter:
You’re going to have to clarify, because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Making a decision on behalf of your child means you’re effectively making the same decision on behalf of every other child?
dj spellchecka - July 29, 2010 | 3:45 pm · Link
thanks mark s and morat…. first job for the dems…get hispanics to vote at the same rate as blacks and whites [66% last election]..you’re both right..even if tx whites continued to vote 75-25 gop, once they are in the minority that won’t be enough …
ps
a few more az-1070s and hispanics’ voting patterns will mirror that of african-americans: 90% dem
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 3:59 pm · Link
Well, I was arguing the limits of health care and was pretending nothing. Of course it’s a slippery slope but the cases were all zero hope in the qualified judgement of those burdened with making such decisions.
I cited anencephaly because two other states have grappled with it, one for two years, the other for three. If you accept there are limits to resources, it would seem to follow that a form of triage is required. Is it your position that the decision defaults to the mother? Is it first in last out leaving it to chance? What do you say to the mother who’s child is in line for resources meant for the common good?
And please, no one is arguing that money should be the issue, it’s not. It’s about the most ethical way to distribute a finite resource.
Ailuridae - July 29, 2010 | 4:09 pm · Link
@kay:
It’s not a “discussion”. Nearly everyone involved is flat-out lying. If we want to “discuss” it we’re going to have to admit what’s actually going on, first.
That probably should have been in the main post. Still its fucking awesome that you are on the front page.
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 4:39 pm · Link
@Mnemosyne: It’s pretty simple. If all the experts agree that the last apple cannot save your child’s life but it can save the life of my equally precious child, their choice would be painful but obvious. Now, it’s understandable that you’d hope they were all wrong, but if you decided to take that apple anyway, you have effectively made the decision that my child won’t get it.
As a parent, I can decide to sacrifice my life to save my child, but I can’t decide to sacrifice my other child or your child to save him. We don’t seat victims or defendants on juries.
Mnemosyne - July 29, 2010 | 4:51 pm · Link
@PTirebiter:
It’s a finite resource because of money. It’s finite because of the cost. So, yes, we are arguing about money, because money is what makes access to healthcare finite.
Again, that makes no sense unless you’re talking about money. Money is the “resource” that makes all of this happen.
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 5:27 pm · Link
@Mnemosyne:
When will I ever learn. You made a comment to John that I found inflammatory, it assumed bad faith on the part of the decisions makers and offered nothing helpful to John’s situation.
Now you’re arguing in bad faith. The core question has been put to you more than once and by a few people, yet you deflect and choose not to address it.
You never offer any of the reasoning behind your statement,
The full stop should have warned me off. There can be no full stop in discussions of this nature. You’ve offered no credentials to support your certitude. At least not any that might have been generated in the temporal world. So is that it? If your opinion is being informed by something not readily obvious to mortals, you really should have said so. Like I said, I should have seen it earlier. I’ll know better next time.
Mnemosyne - July 29, 2010 | 5:57 pm · Link
@PTirebiter:
I’m sorry you took it that way. Given his sister’s situation, I thought it would be helpful for him to know that, unlike other states, the decision about his sister’s care could be taken out of his hands (or, more likely, his brother-in-law’s hands) and decided by strangers on a medical board. Hopefully that wouldn’t happen, but there is a possibility that he should be aware of. It actually happens more frequently with adults than with children, but the baby who was taken off life support during the Schiavo case was the one that stuck in my mind.
We’re getting ready to have this conversation with my father-in-law, who is being treated for a brain tumor, so I’m a little extra-sensitive to the idea that the decisions about his care could be taken away from my FIL and our family and handed over to a medical board. Fortunately, he’s in Illinois, not Texas, so it’s unlikely, but in these post-Schiavo days, it’s something we all have to think about and discuss with our loved ones.
The core question, as I understand it, is “Who decides?” Should a medical board decide when further treatment is useless, or should the patient and his/her family make that decision?
I come down on the side of saying that the patient should decide for him/herself when to stop treatment, and if the patient is incapacitated or unable to make that decision, then it should be up to the patient’s family. If a hospital thinks that the family does not have the patient’s best interests at heart, they should petition a court to appoint a guardian for the patient, not hold a board hearing to decide on their own.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 5:58 pm · Link
@Mnemosyne:
Not in all cases. Not directly. There are many reasons why products are not available. In some markets, all the medium of exchange realistically available cannot create more resources. Simply there are physical (among other) limits.
I am very sympathetic with the thrust of your statements: All the care to all who think it necessary, but that is not the world in 2010.
I am not sure that universal health care under your specifications could be available anywhere on the planet.
Mnemosyne - July 29, 2010 | 6:01 pm · Link
@Keith G:
The specification that I’m aiming for is actually having the patient themselves or their families decide on care and not medical boards. Disabled rights vs. scarcity of resources seems to be the conflict here.
Cacti - July 29, 2010 | 6:07 pm · Link
Let’s say for shits and giggles that Texas did secede (again). Here are the assets they would lose that are property of the United States:
NASA – Johnson Space Center
Army – Ft. Bliss, Red River Army Depot, Ft. Hood, Ft. Sam Houston
Navy – Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, Kingsville Naval Air Station
Air Force – Randolph AFB, Brooks City Base, Lackland AFB, Sheppard AFB, Carswell AFB, Dyess AFB, Goodfellow AFB, Laughlin AFB
Coast Guard – Group Corpus Christi, Group Galveston, Marine Safety Office Houston, Marine Safety Office Port Arthur, Air Station Corpus Christi, Air Station Houston, Vessel Traffic Service Houston/Galveston
Plus 14 or so National Parks/Monuments/Recreational areas.
Marmot - July 29, 2010 | 6:28 pm · Link
@Staging a Comeback:
But wait! I didn’t even get to hear da lamentations of de women!
