Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

How many times has the California declined to defend a law that was passed through the initiative process? Prop 8 was such a particularly gross constitutional amendment, but I do wonder how many times AGs from California have just not defended a law they didn't like. I would guess it's exceptionally rare.

And even if you believe that there should be adverse standing, I agree with the majority's wording:

The purpose of the initiative process is to circumvent the ordinary channels of state power. If it can't work when those ordinary channels refuse to let it (however rare such refusal is), then it serves no purpose. And the merits of Prop. 8 shouldn't influence the decision whether a particular party has standing to challenge or defend the law--only if the parties are first determined to have standing should the merits be considered at all. So it doesn't matter, for standing purposes, how "gross" Prop. 8 was--and saying otherwise is simply an abuse of standing doctrine.

Finally, I don't think there's a difference between a state law providing that the proponents of an initiative can appeal on a state's behalf and a state law providing that the state AG (or SG) can appeal on the state's behalf. To the same extent that the proponents suffer no individualized injury when a state law is struck down, neither does the AG (or SG)--so how is it that the choice to make one the agent of the state for purposes of defending a law in court is more valid than the choice to make the other an agent? In either event, it is the injury to the state that is being appealed, not an injury to the agent.

As I said, the approach taken by the majority in Hollingsworth neuters the initiative process so long as the state government (which the process is supposed to bypass) objects to it and someone can bring suit in federal court to challenge it. That's a bad outcome.

 

[ivysaur12]

The purpose of the initiative process is to circumvent the ordinary channels of state power. If it can't work when those ordinary channels refuse to let it (however rare such refusal is), then it serves no purpose. And the merits of Prop. 8 shouldn't influence the decision whether a particular party has standing to challenge or defend the law--only if the parties are first determined to have standing should the merits be considered at all. So it doesn't matter, for standing purposes, how "gross" Prop. 8 was--and saying otherwise is simply an abuse of standing doctrine.

Finally, I don't think there's a difference between a state law providing that the proponents of an initiative can appeal on a state's behalf and a state law providing that the state AG (or SG) can appeal on the state's behalf. To the same extent that the proponents suffer no individualized injury when a state law is struck down, neither does the AG (or SG)--so how is it that the choice to make one the agent of the state for purposes of defending a law in court is more valid than the choice to make the other an agent? In either event, it is the injury to the state that is being appealed, not an injury to the agent.

As I said, the approach taken by the majority in Hollingsworth neuters the initiative process so long as the state government (which the process is supposed to bypass) objects to it and someone can bring suit in federal court to challenge it. That's a bad outcome.

It doesn't matter if it's a bad outcome -- you've been advocating to strike down the subsidies through federal exchanges, which I believe is as horrible of an outcome as one could imagine. I also generally disagree with California's initiative process, so I'm fairly lukewarm on the idea of it being neutered, but that's neither here nor there.

What standing does ProtectMarriage.com have besides the fact that they are general proponents of the law? What injury do they have? An agent of the state has injury because they are an agent of the state -- a citizen who generally believes in the law is not. We vote (or we vote for someone to appoint) an AG to be an agent of the state and make those types of decisions. A citizen, even one fully invested in the law's application, does not have that power.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

does anyone else thing vox has completely failed in its mission to provide context to the news?

All the post are stupid follow ups to viral stories. and the context they provide is pretty much exclusively for whatever rhetorical end they're going for there's no full accounting, its lets report on the facts that get our point across.

its kinda depressing. I've really given up on the internet being a 'neutral meeting ground'

the only place ideas seem to really flourish and get truly dissected are in smaller communities. Look at the difference between community threads and OT threads on GAF.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It doesn't matter if it's a bad outcome -- you've been advocating to strike down the subsidies through federal exchanges, which I believe is as horrible of an outcome as one could imagine. I also generally disagree with California's initiative process, so I'm fairly lukewarm on the idea of it being neutered, but that's neither here nor there.

What standing does ProtectMarriage.com have besides the fact that they are general proponents of the law? What injury do they have? An agent of the state has injury because they are an agent of the state -- a citizen who generally believes in the law is not. We vote (or we vote for someone to appoint) an AG to be an agent of the state and make those types of decisions. A citizen, even one fully invested in the law's application, does not have that power.

