What do you call it when someone who is suing to overturn the healthcare reform law files for bankruptcy, listing $4,500 in unpaid medical bills?

Karma? Fate? A lucky break for President Obama?

Really, you can't make this stuff up. Here's what The Times' David Savage wrote Thursday:

Mary Brown, a 56-year-old Florida woman who owned a small auto repair shop but had no health insurance, became the lead plaintiff challenging President Obama's healthcare law because she was passionate about the issue.

Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. Brown is a plaintiff in the federation's case, which the Supreme Court plans to hear later this month.

But court records reveal that Brown and her husband filed for bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills.

Now, you might expect Brown to be a bit, well, chagrined at this turn of events.  But remember, as Savage wrote, she "was passionate about the issue."

And she apparently still is:

Brown, reached by telephone Thursday, said the medical bills were her husband's. "I always paid my bills, as well as my medical bills," she said angrily. "I never said medical insurance is not a necessity. It should be anyone's right to what kind of health insurance they have.

"I believe that anyone has unforeseen things that happen to them that are beyond their control," Brown said. "Who says I don't have insurance right now?"

Who says? Well, Mary, your lawyer for one. Remember: She "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it."

Oh yeah, that.  Those lawyers, always running their mouths.  

And for that matter, Mary, those aren't your husband's medical bills, at least not anymore.  Now that you've filed for bankruptcy, they are probably our medical bills, aren't they? 

Although it's not as though Brown is totally anti-government: The couple's Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition said her income was $275 a month in unemployment benefits.

So perhaps she intends to put that toward what she owes: "$2,140 to Bay Medical Center in Panama City, $610 to Bay Medical Physicians, $835 to an eye doctor in Alabama and $900 to a specialist in Mississippi."

Or maybe, as the story says, there's that other way out:

"This is a very common problem. We cover $30 million in charity and uncompensated care every  year," said Christa Hild, a spokeswoman for the hospital center. "If it's a bad debt, we have to absorb it."

Although when the hospital center says "we," it means "us"  -- as in you and I, the ones who do pay for health insurance.  We absorb it, in higher premium costs.

It's called the free market, or "there's no free lunch."  (It's also why a single-payer system such as Medicare would've been a better option than the law we've got, but that's another post.)

But it's also why the "individual mandate" requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance was put into the law.

Why that is so hard for Brown and millions of other citizens to understand is beyond me. 

This isn't Charles Dickens' London: We don't have debtors' prisons.  If Brown and her fellow travelers have their way and the healthcare law is ruled unconstitutional, many others will take the risk "of unforeseen things that happen to them that are beyond their control." 

And if they get sick, and have medical bills they can't pay, then they won't pay.  And neither will the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

The rest of us will pay.

You see, Mary, the requirement that everyone buy health insurance isn't big bad government taking away your freedom.

It's just common sense.

ALSO:

Jimmy Carter, shortchanged again

War on drugs' big catch -- 'Viagra man'

$3 billion in U.S. humanitarian aid buys little respect 

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a challenge to the healthcare reform law. Credit: Win McNamee / Getty Images

Which of these sounds like a good deal:

For sale: Beverly Hills mansion, $25 million, driveway and garage not included.

For sale: Vintage Ferrari, $5 million, tires and wheels not included.

For sale: Gulfstream V, $25 million, wings not included.

For sale: L.A. Dodgers, $1 billion-plus, parking lots not included.

So you answered "none of the above" too, right? 

Then why are there still nine groups bidding for the right to pay beleaguered Dodgers owner Frank McCourt beaucoup Benjamins for a team -- and a stadium -- that needs upgrading, and they won't get the parking lots?

Really, this is starting to feel like the time your parents told you that of course you could go to the Springstreen concert -- as long as you took your 14-year-old brother. Or when you were in college, and there was that annoying frat brother -- but he was the only one who had a car.

