'No political theatre', says the leading man
"I hope that this isn't political theatre where we're just playing to the cameras and criticising each other, but instead are actually trying to solve the problem," said President Obama.
Perhaps it was a vain hope in a situation where 41 politicians from opposing parties are together in a room. He says he's exploring whether they can bridge the gap between them.
So far, it has been largely good-tempered, and there has been a real debate with people interrupting the president and challenging his assumptions.
Many had their own emotional stories. The president's was about his mother:
"My mother, who was self-employed, didn't have reliable healthcare, and she died of ovarian cancer. And there's probably nothing that modern medicine could have done about that. It was caught late, and that's a hard cancer to diagnose. But I do remember the last six months of her life - insurance companies threatening that they would not reimburse her for her costs, and her having to be on the phone in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies when what she should have been doing is spending time with her family. I do remember that."
Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee opened for the Republicans, saying the American people had rejected the current plans. He wanted the president to start over with a new bill focussing on reducing the costs of healthcare to the government:
"I was trying to think about if there were any kind of event that this could be compared with, and I was thinking of the Detroit Auto Show, that you'd invited us out to watch you unveil the latest model that you and your engineers had created and asked us to help sell it to the American people. And we go and you do that and we look at it and we say, that's the same model we saw last year, and we didn't like it and neither did they because we don't think it gets us where we need to go, and we can't afford it. So as they also say in Detroit, again, we think we have a better idea."
He warned that the Democrats should not use a method called budget reconciliation to push this through the Senate "like a freight train".
"Resist jamming it though in a partisan way," he said. The president replied that now was not the time to get into what would happen if the meeting failed, but reconciliation had been used 21 times in recent political history.
The key to the outcome may be the way the president is chairing this, firmly, making notes, trying to drag the Republicans into a concrete debate on detailed issues.
So far, he is succeeding. Rather curiously he is framed by a sprig of ivy and its shadow, part of a trompe l'oeil painting in the garden room of Blair House.
The building is where Lincoln tried to persuade Robert E Lee to command the Union army.
Pres Obama's task is just about as daunting. Indeed, the Republicans in the room are likely, like Robert E Lee, to decide they would rather fight for the other side. Gen Lee's eventual surrender after a long hard fight ended the civil war. But this president is far from certain of such a victory.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"All the world's a stage ..." as someone once wrote.
Complain about this comment
So this Republican Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, is complaining, with a rather tortuous comparison with an incident from the Detroit motor show, that it's the same health care system as before and he didn't like it then and he doesn't like it now.
But isn't this exactly the opposite position to what the Republicans have been saying about how so radically different Obama's proposal is to what has gone before ? Indeed, haven't the Republicans have been hammering against Obama's original proposal in order to make it more like what has gone before ?
Complain about this comment
I believe the mainconcern voiced by Lamar Alexander was focused on the 17% of insurance policies that are not covered by employer provided healthcare plans. Of that 17%, approximately 57% will see no change in premiums, in fact, some may see a reduction, but the other 43% will most likely see a premium increase.
To put it in perspective, without going into considerable mathematical analysis, approximately 92% of all existing insurance policies will not see a change insofar as premiums is concerned, about 8% are likely to end up paying higher premiums under the proposed plan.
I find the apparent ambivalence or disengagement shown by most of the Democrats present puzzling, although I suspect that after months of taking the heat on this issue they simply decided to let the President take over.
Quite frankly, I was very impressed with some of the arguments presented by some of the Republicans, including Cantor, and the obvious knowledge of the issue - and civility - they have displayed thus far. A welcome development after months of childish claims of death panels, euthanasia, infanticide, trial lawyers, etc.
Complain about this comment
Mark: All of the Congressfolks have their eyes on November 2010. That's understandable, but not acceptable. They should have their eyes on November 2020, 2030, 2040, 2090, etc.
Their job, as the First Branch of Government, is to take the long view, leaving the day-to-day to the Executive. Instead, they fiddle with the day-to-day, and stop looking long.
Let's pray that enough of them will "look long" enough to resist the temptation to succumb to emotions and instead make good long-term decisions. We've "enjoyed" far too much emotion already.
Regards to all.
Arclight
Complain about this comment
As Paul Adams of BBC points out "The US is the world's richest nation and the only industrialised democracy that does not provide healthcare coverage to all its citizens." Plus we're the fattest. And the least ejicated. At least we get the most gold medals.
Complain about this comment
Oh...plus we have the greatest wealth divide, with 80% of wealth held by 20% of population. And the greatest stockpile of weaponry.
Complain about this comment
As long as there's profit being made,healthcare in the U.S.is only for the privileged.The Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies won't let it happen,neither will the govt,the War machine is run by these big money makers and the citizens are nothing but peasants.Don't hold your breath America ,it isn't going to happen.
Complain about this comment
Ultimately, this is not about persuading Republicans to do anything. It is about getting them publicly on the record as to what in the bill they actually agree with and proving that fact to the American people - the majority of whom want some kind of reform. When it goes to reconciliation, because it will, it will be up to the voters to say whether or not they really care how the reform was accomplished. Or what it ultimately costs as long as they experience some benefit.
My take is, they won't care how it gets done, as long as it gets done. After all, most citizens don't know about the arcane rules of the Senate - nor will they be interested in hearing Republicans explain why 51 senators out of 100 isn't a majority.
Complain about this comment
Somebody please explain this to me:
On both bills, Senate's and House's, people MUST have coverage (individual mandate), otherwise they incur penalty. Nevertheless, on both bills again, some people will be left uninsured (18 million or 23 million depending on the bill). Does that mean all those people will be fined for not having insurance, even though for some reason it is anticipated that they wont (that is there is a reason for which they cant)?
Complain about this comment
frayedcat (#5) "As Paul Adams of BBC points out "The US is the world's richest nation and the only industrialised democracy that does not provide healthcare coverage to all its citizens.""
A canard. The US is not the richest nation on a per capita basis, which is the proper way to look at it.
Complain about this comment
ref 3. SaintDominick
Agreed. I also like some of the Republican ideas I've heard, like sending in "Secret Patients" like secret shoppers, to catch fraudsters. And Mike Enzio made some very good points and suggestions. It's like a breath of fresh air to see them all behaving like they used to - before Newt Gingrich's divisive reign.
As for that 8% who might have their premiums go up if they keep their current insurers, might they find a better deal elsewhere, once they have an insurance exchange they can use to sort things out and then save some money?
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle_LaPoste (#8) "After all, most citizens don't know about the arcane rules of the Senate - nor will they be interested in hearing Republicans explain why 51 senators out of 100 isn't a majority."
I think any American who takes any interest at all in Washington politics knows what a filibuster is and how a Senate rule permits it.