The California Supreme Court held that "n a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so." In other words, California state law makes the proponents agents of the state for purposes of "appear[ing] and assert[ing] the state's interest in the initiative's validity." This is no different from the method whereby the AG becomes authorized to assert the state's interest--state law creates that authority in both cases. The only difference is that the Supreme Court has now refused to recognize that authority in the case of initiative proponents, though it recognizes it in the case of the "public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

tweet of the day

@JohnDingell 3m
I follow far too many journalists on here.

 

[ivysaur12]

The California Supreme Court held that "n a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state‘s interest in the initiative‘s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so." In other words, California state law makes the proponents agents of the state for purposes of "appear[ing] and assert[ing] the state's interest in the initiative's validity." This is no different from the method whereby the AG becomes authorized to assert the state's interest--state law creates that authority in both cases. The only difference is that the Supreme Court has now refused to recognize that authority in the case of initiative proponents, though it recognizes it in the case of the "public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment."

Right, but the SCOTUS holds that they don't have standing, regardless of what the California Supreme Court purports. I agree with that, even if I don't believe that the application of said precedent will always be great.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Right, but the SCOTUS holds that they don't have standing, regardless of what the California Supreme Court purports. I agree with that, even if I don't believe that the application of said precedent will always be great.

Right, but SCOTUS was wrong and the dissenters were right. From their conclusion:

There is much irony in the Court’s approach to justiciability in this case. A prime purpose of justiciability is to ensure vigorous advocacy, yet the Court insists upon litigation conducted by state officials whose preference is to lose the case. The doctrine is meant to ensure that courts are responsible and constrained in their power, but the Court’s opinion today means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed. And rather than honor the principle that justiciability exists to allow disputes of public policy to be resolved by the political process rather than the courts, see, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737–752 (1984), here the Court refuses to allow a State’s authorized representatives to defend the outcome of a democratic election.

The Court’s opinion disrespects and disparages both the political process in California and the well-stated opinion of the California Supreme Court in this case. The California Supreme Court, not this Court, expresses concern for vigorous representation; the California Supreme Court, not this Court, recognizes the necessity to avoid conflicts of interest; the California Supreme Court, not this Court, comprehends the real interest at stake in this litigation and identifies the most proper party to defend that interest. The California Supreme Court’s opinion reflects a better understanding of the dynamics and principles of Article III than does this Court’s opinion.

Of course, the Court must be cautious before entering a realm of controversy where the legal community and society at large are still formulating ideas and approaches to a most difficult subject. But it is shortsighted to misconstrue principles of justiciability to avoid that subject. As the California Supreme Court recognized, “the question before us involves a fundamental procedural issue that may arise with respect to any initiative measure, without regard to its subject matter.” 52 Cal. 4th, at 1124, 265 P. 3d, at 1005 (emphasis in original). If a federal court must rule on a constitutional point that either confirms or rejects the will of the people expressed in an initiative, that is when it is most necessary, not least necessary, to insist on rules that ensure the most committed and vigorous adversary arguments to inform the rulings of the courts.

 

[ivysaur12]

Right, but SCOTUS was wrong and the dissenters were right. From their conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkeNd1Ni4Uw

 

[Metaphoreus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkeNd1Ni4Uw

That goes without saying.

Spoiler

Though I am right.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I can't take you seriously anymore, sorry.


Good luck finding new politicans literally every two years who have what it takes to be a member of the House. They're pathetic enough as is because of how often previous members were held accountable at the voting booth; we don't need to force them out, the electorate and special interests are doing a good enough job of regulating that on their own (and for the sake of dysfunction, how sad).

Im with Diablos. Jeb and his last name is exactly how some people will reject him. He cant escape his father and brother's shadow no matter how hard he tries. The same with Hillary too.

2. You cant have one term representatives. The speakership would be a revolving door of inexperience and it wont settle deep party ideology. You replace Steve King with someone with the same ideology and it makes no difference if they are one term. The next candidate will make sure he or she is just as crazy to get elected.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Funner Fact: His 1-800 number from 1992 still works.