Want to know what it's like to have Frank as your partner? Ask Jamie McCourt.

Honestly, buying the Dodgers under these circumstances would be like having Dick Cheney as your vice president.

Of course, not everyone is delusional. Of the 11 groups that made the cut in the bidding process, the Rick Caruso/Joe Torre bunch dropped out Thursday, citing the parking lot issue. That followed the reported withdrawal earlier in the week of a group that included former Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley.

So who's still in? Well, the biggest local name is probably Magic Johnson, and then there are several East Coast types and assorted well-heeled folks -- all of whom apparently really love the Dodgers.

And what exactly is the parking lot scenario?  From The Times' story:

McCourt divided the Dodgers and the parking lots into separate entities in 2005, with the approval of Major League Baseball. The Dodgers are in bankruptcy, but the McCourt entity that controls the parking lots is not.

The sale agreement between McCourt and MLB specifically permits him to retain the lots --  and build parking structures on them if he chooses.

The new owner of the Dodgers would inherit a lease for the parking lots -- at $14 million per year, with increases starting in 2015 -- and a separate loan that McCourt has said requires the team to play at Dodger Stadium until at least 2030.

Hmm, can you say "hamstrung"?  Because all I hear are warning klaxons, starting with the fact that Frank managed to run the Dodgers into bankruptcy -- but not his parking lot company.

Which means that he apparently knows a lot more about running a parking lot than a baseball team. 

So, worried about the high price of gas? Think parking in Chavez Ravine is expensive now? Wait until you attend a Dodgers game in 2015. Can you say "second mortgage"?

Not to mention what ticket prices will have to be if the new owners want to recoup their investment.

But the bidding goes on. You can talk all you want about a bad economy, but obviously the 1% folks are doing just fine, thank you very much, if they can pony up this kind of cash for part of a franchise -- and who knows, based on Frank's penny-pinching ways, the parking lots may turn out to be the best part of what's left.

Still, I've always been sure of one thing: Rich people didn't get rich by being stupid.

But in this case, you have to wonder if another old adage won't prove true: A fool and his money are soon parted.

ALSO:

What to do about $4 gas

Gotta get some Google Goggles

The Dow is climbing! The Dow is climbing!

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw, left, and center fielder Matt Kemp. Credit: Stephen Dunn / Getty Images

In Republican circles, one common assertion about the mortgage meltdown is that it was caused by the government -- specifically President Clinton and Democrats -- who forced banks to make loans to people they knew couldn't pay.

This week, though, we were given proof that this assertion is -- what's the legal term for it?; oh yea -- baloney: In New York, Citigroup Inc. agreed to a $158-million settlement with the Justice Department.

As The Times reported:

Citi admitted that it provided misleading information about the quality of its mortgages to a federal insurance program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The government provided backing for the mortgages and ended up losing millions when the borrowers defaulted.

Notice that phrase: "misleading information about the quality of its mortgages."

And who were some of these borrowers?  Yep, you're right, some were the folks Clinton and the Democrats wanted to help achieve the American dream of homeownership:

The government insurance allowed Citi to give cheaper loans to less-creditworthy borrowers and then to sell the loans to investors.

But is wasn't the government forcing Citigroup's employees to make bad loans. In fact, here's what the government demanded:

The major banks were part of a program that allowed them to get automatic approval for government insurance for the mortgages they were issuing. As part of the program, the banks were supposed to aggressively pre-screen the mortgages to make sure they were not too risky and report any signs the mortgages were having trouble.

Hmmm. Wonder which part of "aggressively pre-screen the mortgages to make sure they were not too risky" the bankers didn't understand? Because here's how they apparently did business:

The complaint said Citi systematically ignored these rules, leading the government to insure lower-quality loans. More problematically, employees in Citi's mortgage unit are accused of asking members of the compliance department to not report problems with the mortgages to the government.

In legal circles, I think you call that "a smoking gun."  I guess Citi thought so too, since it agreed to fork over $158 million.