The filibuster hasn't been much of a problem until recent years. Here's a link to a piece by Robert Schlesinger on the increased use of the filibuster:
from US News
Complain about this comment
12. At 7:30pm on 25 Feb 2010, GH1618 wrote:
I think any American who takes any interest at all in Washington politics knows what a filibuster is and how a Senate rule permits it.
Filibuster, yes, well, sort of. Most imagine that it is still done Hollywood style, as in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It isn't. Those rules were changed years ago. But reconciliation? That's a very obscure procedure and not many people know exactly what it is or why it happens.
Complain about this comment
My initial thoughts are that this is not going as the President envisioned. Instead of laying a trap for republicans he finds himself faced with clear and knowledgeable arguments and ideas on health care. Without the filter of major media, folks are for the first time actually seeing a constructive dialog presented by republicans. I wonder were we would be right now had this summit met one year ago as the starting point for health care reform.
IMO, Obama should have a press conference tomorrow and state that he will scrap health care reform as is and use this summit as the beginning for new bipartisan legislation.
Complain about this comment
Maria, that is exactly what is wrong with the individual mandate. If someone cannot afford health care with the federal subsidiary, that person not only does not get health care, they also get fined for it. Basically, it is penalizing poor people. So this bill would not give health insurance to everyone- if someone could not afford health care with the federal subsidy, they would still get left out.
Why should we spent billions and trillions of dollars on a bill that does not cover everyone?
Complain about this comment
14. At 7:48pm on 25 Feb 2010, rodidog wrote:
Instead of laying a trap for republicans he finds himself faced with clear and knowledgeable arguments and ideas on health care.
You're assuming it was a trap and not an attempt to get everyone on the record - publicly. Which might be a trap if you're the kind of politician who throws a rock, like "death panels", then hides your hand behind a claim of being bipartisanship.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 14, rodidog:
"IMO, Obama should have a press conference tomorrow and state that he will scrap health care reform as is and use this summit as the beginning for new bipartisan legislation."
And waste a year's work? No way. They either pass legislation based on what they've already done, or I say throw the bums out and get new people in Congress (on both sides of the aisle). That's really starting from scratch if you ask me.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 15, LucyIllinois:
"Why should we spent billions and trillions of dollars on a bill that does not cover everyone?"
It's better than nothing?
Complain about this comment
If the government want to make health insurance mandatory, it should be mandatory that the federal government guarantees the federal subsidies will provide for all Americans.
What is the point of helping some and not others?
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle_LaPoste (#13) "But reconciliation? That's a very obscure procedure and not many people know exactly what it is or why it happens."
Agreed.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
"Pres Obama's task is just about as daunting. Indeed, the Republicans in the room are likely, like Robert E Lee, to decide they would rather fight for the other side."
That's a tempting yet ultimately clumsy analogy. Even if the Republicans decide to fight against the bill, they're neither traitors nor rebels.
Complain about this comment
If you notice, the government has never defined what affordable health care is considered to be.
Yes, I know that families cost more, people with worse conditions cost more, ect., so it is individualistic.
But at the same time, shouldn't there be a set rate of affordability for health care for a single person/family/ect. in general?
I don't know that the government understands what affordable is. After all, many of them are millionaires and/or guaranteed health care. They don't understand what it is like to not have a minimum-wage job with no benefits.
Complain about this comment
#9 Maria T - Hopefully this link to the mandatory coverage provision in the current, Senate modified, version of the bill will help. There are exceptions to the penalty (on your tax return) for poverty, hardship, religion....personally I think the whole thing has become a twisted alternative to nationalized health care or a public option.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111HB3iJZ:e427061:
Complain about this comment
"... that is exactly what is wrong with the individual mandate. If someone cannot afford health care with the federal subsidiary, that person not only does not get health care, they also get fined for it." (from LucyIllinois at #15)
Not true. Both the House and Senate bills include a hardship exemption:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html
Best to get your information from reliable news sources or the actual bills, rather than propagandists.
Complain about this comment
This health care bill is leaving the poorest people who need health care the most out. With this bill, the govt. could be sued for "bias" against poor people, as the ones who are too poor to pay for it, even with the federal subsidy, would still not get health care.
Why does this bill not cover everybody? Aren't we all supposed to be equal?
Complain about this comment
LucyIllinois I agree - Nationalize health care! Cover everyone the same! Then if a rich person wants a fancier doctor or a private room or a face lift its not like they can't pay for it on the private market.
Complain about this comment
#21 but the Confederates weren't trators or rebels either, until they lost the war.
Complain about this comment
If it isn't political theater then why are the cameras there to broadcast live coverage?
Complain about this comment
Slavery is a completely different issue than health care.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 25, LucyIllinois:
"Aren't we all supposed to be equal?"
No, we're all supposed to be created equal and have equal protection under the law. The latter might apply, but it feels like a stretch to me.
Complain about this comment
Sorry ? "Laying a trap for Republicans" ? "Trap" ? How can been seen to reach an agreement been considered a "trap" ? Why are the Republicans calling it a "trap" ? What are they afraid of ?
Perhaps they are worried that their claims of an impending socialist dictatorship might be revealed for what they are ?
They had better come to the table with some actual, practical ideas about how to reform the healthcare system. Hell, if they are any good then maybe Obama could actually use them !
But if we end up with 6 hours of paranoid conservative diatribes about the perils of "socialised medicine" ...
Complain about this comment
Sorry, weak link
you could go read the bill at
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Then do an easy click on HR 3590 from the popular listing to the right hand column
Complain about this comment
#16 Gavrielle_LaPoste,
"You're assuming it was a trap and not an attempt to get everyone on the record - publicly. Which might be a trap if you're the kind of politician who throws a rock, like "death panels", then hides your hand behind a claim of being bipartisanship."
Yes, I am. Mark also made that assumption not that many days ago. As for the public record, that's a laugh and a half! Whom among those remotely paying attention are not aware republicans are against the current legislation?
There have been many false claims of bipartisanship from both sides in this debate. If you've paid much attention to politics over the years you would know those comments are right up there with, my good friend from...
There is a difference in bipartisan legislation and the talk of bipartisanship. The first starts out with actual cooperation, the later is a debating tactic for public consumption.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 27, frayedcat:
"#21 but the Confederates weren't trators or rebels either, until they lost the war."
They referred to themselves as rebels (or rebs) during the war.
My implied accusation of treason is the opinion of a Northerner, I must admit.
Complain about this comment
#17 Andy Post,
"And waste a year's work? No way. They either pass legislation based on what they've already done, or I say throw the bums out and get new people in Congress (on both sides of the aisle). That's really starting from scratch if you ask me."
That year's work is on the verge of being a waste of time. Better to be seen as being realistic and pragmatic by ending the entrenchment of both sides by starting over on common ground.