Proving he's been lying in wait, ready to spring into action.

Funnest Fact: Benji still occasionally calls up Jerry Brown's 1-800 on lonely nights.

 

[ivysaur12]

That goes without saying.

Spoiler

Though I am right.

Um, not to the Honorable Patrice Lessner...

 

[Metaphoreus]

Um, not to the Honorable Patrice Lessner...

Is that you?

 

[ivysaur12]

Is that you?

Everyone should watch The Good Wife though.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Didnt know Rubio was a college professor.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Didnt know Rubio was a college professor.

friend was in his class. He comes in a gives a speech and leaves. He doesn't 'teach' or 'grade anything'

 

[NeoXChaos]

friend was in his class. He comes in a gives a speech and leaves. He doesn't 'teach' or 'grade anything'

So what are they paying him for? To look good?

 

[Poodlestrike]

friend was in his class. He comes in a gives a speech and leaves. He doesn't 'teach' or 'grade anything'

I've had classes like that taught by non-elected officials, so it's not really all on him

 

[benjipwns]

does anyone else thing vox has completely failed in its mission to provide context to the news?

The whole idea was bullshit from the start. It was just a bunch of meaningless phrases that had been used by journalists/writers for eons.

Especially considering the writers they hired don't seem to have any core knowledge or familiarity about the subjects they write about other than the fact that they happen to write about them. They don't have the fundamental research capability to know what the "context" even should be. (At best they know what they want it to be.)

The whole thing seemed to be based around the notion that all these writers couldn't present the most important information but if they all got together to present MORE most important information and put "explained" at the end of headlines it would...make democracy work?

But as I said a couple weeks ago or whatever, it has seemed to make Ezra Klein a better writer and a little less naive about life in general. I don't know if that's the leadership role or being cast out on his own endeavor. His pieces also have less of an excitable "JUST GOT THIS PR RELEASE FROM A THINK TANK THIS CHANGES THE ENTIRE WORLD FOREVER" vibe to 'em than they used to on WonkBlog.

Though this probably helps add to their confusion about what the site should be. The front page is BARACK OBAMA: THE VOX CONVERSATION and over to the right:

Most Read
1
Beyoncé looked absolutely terrified when Kanye West rushed the stage at the Grammys
2
Sam Smith is bad at losing. Here’s the face he makes when it happens.
3
Kanye West pretends to storm the stage after Beyonce loses best album Grammy to Beck
4
Kristen Wiig danced in Sia’s Grammy performance. She was spellbinding.
5
President Obama: I’d love a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United

The demographic associated with Vox Media's properties are educated households with six-figure incomes and a head of house less than 35 years old.

lol

 

[benjipwns]

Really, Vox and BuzzFeed need to organize some kind of trade where they swap a bunch of writers. Vox can send over a few draft picks too.

I'd really like to see Yglesias post articles like "The tax code explained through RuPaul's Drag Race gifs"

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The whole idea was bullshit from the start. It was just a bunch of meaningless phrases that had been used by journalists/writers for eons.

Especially considering the writers they hired don't seem to have any core knowledge or familiarity about the subjects they write about other than the fact that they happen to write about them. They don't have the fundamental research capability to know what the "context" even should be. (At best they know what they want it to be.)

I still think it has potential but to be honest the writers should be writing context in their stories to begin with. Their card thing would be cool if it wasnt confusing and site design wasn't horrible.

But yeah the writers lack of knowledge is the thing that kills it and requires their crappy viral posts about the grammys. I know a lot of the kids are young (I am too) but I think that's kinda on Ezra and Matt to not have launched the site with people who don't really have the knowledge on their subject they need to fulfill the goal.

There are a lot of writters who are great at providing context on subjects they know well (dan drezner is great over at the post on IR/Foreign Affairs because that's all he does). The problem is its pretty limited. One person can only be so knowledgeable on so many subjects.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Really, Vox and BuzzFeed need to organize some kind of trade where they swap a bunch of writers. Vox can send over a few draft picks too.