Admittedly, this settlement is pretty small potatoes, given the enormity of the mortgage mess.

And yes, you can't excuse people who took out mortgages they knew they couldn't afford.

But can we at least stop spouting the nonsense that the government forced banks to make bad loans?

Clearly, that's one claim that just doesn't hold up in a real court, and it shouldn't hold up in the court of public opinion either.

ALSO:

Santorum: The personal isn't always political

Mitt Romney picks the wrong fight over the auto bailout

The payroll tax deal isn't a sign of a more harmonious Congress

-- Paul Whitefield 

Photo: A protest in Watts this month against foreclosures. California is working through its backlog of troubled loans faster than many states, trade economists say. Credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times

If you want keen observations on Campaign 2012, you'll want to read the columns by my colleague Doyle McManus.

For example, in Sunday's column, McManus pointed out that the drawn-out and increasingly negative Republican presidential race will take its toll on Mitt Romney among independent voters.

Lo and behold, on Monday The Times reported on new poll results:

President Obama for the first time has opened a sizable lead over his most likely Republican opponents, thanks to growing support among independent voters, according to a new Pew Research Center poll….

Obama led [Rick] Santorum by 10 points among registered voters nationwide (53%-43%) and led [Mitt] Romney by 8 points (52%-44%). Obama’s lead over Newt Gingrich, who has faded in the GOP race, was 18 points (57%-39%). In previous polls in November and January, Romney and Obama were roughly tied. Obama has moved up because of support from independent voters, 51% of whom now back him against Romney, a gain of 11 points since last month.

Now, had you read McManus, you would have already had that information, gleaned from an insider: 

"The long primary fight is driving independent voters away from Romney," the Obama campaign's senior strategist, David Axelrod, told me last week.

The question, though, is why?

I mean, it's strange, really, how an entire party can be driven to political suicide by a small number of fervent "true believers."

Democrats saw it many years ago with George McGovern. Republicans went through it before with Barry Goldwater.

And here we are again. The Republican Party of today appears increasingly tone deaf when it comes to appealing to independent voters, much less swaying any Democrats.

Take this statement from House Speaker John A. Boeher on Monday, regarding the Republicans’ acceptance of the Democrats' goal of extending the payroll tax cut for middle-class Americans:

"This is not our first choice," said Boehner and his leadership team, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), in a joint statement. "But in the face of the Democrats’ stonewalling and obstructionism, we are prepared to act to protect small businesses and our economy from the consequences of Washington Democrats’ political games."

Sorry, John, you lost me at "not our first choice." 

Now, I'm sure many Americans will appreciate the Republicans' efforts on behalf of small businesses -- whatever that means -- and they'll also appreciate how hard it must be to put up with those stonewalling Democrats, who have the nerve to want to keep a tax break for regular working folks.

And I'm also sure that Sarah Palin and Santorum and the other tea partyers who live in what is apparently a parallel universe will vote Republican in November, even if that means voting for Romney.

But the race is won in the middle, where the independents hang out, and nothing the Republicans are doing right now has much appeal to those folks.

But don't take my word for it.

Just read Doyle McManus.

ALSO:

Carmen 'I am a liar' Trutanich

Obama, Romney and the battle of the bands

Santorum blames his wife for his criticism of those radical feminists 

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney campaigns in Portland, Maine. Credit: Robert F. Bukaty / Associated Press

The Obama administration's proposed $3.8-trillion budget for fiscal 2013 claims to cut future deficits and debt by more than $3.5 trillion over the coming 10 years. That's not including about $1.7 trillion in savings from the spending restraints imposed by Congress over the last two years. But the administration's figure doesn't represent a real cut, at least not in the sense that most people would understand it.

