So I'm sitting here as the fastest thunderstorm in history blows over, plotting out my spot on the Super Bowl parade route and missing The Hillock trying to steal my string cheese, and I come across a titter post from Marty Beckerman. It links to this story by Prof. Alan Dershowitz where SCJ Scalia makes the case that innocence is no reason not to execute somebody.
“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”
Dershowitz has good point:
Let us be clear precisely what this means. If a defendant were convicted, after a constitutionally unflawed trial, of murdering his wife, and then came to the Supreme Court with his very much alive wife at his side, and sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (namely that his wife was alive), these two justices would tell him, in effect: “Look, your wife may be alive as a matter of fact, but as a matter of constitutional law, she’s dead, and as for you, Mr. Innocent Defendant, you’re dead, too, since there is no constitutional right not to be executed merely because you’re innocent.”
Dershowitz also wonders how this affects Scalia's Catholicism. I'm waiting for Bill Donahue to call for Scalia being denied communion, although I'm not putting any money on it.
I'm more worried that a Supreme Court Justice thinks it's perfectly OK to execute innocent people under our Constition. Maybe, just maybe, that might be unreasonable seizure.
Of course, if that guy's wife was not alive, but had in fact come back as a zombie, then all bets are off. Of course, that study just tells us the obvious. That zombies must be wiped out immediately. I wish they'd paid me a bunch of cash to say that.
Of course, our insurance system has been a big discussion topic. I say insurance, not health care, because we're not talking about health care. We're talking about how to pay for health care.
Here's my question. If the government plan is going to be so awful, why is anyone worried about it taking over? If the public plan will be rationed and awful coverage, won't people stick with a private insurance company for a little more cash?
I've heard that 70-80% of people like their insurance plan. Of course they do, compared to the alternative. I have a plan that cost me little, and my VEBA plan more than covers my yearly deductible, not to mention that it carries over year to year. I have a good plan. I'd bet that given the choice between many private plans and what I have, people would take my plan. People are happy because they see what they're paying versus what it costs to get insurance without an employer chipping in, and anything is better than that.
And please get off of the "insuring lazy people" bullshit. When I was working full time as a security guard, I couldn't go to a doctor. The insurance I was offered was little more than catastrophic coverage. That was fine for me, a young, healthy single guy with no kids. At the pay we were getting, the cost for decent health coverage was astronomical. And that was for full time work.
A co-worker argued that the tax raises from the public plan would destroy retired people on a fixed income. Apparently he's never heard of premium increases, nor does he know how much an insurance plan without employer contributions actually costs for a 55-65 year old. My retired parents pay $400/month for their insurance, which is stellar. Well, that's their amount. My dad was a member of an evil union for his whole career, so he only pays 25% of the total. If you think $1600/month is in any regular retired person's budget, you're either rich or stupid.
And then there's the rationing argument. Leave aside the fact that health insurance companies do a perfectly fine job of rationing health care, care is also being rationed by price, as in the poor can't afford good health care. I'd also argue that giving everyone access doesn't mean that everyone will pound down the doors (except perhaps at the beginning, when people can finally afford to see a doctor for the first time. That will pass.). I've been sick for the last week. I didn't go to a doctor. Why do you think everyone else will?
And if you don't want the government getting between doctors and patients, you had better frackin' not be against medical marijuana. I'm looking at you, Governor Pawlenty.
I agree that our representatives in Congress should be willing to apply to the public option. That's the only way to know it's a great plan. But even if they don't, the wait for an MRI will be a lot shorter on the public plan than it will be for someone with no insurance at all. I suppose it's easy to argue against public insurance when you have a good job that provides a decent insurance plan. Or, lords forbid, are in a union.
Speaking of which ... Here's what the "conservative" movement thinks of union members, many of whom vote republican. How dare they expect a decent wage for their day's work? How dare they expect to be treated fairly? Why, if you're in a union, you are nothing but a lazy thug. Vote Republican!
And finally, to lighten the mood, a writing exercise brought to life. This is, indeed, a fast brown vulpine hopping over a slothful canine. Or something like that. (via Jeff)