I'd really like to see Yglesias post articles like "The tax code explained through RuPaul's Drag Race gifs"

I really think Buzzfeed is the best positioned out of all of them. They seem to have been more "organically formed" and not thrust into existence with some grandiose mission. They really get the web and journalism (because they hire from both fields and have them experiment on new things). They also have people specialize a lot better.

That andrew guy does great 'scooping'/c-span browsing
Gardner does greate LGBT stuff (especially legally recently, he's actually leading people through legal documents and explaining them)
Sewer does good social justice pieces and seems to be a good mentor for young talent
They have a few good foreign affairs people that can write well for the internet and facebook

Ironically they also seem to have the least clickbaity headlines


also, is 538 still around?

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah, I read that they wanted to get even more away from politics though and bring "data-driven" journalism (*barfs*) to all sorts of topics:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/

I got the impression Nate has somewhat moved on from the whole political analysis thing, especially after the kerfuffle with Sam Wang.

I've talked to Neil Paine before and have heard it suggested they have access to ESPN's statistical backend services but can use it for non-sports data. Which is probably why they put out so many dumb random statistics posts to hit deadlines/quotas lol

 

[benjipwns]

In all honestly I mostly just use Memeorandum and then click through instead of ever visiting the actual front page of any of these sites.

That's where I get things like how Politico is a bit salty about Vox's interview apparently: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/vox-interview-barack-obama-115033.html

All the President’s Explainers
Interviews with the president are always useless. Vox's was no different.

A sit-down interview with the president of the United States must be the most overrated get in all of journalism. Obviously, few journalists would spurn a chance to touch the hem of his garment if offered the chance. But beyond a brief burst of positive buzz for the news outlet, these sessions produce little in the way of news, as Vox’s Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias demonstrated anew Monday in their lengthy domestic and foreign policy Q&As with President Barack Obama.

Just tune your browser to Google News and see for yourself how little meat the hungry press corps was able to scrape from the bones of the Vox interview. CNN: “Obama ‘hopeful’ about partisanship, race relations”; Bloomberg: “Obama Says Wealth Accumulation Speaks to Need for Tax Shift”; National Journal: “In Vox Interview, Obama Sets Limits on What a President Can Accomplish”; Politico: “Barack Obama: Get rid of ‘routine use’ of legislative filibuster.” Klein and Yglesias haven’t gathered enough protein to make a decent news bouillon.

But dat shade:

But that’s not what bothers me about the Vox interview. Here, for me, is the real rub:

In the example of Klein and Yglesias, they’re less interested in interviewing Obama than they are in explaining his policies. Again and again, they serve him softball—no, make that Nerf ball—questions and then insert infographics and footnotes that help advance White House positions. Vox has lavished such spectacular production values on the video version of the Obama interview—swirling graphics and illustrations, background music (background music!?), aggressive editing, multiple camera angles—that the clips end up looking and sounding like extended commercials for the Obama-in-2016 campaign. I’ve seen subtler Scientology recruitment films.

Explainer journalism, as practiced by Klein, purports to break down complex policy issues into laymen-friendly packages that are issued from the realm of pure reason. But as Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry succinctly put it last summer in The Week, “Vox is really partisan commentary in question-and-answer disguise” that “often looks more like a right-wing caricature of what a partisan media outlet dressed up as an explainer site would look like.”

As a sometime partisan commenter, I venerate partisan commentary because it can cut through the protective Styrofoam cladding politicians love to wrap their messages in. But if you’re going to be partisan about your journalism, if you’re going to give the president an easy ride, you’ve got to be clean about it! You can’t pretend, as Klein did when he founded Vox, that you’re taking a neutral approach to news and that all you’re doing is making the news “vegetables” more palatable by roasting them to “perfection with a drizzle of olive oil and hint of sea salt.” Klein and Yglesias are like two Roman curia cardinals who want us to believe their exclusive interview with the pope is on the level.

om nom nom nom

 

[benjipwns]

Oh god that The Week article: http://theweek.com/articles/445880/vox-derp-intellectual-stagnation-left

One of the most striking examples of this epistemic closure among liberal writers are their forays into "explanatory journalism." The idea that many people might like clear, smart explanations of what's going on in the news certainly has merit. But the tricky thing with "explaining" the news is that in order to do so fairly, you have to be able to do the mental exercise of detaching your ideological priors from just factually explaining what is going on. Of course, as nonliberal readers of the press have long been well aware, this has always been a problem for most journalists. And yet, the most prominent "explanatory journalism" venture has been strikingly bad at actually explaining things in a nonbiased way.