Complain about this comment
34 I don't think they did...I think that was them durn northern carpetbaggers agin. Freedom fighters, independence fighters, confederates...against the 'war of northern aggression'...supporting the constitution and states' rights etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the_American_Civil_War
Complain about this comment
"'No political theatre', says the leading man"...?? without a trace of a sniviling smirk on his shifty face?? If anyone in Washington ever took such jests seriously, the whole decrepit government would be shut down in an instant! That's all Amerikan 'democracy (sic)' ever is, political theater! Two make-believe parties in a one-party state devoted to serving corporate interests and competing with one another overseas to see who can slaughter the most natives in the pursuit of empire. So once this latest tragi-comedy over 'health care' sputters out, the insurance giants will reward both mock parties with plenty of real cash for acting their parts so true to script - and the whole rotten system will go on just as before!
Complain about this comment
33. At 8:47pm on 25 Feb 2010, rodidog wrote:
As for the public record, that's a laugh and a half! Whom among those remotely paying attention are not aware republicans are against the current legislation?
Yes, they are against the legislation, but not against the parts of it they obviously agree with because they proposed them in the first place. They now look like exactly what they are. Complete and utter hypocrites, who only want to make Obama "fail" so they can retake the Congress and the presidency in order to finish the job of economically subjugating the middle class and winnowing out the poor through death and disease.
Complain about this comment
Robert E. Lee, as with many of the Confederate officers, were loyal soldiers of the U.S., many of them fought alongside their counterparts in the Union Army during the Mexican American War. They were forced to choose between their loyalty to country over their home state at a time the distinction between the two is not what most today would recognize or understand.
Complain about this comment
The problem with the healthcare bill is Mr. Obama simply did not understand our national healthcare inflation issues. Clearly he does not understand American politics or how to get bills passed. He wrongly believed insurance pool size was the root cause when Washington insiders knew it was largely due to labor shortage caused by key political donors to both political parties, namely physicians.
In 1980 American Medical Association (AMA) quietly recommended and unofficial got a moratorium on medical school enrollment expansion because of falling incomes. So for 22 years American Medical schools graduated an average of 16000 new doctors a year while the country’s population aged and grew by 33%. The US has effectively a shortage of 150,000 doctors which is the primary reason for healthcare inflation. We also have a shortage of nurse too for similar reasons. There are plans underway to increase US medical school enrollment by 30% by 2015 but it will take close to 10 to 20 years before labor shortage gets resolved. The projected increase in the number of doctors is a big part of why the healthcare bill show saving in 10 years.
In America health care services and insurance industries are largely regulated at the state not the federal level. Drugs, vaccines and medical devices are regulated at the federal level. Two states have attempted universal health coverage with poor financial results. Tennessee nearly went bankrupt and significantly cut back the program. Massachusetts has not gone bankrupt but now enjoys the highest healthcare costs in the world. The current federal bill looks like a mixture of the two state programs, and everyone is afraid it will balloon the national debt.
At this point Mr. Obama needs the summit largely to save political face in the public eye otherwise he will be seen an inept. Sadly, he didn’t see the resistance in his own party. The Democratic House put in provisions that would cause failure in the Senate back in April and the Democratic Senate put in provisions they knew would cause failure in the House in the fall. The “reconciliation procedure” is nothing more than an escape goat in order not to attempt passage, and an effort to blame the Republicans.
Complain about this comment
Taking care of people's health care is not a power given to the Federal Government and shouldn't have federal money spent on it.
The Federal Government should:
Make laws to cover things bigger than individual states.
Enforce those laws in compliance with the Constitution.
Maintain national security.
Maintain the military.
Conduct Diplomatic relations.
Protect the constitution.
Along with the little things that go with all that, minting money, collecting taxes, etc. But things like health care, education, etc are not Federal level things and should be handled at a lower level of government.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-The Constitution of the United States of America, 10th Amendment.
Complain about this comment
LucyIllinois (#25) "Why does this bill not cover everybody?"
About one-third of the uninsured today are illegal aliens, who would not be covered by the plans proposed so far.
Amerinds are not included in the plans, presumably because they like to think of themselves as being sovereign nations.
Complain about this comment
There's another Tenth Amendment crank (post #41).
This subject has been extensively covered in several previous threads, but the essential fact that K_Cali disregards is that the US Constitution is not merely the words in the Constitution itself, but also all Supreme Court decisions which bear on constitutional issues. It is for the Court alone to decide what is constitutional.
The Congress and Executive do a lot of things that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Complain about this comment
40. hadamsUSA:
"Two states have attempted universal health coverage with poor financial results. Tennessee nearly went bankrupt and significantly cut back the program. Massachusetts has not gone bankrupt but now enjoys the highest healthcare costs in the world."
*****************
To answer someone's question: This is why we don't hear more about Massachusetts from Democrats. It's an experiment that has a long way to go.
Complain about this comment
I found the summit fascinating and I was very impressed by the knowledge and logic exhibited by members of both parties. On several occasions I thought they were close to finding common ground leading to compromise and consensus, until Boehner opened his mouth and reminded everyone, especially his fellow Republicans, what the party line is.
In the end the whole exercise was a philosophical debate focused on morality Vs materialism. Hopefully, the good guys will win.
I agree with Gavrielle, many Americans don't have a clue what a congressional filibuster is, let alone reconciliation, and most importantly many could care less.
The news that dominate the attention of most of my neighbors at the moment is not the healthcare summit, or even the economy, but the killer whale that drowned a trainer in Orlando. That's reality outside the Washington Beltway!
Complain about this comment
"The Congress and Executive do a lot of things that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution."
Yes and they shouldn't. The supreme court isn't supposed to be adding to the constitution, they're supposed to be adhering to it and they don't always do that.
Complain about this comment
This is very clear. If you are too poor to afford medical insurance, you get a fine (tax the poor, that will teach them to be poor), unless you quickly convert to some religion which says you must not have health insurance. This is time to start a sect. For $5 year you get a membership card and a leaflet which states clearly that if it is God's will that you be sick you must not try to escape your fate. That should leave about $1 profit, times all those millions of poor people.
Complain about this comment
#38 Gavrielle_LaPoste,
"Yes, they are against the legislation, but not against the parts of it they obviously agree with because they proposed them in the first place. They now look like exactly what they are. Complete and utter hypocrites, who only want to make Obama "fail" so they can retake the Congress and the presidency in order to finish the job of economically subjugating the middle class and winnowing out the poor through death and disease."
Would you support a bill for universal health care that banned abortions or gay marriage, if not, does that make you a hypocrite?
I enjoyed your twisted allegation that republicans wish to subjugate the middle class while killing off the poor. Especially after your earlier comment about throwing rocks. A sign of hypocrisy perhaps?