If Congress and the administration kept current laws in place, the deficit would shrink from about $1 trillion in fiscal 2012 to $585 billion in fiscal 2013, then fall to about $200 billion in 2018 before climbing again, according to the Congressional Budget Office. President Obama's proposal has the deficit increasing to $1.3 trillion this year, then dropping to $575 billion in 2018 before heading back up.

So how does Obama claim $3.5 trillion in deficit reduction? By assuming a different baseline for the federal budget, one that involves several expensive changes in law. These include assumptions that all of the Bush-era tax cuts are extended, that the payroll tax holiday ends this month, that doctors and hospitals don't take a huge cut in their Medicare fees and that the Alternative Minimum Tax threshold keeps pace with inflation.

That's a more realistic starting point. Nevertheless, it stretches the truth to call it "deficit reduction" when the budget extends most, but not all, of the tax cuts that are due to expire. Similarly, it's (ahem) creative accounting to claim that the government is saving $741 billion by pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq as scheduled. Not that all $741 billion would be "saved"; about one-sixth of those dollars would be spent on transportation projects. As the White House put it in its proposal for reauthorizing the surface transportation program at a higher funding level:

[T]he reauthorization proposal will not add to the deficit as the budget proposes to use the "peace dividend" from ramping down military operations overseas to offset all costs.

It's also worth noting that Obama's proposal would eliminate the $1.2 trillion in savings from discretionary programs over the coming 10 years that Congress ordered last year as part of the debt-ceiling deal.

I'm not arguing that the White House is ignoring the deficit. Its proposals -- including $1.7 trillion in higher taxes and almost $450 billion in cuts to Medicare, farm subsidies and other mandatory programs -- are neither trivial nor pain-free. They just don't add up to $3.5 trillion in new deficit reduction, at least not when measured against the status quo.

-- Jon Healey

Photo: National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, left, and Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger discuss the Obama administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2013. Credit: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Yes, the U.S. economy is improving.  But.

There's always a but, isn't there?

You can talk about companies -- such as Bank of America -- reporting better earnings. Or about how unemployment claims have fallen again. Or that consumer prices are holding steady. Or even about mortgage interest rates hitting new lows.

But. 

But then there's the "old paint" index, and the news there isn't so rosy.

You might have a different name for this economic indicator, such as "the clunker," or "the jalopy" or even "this old thing? I’ve had it forever."

Whatever.  The bottom line is, the average age of all the vehicles  on America's roads is at a record high: 10.8 years. For just cars, it's 11.1 years.

They're not necessarily scientific, but those are telling numbers. 

For one thing, it means that a lot of Americans aren't sure enough in the economy to splurge on a new car.  Call it the "car consumer confidence index," I guess. And when it's down, so are we.

Because Americans love cars.  They love to drive. 

Especially in California. Here, a new car is a, well, if not a fundamental right, at least something close.

It's like the old joke about first impressions:  In the East, they ask what school you went to.  In the South, they ask who your family is.  In California, they ask what kind of car you drive.

Also, I think this whole old car vs. new car divide adds fuel to the "class warfare" debate.

What can be more discouraging -- what inspires more envy -- than the sight of a shiny new BMW passing you on the freeway?  Especially when you're driving an 11-year-old not-a-BMW that needs shocks and tires -- and that you don't valet park because you don't want to be laughed at?

I'm telling you, for a savvy politician, there's a campaign slogan here. 

Forget "a chicken in every pot."

How about "a new car in every garage"?

ALSO

Auto industry goes on U.S. hiring binge

Soul train: Promoting the MTA, one punk at a time

What does Romney's refusal to release his tax returns say about him?

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: A shiny, new Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet. Credit: Nissan

Warming up for a vote Wednesday on whether to raise the debt ceiling, Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) declared that he would vote no in order to "send a clear message that we do not condone the president's wasteful fiscal policies of so-called stimulus, bailouts and ever-larger government."

That's a fine sentiment, but it also illustrates how badly lawmakers mischaracterize what this debate is all about. The justification that Hultgren offered for voting against the debt-ceiling increase is typical,  not just of Republicans nowadays but of Democrats who cast symbolic votes against increasing the debt ceiling during the George W. Bush administration.

Simply put, the federal government has to borrow more money because of what Congress has done lately. A wide majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House voted in November and December for spending bills that relied on a significant amount of borrowed money. That borrowing isn't affected by President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill or by "bailouts"; those dollars have already been spent. In other words, they're part of the accumulated debt, not new debt. And a congressman blaming Obama for ever-larger government is like a father blaming his son for having too large an allowance. Obama may be all for big government, but Congress has ultimate control over the federal purse strings.

To his credit, Hultgren voted against the omnibus spending bills in November and December that are helping to push the federal government past its credit limit. But he also voted in favor of the House GOP budget last year that called for increasing the debt ceiling by almost $9 trillion over the coming decade.

Discretionary spending is just part of the problem, of course. Entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security make up a larger part of the federal budget, and increasing healthcare costs are the single biggest factor in Washington's long-term fiscal problems. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have tried to move bills that would slow that growth. The House budget resolution included a far-reaching proposal to phase out Medicare in favor of subsidies for private insurance, but the political backlash persuaded the GOP-controlled House Ways and Means Committee not to translate that proposal into an actual bill.

Obama and congressional Democrats can certainly be blamed for being willing (even eager) to spill more red ink than their GOP colleagues. And Obama's stance has given House Republicans a Hobson's choice: They can agree to spend more than they want to, or they can shut down government until the Democrats agree to more cuts. Not only would the latter be ruinous politically, it would irresponsibly cut off vital services for their constituents.

Nevertheless, the best proposal House Republicans could come up with to rein in federal spending -- their fiscal 2012 budget proposal, which they could and did push through the House without Democratic votes -- still failed to halt the borrowing, and did so in a very big way. Without an actual plan to stop the borrowing, the stance of debt-ceiling deniers like Hultgren just seems like false piety.

(That's not to say there are no worthy plans for closing the budget gap -- see, for example, the work done by the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Bowles-Simpson commission, the "Gang of Six" and Bill Galston and Maya MacGuineas. All of these proposals are more sound than anything the White House or the House GOP has put forward.)

Here's another way to look at the issue. Imagine you told your spouse not to, but he or she went ahead and hired contractors to remodel your kitchen. You now face a choice: Do you borrow the money needed to pay for the work being done, or do you stiff the contractors? That's the position Congress finds itself in on the debt ceiling. Having committed the country to more borrowing, some lawmakers want to stiff the contractors.

RELATED:

Queueing up another (purely symbolic) vote

Debt ceiling: What's the excuse for voting "no"?

Government: Obama throws the GOP a debt-ceilng rope

Do House Republicans realize they just endorsed a higher debt limit?

-- Jon Healey

Photo: House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other House Republicans speak to reporters during the first big fight over the debt ceiling last year. Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images

Fittingly enough, one of the Obama administration's last official acts of 2011 was to make sure lawmakers had another chance to show the financial markets that they're willing to default on newly minted obligations.

The deal struck last August to raise the debt ceiling did so in two increments: a $900-billion hike right away, and an additional $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion after the first allotment is largely exhausted. It also gives lawmakers the opportunity to vote against each of those increases. But Congress must cast its vote within 15 days after the president asks for the additional borrowing authority.

The federal government has, in fact, burned through much of the first $900 billion, and President Obama was poised to ask for the second debt-ceiling increase late in December. But doing so would have presented a dilemma for lawmakers: If they wanted to vote against the increase, they'd have to cut short their vacations district work periods and start the 2012 session ahead of schedule. So, to accommodate their desire not to return to the capital until late January, Obama has postponed asking for more borrowing authority until it's more convenient for Congress.

As I've argued several times in the past, the debt ceiling isn't a tool to enforce spending discipline. Voting against an increase in the debt ceiling is the same as voting to give the Treasury Department the authority to decide which creditors to stiff and, eventually, which bonds to default on.