I am, of course, talking about Vox, the hot new venture of liberal wonkblogger extraordinaire Ezra Klein. It was already a bad sign that his starting lineup was mostly made up of ideological liberals. And a couple months in, it's clear that much of what passes for "explanation" on Vox is really partisan commentary in question-and-answer disguise.

And the troubling thing is, I don't think the people at Vox are even aware that that's what they're doing.

Consider this selection of Voxplainers on ObamaCare. "Millions of Americans are paying less for ObamaCare than cable"; "The best evidence we have that ObamaCare is working"; "Kathleen Sebelius is resigning because ObamaCare has won"; "The right can't admit that ObamaCare is working." (The URL slug on the last one: ObamaCare Derangement Syndrome.) Hmmm..

Or take another, related topic: Single-payer health care. What are the arguments for or against single payer? That's a complex topic! Thankfully Vox's Sarah Kliff, former health policy reporter at The Washington Post and a noted progressive, is here to explain. Her post on the topic — which purports to list the arguments against single-payer — does not mention the fact that cancer survival rates and other positive health outcomes are significantly higher in non-single-payer countries than in single-payer countries. It seems relevant. The point is not whether or not single payer is wrong, or that the cancer survival rate point is decisive. The point is that a prominent, talented liberal writer on health policy, asked to make an objective list of arguments against single payer, cannot do justice to the job.

Or take the alleged loss by the IRS — which imposes onerous archiving requirements on all large companies — of certain important emails related to the agency's targeting of conservative political groups. It certainly looks bad for the IRS. But it's really conservatives' fault, says Vox: The IRS scandal shows the IRS needs a bigger budget. Never mind the fact that the IRS already has a $2.4 billion IT budget and countless companies are able to archive emails with much smaller budgets, or that the IRS had a contract with an email backup company. Never mind that the argument for a higher budget is based on the notion that IRS applications rose dramatically before the scandal, which is, um, not true, even according to the liberal website Politifact. Again, the point isn't to litigate the IRS issue. The point is that Vox often looks more like a right-wing caricature of what a partisan media outlet dressed up as an explainer site would look like, rather than an actual explainer site.

There is no doubt that Klein and Vox are earnest. They are not engaged in some vast conspiracy to deceive the American public and surreptitiously plant liberal ideas in Americans' brains. Instead, Vox just contains a disturbing amount of, well, derp. (It's great at sports explainers, though!)

Another symbol of growing epistemic closure on the left is The New Republic, which, under new ownership, has gone from being an idiosyncratic magazine critiquing liberalism almost as often as endorsing it to becoming a liberal mouthpiece, and now has decided to get into the explanatory journalism game. The name of their new vertical? "QED." The jokes write themselves.

Increasingly, liberal writers have been drinking their own Kool-Aid. They really believe they are the "reality-based community."

r.i.p. in peace "explanatory journalism"

 

[WayneMorse]

friend was in his class. He comes in a gives a speech and leaves. He doesn't 'teach' or 'grade anything'

So basically they pay him to give a stump speech an practice for 2016?

 

[WayneMorse]

I've actually been thinking about the past couple months and how terrible they've been for Republicans since the midterms. Everyone was calling Obama DOA after how bad election night was, and there were tons of postmortem articles about "where did it all go wrong?" But then the victories started to happen with the environment and immigration executive orders, the carbon deal with China and opening up of relations with Cuba which were both historica and legacy defining. Also the drop in unemployment, gas prices and living costs and also the rise in wages to boot. And now we have more historic policy with the net neutrality changes.