Complain about this comment
I loved it when Sen. Durbin told his colleagues that if they don't like socialism they should drop out of the civil service healthcare plan!
What those that use the excuse of socialism as justification to oppose healthcare reform don't understand is that just about all the services we get from our Federal, State and Local governments are socialized services.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 39, rodidog:
As much as I love the Civil War period, please except an offer of a rain check and return to the health care debate. After all, my original post was that the two are not related!
Some other time, though, eh?
Complain about this comment
# 40 whatsiwhosis? "..labor shortage caused by key political donors to both political parties, namely physicians.." a plot by the AMA to keep down the number of doctors? Talk about theater! That's like the insurance company death squad stories - they go around and pull the plugs on the most expensive patients each year to save insurance companies millions.
US health care cost overruns are like an onion...lots of layers, with a little fraud and a profit motive sprinkled over each layer.
Nationalize health care and we take care of ALL these problems...the doctors get a government salary (unless they are really good) so competition among them is moot. The AMA's devious plot and profit motive you describe goes out the window. The insurance companies are simply gone so we don't have to be paranoid about death squads. Tort reform is addressed through partial gov't immunity. Everyone gets treated equally (maybe mediocre, not super, but everyone the same). Its a YAY YAY YAY.
For the constitutional buff wannabees, the feds can simply fund the program for the "general welfare" under clause 1, and the states can administer and regulate provided they don't discriminate, and provided they satisfy minimum requirements (just like with our education). And you know, the literacy rate has gone up in the US since the good old days before we had all those commie socialist influences and nsty public welfare progressives in the 20-30's.
Complain about this comment
#49 SaintDominick,
I loved it when Sen. Durbin told his colleagues that if they don't like socialism they should drop out of the civil service healthcare plan!
Why? The civil service health care plan has nothing to do with socialism. There plan is like any other employer based plan, except congressmen get to shop across state lines.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 49, SaintDominick:
"What those that use the excuse of socialism as justification to oppose healthcare reform don't understand is that just about all the services we get from our Federal, State and Local governments are socialized services."
Oh, I think they do understand that. I think they believe that we are in danger of becoming dependent upon, and therefore subject to, the federal government, over which individual citizens have much less control. I'm not aware of the same argument being made against state and local government services.
I believe the argument holds water, though I don't think it automatically wins the day.
Complain about this comment
48. At 10:15pm on 25 Feb 2010, rodidog wrote:
Would you support a bill for universal health care that banned abortions or gay marriage, if not, does that make you a hypocrite?
Those are separate battles that have nothing to do with health care and are not in the bill, which makes your analogy pointless.
I enjoyed your twisted allegation that republicans wish to subjugate the middle class while killing off the poor. Especially after your earlier comment about throwing rocks. A sign of hypocrisy perhaps?
Heck no! That rock was openly thrown. But if you're allowed to claim death panels and a socialist takeover of the US by liberals, why shouldn't liberals be able to claim that Republicans are really fascists who want to ruin the middle class and commit genocide against the poor? Because it isn't true? So you say. Well, neither is the rubbish your side spouts. As the old saying goes, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." You want a different sauce? Change the ingredients.
Complain about this comment
Hi # 50 - I dunno tho, HReid sed they wuz kinda related
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/reid-compares-health-care-reform-foes-slavery-supporters/
Plus the US seems to be sharply and widely divided for the past decade, left/right north/south east/west urban/rural religious/not.
Complain about this comment
I fail to understand why there seems to be a uniform consensus in government that improvments in U.S. healthcare can only be accomplished with some monstrous "omnibus" type bill. Plenty of improvement can be made incrementally - of course, it's much harder to sneak your particular preferences from the pork barrel into a small, simple bill, so the reason may be that simply explained.
An example of this useful "whittling" would be a change in insurance regulations that allow companies to sell policies in all of the states. That should take no more than three paragraphs to compose in legalese, as I just did it in a sentence fragment.
Complain about this comment
Mark's analogy comparing Obama to Lincoln may be closer that he thinks but in an unintended way. Like Lincoln, Obama is sometimes accused by his opponents of bending the constitution to implement his beliefs.
There is nothing in the U.S. consitution forbidding a state to secede from the union and in fact it specifically states that all powers not enumerated in the consitution as delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the People. Lincoln therefor had no legal basis for denying the south's right to secede. The issue of slavery made a convenient distraction to give preserving the union a basis in morality that it lacked in legality.
Lincoln also was criticized at the time for suspending the constitutional right of habeus corpus so that suspected rebels and symapthizers could be detained indefinitely without trial. Lincoln claimed the authority to suspend do that stemmed from his position as commander in chief during time of war.
It seems Mr. Obama isn't the only recent occupant of the White House who can be compared to Lincoln.
Complain about this comment
The Republicans are doing excatly what Obama's political advisors expected them to. In the week to come the Democrats's allies in the American media will be spinning the Blair conference as an example of Republican obstructionism in order to give the Democrats political cover for using the reconcillation process to ram through their version of health care reform along strict party lines. "We tried to be bi-partisan" they will claim "but those mean spirited Republicans wouldn't give in so we had to do it on our own."
It will give Obama and the Dems one in the win column they can point to when they go to the polls this fall but it could backfire on them when people find out what was in the bill.
Complain about this comment
ref #49
, SaintDominick wrote:
I loved it when Sen. Durbin told his colleagues that if they don't like socialism they should drop out of the civil service healthcare plan!
______________-
Turbin Durbin should explain why we should have to pay for his cadillac health plan. Every Senator including scott Brown (who probaly is the poorest) should pay for their own health plan.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 57, Scott0962:
"There is nothing in the U.S. consitution forbidding a state to secede from the union and in fact it specifically states that all powers not enumerated in the consitution as delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the People."
While that's true, the Constitution defines our union, and there's no union if states are allowed to secede whenever they wish.
The response to the passage of any federal law with which a state disagrees would be for it to threaten secession, in effect giving every state veto power over anything the federal government does, and in that case, there's really no distinction between that and an independent state. Both follow laws of their own making exclusively.
The Constitution gives all three branches the responsibility of upholding it at all costs. Secession was a threat to the union and therefore a threat to the Constitution. Lincoln and what remained of Congress were acting within the rights the Constitution gave them.
Complain about this comment
It was like watching a rerun already knowing the ending. We americans would like to see health care INSURANCE fixed. Not the whole health care system rebuilt. We must find the root cause before fixing anything. Why are healthcare costs rising in the first place? For one thing there is no competition. Tort reform is a necessity and only the republicans can see this. If and when Obama and his lemmings use the reconciliation trick it will be all over for them. Good riddance too. Maybe we should make healthcare a local entity. All doctors in a hospital zone (each to be designated) join in with the hospital to form a health net that the people in the zone join at a rate commensurate with their income. The payments can be charged through the local town tax system already in place. The hospital divies up the salaries of the doctors and so on. Ditch the insurance companies altogether. They do not want to pay for your healthcare they want to control it so it is cheap.