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 6:29 pm · Link
@Cacti:
Oh, I didn’t realize Big Bend National Park was on wheels or that Padre Island could be floated away.
@Mnemosyne:
Yes. At least until we join the United Federation of Planets.
Cacti - July 29, 2010 | 6:32 pm · Link
@Keith G:
I didn’t realize Texas had an Army or Navy of their own with which they could protect either of these.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 6:42 pm · Link
@Cacti: Why are you advocating more warfare?
Cacti - July 29, 2010 | 6:48 pm · Link
@Keith G:
I’m not.
I’m just saying, if Texas tried to secede (again) why would anyone think that the United States government wouldn’t try to hold on to all of their possessions there in perpetuity?
We’re still camping out at Guantanomo Bay despite having no diplomatic relations with Cuba for about 50 years.
Keith G - July 29, 2010 | 7:12 pm · Link
@Cacti: I am hoping that you realize that less than a handful of Texas pols have brought up that issue. Like all states, here in the Lone Star State the peeps with the Pesos like our dear Union just as it is.
Yeah, a very few pols do some trash talking and a few more of the under-educated fox gaggle might think it a good talking point, but that’s about it.
But feel free to speculate about the consequences of secession if that is what moves you.
Down here, we just waiting on football season.
PTirebiter - July 29, 2010 | 7:49 pm · Link
@Mnemosyne: First, let me say I’m sorry for your father-in-laws medical problem, it’s stressful for all involved. I’ve been through it myself. now. I understand your belief and to a degree sympathize. What I don’t understand is your reasoning. The child in Houston had caring and qualified advocates, the decision wasn’t made lightly and it wasn’t really about money in the manner you seem to suggest. It was about managing a finite and vital resource. There are only so many doctors nurses technicians, beds and hours in the day no matter how much money is available. And the people burdened with managing those resources have a moral and ethical responsibility to distribute them in a manner that will
provide the best results for the greatest number possible.
I don’t know how I can make it plainer, it would be immoral and unethical to continue to providing life saving resources to a life that can’t be saved when it would be at the peril of a life that could be saved. The parent, competent or otherwise can’t , just by virtue of having a blood relation change the morality of that equation.
There would be a lot more quality health care available if we didn’t waste billions on ineffective, unwarranted and often unwanted and detrimental end of life treatment. One of the best ways to curb those costs, simply encouraging people to make their own informed decision before any catastrophic event takes it out their hands won’t happen soon. All thanks to the GOP’s insidious disinformation campaign, and the media that enables them.
Corner Stone - July 29, 2010 | 8:16 pm · Link
@Keith G:
And that was some incredibly stupid speculation by Cacti. But s/he is in AZ so the sun probably got to em.
Texas isn’t seceding and if that ludicrously stupid scenario played out the US Govt isn’t going to post guards around the National and State Parks.
Corner Stone - July 29, 2010 | 8:17 pm · Link
@Keith G:
Hells to the Mother Fucking Yeah!!
Everything else is just killing time.
kay - July 29, 2010 | 8:43 pm · Link
@Ailuridae:
Right. Thanks.
Toobin has a long interview in the New Yorker with Chuck Schumer that you would like. I can’t link to it because it’s the New Yorker, so buy it.
In that interview is a shocking statistic, from Schumer. I don’t know where he got it.
As you know, the number Democrats use for uninsured in the US is 30 million. It was 42 million, but then they brutally subtracted undocumented for political expediency, leaving 30 million.
Anyway.
Schumer says that of that 30 million, 11% are voters. Not Democratic voters. Voters. Total.
That’s why Schumer and Rahm wanted Obama to scale it back.
They didn’t see the electoral payback on political capitol.
MattR - July 29, 2010 | 8:47 pm · Link
@kay: That is a shocking number. I would be curious to know what percent of the 30 million are eligible to vote (old enough, citizens, not felons – did I miss any?)
AhabTRuler - July 29, 2010 | 9:05 pm · Link
@Corner Stone: Heh. That’s the way to get rid of you guys: outlaw football.
Anyone up for a game of Pétanque?
kay - July 29, 2010 | 9:13 pm · Link
@MattR:
A lot of felons can vote, depends on the state, I think they should, but honestly, this is harsh, but the “felon vote” is never going to be a huge bloc.
I don’t know how many are children, either, but we’ve actually done a fairly good job insuring poor and lower middle class children prior to reform (again, depends on the state).
So that leaves just extremely low registration rates or turnout.
Participation rates are always couched in really careful terms because there are income-education-class correlations, and no one wants to go there, but that’s part of it.
Still, really low number.
Xanthippas - July 29, 2010 | 10:16 pm · Link
Can we have a thread about Texas on this blog that doesn’t mention goddamn secession? Most Texans are actually against it you know, even the conservatives.
Seriously, the only time some of you people pay attention to our state is when the NY Times does an article about it.
Xanthippas - July 29, 2010 | 10:21 pm · Link
BTW, we’re also looking like we might actually, for once, have a semi-competitive race for governor down here. And with that crazy Bill White clown who won’t even take on national right-wing memes for the good of progressive blogs!
Thanks for paying attention.
Cacti - July 29, 2010 | 11:01 pm · Link
@Xanthippas:
Oh boo hoo.
I live in the most despised State in the union because the POTUS took away our Democratic Governor and left us at the mercy of wingnut Jan.
Cacti - July 29, 2010 | 11:04 pm · Link
You’re right, the nearly 200,000 military personnel stationed there would quickly put down any dreams of the south rising again.
As for football, Roll Tide Roll.
AhabTRuler - July 29, 2010 | 11:05 pm · Link
Look, I think we can all agree, as Americans, on one thing: North Dakota sucks! w00t!