The Republicans are in probably the worst spot they've been since after election 2012, and with a chaotic primary coming with them and a well crafted and funded campaign with Hillary Clinton. I think Obama has definitely solidified himself as the greatest President in terms of domestic policy since LBJ, and maybe one of the better foreign policy presidents we've had..

 

[benjipwns]

I think Obama has definitely solidified himself as the greatest President in terms of domestic policy since LBJ

 

[PhoenixDark]

God just seems like a half assed Destiny's Child type platform for Ezra Klein (IE Beyoncé) to use as a stepping stone. He'll be the NYT editor in chief in five years.

Cliff notes policy. No thanks. And the Obama interview seems like nothing more than Obama reciting his administration talking points.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So basically they pay him to give a stump speech an practice for 2016?

I'd imagine he lectures on the topic. But they go off subject and tend to just talk about current events more than any strict lecture a tenured professor would give

I'm not really trying to knock him personally, its a bad habit a lot of schools have. They pay to have a name walk in for a few weeks a year and kinda half ass it. Its not exclusive to rubio.

My friend liked him and said he was a nice guy and seemed to care (though he is a republican). It just sounded exactly like other famous lectureres

 

[benjipwns]

A lot of schools have chairs that are basically for that purpose. Gary Peters held one endowed from a former Michigan Senator for example:
https://www.cmich.edu/colleges/chsbs/PoliticalScience/Griffin/About/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1092627

 

[lj167]

Oh god that The Week article: http://theweek.com/articles/445880/vox-derp-intellectual-stagnation-left

And yet, liberals themselves are very rarely capable of passing an Ideological Turing Test

An ideological Turing Test actually sounds like a fascinating idea. Take 4 conservatives and a liberal (or vice versa), have them all try and explain/argue for the majority view, and see who understands the other side enough to convincingly camouflage themselves.

 

[B-Dubs]

An ideological Turing Test actually sounds like a fascinating idea. Take 4 conservatives and a liberal (or vice versa), have them all try and explain/argue for the majority view, and see who understands the other side enough to convincingly camouflage themselves.

Honestly, if I had to do it I would just go full Colbert. The logic for a lot of the stances, especially on social issues, makes no goddamn sense to me.

 

[benjipwns]

Jonathan Haidt did something like this for his book The Righteous Mind: http://volokh.com/2014/01/17/jonathan-haidt-psychology-politics/

One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt’s work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/b...us-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all

And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.

The only other attempt at something like this that I can remember was related to the different strands of feminism within the feminist movement and they all did absolutely horribly.

 

[Diablos]

what

Nothing, I just think it's silly that of these two realities, you happen to think one is better than the other. They both tie into the same problem: big names and big money dominating the political process in a way that has become exceptionally perverse in recent years.

Anyway, Tom Wolf is expanding Medicaid!

HARRISBURG — Gov. Tom Wolf, making good on a campaign pledge, on Monday began the process of scrapping the Medicaid alternative briefly enacted by his predecessor and instead installing a full expansion of Medicaid.

“Today is the first step toward simplifying a complicated process and ensuring hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians have greater access to the health insurance they need,” Mr. Wolf said Monday in a statement. “Our approach will alleviate confusion, remove unnecessary red tape, and streamline the system.”

Mr. Wolf campaigned on undoing then-Gov. Tom Corbett’s “Healthy PA” plan in favor of a traditional Medicaid expansion, as permitted under the Affordable Care Act. Healthy PA combines federally subsidized private insurance for up to 600,000 newly eligible enrollees — mostly working poor adults — with controversial benefit changes to the current Medicaid program.

Despite Mr. Wolf's victory in November, the Corbett administration moved ahead with the implementation of Healthy PA, signing people up for coverage that began Jan. 1.

On Monday, Mr. Wolf directed state officials to submit a letter to the federal government withdrawing the “low-risk” health care package from Mr. Corbett’s plan from further federal consideration, which would have impacted the coverage of some Medicaid enrollees.

The governor’s office emphasized Monday no health care coverage would be immediately impacted by the steps Mr. Wolf has taken. So far, the state estimates that 156,000 individuals had already enrolled in the Healthy PA private coverage option.