Complain about this comment
#59.Turbin Durbin should explain why we should have to pay for his cadillac health plan. Every Senator including scott Brown (who probaly is the poorest) should pay for their own health plan.
Wholeheartedly agree. It's that kind of coverage that Bonehead was referring to when he talked about America having the best healthcare system in the world. It is if you can afford it or get taxpayers to fund it. Otherwise, it needs pointing out to clowns like Bonehead that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world.
Complain about this comment
Ref 52, rodidog
"Why? The civil service health care plan has nothing to do with socialism. There plan is like any other employer based plan, except congressmen get to shop across state lines."
Because the so-called public option, which has been labeled by some as an evil example of socialism, is modeled after the civil service healthcare plan. Sen. Durbin's point, I believe, was that it is hypocritical for powerful politicians to enjoy the benefits of a system that they deny to their constituents.
Complain about this comment
There is a significant block of voters (and members of the House of Representatives) who will NOT vote for a bill (like the Senate version) that provides for the Govt. paying hundreds of millions$ each year to Planned Parenthood for elective abortions. Elective abortions are NOT health care. In effect, the "Liberals" in the Democratic party may have to choose between 1) Not paying for abortions; or 2) Not getting a health care bill passed.
Pres. Obama claims that the decision about whether the "product of conception" is human is "above his pay grade". But his actions suggest that he thinks the infant is not human. He avoided addressing that issue directly in today's meeting.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
I just received the DCCC's* follow-up request for funds email. It was written by John Vogel (the committee's executive director). I think it's an indication of the Democrats' strategy.
No mention of the Republicans at all, interestingly. It looks as if the Democrats aren't going to give the GOP battle.
Here's the angle he took:
The stakes are just too high for too many families for us to let up. Now is the time to let go of our frustration and complete the work we began. That is why Democrats proudly joined President Obama today for a historic bipartisan meeting...
You see, the GOP isn't the enemy, the insurance companies are:
The cost of inaction remains far too great for families facing heartbreak every day from skyrocketing costs and insurance companies denying them the care they need.
Somewhat surprisingly, he finishes by appealing for funds by asking us to consider the world's opinion of us:
With the world closely watching, please contribute before Sunday at Midnight to show that President Obama still has the momentum on health insurance reform.
*Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Complain about this comment
Ref. 54, Gavrielle_LaPoste:
"But if you're allowed to claim death panels and a socialist takeover of the US by liberals, why shouldn't liberals be able to claim that Republicans are really fascists who want to ruin the middle class and commit genocide against the poor? Because it isn't true? So you say. Well, neither is the rubbish your side spouts."
I urge people on both sides who are purposely obfuscating this debate to stop. It's hurting the country.
Complain about this comment
Mark
Very reassuring that somebody is providing an analysis of today's meeting on a political (strategic) level. I imagine when I open my paper tomorrow I will not find it elsewhere. All i can say for now is that it is very reassuring that the President is now in control. Something I wished from day one I beg the indulgence of the other regular posters. But it is too late to read their views. I am looking forward to reading them tomorrow. Saintdominick/TeaPot562/MagicKirin/Scott0962/Gavrielle_LaPost and I must particularly acknowledge GH1618. We finally HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT!!! Very much looking forward to all of your posts. And indeed my good friend MarcusAureliusII. I forgive you if you forgive me! Lets have a good debate on this one!
My only main view for now is remains that coverage for all citizens should be the moral objective. But this should not come at the cost of genuine reform of the outrageously spiralling cost. Because, speaking as a non-us citizen, the later is approaching existential crisis.
The "great leader" is finally leading!
Complain about this comment
#54 Gavrielle_LaPoste,
"Heck no! That rock was openly thrown. But if you're allowed to claim death panels and a socialist takeover of the US by liberals, why shouldn't liberals be able to claim that Republicans are really fascists who want to ruin the middle class and commit genocide against the poor?"
So you are a hypocrite. Sadly, I'm not surprised.
Complain about this comment
# 62 "Otherwise, it needs pointing out to clowns like Bonehead that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world."
This, as noted in another thread here, is a distortion. The numbers reflect a classification difference, not that we don't know how to deliver babies.
Complain about this comment
#62 johnzebut,
"Otherwise, it needs pointing out to clowns like Bonehead that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world."
That's statistically true but only because the U.S. counts every live birth in their infant mortality rate. The rest of the developed world does not follow all of WHO guidelines except for a few countries like Canada. This misleading statistic is often used to denigrate health care in the U.S. and needs pointing out. Try comparing the definitions of live births with other countries against that of the U.S., I think you'll be surprised.
Complain about this comment
I will say this this for Obama, while he did do some umming and ahhhing he spoke without a teleprompter!!! As far as the umming and ahhhing goes I forgive him. I have no ability to speak in public either. I always thought Bush got a bit more than he deserved but he was extra gifted as not speaking well. Especially early on.
Complain about this comment
54. Gavrielle_LaPoste:
"'48. At 10:15pm on 25 Feb 2010, rodidog wrote:
Would you support a bill for universal health care that banned abortions or gay marriage, if not, does that make you a hypocrite?'
Those are separate battles that have nothing to do with health care and are not in the bill, which makes your analogy pointless."
****************************
Actually, abortion is very much a part of this reform debate, especially for those Democrats who will not support legislation that includes public funding of it.
Complain about this comment
#63 SaintDominick,
"Because the so-called public option, which has been labeled by some as an evil example of socialism, is modeled after the civil service healthcare plan. Sen. Durbin's point, I believe, was that it is hypocritical for powerful politicians to enjoy the benefits of a system that they deny to their constituents."
Not true. Politicians do not benefit from government run insurance, which is what the public option is. They use private insurance like the rest of us. The difference is they are allowed to shop across state lines for different policies while we're not.
Complain about this comment
I can't see anyone else has mentioned one glaring point. This is probably the first time the Democrats have genuinely asked the Republicans to the table about the healthcare reform legislation, and they did it because things got dicey with the election of Scott Brown in the Senate. News before his election was that the legislation was almost a done deal. I've been keeping up with this since the start, particularly because I'm disabled and on Medicare -- and I have been since I was 23 and I'm almost 40 now. I have a pre-existing genetic liver condition that prevents me from getting "regular" insurance. I'm keenly aware of the ins and outs of health insurance *and* the need for reform. I also have a degree in Political Science (Public Administration and Policy) and so am keenly aware of the way this legislation *should* have been brought through against how it actually was. I've also *read* all of the legislation (House and Senate), and it's *not* good reform.