Republicans reject the label that the GOP is the "Party of No."

So, I say, let's compromise. (What's "compromise" mean, Republicans might ask? No, no, that's a cheap shot; keep it clean.) We'll christen today's GOP the "Party of Yes, But …"

As in: Yes, President Obama, we agree to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, but … we also want the go-ahead for an environmentally risky, global-warming-enhancing pipeline, and changes to the healthcare reform law, and freezing government workers' pay even longer, and, and, and.

Or this:  Yes, President Obama, we agree to approve your nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but … first you must agree to restructure the new bureau to weaken its authority.

Or even this:  Yes, President Obama, go ahead and nominate well-qualified people -- such as Caitlin Halligan or Goodwin Liu -- to federal judgeships, but … no, we aren't going to approve any of them, so there!

(Ooops, how did that "no" get in there?  Well, old habits.)

So you see, the GOP really is ready to say yes to the president, but … not this president.

It's odd, but I don't remember the Republican lawmakers being so tightfisted when President Bush came to them every few months to pony up more billions for the war in Iraq.

And I don't remember them worrying about making up for the lost revenue when they approved his tax cuts.

Then, it was just the "Party of Yes."

Now? Well, spin it any way you want, but the common thread in the Republicans' stances is this:

If it's something to help the working class, we can't afford it. 

If it's something to help the rich, we can't afford not to afford it.

And whether it's Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich running on that platform, it's hard to see how, come November 2012, that isn't going to make the GOP the "Party of Nowhere."

RELATED:

Gallup poll: Republicans less enthusiastic about 2012 race

To GOP 'appeasement' charge, Obama says: 'Ask Osama bin Laden'

Romney, an active man of faith

Pastor slams Newt Gingrich as the 'GOP's Kim Kardashian' in video 

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: Mitt Romney supporters listen at at campaign stop in Paradise Valley, Ariz., this week. Credit: Laura Segall / Reuters

So the "stupor committee" failed.  Surprise.

Democrats wouldn't budge on cuts to social programs without tax hikes. Republicans wouldn't budge on raising taxes. Voila: A no-budge(t) collapse.

Where have we seen this before?

Oh, right: California's Legislature.

The "super committee" was supposed to make the hard choices that Congress couldn't.  The nation's future was at risk, our political leaders warned.  This time it's serious. We can't kick this can down the road any more.

Oh yes we can.  Heck, we've been kicking this can down the road in California for years.

Remember all the brinkmanship during Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration?  How many times did we hear that we had to get our fiscal house in order?  How many times did someone say "it's now or never"?

But it wasn't.  And it isn't. 

California did what Washington is about to do:  Take the meat-cleaver approach.

Our state budget  calls for automatic cuts if revenues don't come in at a certain level.  And guess what? Revenues aren't keeping up.

So the cuts are coming -– but only to stuff we don't need, like schools. That allows the politicians to point fingers -– while the arms and legs of our kids' futures are being lopped off.

It works so well, Washington has basically agreed to do the same thing:  The super committee couldn't come up with a plan, so automatic spending cuts will kick in.

But wait, there's more: Things are so messed up that, because the committee failed, the average American may see a tax increase of nearly $1,000 in January.  Oh, and unemployment benefits for about 2 million people may run out. (Not to worry, though: The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are safe!)

Good plan.  Thanks, Congress -– now that's leadership.

Still, there's one bit of  good news for California. At least we won't be the butt of all those jokes about how screwed up our state has become.

Because now the whole country will be as screwed up as we are.

RELATED:

Brown polishing his tax plan

Some delight in demise of 'super committee'

Obama says Republicans to blame for 'super committee's' failure

Super-committee failure may be new blow for unpopular Congress

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is co-chair of the congressional "super committee." Credit: Win McNamee / Getty Images