“If you are already covered, your coverage will remain unaffected at this time and you do not have to do anything at this time,” according to a list of questions and answers about the program on the state’s website. “As Pennsylvania transitions to the new comprehensive adult package, the Department of Human Services will notify you of any changes prior to those changes taking effect."

A number of lawsuits are pending from advocacy groups over the implementation of Healthy PA. Other groups have complained the state has failed to process applicants in a timely manner, has asked applicants for unnecessary information — thus delaying applications — and has improperly denied eligible applicants.

“We are really excited and relieved to see this announcement and we think it is a step in the right direction,” said Kristen Dama, a staff attorney at Community Legal Services of Greater Philadelphia, a group that has brought three separate lawsuits over various aspects of Healthy PA. Those lawsuits are still pending, Ms. Dama said, though she is hopeful her agency can reach a resolution with the state.

Community Legal Services still has questions about the timeline of a transition and details of what benefits packages for Medicaid patients would look like, she said.

Much of the infrastructure and information technology work of any transition to a full expansion of Medicaid would have to be done in part by the private insurance companies who would have seen new enrollees under Healthy PA, but who for the most part also enroll the state’s Medicaid managed care patients.

“Certainly, there is a lot of work to be done,” said Michael Rosenstein, who coordinates the Coalition of Medical Assistance Managed Care Organizations, an association of those private insurance companies. “We have questions with respect to the regional composition of the program and about the transition, but many of our questions have been answered [by the Wolf administration].”

“We’re committed to making [this] work,” Mr. Rosenstein said.

A spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Human Services said it hopes to close enrollment in Healthy PA’s private coverage option in the spring, with the transition being fully complete by the fall. By that time, everybody who has signed up for private Healthy PA coverage will have transferred into the state’s existing HealthChoices Medicaid program.

 

[teiresias]

Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA . . . greatest domestic policy confirmed.

 

[Diablos]

Clinton helped keep the economy in check and rolled over for the GOP. Great foreign policy, hell of a charisma to him, and excellent at talking to everyday folks.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Dont forget the 22 million jobs, the surplus and the peacetime.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Clinton's presidency is a reminder that we need line item veto back.

Good thing he'll be on the campaign trail with Hilldawg.

 

[benjipwns]

Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA . . . greatest domestic policy confirmed.

#2's just pointing it out so #1 can laugh.

Plus, nobody's perfect and DADT was a step forward for the time. (Not to mention there's more to policy than gay rights.)

 

[RustyNails]

Clinton's presidency was mixed. His welfare reform sticks out as a sore thumb, along with the doma dadt stuff.

I still think Carter is the better president than Clinton. If he had not been blindsided with the oil crisis and the hostage crisis, we'd have a better country today. Also fuck Ted Kennedy.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's early yet, but PPP finds Toomey, Kirk, Johnson and Portman vulnerable in 2016 based on the recent actions involving DHS funding and immigration.

http://action.seiu.org/page/-/ImmigrationPollsMemo Feb2015.pdf

Low approval ratings, high approval for Obama's immigration policy.

And remember just knocking off those four would tie the Senate - and Democrats still have NC, FL, NH and AZ as pickup opportunities.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Clinton's presidency is a reminder that we need line item veto back.

Good thing he'll be on the campaign trail with Hilldawg.

no

 

[NYCmetsfan]

https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/565206159922307073

This is Rep. Aaron Schock's personal photographer. His name is Jonathon.

"photographer"

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's early yet

.

 

[Poodlestrike]

"photographer"

While it's always been my policy to never trust an unphotogenic photographer (sort of like a skinny cook), that guy is too pretty to not be his secret gay lover.

 

[NeoXChaos]

what makes people think aaron schock is gay????

"photographer"<---- people think Jonathon is his "secret boyfriend"?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

what makes people think aaron schock is gay????

"photographer"<---- people think Jonathon is his "secret boyfriend"?

because he's gay.

its an open secret in DC and Chicago

 

[NeoXChaos]

He's never stated as such.

 

[B-Dubs]

He's never stated as such.

Hence open secret. He never said it but he's not exactly hiding it either.