That's my 2 cents.
Complain about this comment
62. At 11:43pm on 25 Feb 2010, johnzebut wrote:
"Otherwise, it needs pointing out to clowns like Bonehead that the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world."
Deaths/1,000 live births:
U.S.: 6.22
Russia: 10.56
Mexico: 18.42
China: 20.25
-- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Complain about this comment
re. # 60. At 11:30pm on 25 Feb 2010, Andy Post wrote:
Ref. 57, Scott0962:
"There is nothing in the U.S. consitution forbidding a state to secede from the union and in fact it specifically states that all powers not enumerated in the consitution as delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the People."
"While that's true, the Constitution defines our union, and there's no union if states are allowed to secede whenever they wish.
The response to the passage of any federal law with which a state disagrees would be for it to threaten secession, in effect giving every state veto power over anything the federal government does, and in that case, there's really no distinction between that and an independent state. Both follow laws of their own making exclusively.
The Constitution gives all three branches the responsibility of upholding it at all costs. Secession was a threat to the union and therefore a threat to the Constitution. Lincoln and what remained of Congress were acting within the rights the Constitution gave them."
I'm not so sure that the union would be weakened if states could opt out. It could act as an additional restraint on an overreaching Federal government.
My point is that our constitution is a written one and it contains no language denying a state's right to secede. That right is implied by the clause reserving all other unspecified powers to the states and to the People. (It's certainly more implicit than the Federal government's constant aggrandizement of power by abusing the regulation of interstate commerce clause.)
If the constitution doesn't mean what it says and every generation is free to re-interpret it whenever it becomes inconvenient what's the point of having a consitution at all? Whoever scrapes together 50% +1 votes could do anything they liked. That's a recipe for anarchy and exactly the sort of chaos the founders wrote the constitution to prevent.
Government officials and military recruits take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States, no mention is made of the union. Those officials who acted to preserve the union saved the nation but at the expense of turning their back on the language of the very constitution they were sworn to defend. In the end they triumphed and so their version of history prevails.
No, I'm not a Southerner and yes, I'm glad the union was preserved and the nation exists in it's current form, but let's not kid ourselves about how it was done. It was an excercise in brute force without any regard for legal subtleties. In the end it was the price we paid in blood for America's original sin of slavery.
Complain about this comment
51#. (frayedcat) I'm not making up the Medical school moratorium. See The American Journal of Medicine 2008 Feb;121(2):e1-2.The moratorium on US medical school enrollment, from 1980 to 2005: what were we thinking? Dalen JE. University of Arizona College of Medicine, USA. jamesdalen@yahoo.com PMID: 18261478 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18261478
My problem with the bill is that is does not deal with the primary cost drivers, and blames the insurance industry. A large number of Americans are covered by not-for profit health care insurance companies. Insurance is not the problem and I question the logic of pouring more money into the health care industry.
The fact of the matter is I believe states should regulate physician fees and services because sick people are not in the mood to price shop. Currently physician fees are not posted, and largely depend on what the subscriber insurance company is willing to pay.
I also believe all Americans should be treated equally in terms of taxes and income deductibility when it comes to health insurance. This mean all Americans should get an equal base amount of income deduction for buying health care insurance. CEO’s, union automakers and public service workers get the $20K a year “Cadillac plans” health insurance that pay everything, and I think it’s unfair. By the way state and federal government have huge unfunded health insurance promises to civil servant retirees. It’s caused US manufacturing to more overseas, bankrupted two American automakers in the last year, and is causing huge budget issues in 20 states.
Complain about this comment
Scott0962 (#57) "There is nothing in the U.S. constitution forbidding a state to secede from the union ..."
Doesn't matter. At the time of secession, it was merely a political dispute which was not resolved. Then the Confederacy fired on a military outpost of the United States and the dispute was resolved. The Confederacy was at war with the United States, and the Confederacy lost.
Some years later, Japan discovered that the United States, despite being predominately Christian, does not "turn the other cheek" when attacked.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 76, Scott0962:
That's the standard reasoning on the issue that I gave you in the first post. It's generally accepted. Logically speaking, it works perfectly.
Complain about this comment
Ref, 78, GH1618:
'Some years later, Japan discovered that the United States, despite being predominately Christian, does not "turn the other cheek" when attacked.'
GH, you're the early favorite for the Non Sequitur of the Year award.
Complain about this comment
Andy Post (#80) "GH, you're the early favorite for the Non Sequitur of the Year award."
The connection is not that complicated. Throughout the history of the United States, the US has responded to attacks in kind. When Mexico invaded Texas, the US responded and Mexico was thrashed. When the Confederacy attacked fort Sumter, the Confederacy was thrashed. The Japanese should have shown a little more respect for US history, because they, too, were thrashed.
But the point was, it doesn't matter whether you consider the Confederate states to be US states in rebellion or sovereign powers. This is an argument for pedants. They attacked the United States and they paid the price.
Complain about this comment
68. At 00:24am on 26 Feb 2010, rodidog wrote:
So you are a hypocrite. Sadly, I'm not surprised.
If I'd been a hypocrite, I'd have denied that the rock was actually a rock. Sort of like denying that death panels don't already exist, staffed by insurance company executives. Which the Republican party wholeheartedly supports, since they're all about maintaining the status quo.
72. At 00:48am on 26 Feb 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
Actually, abortion is very much a part of this reform debate, especially for those Democrats who will not support legislation that includes public funding of it.
There is no public funding of abortions. If people want to purchase insurance that includes abortion with their own money, then they should be entitled to do so. People receiving subsidies, as I understand it, won't be able to purchase abortion coverage. In any case, whether or not insurance companies are allowed to offer policies that include the procedure on the exchange, there is nothing stopping them from offering a separate rider to those who already have their insurance off the exchange. The exchange will merely set a minimum standard of coverage of what must be included in every policy offered, not tell insurance companies what their "gold standard" ought to be.
Personally, I say if anyone wants an elective abortion they should pay for it themselves. I'm tired of idiots who refuse to use birth control whining about the subject. I never wanted children, so I never had any. Nor did I ever allow myself to get pregnant, since I also never wanted to have an abortion. So, since Viagra is covered by most insurance, we should make sure birth control is covered. Fair is fair. If the men can get help in getting it up, and the government pays for it, women ought to have the right to keep pregnancy down.
81. At 05:10am on 26 Feb 2010, GH1618 wrote:
The Japanese should have shown a little more respect for US history, because they, too, were thrashed.
Not to get into a long debate on the subject, but my understanding was that the Japanese deemed America to be "weak" militarily, because we did not build our cities and towns with walls and we did not have whole armies camped on our borders with Mexico and Canada. They assumed we were no longer capable of fighting because we'd grown decadent and lazy. Though General Yamamoto, who'd spent time in the states, tried to convince them otherwise.
Complain about this comment
Obama has a massive popular mandate, once he has listened to all sides he has to find a way with the Democratic party to get this passed. The republicans know that his whole reputation is staked on this. All the talk of bipartisanship is purely a smokescreen sent up by the republicans to cover their complicity with the insurance companies to keep the status quo.
The American healthcare system is an embarrassment for a so called developed country.
Complain about this comment
#75. Andy Post
Deaths/1,000 live births:
Using your own reference:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
United States 6.22
Cuba 5.82
Italy 5.81
Greece 5.16
Canada 5.04
Israel 4.22
France 3.33
Singapore 2.31
Complain about this comment
I find it incredible this man says "no political theater" every time he proposes a bill the sky is gonna fall if we do not pass it !!One way we can lower medical costs is to start enforcing immigration laws so the millions of illegals in this country aren't bogging down the system.I hope they never pass state run health care,for two reasons.1 you think health care is expensive now wait till you see the tax increases we face to support the gargantuan red tape system to support it 2,Health care will not improve it will decline to a second rate system like the NHS and only the mega rich will have access to decent health care.
Complain about this comment
Re General Robert E Lee.
U.S. government could not legally take over Lee's property.
So, out of vengeance, it started to bury Union's soldiers on his property.
When the war ended and Robert E. Lee came home he looked up the hill from his carriage (never got out) and ordered his servant to drive on.
[never to return]
That's what you look at, Mark Mardell, when go today to Arlinton National Cemetery.
Robert E. Lee's PRIVATE PROPERTY!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"FROM MY COLD HANDS!"
(Chuck Heston)
Complain about this comment
Rev #5
"As Paul Adams of BBC points out "The US is the world's richest nation and the only industrialised democracy that does not provide healthcare coverage to all its citizens." Plus we're the fattest."
U.S. is NOT the richest country.
[ ca 20 million of illegal immigrants and their extended families might have something to do with it]
And as far 'fatest' is concerned look no further than to a medal score in the Vancouver Winter Olympics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"San Francisco Democrats; they always blame America first"
(Jean Kirpatrick -1984)
Complain about this comment
Re #41
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-The Constitution of the United States of America, 10th Amendment.
The document is much shorter and easier to read than the EU Const...errr...Lisbon Treaty.
And yet it seems there are still quite a few people here (including Americans) who haven't bothered to read it.
Complain about this comment
Re: "laying a trap"
Are you sure you haven't refered to Democrats "laying a crap"?
Complain about this comment
"Lincoln and what remained of Congress were acting within the rights the Constitution gave them."
Yes, he was, legalistically.
Lincoln was also right when he suggested that the liberated African slaves should be returned to their homeland (incl. Liberia) in which they had been kidnapped in and sold by their own leaders (chieftains).
Claiming [read] that nothing else would work.
BTW. SOVIET Constitution had given its republics rights to secede.
And you should know how it worked in practice.;)
Complain about this comment
Ref. 84, MariaTee:
"Using your own reference..."
Irrelevant.
The stipulation was that the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world. That's simply not true.
Those countries with the lowest rates are justified in being proud of their records. We Americans have more work to do.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 90, powermeerkat:
"Yes, he was, legalistically."
We are a country of laws.
Well, at least we aspire to be.
Complain about this comment
Robrt E. Lee was treated rather generously compared to other generals who have taken up arms against the United States. It was just that his estate was converted to a military cemetery.
bried history of Lee after the Civil War
Complain about this comment
Re #92
Now, would you care to comment on what Lincoln, a founder of the Republican Party, wrote about liberated slaves?
Complain about this comment
Re #93 Robrt E. Lee was treated rather generously compared to other generals who have taken up arms against the United States. It was just that his estate was converted to a military cemetery.
Just. ;)
Compare it to what gen. Sherman did to the South. ["Sherman March"]
Complain about this comment
Ref. 94, powermeerkat:
"Now, would you care to comment on what Lincoln, a founder of the Republican Party, wrote about liberated slaves?"
The quote is accurate, and clearly, he was wrong.
I'm not sure I understand your point.
Complain about this comment
Re #96
He [Lincoln] was wrong the first time (freeing the enslaved people), or the second time (sending them back to their homeland where they clearly belonged)?
Or perhaps, horrible dictu, he was right in BOTH cases?
Complain about this comment
"Those countries with the lowest rates are justified in being proud of their records. "
A small correction: of their FALSFIED records.
Like Cuba. Under the homicidal Castrate regime.
[cf. the latest news]
Or China (killing infants in excess of centrally-alloted quotas]
Speaking of falsified records...
Is global scientific community proud of the records of "man-made global warming" falsified by some of their well-intentioned (I'm sure) members?
Or Switzerland and Lichtenstein of their lies re hiding tax-evaders' money in secret bank accounts?
Or Greece, Spain and Portugal of their falsified decifit records?
Or British government of covering up BAEs' corruptive practices?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps "power" has been reading Lerone Bennett Jr. for his understanding of Lincoln. Here is a link to a review of his book Forced into Glory, by James M. McPherson:
http://www.times.com/books/00/08/27/reviews/000827.27mcphert.html
in which he writes that "By then, Lincoln had long since abandoned his ''dream'' of colonizing blacks abroad, ..."
Complain about this comment
Ref. 97, powermeerkat:
"He [Lincoln] was wrong the first time (freeing the enslaved people), or the second time (sending them back to their homeland where they clearly belonged)?"
Correct on the first, wrong on the second.
The U.S. never really sent former slaves back to their homelands, unless you believe that all of sub-Saharan Africa is one land. Many of the freed slaves had no idea where they came from anyway.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 99, GH1618:
'Perhaps "power" has been reading Lerone Bennett Jr. for his understanding of Lincoln. Here is a link to a review of his book Forced into Glory, by James M. McPherson...'
McPherson is my favorite historian. I highly recommend Battle Cry of Freedom to anyone wanting to understand our Civil War. 1000 pages that reads like 100.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 98, powermeerkat:
'Is global scientific community proud of the records of "man-made global warming" falsified by some of their well-intentioned (I'm sure) members?'
No, fraud of any kind is universally condemned by the global scientific community. The intention of the people committing the fraud is irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
That's odd. My link in post #99 goes to a register/login page instead of directly to the review. McPherson's review can be found by searching for "Lincoln the Devil".
Complain about this comment
Re " The U.S. never really sent former slaves back to their homelands"
How come the name 'Liberia' rings in my ears?
[Although perhaps indeed it was not many of those people's homeland]
Complain about this comment
Ref. 104, powermeerkat:
"Although perhaps indeed it was not many of those people's homeland"
That was my point, yes.
Complain about this comment
The settlement of Liberia was not coerced.
http://personal.denison.edu/~waite/liberia/history/index.htm
Complain about this comment
39. At 9:24pm on 25 Feb 2010, rodidog wrote:
"Robert E. Lee, as with many of the Confederate officers, were loyal soldiers of the U.S., many of them fought alongside their counterparts in the Union Army during the Mexican American War. They were forced to choose between their loyalty to country over their home state at a time the distinction between the two is not what most today would recognize or understand."
Do you know the definition of treason? "US Constitution Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Do you know what the Confederates did at Fort Sumter, and thereafter? Do you know that many of them swore the oath that I and all US government and military swear to preserve protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?
So they were oath breakers as well as traitors.
Complain about this comment
82. At 06:39am on 26 Feb 2010, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote to:
68. At 00:24am on 26 Feb 2010, rodidog, et al.
“Personally, I say if anyone wants an elective abortion they should pay for it themselves. I'm tired of idiots who refuse to use birth control whining about the subject. I never wanted children, so I never had any. Nor did I ever allow myself to get pregnant, since I also never wanted to have an abortion. So, since Viagra is covered by most insurance, we should make sure birth control is covered. Fair is fair. If the men can get help in getting it up, and the government pays for it, women ought to have the right to keep pregnancy down.”
Agreed 100%, that is male chauvinism at its worst, it makes me [almost] ashamed to share the same gender with those hypocrites! All non-essentials should require a large co-pay or additional coverage. However, a victim of rape, incest, etc. should have total coverage.
Complain about this comment
JMM (#107) "So they were oath breakers as well as traitors."
Call them what you will, as if it mattered now. Only two rebels were indicted for treason: Jefferson Davis and Lee. Neither charge was pursued. President Lincoln called for the people to "bind up the nation's wounds":
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." (Lincoln -- Second Inaugural Address)
In that spirit, a general pardon was given to all who participated in the Confederate rebellion by President Andrew Johnson.
Complain about this comment
Re #105
I'm glad we agree on that point.
Too bad though, than many PC people cannot acccept well documented facts, that Africans were sold into slavery by their own leaders.
And that many of slave traders were Arabs.
Just as in today's Sudan.
Complain about this comment
When the law demands the same healthcare for the people that Congress gets all Republicans and Democrats will push for 100 percent coverage for all.
Complain about this comment
RE: 109. At 01:02am on 27 Feb 2010, GH1618
If you mean we should let bygones be bygones, then I heartily agree with you. What irritates me is that Southerners are generally the ones who won't let go. Yes, I know, they lost and that is galling, but they do keep the hard feelings alive.
I have been occasionally [admitting that many if not most southrons are too polite to insult a visitor, whatever they may be thinking] subjected to anti-Yankee and anti-Massachusetts sentiment.
I think this may be true because Southern history books and lore carry on with some very biased propaganda. Take the burning of Atlanta. They say it was deliberate [possible, but there is another possibility and it is unproven and unprovable] and while they usually say the city was totally destroyed, it was only between 20% and 30% destroyed.
The most offensive Southern myth, to me, is calling the Civil War "the War of Northern Aggression." They [or at least South Carolinians] fired the first shots at Fort sumter. This also ignores "Bleeding Kansas." The South made a deal to limit the expansion of slavery, "The Missouri Compromise," which they tried to reneg on in Kansas and Nebraska.
One could therefore make a better case for calling it "The War of Southern Aggression" or the "War to keep and Expand Slavery."
Most Northerners don't seem to keep the flames burning, even though we lost many men as well. I would join you in wishing the matter put behind us, But like the Tango, it takes two to forget and forgive.
Complain about this comment
...and her having to be on the phone in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies when what she should have been doing is spending time with her family. I do remember that."
I wonder if anyone in President Obama's family has ever had the opportunity to argue with a government agency, after the bureaucratic machinery had made a decision that went against them? I once had DMV screw up my vehicle registration. I had paid the fees before having the car smogged, and somehow they never updated their records even though they had gotten both the items they required - fees and smog. It took me 2 months to get that straightened out. And that's far from my worst horror story when it comes to government agencies, I chose it because it was a pretty routine screwup. I've never met anyone who liked insurance companies. But I've also never met anyone who didn't like government agencies even less. And that's really what this debate is about, in my opinion. Americans want reform, but they don't want what Obama and the democrats are offering.
Complain about this comment
78. At 02:48am on 26 Feb 2010, GH1618 wrote:
Some years later, Japan discovered that the United States, despite being predominately Christian, does not "turn the other cheek" when attacked.
__________
But it does forgive, binds up old wounds, and raises up its fallen foes.
And that is the true stuff of greatness.
Complain about this comment
Publius: Are you there?
Quite a close, hard fought game tonight. Two very good teams. Was pretty sure you'd be watching.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner-
Heard through the grapevine you had left a message for me here.
Of course I was watching that excellent hockey match-up last night! Although; when it went into OT I had to leave to meet my niece and her husband for dinner at a family restaurant. Fortunately, they had the game on television, and it was a short drive; so I didn't miss the face-off. Got a little distracted in conversation and missed the winning goal.
I love Olympic hockey. I am not one who enjoys the little fights one sees in an NHL game. I find them ridiculous and distracting. I want to see hockey! And that is precisely what we saw last night!
I was dressed to go out in the cold, and pacing the floor in front of the television for the last 2 minutes of the 3rd period. Glad I delayed my departure when the U.S.A. scored the tie in the last 24 seconds. Hurried out the door to make my appointment.
Here in the States, we have demobilized the national suicide watch for Canada now that you have the, well-earned, Gold about your necks. :-D
O! Canada! What a game!
Complain about this comment
Indeed.
Complain about this comment
I hear that was one awesome hockey match! It got an audience that the National Hockey League normally would not.
Complain about this comment
I support President Obama in principle. But you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear: the legislation that has evolved in Congress is a monstrosity that pleases no-one. He really would be better off scrapping it and starting over.
Complain about this comment
118. At 2:28pm on 02 Mar 2010, parityisbetterthancharity wrote:
I hear that was one awesome hockey match! It got an audience that the National Hockey League normally would not.
_________
According to the news this morning, some 26m Canadians (and a roughly comparable number of Americans) watched some or all of the game. Our total population is only 33m.
Complain about this comment
113 programmer.
I am still waiting for my money back on a 100 dollar program bought from one of Americas biggest software houses.
They said works on mac XYZ and newer. but forgot to mention " but not on the X/Y model.
That was five years ago.
Bit late now.
Though I'd like my 100 dollars back.
PS they were private.
Complain about this comment
119 You are right it fails to give adequate coverage to the bottom tears of society.
Complain about this comment
"bottom tears of society."
I like that :)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS