Where does healthcare victory leave Obama?
This is the most significant victory for Obama since he took office. The cool professor has been bloodied in battle, earned his spurs. But at what cost? What price will he pay?
While many voters chose Obama because he talked of a different way of doing things, this messy business of backroom deals and arm-twisting has further lowered the reputation of Washington.
And while many Americans seem genuinely to yearn for the cross-party accord they call bipartisanship, and politicians at least pay it pious lip service, this lengthy debate has revealed a gaping ideological chasm.
President Obama identified overhauling the healthcare system as his priority and he's got what he wanted, a victory that eluded Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But when he threw down the gauntlet, the conservatives eagerly picked it up. Healthcare didn't create the Tea Party movement but it gave it a focus and a cause.
There are dangers to his left as well as his right. He's harmed his reputation with his own power base, for many liberals feel there have been so many compromises the bill is hardly worth it.
So it's a pivotal moment. But it's not clear which way the balance will swing.
Many Republicans are convinced that while they lost the battle, they will win the war. They are sure the vote in Massachusetts for a Senate seat in January and the opinion polls delivered a clear message. They agree with the Tea Party Patriots and the cable networks that this is an un-American measure, hated by the American people so much that it will hand victory to them in November's elections to the House and the Senate. They may be right. But Democrats will do their best to point towards popular measures in the bill.
It has been a messy and sometimes ugly process. Obama has clearly been feeling his way, and has made plenty of mistakes. But does he impress with his toughness and tenaciousness, or repel those who voted for him because they thought he was different?
Does success breed success and will Obama be able to steam ahead with difficult laws on immigration and the environment? Or does his party feel burnt out, beaten up and that their president has called in all the favours he can afford?
The first opinion polls after this vote, and in the coming weeks, will make fascinating reading.
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~26~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This shows without a doubt that the American people were mislead. They were sold a moderate that was going to bring us together and they got a well spoken Nancy Pelosi. All those people who bought up Bill Ayers in the end turned out to be right and the cheer leaders in the Mainstream media turned out to be complicit in misleading the American people. Democrats loose both majorities within two years.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Cool professor? Get real, Mark! Obama is a cheap politician in a good suit!
His has ignored the will of the American people. We don't trust him and we don't trust the Congress that passes this crippling legislation.
That bill passed the House 219 to 212...that is by slightly less than 51%. This isn't the way to run a civilized country..it is tyranny of the majority. If it were a decent bill, it would have REAL support...and more importantly it would have the PEOPLE'S support.
Obama now is ruling without the support of the governed! The Democrats put on a shabby show in the house, the same Party Line, you could tell they hadn't read the bill, they only knew what was dictated to them by the White House's team of manipulators.
Obama coerced the Congressmen, telling them that his presidency would be over if they couldn't deliver the bill! Well his presidency IS effectively OVER!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The strongest criticisms have been that Obama had not delivered on the openness and bipartisanship he had promised during the campaign.
You are right, this year long battle has driven off both the far right and the far left - both of them are the losers tonight. We all have been looking for a president who is not just right, he is effective in doing what is right. One minor but clear evidence of that was the last hour executive order concerning abortion - separating Obama from the far left of his party and reassuring the rest of the country that he would not overturn settled law and convention for a radical agenda.
It has been a long, long time since the leadership of Congress has been able to lead this country, and that was also demonstrated tonight. A numerically overpowering majority couldn't get the tough job done even among themselves, but the lead man pulled it out.
Look for the real Barak Hussein Obama to stand up and set them in order, and make the slogans of 2008 into confident working realities.
KScurmudgeon
conservative, but not hopeless.
Complain about this comment
Americans were mislead for 8 straight years by the Bush administration. Chasing weapons of mass deception, enacting no bid contracts, invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, torturing,dominating with preerse agenda, Katrina, et al. Trillion dollar wars over a myth is Bush's legacy, along with 119% health care premiums increase.
Sorry, it's our turn now. Time to take care of our own. America is the richest country in the world and there is no excuse not to take care of its own people.
Complain about this comment
I don't think Obama has damaged himself at all.
Sounds like the Republicans were onto a good thing here or they just don't want to embrace change.
If nothing has been done since the 1960's to American Healthcare System then this is very overdue.
Something must have been going wrong to have the debate and vote in the first place.
The American people should have more faith in there President
Complain about this comment
I'll keep it simple -
It's a decent bill - not spectacular, not horrible.. - in the middle somewhere. Given the political climate here in the u.s. though... and I'd say outright IGNORANCE of so many citizens and their willingness to be lead off the nearest cliff, this bill was an absolutely amazing achievement.
Seriously. It was a small bill - but no small feat. That's just what we are dealing with here.. even the tiniest legislative improvements take herculean strength when dealing with this opposition.
Complain about this comment
4. At 05:25am on 22 Mar 2010, shiveringofforgottenenemies wrote:
" Obama is a cheap politician in a good suit! His has ignored the will of the American people. "
______________________________
I was hoping someone would try that line again. Do you seriously propose that this country be ruled according to the daily polls? GWB would have been impeached half a dozen times. And replaced by somebody like Snoop Doggydog.
We have elections at regular intervals and after due and serious consideration we elect representatives and charge them with determining our needs and best interests, and enacting them. So that we don't have to do it ourselves again and again day in and day out, and can go about our real business of living.
Once elected, they do the hard lifting of studying every issue, discussing what they've learned with us and each other, and reaching a consensus, yeah or nay, that we will judge them by. If they do well and enough of us are pleased, they may be reelected. This also should not be decided every day.
Everyone knows from recent events that if Mr. Boehner or some other prominent Republican representative had been caught in a notorious scandal (or tripped over his tongue at the wrong moment) no matter whether true or untrue, no matter how irrelevant to the issue of health care reform, the popular polls would have reversed themselves, in direct proportion to the amount of airtime given it on television.
If you care about this country at all, you don't seriously believe that TV polls should be the basis for decisions that will effect generations.
I hate to offend, but the Republicans were very badly beaten in 2008, and as a result they do not have the authority to control legislation. Bipartisanship does not mean 'let the minority control the decision making'.
Now that this phase of soap box huckstering is over, I hope the Republicans and everyone that cares about the future of the country will speak clearly and rationally from the truth. Then we will have a good debate that will inspire respectful attention from the people, and produce great results.
KScurmudgeon
it was disgust that drove me away from the GOP
Complain about this comment
I agree that passage of health care legislation has come at considerable political cost to Obama and his party. Maybe this is the right time to turn to something that should be less divisive -- better regulation of the finacial industry. Most Americans (and many the world over) have been negatively affected by the financial meltdown. Neither Republicans nor Democrats were blameless for inadequate regulation. In a sense joint blame can make this less of a partisan issue. I submit that most Americans would support a crackdown on financial institution practices (technically legal theft by deception on a grand scale.) You can count on the big banks, some of which are "earning" obscene profits, to lobby and bankroll opposition, but then they will always do so. Can we move on from health care please?
Complain about this comment
5. At 05:31am on 22 Mar 2010, DemRR wrote:
"for those of us who lived through the early days of the civil rights movement, survived busing, dealt with outbreaks of the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers, sit-ins, be-ins and such,one can see the thinly veiled racism that drives the anti-Obama movement. "
_______________________________
I respectfully disagree. Yes, I think racism is a factor, and that otherwise good folks on the right are providing the racists cover at this time because they think they need their help right now. Many of them are holding their noses as they do it - now that they find the bigots in their midst.
And they do this and a lot of other outrageous things because Obama truly has terrified them. Not only his race - reaction was inevitable the first time we elected 'one of them', even had it been Colin Powell, nor because Obama has such an exotic biography, nor that he is a real newcomer to Washington and the national stage with very few chains on him that should have allowed him to be handled and controlled in the usual manner. Obamas whole campaign was outside the box - different style, different rhetoric, internet dense, local independent organizations all over the country, almost defiant of the Democratic leadership and apparatus, and finding millions of supporters and voters largely from different parts of town.
Yes, he enabled the black segment to dominate the outcome in several states, but he persuaded Iowans to enthusiasm, he beat the machine in Ohio, and fought in Texas to a draw. The mantra was change the way Washington does business - and the people actually are disappointed that in this he didn't start out with a string of heads on his belt.
His approach to international affairs is unprecedented, and immediately raised our level of respect everywhere after a decade of very bad ratings. He is the hope of the world - which leaves his opponents flabbergasted.
By his inauguration the number of Repub's who would admit to the fact were around 20%. Many on the right were convinced their way of life, which they have felt was under siege for a generation, was about to end forever. People are still buying guns and ammo at an unprecedented rate for fear Obama will soon try to take them all away. This gut terror is what has put the fight in much of the conservative crowd - not just race.
KScurmudgeon - strongly sympathetic, but full of hope
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Not one Republican voted in favour? This fact alone tells me that, for the GOP at least, it was all about taking the opportunity to challenge and weaken Obama's presidency. Not a single Republican saw any merit in providing basic health coverage for millions of Americans? No wonder the Republican party was humiliated at the last general election. They would sooner bankroll an unnecessary war in Iraq than spend a dime on public welfare.
Complain about this comment
At 06:22 on 22 Mar 2010 KScurmudgeon posted an excellent summary of our political process. How refreshing to see such a response to "name-calling." While it seems some always want to lower a discussion to the level of dismissive labeling, others seek understanding and common ground. The latter task is not for the lazy. Good to know there is still a middle in America that's interested in more than put-downs. Keep posting.
Complain about this comment
Obama tried to work with the Republicans, gave them every opportunity to participate and be taken seriously. They repeated lies and character assassinations to the point that it became obvious they had chosen to use fear to obstruct. Reluctantly, Obama chose to be the adult in the room and get something done, even if it was not perfect or ideal. Most people realize this, and more people will when the bill takes effect. Watch for his poll ratings to go straight up. The Republicans have been foolish, petty, and nasty, and most Americans do not like that.
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]After a long gab, we are lead by a nice president. Health care is OK. We should move on from and try to make all things comfort.
Complain about this comment
This is what happens in American politics, and it's been that way since Washington's day. Every President gets raked over the coals by the opposition, by the press, and by the people he can't satisfy. By the time November rolls around the ugliness will have faded from everyone's memory and we'll be talking about banking and immigration reform. Serious issues that the Republicans stand a good chance of being on the wrong side of again - which could seriously damage their chances in November.
In any case, most people will be over their "it's a socialist takeover" hysteria and find that they are satisfied with the health insurance reforms and trust that Obama will deliver on other major legislation as promised. With any luck the Democrats will hold their majorities, even if they are slimmer than before. The midterm elections are partisan affairs and always have a much lower turnout than Presidential elections. The trick will be in getting more people to the polls than the Republicans.
Complain about this comment
Said this before but, chasm, yes, ideological, no. This is straight partisanship: the bill is very similar to 'Romneycare' in Massachusetts.
David Frum has a good piece.
Complain about this comment
OsloTim - Did you notice that not all of the Dems voted for it? I'm glad the GOP held solid against a poorly constructed monstrosity. There were many line items in the bill, that would have passed on their own merit with, at least some, GOP support if they had been introduced as separate bills, e.g. forcing interstate commerce to increase competition, removing restrictions on pre-existing conditions, etc. The problem was the Obamanation insisted on one huge all-encompassing bill that took lots of backroom sausage making to get even a slim majority of Dems to accept; which gives credence to the charge of a heavy-handed socialist take-over. If the health of Americans was really His Oneness’ primary concern, he would have been happy to sign several bills that improved our system without Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchas et al.
Gavrielle_LaPoste - I think you will find the furor over a socialist take-over will only increase as people see their taxes going up and the Dems turn to their other favorite hobby of gun-grabbing, although, I imagine they might sit on that one until after the mid-terms, they already have their health-care Utopia to explain to their constituents.
Complain about this comment
Where does this leave Obama? In a honourably poor position unfortunatly. To many times in the past have presidents only done things they HAD to do, like banking reform, after the fall of Lehmann Bro's and invade Afganistan after 9/11. Obama has gone out of his way to do something that he believes will help American, even though it might harm him and his party in the mid-terms and the re-elect.
The fact of the matter it that, America is too, without wishing to offend, 'immature' for a progrssive Government. What is wrong with an over reaching government, if that government can be voted out at anytime and its intentions are benevolent? People around the world are standing open mouthed at the vitriole Obama is suffering from republicans and some democrats. Maybe this would be understandable if he was trying to go to war with Mexico, or even quite understandable take away gun owners rights, but he's not, he's just trying to help people, so that if they get sick in America they don't get poor. In no other developed nation, not any other would this be an issue. Now I understand America is not your typical nation, thats what makes it so great and has made it so prosperous, but surely people can come together on health reform.
Obama's critics have sighted Obama as a National Socialist invoking Hitler which I find increadibly offensive (and Stalin at the same time weird those guys hated each other). Yes Hitler was a Socialist in domestic policy by giving everyone jobs and building massive transport infrastructure, but the things he is remembered for is his abborrent racil politics which align him so far from the left you could go any furthur. Socialism is a dirty word in America, but Socialism has brought about countless benefits. The Civil rights act, clean water and air acts. Ending apartheid and slavery was a socialist policy by definition. In fact ironically the American Dream is socialist. The very birth of America was a Socialist movement, coming together to support each other and the country away from the tyranny of the Brits. With out socialism America wouldn't exist. I wonder what conservatics would have done in the war of independance. If they were the majority, Britain would problaly still be the most pwerful country in the world.
Americans always sight that set of unalienable rights set out in the constitution, health care should be a right it is everywhere else. This is not big government overreaching, it government putting an arm round the needy and giving them a boost up, to stand on their own two feet and concentrate on bringing their children up and feeding them well, and not worrying about crossing the road or playing sport incase they can't afford the consequences.
The thing that gets to me is that Republicans, oppose this for no other reason than its a Democratic bill. The GOP is using this to SCARE it's base into 'coming back home' in the fall. And its working.
Democrats are scared to vote their conscience also, as insurance companies are paying for attack ad's in the districts of any congressmen who voted for the proposed bill. America is a democracy but not the greatest on earth to gain that accolade America will have to shun and outlaw the special interest groups who have money in their minds not people. This is illegal in other countries and should be in the US.
But I do not dispair. The Democrats probably lose the house, but Obama will win the re-elect. This bill goes above partisen politics. The attacks the liberal Democrats and the President are suffering now are the same attacks LBJ and the Rep and Dems that voted for the Civil rights act in 1964,had to suffer from the conservative base from both parties including the Blue Dogs. But people got over it and LBJ was re-elected and people see that bill as a turning point in America. The passing of that bill precipitated the voting rights act that came the following year, which enfranchised many voters into getting involved. I don't think the Health care reforms are on a par with the civil rights legislation, but it will garner alot of support from the predominatly non-white community. Obama may have been able to count on their support anyway but its a good place to build on.
Over 50's in America are 57% white, teenagers in America are 51% non-white. Republicans are trying with all their might to remain relevent in a changing America. The White male conservatives in 20 years will be the minority and they know this any fear any change that may upset their influence in the future as they lose ground due to the demographic changes within the US. Is this the start of the decline or American Republicanism, No but it might be the bell the tolls the start of the re-alignment of the GOP.
Complain about this comment
A profoundly humane act which has been passed with all justification and moral integrity.
How can you (the US) lead the world under your cloak of psuedo-Christian ethics and morals and yet hypocritically deny the vast majority of your own people the access to health and well being?!
Well done Mr President! Maybe it takes that level of political skill you had to undertake to press the case for fair and decent coverage for all your population.
In my humble view, a clear sign of a decent nation is one that looks after the health of ALL its population and not a relative few who are fortunate to have it given to them off the backs of the many.
Complain about this comment
ref #5
Does that mean if the Republicans regain control of the house and Senate and the Presidency in 2012 you will support any method they could use to kill the bill?
This bill was full of special intrests and was done in secreat in the most corrupt congress and dishonest President in recent American history.
Complain about this comment
ref #16
M Troll wrote:
Obama tried to work with the Republicans, gave them every opportunity to participate and be taken seriously. They repeated lies and character assassinations to the point that it became obvious they had chosen to use fear to obstruct. Reluctantly, Obama chose to be the adult in the room and get something done, even if it was not perfect or ideal. Most people realize this, and more people will when the bill takes effect. Watch for his poll ratings to go straight up. The Republicans have been foolish, petty, and nasty, and most Americans do not like that.
________________-
That is blantanly untrue the SEIU head had moreinput than the Republicans. If Obama had put tort reform or interstate insurance purchase in the bill; he could make the bipartsian claim.
Obama acted like the petty narciastic man he is.
Complain about this comment
Ukicenine - The founding Fathers were anything but Socialists. They were farmers and merchants. Remember the original Tea Party was about taxation, no respectable Socialist would protest taxes, would they? As soon as the Red Coats left, they all went their own way living for 8 years under the Articles of Confederation. It was only due to the obvious need for more central control of security and commerce did they grudgingly come to the Constitutional Convention. The Federalist Papers make it very clear that they meant for the central gov't to have a very limited role in their lives.
Mark - I take it you are not an American or you would know that this bill did not change whether people have access to health care, only the way it is rationed (and it will be) and paid for. If you use The Oneness' numbers of 40 million without healthcare and consider we are a nation of 280 million we were obviously not neglecting the masses. The poor already had Medicaid and the old already had Medicare. Most of the uninsured fell into 2 groups: illegal aliens who shouldn't be here in the first place and young adults who like to roll the dice to save the money for a faster care or bigger house. So, please don't lecture on bad ol' America not taking care of the poor huddled masses; that is simply a lie.
Complain about this comment
Hoorah for Obama and his team and all the great American people who made this possible by supporting him. Not perfect legislation but a much-needed start. As a Brit in America I find it quite shocking how many rich white Americans have opposed this bill which will undoubtedly save many many lives (mostly of poor black Americans). That attitude is SO unamerican. To all those who opposed the bill: look at infant mortality rates in the US; then look at infant mortality rates in the rest of the developed world; then look at your conscience.
Complain about this comment
23. MagicKirin:
"This bill was full of special intrests and was done in secreat in the most corrupt congress and dishonest President in recent American history."
******************
Honestly, this bill was pork-laden like all the other bills under Obama. What did we really get here? Access, which is good, but that's about it. If health care reform was going to be about cutting Medicaid/Medicare and mandating coverage, why not have done that sooner? Why did Obama go out there with all those other promises about lowering the cost curve, curbing overuse, etc.?
It's a "victory" because it passed. It's nothing near what Obama promised.
Let the democrats enjoy their day. They worked very hard. (It's not every day they have to vote against the people.) They've been dealing only with each other. Now they'll have to go back and face their constituents...while Obama watches basketball.
Complain about this comment
19. vagueofgodalming :
"This is straight partisanship: the bill is very similar to 'Romneycare' in Massachusetts."
******************
It's strange that Massachusetts hasn't been discussed more by democrats. Why do you think that is? One would have thought that they would be promoting it as the "model" for the rest of the country. Instead, it's rarely mentioned.
As for partisanship, democrats were told they needed to pass this to ensure Obama's success as president. Without that, they were all going to sink. This was as much about democrats saving their own bottoms as it was about "the greater good."
A leopard doesn't change its spots.
Complain about this comment
Ben - I understand your deductive logic on the race/infant mortality issue, but before you cast aspersions on all of us evil middle class white Americans, maybe you should also check out the percentage of African-American babies born out of wedlock, born to crack addicted mothers, born to HIV infected mothers... in other words poor life choices by the mothers that have nothing to do with whether I want to send more money to the gov't to take care of someone's child that the individual didn't care enough about to even stay off crack for 9 months. BTW, my wife is a midwife who has had two HIV needle sticks (resulting in 6 months of prophylactic treatment each time) caused by out of control African-American mothers who were in labor and strung out on crack. . In the 10 years she has practiced in SC, she had a baby die whose mother did what was right by the baby, regardless of race. By SC law, she has requested numerous tox screens on the same demographic that have always come back positive. So you have your set of data and I have mine..
Complain about this comment
Well done America.
First small step to join our world club of affordable basic health insurance cover for all. As a retired European 'cutter' who wiles his days away playing tree surgeon in does my old heart good.
Many thanks too, to MM; the Saints, IFs, Curmudgeons, Squirrels, Jacks and Jills here for their balanced remarks explaining the issues. Disappointed that our presently absent resident pedant D_C, who I know has fought faceless health care bureaucracy anomalies both sides of the water, cannot savour the moment.
I feel a little sad for the Republicans and those of their ilk, wondering about their future direction. Every country needs an opposing party, and at the moment they appear to have lost their way and hope they do not wander the wilderness for too long, the UK's present state of affairs being a perfect example of government without a creditable opposition.
MAII [my hero] reminds us that "neither the opposition nor the people are going to roll over and play dead for this" , but I would suggest to him that the former has been rolling around too long with the wrong crowd, and though small, a percentage of 'the people' without cover, have been dying for real and playing dead for keeps, unfortunately.
frayedcat.- Thanks for video and musical interludes. Heartbreakers would appear to be appropriate.
One for you, America and Big O
Complain about this comment
Mark-
You've and the media spent time on the vocal teabaggers and others who don't want this bill. What about those of us who are for the bill? Granted, the bill doesn't give a public option or doesn't cover every American. But it is a stepping stone and a building block to future legislation. All the Republicans who spoke out against the bill cited either a descent to Socialism/Communism like the Europeans(that includes the British) or fearmongering(IRS police!!)-Scaremongering tactics.
I for one am glad of passage and I hope that in the future you will interview some more individuals who want this legislation. There are many of us out here in America.
Complain about this comment
30. watermanaquarius:
"First small step to join our world club of affordable basic health insurance cover for all. "
***************
Could you define "affordable"?
Complain about this comment
Could someone please explain to me why anyone would object to universal healthcare?
Complain about this comment
AndreaNY # 32
You tell me first your thoughts on the price and value you place on all and each human being in America and then I will discuss affordable.
"There is no value in life except what you choose to place upon it and no happiness in any place except what you bring to it yourself."
Henry David Thoreau
Complain about this comment
@Oldloadr
I think you will find the furor over a socialist take-over will only increase as people see their taxes going up and the Dems turn to their other favorite hobby of gun-grabbing, although, I imagine they might sit on that one until after the mid-terms, they already have their health-care Utopia to explain to their constituents.
And when that doesn't happen, because it's all lies, especially the gun-grabbing nonsense (you can now carry concealed in national parks and Obama signed that into law, more's the pity) and they do in fact see that the Republicans and their astroturfing friends tried to sell them a fraudulent bill of goods, it is the Republican party that will be punished. You see, banking reform is next, and don't you think the Democratic party will be hammering home just who was really responsible for the mess? Bill Clinton may have started the ball rolling, but he never told the SEC and every other regulatory agency to back off on policing the banks and Wall Street. And it wasn't Obama's bailout, it was Bush's.
The "Just Say No" to everything policy of the GOP means they'll have to take the position that the status quo is good and going after the banks is bad - which they've already done. They'll say that any fundamental change will be bad for business and taxes will go up. In essence, it will be a repeat of everything they said on health insurance reform, except it will be Granny's bank account instead of Granny's life on the line this time. They're like a broken record playing a song we've heard a thousand times and are now sick and tired of hearing. They've done it to death and beyond. Sort of like hearing Debbie Boone singing "You Light Up My Life" or Morris Albert's "Feelings" for the umpteenth time. Nice tunes, performed well, but cringe worthy and trite after repetitive plays. When the GOP starts singing a new song, maybe we'll all have a listen. But I wouldn't bet on that happening any time soon.
Complain about this comment
What the non-US viewers of this debate must understand is that this bill is the equivalent of the 19th century British legislation that stopped children being sent up chimneys and ended employment of children under 10 years of age down coal mines.
The Republicans have a mindset of that era.
The Democrats, in the vast majority, are compassionate. The Republicans are not.
Complain about this comment
Obama would be irresponsible if he hadnt pushed this through!!! His core base will benefit and gain something that many of them dont currently enjoy. Heathcare for all in the richest country on earth should be a given.
Complain about this comment
29. Oldloadr:
"... in other words poor life choices by the mothers that have nothing to do with whether I want to send more money to the gov't to take care of someone's child that the individual didn't care enough about to even stay off crack for 9 months."
******************
This is the dark secret that democrats choose to conveniently ignore. For a certain segment, albeit small, of our population, even free health care with full transportation will not induce them to get treatment. It's been tried and failed.
Unhealthy and poor choices affect their health more than any government program ever will. Obama started to talk about this, made some promises, but quickly dropped the topic. In truth, even if we tripled our health care spending, this segment would continue their unhealthy lifestyles and avoid care. Short of arresting them and taking them into custody, they're not going to a doctor.
But that's not something that fits within the democrats' paradigm of "government as savior."
Complain about this comment
I have watched all that debate, but frankly I never comprehended the whole heat, apart the fact that I know in general US citizens do not like more tax (and good thing they do).
Frankly, for me it is more of an issue of general understanding so lets stick to the indicators:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8579322.stm
Lets compare US, UK and France (that is supposed to be almost-communist to the eyes of Americans!):
Health expenses (state & private) %GDP:
US => = 16% out of which the 52,8% is private => state %GDP = 7,6%
UK => = 8,4%out of which the 12,9% is private => state %GDP = 7,4%
France=>= 11% out of which the 20,8% is private => state %GDP = 8,7%
Now as you see, and in case US citizens did not know it, they already spend quite a lot of their state money on a healthcase system that does not work and which pushes them to spend even more privately ending spending about 190% the money British citizens pay and 130% the money French pay, all that to have the 15,3% of the population not insured at all while - as I have read elsewhere - another 15% can hardly call its medical insurance as an insurance at all (since it pays virtually nothing, we have these insurances here in Europe too but mainly for cars and such...). And all that to have the following life expectancies:
France= 81
UK = 79,1
US = 78,1
So in any case, US citizens know their system has a hole. They spend too much and they live pretty much the 1/3rd of society uninsured or very badly insured.
I cannot also but notice the following:
% of uninsured "caucasoamericans" = 10,4%
% of uninsured "latinoamericans" = 32,1%
% of uninsured "afroamericans" = 19,5%
% of uninsured "asiatoamericans" = 16,8%
I am sure that if we add on those the second category of the "badly insured" ones, the divergence becomes even bigger.
Please you do not have to protest over that, I am not implying anything more than the obvious: there are divergent interests here with cacausoamericans and asiatoamericans being more comfortable as things are the ones feeling the pinch being the latinoamericans. For many US citizens, the question is all about giving their money to taking care the latino illegal immigrants.
Again, I emphasise it, I am not your usual US-basher that will talk about racism blah blah and such... I am more into analysing in depth things: what I see is the exact diverging interest: People that have already some medical insurance think that "I won't be changing my medical insurance since I can never compromise with the state's services, so in the end I will simply be paying more for the medical insurance of illegal immigrants, part-time workers, unemployed and such".
For the illegal immigrants, the problem is not even placed there, on the medical care! It is too late to place it there. Their problem is placed much earlier : "Who lets them in in the first place? and for what reason?". For part-time workers and unemployed, the question is "shouldn't these people enjoy at least the basics?", does life has to follow a darwinist approach? Survival of the fittest?
Perhaps it is in this last question that we have to remain:
It is 100% fair for US citizens to consciously accept that this is how they want their society, to be strict and harsh and make people try harder to get the basics, thus giving birth to more super-achievers than elsewhere and no matter if the side-effect will be people born destined at their birth to be thrown to the garbage bin. To our european eyes, this immoral, for US citizens this can be acceptable as it is more immoral to give something to someone who is going to be more of nuisance than any use. Now, if this is the view of most US citizens, Obama is in for a lot of trouble.
However, if you want my personal opinion, seeing the % US citizens already spend from theri state money which is 100% comparable to what British citizens (living in an equally complex and multicultural society with equal number of illegal immigrants and such...), then what US medical care needs first is a whole re-organisation. It is clear that as it is, private insurance companies and medical institutions are ripping off all US citizens be it insured, half-insured or not.
Doing first a re-organisaiton could even reveal that you actually can sufficiently (at least on a basic level) insure all people for the same cost you already pay today.
US citizens though have a right to be suspicious of Obama's report as there is nothing out there to convince them that this is not yet another approach of private companies to make them pay more for little.
Complain about this comment
"His approach to international affairs is unprecedented, and immediately raised our level of respect everywhere after a decade of very bad ratings. He is the hope of the world - which leaves his opponents flabbergasted."
Spoken like a true American, no doubt. With all due respect, as an American living in Europe I can assure you quite confidently that Obama has not raised the level of respect held by the international community. American's are viewed as war-mongers who meddle in everyone else's affairs, self interested neo-con's, brash and uncultured, and ignorant to anything outside of the American bubble. It's going to take a little bit more than a hopeful man paying lip service to world peace to restore America's street cred. You don't impress the international community by getting 'revolutionary' health care bills passed in your country through secret deals, bribery and what was it - arm twisting. As Lincoln said, 'a house divided amongst itself cannot stand', and I don't see Obama with a hammer and nails trying to keep this baby together, this guy has got a sledgehammer in one hand a chainsaw in the other.
As far as Obama being the hope of the world, well, I'm sorry, but that's just laughable. If he's your hope, then let him be your hope. He certainly isn't mine and if I may go out on a limb, he probably isn't the hope for many others either.
I think that health care should be available to all American citizens and it should not take a 1,000 or so page bill to provide that. I have always been a fan of majority rule, but I'm beginning to understand what J.S. Mill so afraid of - majority tyranny.
It's a zero-sum game and the American people have lost, big time.
Complain about this comment
Passage of the healthcare reform bill is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. The most important component of healthcare reform, universal healthcare - aka the public option - was removed in response to charges of socialism and because of cost considerations (apparently the USA can not afford systems like those in other industrialized nations).
As a result, this legislation only addresses some of the most blatant abuses of our insurance industry such as eliminating the pre-existing condition clause and caps that allowed insurance companies to cancel policies when expenditures reached pre-established limits, it reduces co-pays, makes portability available to people that have lost their jobs or must relocate for personal reasons, provides tax incentives to small business to provide healthcare coverage to their employees, and requires all Americans to get insurance coverage.
Republicans in Washington and in 8 states are already planning to file legal challenges based on the, alleged, unconstitutionality of some facets of this bill - particularly the mandate to get insurance coverage - and because of the additional burden it places on state governments because of anticipated increases in MEDICAID eligibilty.
Complain about this comment
@AndreaNY
It's not about whether a responsible adult chooses to visit the doctor or not - though endangering the life of an unborn baby by smoking crack or engaging in other high risk behaviors is a criminal offense in most states - it is about giving those who want to go to the doctor an opportunity to do so.
Most Democrats do not see government as a "savior". We see government as the arbiter of fairness and justice under the law. If it is not okay for a woman to smoke crack and kill her unborn child, why is it okay for an insurance company to deny health care to that child because she was a crack baby, and through no fault of her own has a pre-existing condition? Is it only the fetus that must be protected? Does the child who has grown into an adult not deserve the same respect for their life? And is it not government's duty to ensure that Americans respect the lives, liberty and happiness of others? Or at least to regulate an industry when corporate profits and human safety collide?
This is the reason we have government agencies like OSHA and the Food and Drug Administration. Because work places had to be regulated for the safety of the workers, while food and medicines have to be strictly monitored and regulated for health reasons. For decades, we have had dozens of agencies that protect citizens' right to life, but we have never, until now, defended their right to obtain health care in order to actually have a life. It cannot be denied that rescission, refusal to sell policies to those with pre-existing conditions, life time caps and the denial of life saving procedures or medicines for spurious reasons to people who actually have insurance cause real physical harm to American citizens. It is past time that the insurance industry was properly regulated. And if it costs us a bit more in taxes it is well worth the price. Just like it is worth the price of our taxes to regulate and monitor the quality of drinking water, the competence of doctors and lawyers, pr license drivers before they are allowed to drive on our roads.
Complain about this comment
Hey, give Obama and the Democratic Party a break. This was some heavy lifting. Its been since Theodore Roosevelt called for healthcare for all. That's "Teddy" not "Franklin".
President Obama says he will go to the public yet again, this time to explain what's in the bill. He himself has 3 more years as president. The Republicans, however, GOT NOTHIN'!...unless you're talking about filibusters -- 3x normal. Yeah...NOTHIN'!
Complain about this comment
Mark since I have been reading your reports lately, you dont strike me as a BBC reporter-writer, in fact your skepticism of the Obama administration, has been quite surprising!
For some reason fox news, and yahoo! news comes to mind?
I was talking to my father in law yesterday, who lives in York Pa ,
and he is a long time Republican, and recently he was treated for cancer and to my surprise he welcomed the new Bill! espically with the pre exzisting condition rule!
Which he said he feared if the bill did not pass, he would get hammered with new hike in insurance fees, which he might not have been able to pay over many years, plus no other insurance company would even look at him in the future?
( death panel comes to mind )
Even though he did not support everything in it, this may one day save his life!
So Mark get real mate! Health insurance in USA is a joke, and it makes the DHSS look good compared to it?
With 60% rates increase in some parts of america, its a disgrace they have got away with this for so long!
ps Mark I will not be reading your coloms in the near future, fox news really does come to mind?
Complain about this comment
As the new system comes into operation most Americans will realise that the only freedom they have lost is the freedom for them and their fanmily, to suffer and die because of lack of healthcare. The will come to regard universal healthcare as indispensable, just as the British regard the NHS.
The NHS also faced bitter opposition as it went through Parliament, and just as it has taken Obama, a man of really exceptional political ability, to get his bill through Congress, it took Aneurin Bevan, another exceptionally able speaker, to get the NHS off the ground.
Complain about this comment
""That bill passed the House 219 to 212...that is by slightly less than 51%. This isn't the way to run a civilized country..it is tyranny of the majority. If it were a decent bill, it would have REAL support...and more importantly it would have the PEOPLE'S support.""
As a Englishman living here in the UK who has never supported the Labour Party, I never cease to be amazed at the opposition to the health care reforms proposed by President Obama as illustrated by the quote from a previous poster above.
Where is the logic in supporting a health care system in the USA which bankrupts 2 millions of Americans every year? Where is the logic in spending 2.5 times per capita what we spend on health care and yet end up with a life expectancy less than here in the UK? Isn't America supposed to be a Christian country and yet the Republican opposition supports a system which denies proper health care to their poor and to fellow citizens who cannot get health cover because of previously recorded illnesses and conditions? There is nothing Christian in the attitude of those who oppose health care reform.
Republicans attacked Obama's health care plans as "socialising" health care. If so, why do they support free public education paid by taxpayers as surely that is "socialising" education? Free education means an educated workforce and health care for all at the point of need means a healthy one, both of which are requirements for a successful and wealthy country able to compete with the rest of the world.
There also appears to be mass ignorance in the USA about the British health care system. They talk of "socialising" health care and waiting lists preventing treatment but they appear to be totally ignorant that here in the UK you can choose and pay for private health care if you wish to do so. In the UK there is a choice and everyone gets health care coverage at a price they can afford.
Complain about this comment
ref #33
nelliephant wrote:
Could someone please explain to me why anyone would object to universal healthcare?
______________
People object to universal healthcare trumping everything else.
Should Universal healthcare cost the majority of american more in taxes and other areas?
Complain about this comment
Ref 45, Stan
"The will come to regard universal healthcare as indispensable, just as the British regard the NHS."
Maybe some time in the distant future, but not any time soon. Bear in mind that the new legislation leaves private insurance companies in charge of administering our healthcare system. The only difference is that the government stepped in and eliminated some of their most abusive practices and regulates their ability to increase premiums at will. I think it is important to remember that not only are insurance companies going to remain in place, but their sale volume is actually going to increase dramatically.
The only problem for them is that they may not be allowed to spend as much in advertisements and executive compensation...
While I am very disappointed that the public option had to be removed because of ideological and cost considerations, I believe this is a step in the right direction and hope it will serve as a starting point towards a more effective and efficient system. Considering the determination of the opposition, including some scared Democrats, to what are really benign changes to a corrupt system I think it will be a very long time before we embrace a healthcare model similar to what exists in Europe.
On the issue of cost, most of the additional cost will come from the elimination of MEDICARE subsidies and fraud, and from tax increases for those making over $250K a year.
Complain about this comment
Say anything you want about Obama, but he isn't afraid to work his a-- off for something that he wants and believes in. I only wish the democrats in Congress worked as hard. Obama had to fight down to the last minute to get even this watered down version of health care passed in the face of so much opposition by so-called representatives who only care about maintaining their jobs instead of ensuring that the American people maintain their health. Maybe there's some hope for Babylon the Potomac after all.
Complain about this comment
MM wrote: " There are dangers to his left as well as his right. He's harmed his reputation with his own power base, for many liberals feel there have been so many compromises the bill is hardly worth it."
There are bigger dangers ahead. Even if there are no legal challenges both by individuals and, more importantly, by the states, as SD has correctly alluded to, and they shall be, all the way to the US Supreme Court) by November many Americans who genuinly expected a relief from this president and Democrat-controlled Congress will have realised that nothing we'll change re health insurance until 2014.
What will they do in the meantime? And what remedial actions will they take not only this November but in November 2012?
That remains to be seen.
[There's many a slip between a cup and a lip]
Complain about this comment
"This is an un-American measure, hated by the American people".
How can a civilized country be 49% against giving basic healthcare to their poorest citizens. Looking after each other must be too close to communism I guess. Very Christian.
Leaders of the free world, I don't think.
Complain about this comment
Once again we see an article, and attendant debate, which wilfully ignores both the federal system and the constitution. Reading the British comments one would assume that the question were: 'in a vacuum, funding notwithstanding, and without reference to national law, do you want people to have healthcare or not?'
If that were the question then the answer would be a unanimous, bipartisan 'yes.' However, the question was actually: 'in this constitutional republic, with the country deeply in debt and the existing entitlment programs bankrupt and tied down with unfunded liabilities, should we pass a bill that a majority dislike over unanimous opposition from the minority party and a significant number of Democrats?'
Republicans did not oppose this because they oppose the concept of universal healthcare, they opposed this because the federal government has no enumerated right to get involved, because opposing this bad bill is not the same as opposing reform, and because the individual mandate clearly violates the limited jurisdiction of the federal government.
States have the right to pass this bill, or their own equivalents, but the federal government does not. It's that simple. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and in a constitutional republic that matters.
Complain about this comment
It is ironic that it was an American president, Lincoln, who said "You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time", that the nearest anyone has come to disproving this has been in the USA on this particular issue.(Of course this aphorism can never be proved or disproved because "all of the time" has not yet occurred.) But I recollect that Churchill said words to the effect that America always finds the right answer but only after all alternatives have been exhausted.
Complain about this comment
In ten years time you won't hear anyone complaining about the new healthcare system, but the upcoming midterm elections may be too soon. These will be some exciting times for the democrats. Although the tea partyers had the loudest voice we have no idea if they're really as numerous as they claim to be, maybe they're already a minority, but in any case I urge the government to enact the new legislation as fast as possible and I urge everyone who suddenly got coverage where they were previously denied, to vote.
Complain about this comment
@busby2Republicans attacked Obama's health care plans as "socialising" health care. If so, why do they support free public education paid by taxpayers as surely that is "socialising" education?
Education is run by the states, not the federal government. This bill pertains to the federal government. Therein lies the difference. Again, we ignore the facts. America is a constitutional republic with a federal system. Britain is a unitary state. Learn the difference!
(N.B. And yes, there is a federal Department of Education which is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment and needs to be abolished. The states, however, are well within their rights to nationalise education, health and pretty much anything else. Not so the federal government.)
Complain about this comment
There was less 'back room dealing, blahblabla' on this one (if you call the committees 'back rooms') than was customary in recent history. The worst of it came in the Senate, when the bi-partisan efforts reached their peak....You could look at it as the GOP dragging the dems into a back room...the dems gave the GOP what they wanted for the bill to pass, than the GOP renigged in the house. Funny, all legislative records, speeches and bill drafts and amendments are posted practically realtime at thomas.gov, yet people still say they aren't...its a little ignorant really.
Now if we could only remove the money men and industry lobbiests from the process.....
Complain about this comment
Where does healthcare victory leave Obama?
According to Obama: "We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things."
Yes, you can –
- badly stitched & very sick Obamacare Bill
- the pasage of which is likely non-constitutional
- the passage of which will be state-challenged (e.g. Florida)
- the implementation of which is scheduled for exclusion by many more states
- biggest assumption about reduced cost
- so many gaping holes that you’d think someone plopped the bill down and took a shotgun to it.
But Congress passed it; yes, it did, or did it?
Overhauling the health care system may have been an Obama priority but his victory is Pyrrhic; in fact, it may not be a victory at all. Don’t start the high-fiving yet; last I head Obama hadn’t even signed the bill, and then after his signature, it gets trotted over to the Senate where the Senate has another go at it. Since Obama is using “reconciliation” to pass this non-reconciliation bill, if there is even one item - ONE ITEM, in this bill that is not budgetory, the Senate must yank it out. (Hmmm, isn’t mandatory insurance purchase such an item?) After all the Senate yanking, the balding bill must go back to the House. And while we’re on the topic, I believe this manner of ratification is non-constitutional. I have believed this from the get-go…
In any case, there is more than one item in this ugly bill that is non-budgetory, and therefore must be yanked.
This bill is like everything else Obama has touched, or hired his elite squads to accomplish - ill thought out, full of holes, replete with an execitve order that isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on, but it managed to fool Stupak (or maybe just gave the weak-kneed Democrat an excuse to cave). Even covering themselves with this worthless Executive order, the yeas were only 219 vs. the 216 required. Some, at least a few of the Stupak Group recognized the paper for what it was - garbage.
While you are calling Obama the “cool professor”, remember he is a Constitutional, cool Professor; therefore, he knew when he handed over the executive order to Stupak, exactly it's effect: nothing! And therefore, when Obama signs this bill into law, shame on him!
To be tough is hard. To be tenacious is harder. But to be tough, tenacious and know you are wrong...WELL, IN MY BOOK THAT GETS CALLED egocentric arrogance. This man is all about egocentric arrogance.
Before the first opinion polls, comes the signing, then comes the Senate Reconcil;iation, and then comes (maybe) some ramshackle version of health care where the public will be so confused they will get very sick just coming and going.
Complain about this comment
@Ramonic RageHow can a civilized country be 49% against giving basic healthcare to their poorest citizens. Looking after each other must be too close to communism I guess. Very Christian.
They aren't. That is why Medicaid and Medicare exist*. That is why you can walk into any hospital and receive free treatment. That's why hospitals are legally bound to treat you gratis in an emergency. The majority are, however, against the unconstitutional federal involvement in healthcare, an individual mandate and this bill. Not all ends justify all means.
*just because that ship has sailed does not mean that they are legal.
Complain about this comment
To an outsider the politcal process in the USA is as baffling as its strange team sports, but on a serious note if not one of the Republican opposition could see any merit in improving the healthcare of millions of its less well off citizens then shame on them.
This is not surprising though, as these are the same people who would much rather spend billions on pointless miltary conflicts, which I'm ashamed to say our puppy dog government is only too happy to follow as ordered.
Complain about this comment
@ModernJanIn ten years time you won't hear anyone complaining about the new healthcare system
Perhaps, but I fail to see your point. No-one is complaining about the PATRIOT Act now. This does not mean that it is acceptable, constitutional, or shouldn't be repealed. No-one complains now when Presidents take the United States to war without the approval of Congress. That doesn't make it acceptable.
What you have just described is exactly what worries those of us who fear for the future of the Constitution. Once passed and entrenched, laws which stand in violation make it difficult to get back to the limited government guaranteed in the document. Any attack on one part of the constitution hurts the whole. You can't attack the second amendment without hurting the first. You can't pass the PATRIOT Act without hurting the 4th and 5th Amendments. And you can't pass this bill without opening the door for future presidents to employ its excess as a precedent and justification for whatever expedience they happen to consider appropriate.
Complain about this comment
Mark, for once, just for once, one little tiny time, please could you give credit properly where it is due with both hands, not inserting snide comments with the right hand to dilute the faint praise you have just dished out with the left.
You know as well as anybody else the gimungously huge battle that President Obama has had to fight with USA's oldfashioned stuck-in-the-mud political system. OK, the victory may have a touch of the Pyrrhic about it, but considering all the unholy messes inherited from the previous administration, at least give this President proper credit for sticking with it to get this bill passed where previous Presidents have fallen before the finish.
Snide comments à la BBC should have come in a later blog. This so-called journalistic "evenhandedness" is getting really boring. The BBC should change its record.
Complain about this comment
mightybloozeIf not one of the Republican opposition could see any merit in improving the healthcare of millions of its less well off citizens then shame on them. This is not surprising though, as these are the same people who would much rather spend billions on pointless miltary conflicts, which I'm ashamed to say our puppy dog government is only too happy to follow as ordered.
I don't understand this line of argument. I am against the wars, and was outraged by the Bush administration. But, I don't see why these somehow justify this bill?
Complain about this comment
AnimationYou know as well as anybody else the gimungously huge battle that President Obama has had to fight with USA's oldfashioned stuck-in-the-mud political system.
Yes, because individual liberty, the rule of law and a codified constitution are so passé and it would just be so much easier if the President were an unbridled king and could do whatever he wanted. This is the same stuck-in-the-mud system which restrained President GW Bush from being even more crazy than he was. I simply don't understand the partisanship which says that it is acceptable when 'our' President does it, but not when 'theirs' does.
Complain about this comment
President Obama is just as much white as he is black, so I don't think most people are racist in talking about not liking what he is doing. He is an American, just like we all are. (or most of us, anyway)
I hope and pray that this is the right legislation, this health care thing, but right now it seems we just can't afford it. We do need something, but maybe it would be better to take small steps than giant ones right now.
Our schools are laying off teachers when education is so important for this country, and we are falling so far behind other countries. And our children are our future.
And we are in debt to China for so much money, I don't see how we are ever going to get out from under. I am afraid for the future of our great country.
Complain about this comment
Having now read several of the comments to this article, as a European I am struck by the tunnel vision and hate-filled rhetoric of some of them just because this bill was voted through by Democrat majority.
If this measure had been put forward by the Republicans, would liberal Democrats have been out sharpening so many knives? I don't think so - the number of American citizens who will benefit from the new bill exceeds the population of many countries in the world, including the one where I live.
This two-party political partisanship is going to kill the United States of America. Sooner or later there will be a new North-South split, or an East-West divide: probably not civil war, but almost definitely a recession as populous States like California start to chuck the ball out of the park and survive as economies of their own.
The spirit of negotiated compromise, so well-known in European multi-party politics, is dead in the USA. Dead in the water.
Complain about this comment
AndreaNY asks:
Could you define "affordable"?
A growingly popular (in U$A) bumper sticker:
"IF YOU THINK CURRENT HEALTH CARE IS EXPENSIVE WAIT FOR THE 'FREE' ONE".
Complain about this comment
The Republicans do not understand the difference between their, everything for big business is good, idology and what people actually want. There are many Republicans with children with pre-existing conditions who have suffered at the hands of insurance companies. The shouting and high volume, low numbers tactics, show that the level of media exposure is differnt than the priority of issues for the gneral population. The US has taken a step, although a small step, toward becoming a more competitive nation. Now if they can do the same with banking the recovery will begin.
Complain about this comment
@10 (KsC): Your early posts here were quite good. Here are a couple of replies, for what they are worth.
"Do you seriously propose that this country be ruled according to the daily polls? "
Edwin Newman, the NBC newscaster, made the same point some 40 years ago in one of his books. Folks that far back were already aware of how ugly that would be.
Government by opinion poll is a form of direct democracy, but without even the relative security of the voting process.
The Founders were quite leery of direct democracy. James Madison had spent months studying it and other forms of government as they had played out in history prior to attending the Constitutional Convention, and had concluded from that study of history that direct democracy was undesirable as a construct for our new government. The tyranny of the majority has already been mentioned as one of the negative outcomes; add to that the placing of emotions over reason and opinions over facts (which too many folks are willing to do) and you get the rule of the mob.
The Founders instead chose to make this a federation of republics. Under the Founders' design as embodied in our Constitution, each state is a republic (representative government), and the Federal government is a central government with limited powers. That's why we call it a Federal government rather than a national government. That's also why the 10th amendment leaves those powers not expressly vested in the Federal government to the States, or to the People themselves.
Trying to convert our Federal government into a national government by handing it more and more authority was one of the things that the Founders saw as undesirable. I am of the same mind; the checks and balances instituted in our Federal system appear to me to already be insufficient for the level of nationalization we have today. I cite our long-standing failure (since before I was born) to properly manage our finances and retire our debt as evidence that the checks and balances are no longer functioning, at least in that area.
"Now that this phase of soap box huckstering is over, I hope the Republicans and everyone that cares about the future of the country will speak clearly and rationally from the truth. Then we will have a good debate that will inspire respectful attention from the people, and produce great results."
KsC, it's great to hope for this, and certainly I will work in that direction, as I think others will as well. There are a couple of points that occur to me.
1. The GAO has been speaking clearly and distinctly about our finances for many, many years, with no discernable results. So have other folks. Clear and rational talk in that sphere hasn't caused the Congress to really rein in their insatiable desire to spend and begin paying down the debt.
The last time any serious effort towards a balanced-budget amendment was made in 1995; I clearly recall watching Sen. Robert Byrd (D) saying that the nation could not possibly have a balanced-budget amendment because "...the Federal government couldn't estimate well enough...". It is difficult to be charitable towards that kind of attitude from the Congress regarding managing the debt; it must be said that both parties have bloody hands in this arena.
As an aside, there is discussion afloat in some quarters around here that our 401K and other savings plans will be tapped with the same kinds of IOUs that the Feds have currently deposited in the SS and Medicare trust funds. Supposedly this will be preceeded by new rules making it much more difficult to extract funds from a 401K or other similar plan. I won't be surprised if this happens, unfortunately, since these funds represent the last real source of "new" private wealth available to operate the government. Something else to watch for.
2. "Respectful attention"???? My hope is limited here. Folks have discovered that they get short-term emotional pleasure out of publicly denigrating those they disagree with; like other addictions, they will have to take larger and larger doses in order to get the same "high". Rather than stop this denigration for their own long-term health, most folks will choose to stay with it; they will convince themselves that it's their "right" to act that way, or that it's a "disease" over which they have no control. This principle extends to our leadership as well, with correspondingly increasing long-term damage to the body politic.
The Coffee Party represents some effort in a different direction. It's sad to have to ask folks to take a pledge to be respectful toward those they disagree with (there was a time, believe it or not, when folks understood that that was one of their responsibilities as citizens, at least where I came from). If that's what it takes, though, to even begin to reverse the misguided direction we've been on for the past too many decades, so be it.
Regards to you, and the group, this rainy Monday morning!
Arclight
Complain about this comment
nelliephant:
The wealth in this country is very top heavy, saying "wealth distribution" is enough to make some of the right go so red in the face that you think they might physically explode.
They see it as they got where they were without any help from anyone else and don't see why they should have to pay for anyone else's health care. They think you are not entitled to it and if you don't have it you should have just worked harder, then. No matter that a good deal of (remaining) jobs their country relies on doesn't even come with insurance and that individual policies are just theft and almost not even worth having.
These tea party attenders (not all of them but those who hijacked the concept with the help of Fox) don't care if you die because you are poor, in fact they hope you do so you stop bothering them.
On Saturday crowds of these people had gathered on Capitol Hill and some of them shouted racist words at black attendees (and one who was homosexual too). This really tells you that much of these same people are clinging with all the strength they can muster to dying white supremacy. That the playing field of politics (and life) has become more equal that suddenly they are not (or will not) be automatically entitled to a comfortable lifestyle or will have to work harder for it.
While the polls on peoples opinions to health care have shown that we are divided on the issue I think it's important to remember that these ugly beings are merely the easiest to be seen and shout the loudest. On the other hand, the supporters of this bill and health care for all, go out of their way to avoid them, they just want to put their heads down and get on with life. Working to pay their premiums, probably!
You may also see them here. Also the New York Times website.
If the bitter right become more vocal towards the mid term elections (they can survive for years just on the fumes of their rage and suffered indignity it seems), I wonder if us quiet people will have to take to the streets and engage them also, just to let remaining unpolitical America know tea party voices are not the only ones to be found here.
So says another Brit in the US of A.
Complain about this comment
#62 Charlie - Firstly as I understand it, and no doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong, the bottom line of the healthcare bill, regardless of the machinations and compromises along the way, was to improve the lot of those citizens who could not afford healthcare for non-emergency procedures. What, pray, is wrong with that?
The past actions of Republicans as you say does not in itself justify the bill, it is simply indicative of a libertarian way of thinking that has been prevalent in the USA for far too long, and led to them all voting against something that is inherently morally correct.
Of course, if you have a party whip system over there similar to ours, then they may have been voting on party orders, I don't know. In some ways that is worse because it means that those Republicans who may have secretly wanted vote for the bill did not have the courage of their convictions to do so.
Complain about this comment
One of the funniest claims from Republicans on this issue involves their claims of unconstitutionality for the audacity of President Obama to issue an Executive Order banning the use of public funds for abortion. Their outrage is not because they want public funds to be used for abortion, but because they believe it is illegal for a President to use that mechanism to alter the law, which in this case involves the legislation they opposed!
The fact that former President George W. Bush signed 166 Executive Orders to circumvent established legislation does not deter their determination, and the fact that the new EO simply reiterates the Hyde Ammendment, which already bans the use of public funds for abortion makes no difference to those whose only function seems to be to erect obstacles to progress.
Behind the veneer of outrage and claims of government takeover is the reality that what they really object to is the establishment of regulatory practices that limit the ability of insurance companies to ripoff consumers and the extension of healthcare benefits to people they consider unworthy bums (the poor and minorities).
Complain about this comment
ghostsofsichuanThe Republicans do not understand the difference between their, everything for big business is good, idology and what people actually want. There are many Republicans with children with pre-existing conditions who have suffered at the hands of insurance companies.
But.. this bill helps big business. It forces people to buy a product provided by big business. It is a case of big government using its power to provide customers for big business. Conversely if it hadn't passed, as the Republicans wanted, then the insurance companies would not have the thirty million new customers that the bill hands to them. This is why PhRMA (who invested $100m in promoting the bill) and the insurance lobby supported it. There is a misconception about what the bill's opponents believe: you seem to think that the 'right' should be pleased because this legislation guarantees more clients for private insurers, but that is a misunderstanding of what classical liberals believe. I don't want the government to employ police power to force free people to use a private business; the whole virtue of free business is that the consumer has a peaceful choice. Unlike with government.
Complain about this comment
Re #58 Charlieatlantic. Re Medicaid and Medicare...
Many senior citizens wonder what will happen to the Medicare benefits under the 'new law'.
Complain about this comment
I understand why the repulblicans are so downbeat about this healthcare reform - they are stupid, selfish old men. What i dont understand is why Mark Mardell a BBC reporter/writer takes on such a stupid point of view. I thought to work for the BBC you had to have some intelligence but I have been dissapointed with his blog and reports on Radio 4 for a while now. He says 'Healthcare didn't create the Tea Party movement but it gave it a focus and a cause' - the tea party movement is nothing but a group of ignorant people - I challenge any tea party activist to a logical debate on this forum. I am surprised at why any news organisation takes the tea party seriously - they are a loony fringe that need to be treated as such. I keep asking myself - why will anyone be against providing healthcare for 32 million people ? At these tea parties they hold up banners in support of Glenn Beck and politicians like Michelle Bachman address them - people who do not know these two stupid but dangerous clowns can look for them on youtube. No one in their right minds can take these two seriously - only the loonies like the tea partiers do. So I am surprised that Mark Mardell a BBC person can refer to the tea party as anything other than loonies.
What the democrats need to do is to make sure that they get a large propotion of these newly insured people to vote and they can be sure of winning elections for the forseeable future.
Complain about this comment
@CNorwood
Given that Barack Obama has always been black, that he won the Presidency, and that a majority opposed this bill, one can only conclude that it's amazing how many people in America have suddenly become racist between the election and the passage of this bill.
There are people at the fringe of any protests who are simply awful. There were a whole bunch of them at anti-Bush protests, and there are a bunch of them at anti-Obama protests. Neither contingent, however, discredit the majority of those in opposition.
Complain about this comment
On the issue of affordability I think we should put things in perspective. The new legislation is expected to cost $940 billion over ten years, or $94B a year. We have spent one TRILLION dollars in Iraq!
Most of the cost for expanded healthcare insurance for all Americans will be borne from the elimination of MEDICARE subsidies and additional taxes for people earning over $250,000 a year...which means that most Americans will not pay an extra dime for the additional benefits they will be getting.
Again, it is important to remember that the new "socialized" approach to healthcare coverage in the USA will be administered by private insurance companies, not the government. Claims of socialism are being made because the new legislation includes subsidies to families earning less than $88,000 a year to help them pay insurance premiums, because it ends the use of draconian insurance practices worthy of disciples of Attila the Hun, and because it is being implemented by Democrats!
I wonder what opponents are going to tell people who are suddenly able to get health insurance because the government is providing subsidies to make it affordable to them, to those who are no longer excluded because of pre-existing conditions or because they have contracted a chronic illness that is expensive to treat, and to those who no longer have to worry about losing insurance coverage when they lose or change jobs?
Democrats may lose a few more congressional seats than they would have in November, but I am not so sure Republicans are on solid ground on this issue. If people realize that this legislation helps them and does not cost them extra money (most of us make a lot less than $250K) I would not be surprised if Republicans have to start running for cover on this issue. No wonder they are fighting it based on its constitutionality or lack thereof.
Complain about this comment
Re #68 arclightt wrote
clearly recall watching Sen. Robert Byrd (D) saying that the nation could not possibly have a balanced-budget amendment because "...the Federal government couldn't estimate well enough...".
And yet it's somehow managed to estimate well enough how much Obamacare would cost. ;)
Complain about this comment
Ref 62, Charlie
"I don't understand this line of argument. I am against the wars, and was outraged by the Bush administration. But, I don't see why these somehow justify this bill?"
The point was not to justify the new legislation but to highlight the hypocrisy of those that challenge it because of cost, but had no problem justifying the expenditure of one trillion dollars in Iraq, or paying for expensive weaponry we do not need.
Is the welfare of the American people less important than the need to expand our global sphere of influence?
Complain about this comment
@MightyBloozeFirstly as I understand it, and no doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong, the bottom line of the healthcare bill, regardless of the machinations and compromises along the way, was to improve the lot of those citizens who could not afford healthcare for non-emergency procedures. What, pray, is wrong with that?
Nothing inherently. Legally, though the federal government taking on that role is unconstitutional.
The past actions of Republicans as you say does not in itself justify the bill, it is simply indicative of a libertarian way of thinking that has been prevalent in the USA for far too long, and led to them all voting against something that is inherently morally correct.
I couldn't disagree more. The libertarian way of thinking is a shining light in an authoritarian world, and is guaranteed by a constitution which has not yet been discarded, nor amended. If America is to discard its libertarianism then it has to amend the constitution to reflect that. We can have a debate over whether classical liberalism is a good thing or not, but surely we would agree that if the constitution exists as the highest law in the land, then it must be followed?
@SaintDominickOne of the funniest claims from Republicans on this issue involves their claims of unconstitutionality for the audacity of President Obama to issue an Executive Order banning the use of public funds for abortion. Their outrage is not because they want public funds to be used for abortion, but because they believe it is illegal for a President to use that mechanism to alter the law, which in this case involves the legislation they opposed!
The fact that former President George W. Bush signed 166 Executive Orders to circumvent established legislation does not deter their determination, and the fact that the new EO simply reiterates the Hyde Ammendment, which already bans the use of public funds for abortion makes no difference to those whose only function seems to be to erect obstacles to progress.
Agreed. It's hypocrisy incarnate. Bush unconstitutionally strengthened the executive branch and issued illegal executive orders to circumvent the authority of Congress. This highlights my point well. By allowing Bush to illegaly expand the role of the executive branch (in itself a wrong act), Republicans opened the door for this bill. It has to stop, from both sides.
Complain about this comment
@EyesWideShutthe tea party movement is nothing but a group of ignorant people - I challenge any tea party activist to a logical debate on this forum.
Challenge accepted.
Complain about this comment
42. AGavrielle_LaPoste:
"It's not about whether a responsible adult chooses to visit the doctor or not - though endangering the life of an unborn baby by smoking crack or engaging in other high risk behaviors is a criminal offense in most states - it is about giving those who want to go to the doctor an opportunity to do so."
**************
Improving the health of Americans is very much so about whether a responsible adult chooses to visit a doctor. You cannot argue that there is a percentage of Americans for whom access to free health care will make little difference in their "outcomes." Yes, those who want access should have it. I wouldn't deny access to anyone. That wasn't my point, nor would I argue it.
Do you remember when improvements in health were a part of Obama's reform message? Well, I do. I wondered how exactly he planned to do that. Now I know. He's not.
I'm happy that many more people will have access. This is momentous but not nearly the "reform" that Obama promised over and over again. I also find it laughable how so many people claim Obama is making good on his promises. There are so many things that he didn't deliver on that we seriously need. I have to believe that no one actually listened to his promises or believed them -- or they've conveniently chosen to ignore them.
As for democrats patting themselves on the backs for passing this landmark legislation, I remember how giddy Congress was when they passed the bank bailout. They were absolutely thrilled with themselves for having actually passed something. You could tell it had been a while for them. People don't necessarily share their sense of accomplishment with respect to the bailouts today.
Complain about this comment
@SaintDominickOn the issue of affordability I think we should put things in perspective. The new legislation is expected to cost $940 billion over ten years, or $94B a year. We have spent one TRILLION dollars in Iraq!
Comparisons do not justify, though. Neither should have been spent. Both are essentially an unfunded mandate, and they are bankrupting America economically and constitutionally. This is why war is so dangerous for free nations: after they are finished, rather than reverting to peacetime liberty, people start saying 'well we were spending x killing people and using government authority for destruction. Why won't we use it for y.' Ironic if the war itself has been fought to maintain pre-war freedoms.
Is the welfare of the American people less important than the need to expand our global sphere of influence?
This is another false dichotomy. They are equally unjustified expenditure for the federal government. The latter is constitutional, but America hadn't been attacked by Iraq and thus it was unjust.
Complain about this comment
@SaintDominickAgain, it is important to remember that the new "socialized" approach to healthcare coverage in the USA will be administered by private insurance companies, not the government.
You're right, 'socialism' is actually the wrong description. When big government gets into bed with big business and they start to intertwine, then that is at best known as 'corporatism' and classically known as 'fascism.' Neither, are liberal.
Complain about this comment
51. Ramonic Rage:
"This is an un-American measure, hated by the American people".
How can a civilized country be 49% against giving basic healthcare to their poorest citizens. Looking after each other must be too close to communism I guess. Very Christian.
*************
Why is it that Christianity is only brought into the discussion when it's to point out what the writer perceives as un-Christian behavior?
Perhaps it's best to leave religion out of this discussion.
Complain about this comment
The Democrats and Republicans need to put this vote behind them and get on with the governance of the country. To be sure, confidence has to be built which means confidence measures have to be put in place. Won't be all that hard to do. The Democrat leadership has to explain the deals they put in place in order to ensure votes : not all of them of course - there's far too many - but certainly the more egregious ones like the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Compromise, Gator Aid, the million dollar hospital in Connecticut, and so forth.
Complain about this comment
ref #70
mightyblooze wrote:
#62 Charlie - Firstly as I understand it, and no doubt you will correct me if I'm wrong, the bottom line of the healthcare bill, regardless of the machinations and compromises along the way, was to improve the lot of those citizens who could not afford healthcare for non-emergency procedures.
________________
First a number of people especially if they are young choose the pay asyou go formula. Second should those citizens healthcare means that the rest of us have to pay significantly more for them?
Complain about this comment
Interesting that the constitutionality of the bill is being questioned again. This was raised when the bill passed the senate and only politically oriented reporters gave it any credence at all. Any further action based on this argument is grandstanding (at taxpayers expense) and most likely doomed to failure but it's being done to sway public opinion.
No-one knows where the chips will fall on this yet and the coming week's opinion polls will be key in determining whether Obama's gamble paid off.
Either...
Obama has succeeded where others failed on health and before November he will begin work on finance reform that would be very difficult to oppose without looking like "Kenny-boy" Lay's best friend and will be in good shape for 2012.
Or...
Obama used all his political capital to push through a bill the American people don't want and any finance reform will limp along until the Rebublicans take the house back and find a way to blame Obama while they hack it to pieces. Then 2012 will be interesting if the GOP can find a viable candidate that doesn't scare most moderates.
Complain about this comment
As an American I agree that the health care system needs to be changed, however this bill is exactly what we don't need. The real danger is uncertainties. With 10% unemployment the Obama administration has put jobs, the economy, and Americans in the back seat as he advances his political agenda with a bill that includes more taxing and spending, expansion of government, and entitlements that will burden us for years to come. Obama has also turned a blind eye to the majority of Americans who opposed the bill, the 38 states(many teetering on bankruptcy) that are cornered into filing lawsuits, and the proven inefficiency of government to solve problems without amassing huge debt. This type of government healthcare has been tried unsuccessfully by two states all ready. Instead of fixing insolvent entitlements we will add more to the pile with the help of rosy projected CBO estimates. The Obama Admin. fails to even count their so called "doctor fix", which will triumph the CBO's projected debt cuts alone. With triple the spending of president Bush, Obama marches on with arrogance. Similar to the U.K., Moody's has warned the U.S. that we may loose our Triple A credit rating, saying that the debt is basically unsustainable, and that “social cohesion” may be tested. It's not that I don't want people to have healthcare... its that this is change we can't afford. There is no doubt in my mind that we are loosing the american dream in a pile of debt, while we choose to reward failure and penalize success. What was capitalism has slowly evolved into socialism for both people and entities. Handouts, bailouts, government takeovers, and becoming one of the heaviest taxed nation in the world prove that true capitalism has been dead for quite some time. How can we compete in a world economy when we demand so much. While many proponents of the bill will boast of its civil liberties, the fact is that our founding founders would cringe at the idea of government demanding that the citizens purchase a good or face a penalty. Because I'm young, I will choose to pay the penalty and join when I do get sick. In my opinion we are ignoring the facts and gambling big time. Mark my words, rates will skyrocket, doctors will quit in masses because they are overworked and underpaid by the government. Rationing of care will be common. The U.S. will continue its plunge in mediocrity. This will bankrupt the country.
Complain about this comment
The Republicans have been deliberately whipping up a climate of fear around this harmless Bill.
I find it hard to believe the American people could be so obtuse as to prefer the current system of insurance companies who will find any excuse they can to deny treatment, over a system where all can expect treatment regardless of wealth. It would be like sheep voting for the butcher.
As for the 'Tea Party' movement, that appears to be nothing more than barely disguised small-minded bigotry. I saw the video of their disgusting behaviour where they taunted and mocked a Parkinson's sufferer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFOnG9a1Pzw
Complain about this comment
charlieatlantic:
That's a rather sweeping statement to assume that I'm calling all the people who voted against this bill racists. Hardly, I was addressing a certain group, whose numbers are not insignificant. If we're going to be standing next to crazy people saying racist things/ holding derogatory slogans and say/do nothing what does that make us?
Not all the people who opposed this bill were/are crazy. There's some good reasons to not like it (earmarks are as equally a scourge on the working class after all) but a good deal of people know this is a work in progress. I don't think I'm alone in saying that health care coverage for all should come first, battling mistreatment of funds, fraud, working out exclusions should come after but with just as much passion and dedication.
A good reason why the dems may recover well from all this is because a good portion of these people that don't like the bill are generally undecided who have affiliation from neither party but were blatantly fear mongered by misinformation and lies (death panels and so on). A lot of people are genuinely afraid of change that could make things worse and so would vote on doing nothing at all at the republicans reckoning.
If the bill had been lost yesterday do you think they all would have gone back to the table in bipartisanship? Hell no, it would have been forgotten about entirely. At election time everyone was in agreement that at least something must be done, even McCain.
Complain about this comment
Ref 81, Andrea
"People don't necessarily share their sense of accomplishment with respect to the bailouts today."
The reason a lot of people are not impressed with the bank bailout is not so much because we believe it was not necessarily, but because it was executed very poorly. In effect, we handed taxpayers money to the bank without demanding anything in return.
Saving ouor financial system was, in my opinion, an absolute necessity, but we should have insisted on reciprocity from the banks and we didn't. Instead of restoring credit to small businesses they engaged again in excessive executive compensation and renewed investment in risky businesses such as the derivatives market.
Hopefully the next major item on the agenda is financial reform, with a keen focus on regulation of Wall Street practices.
Complain about this comment
SD wrote: "The point was not to justify the new legislation but to highlight the hypocrisy of those that challenge it because of cost, but had no problem justifying the expenditure of one trillion dollars in Iraq, or paying for expensive weaponry we do not need."
SaintDominick. There are plenty of well known and documented examples of expensive weaponry and other military gear Pentagon didn't need and didn't want, but HAD TO buy because certain influential members of US Congress told DOD that unless it wanted to get things it really needed it HAD TO also buy expensive hardware it didn't need, but which happened to be manufactured in those illustrous legislators' electoral districts.
And I know that you know that quite a few of those representatives and senators were not exactly Republicans.
And could even name some of the most prominent culprits.
P.S. Now what about those who question legality, nay, constitutionality of a law requiring MANDATORY purchase of a health insurance?
Are they hypocrits as well?
Complain about this comment
51. At 11:37am on 22 Mar 2010, Ramonic Rage wrote:
"This is an un-American measure, hated by the American people".
How can a civilized country be 49% against giving basic healthcare to their poorest citizens. Looking after each other must be too close to communism I guess. Very Christian.
Leaders of the free world, I don't think.
I would refer you to my comments at #25 (sigh)...
Complain about this comment
#79 Charlie
I can see how it might be unconstitutional for the Fed Govt to take on healthcare, but surely something needed to be done to address the inequality that has existed in the healthcare system in the USA for decades?
As for libertarianism being enshrined in the constitution, fair enough, but this is the same libertarianism that allows the bearing of arms, which might have been fine for the 19th century, but is madness in the modern age. That however is an entirely different debate for another time!
Complain about this comment
Obama had to do something to reward all those people who came out and voted him into office, it's a start. I also have great respect for those who voted for the bill. It takes great courage to see the greater good in voting for mediocrity in health care which is what happens when you start spreading resources about. I disagree with most other Europeans as I don't see anything obvious or easy about universal healthcare. Its a courageous step.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone have any figures on how big the tea-party movement is?
I'm guessing there's no membership as such, but what are the estimated numbers of people who turn up for protests? How many are there due to belief in the movement and how many turn up because the protest marches get effectively advertised on certain news shows and they agree with that particular protest?
Also, does the tea party have positions on anything other than smaller government? If so what are they? If not, how can they reasonably expect to sway public opinion on any issue without a position to sway it to? Squirrel's right. That would be anarchic.
Complain about this comment
I have read many of these comments and though I am bothered by many I agree with many as well. As a biracial-American, currently living in England, but coming from Texas I have a lot of perspectives on this issue. I do not agree with an individual mandate, but am willing to take that if that means there are no more worries about pre-existing conditions, and less worries about folks becoming bankrupt due to health care bills.
Re (#5, #25, #29):
I think it is a farce to believe that race does not play any part in the opposition to these bills, and it is equally mistaken to believe it is what is driving the majority of the opposition. A lot of it has to do with fundamental differences on how Americans view the role of government in our lives. Sometimes the views and government and the ignorance on race issues in the U.S.A. collide and you get comments like #29 from Oldoadr. I defer to KScurmedgeon’s comment at #12 and Gavrielle_LaPoste’s comment at #42 that address this issue.
This is not a government take over of health care and this is not socialism – there is not even a public option and I agree with Oldadr historical response to Ukicenine at #25; though if we swing towards a socialist society, so be it, we are free as a nation to do so.
Re: (#4 and #51)
This is also not a tyranny of the majority. It was tyranny of the majority when property owning white men could decide through a majority of the voting population to legally oppress those of a different race and/or sex, or poorer whites. A law that was passed by 51% percent of the House and 60% of the Senate, and will likely be altered by 51% of the house and 59% of the Senate along with approval of the president – all of whom were endorsed by the people 16 months ago – is not tyranny; just like it was not tyranny of a majority or a minority when a majority of the people voted for Al Gore, but George Bush became President. This is because that election and this reform are the results of a process, a constitutional process which our country has decided to utilize, and as we are a country that tends to believe in the rule of law we can have a lot of upset people but still have legitimacy.
Along with being a country that tends to believe in the rule of law, we also are a country of law, not morals. If 51% of the people or those elected by them wanted to not provide health care to the poorest of our country, then that would be legal; may be immoral; but would not be uncivilized. The means in which you effectuate your laws or create them is what can make one uncivilized. Good for us this is not the case, nor do I believe it is that 49% of the country do not want health care for the poorest. We have Medicaid for many of the poorest. This bill helps many poor that may fall through the cracks because of their states restrictions on Medicaid and the high cost of insurance. This bill also, in large part, helps the middle class that may have money for some form of health insurance, but not money for much else or even good health insurance for that matter.
Conclusion
Despite our disagreements on the health care bills, and the fact I have a fundamental problem with the individual mandate, given the state of our health care/insurance I will take the good with the bad in this one. I guess that is what compromise is all about.
Complain about this comment
#86 Yes. It's called community spirit.
Complain about this comment
35. At 10:01am on 22 Mar 2010, Gavrielle_LaPoste - We obviously travel in different circles. Most of the Obama supporters (during the campaign) I work with either a. say nothing now, or b. are expressing buyer’s remorse. This is because we have studied the history of countries that are now socialist and we don't like what we see. The USA was founded on a combination of teamwork and self-reliance. From the history I see, as a country becomes more socialist, the former diminishes and the latter disappears altogether.
Complain about this comment
Having squeezed this one through the house albeit at a cost , I would be interested to know what you think Mr Obama's chances of getting climate change legislation passed are.
Complain about this comment
We all agree with the need for health care reform. Differences of opinion on what to do and HOW to do it were the divisive factors.
We learned two very important lessons from this process: (1) Obama is the ultimate "Washington insider" and (2) Democrats are the party of Big (no, HUGE) Government.
Obama's pledge for "Change you can believe in" rings hollow in the aftermath of his slimy and coercive efforts to wrangle the necessary DEMOCRAT votes to secure HC passage. Make no mistake, Obama and his party are tainted by adopting (nay exceeding) the strong-arm, back-room tactics of which he so vehemently criticized his opposition.
Layers and layers of new bureaucracy were added to an already massive federal government deficit. And, the IRS is now vested with responsibility to enforce compliance with a state-mandated consumer program?
Make no mistake, the outcome of the HC bill will be higher taxes and even more federal intrusion into the personal lives of the American people.
And only a fool thinks a government that offers us mismanagement and corruption in the administration of Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and Postal Services will change its stripes with regards HC.
Complain about this comment
Ref 82, Charlie
"Comparisons do not justify, though"
Comparisons become relevant when opponents to new legislation use fiscal responsibility as one of the most important reasons to justify their position...just a few years after ignoring the use of emergency resolution to pay for an unnecessary war without appropriating the necessary funds or simply by borrowing to pay for it.
The most important justification for healthcare reform, in my opinion, is social responsibility.
Complain about this comment
Re 80:charlieatlantic
Hi charlieatlantic,
thanks for accepting my challenge. Can you please tell me what exactly the people attending the tea parties are angry about ? Will you publicly disassociate your movement from Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachman. Surely the tea party cannot be taken seriously if these two are your pinups.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@mightybloozeI can see how it might be unconstitutional for the Fed Govt to take on healthcare, but surely something needed to be done to address the inequality that has existed in the healthcare system in the USA for decades?
I'm not being disrespectful when I ask this, but isn't that the 'I know it's the law, BUT' argument? Perhaps this is the difference between me and those in favour: I simply can't accept an 'I understand that it is unconstitutional but I think we should do it anyway' position. What is the point of the law? If you're not making that case, then I apologise for the inference.
As for libertarianism being enshrined in the constitution, fair enough, but this is the same libertarianism that allows the bearing of arms, which might have been fine for the 19th century, but is madness in the modern age. That however is an entirely different debate for another time!
As you say, this is a debate for a different day, but it won't surprise you to know that I absolutely support the Second Amendment. However, like healthcare, it has to be remembered that as its prohibition applies to the federal government and that - unless they have their own constitutional provisions (which 44 do) - each state is free to regulate firearms as they see fit.
Complain about this comment
This Leaves Obama fighting some of the american public trying to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that America is full of very selfish people with no compassion.
Who wish to dominate the world with their
"compassionate tough love"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If you're pissing off the far right and the far left than you're probably heading in the right direction.
That's the nature of a two-dimensional political system. Lovely, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
ref #96
The Tea Party has a limited agenda that does not pertain to foriegn policy or most social issues.
They are interested:
In less goverment spending
lower taxes
less goverment control on commerce
From interviews they are not republican or democrat, but as the Dems are in power and have a spend mantra the tea partty opposes them.
Complain about this comment
KS and St.D - you are on the top of your form today.
The Republicans are on the wrong side of history on this one.
Obama has achieved one absolutely critical thing: He has moved the engine off top dead center. So the default "do nothing" position is no longer what it was. Those who wish to go backwards will now have to do more than merely obstruct. Good luck with that.
And having made this first step, now it is a process of incremental amendment to remove the most egregious wrongs that arose from horse-trading. Bit by bit, America will move toward a public system.
The hard right of the Republican Party staked everything on opposing this bill as a means to cripple the Obama Presidency. They salivated. They drooled. They frothed at the mouth.
It was an exercise of wallowing in denial, of re-fighting of the 2008 general election. Some sectors of the party still cannot accept that they lost that election. Some were trying oddly pre-emptively to fight the 2012 election. They staked everything on blind obstructionism. They refused to be reasonable.
And now they have lost.
And those who would have benefitted from obstructionism?
Say good night, Sarah Palin.
Say good night, Prime Minister Netanyahu.
And all the rest ...
This is where the thirty five year drift of the Republican Party finally grounds on a rocky lee shore. It is their equivalent of the British Labour Party's "Arthur-Scargill-and-the-Coal-Miners" moment. Not before time, either.
Those who assume that the Democrats are going to lose seats in the mid-term elections are counting their chickens awfully early.
The Republicans are on the wrong side of history here.
There will be a day of reckoning for that mistake.
Complain about this comment
The unpopularity of this reform, outside of the Sarah Palin Populist Tea Party Movement, is largely due to the process and the bickering more than the legislations, and this will be forgotten shortly. If it is drawn on by the republicans, this will only hurt them in the eyes of independent voters as they have been shown to actually like the content of the legislation as well as the ideology behind it (that in a wealthy country, we can and should ensure access to healthcare for everyone).
Important to point out is that this bill is indeed right of center in its nature, and that a not insignificant portion of the 60% who oppose the bill do so from the left! These people will not favor repeal and will certainly not vote a republican to office.
A word to the wise: Republicans should not run on repeal, but on a record and a plan of reigning in spending (in general). Independents in this country are a growing population, and they tend to be technocrats believing in solutions over ideology. Republicans need solutions not rhetoric about government takovers and socialism if they ever want to win these people back. Unfortunately, the biggest issue in spending is the military, which they have decided should never be touched.
Complain about this comment
This does not sound like government of the people for the people.
The fact that the democrat congress passed this bill knowing how unpopular it is, and knowing how doing it will make them lose power shows how radical and dangerous to democracy they are.
Complain about this comment
It was an exercise in corruption and coercion.
Now that the treasonous representatives have passed this milestone, it is necessary to start removing them from office.
Complain about this comment
Well done President Obama one small step for health one great step for the USA in persuading the rest of the world that they can read and understand what the word civilization means. However, those quiet americans amongst them who will now get cover also have a vote so time will tell how easy it may or may not be to retract the legislation, what is less easy to understand is how any democrats voted against it?
The challenge for te future will be in setting things up to prevent the health industry from gaming the system to their advantage.
Complain about this comment
The Liberal party has blown it.
The winners in this are suits, lawsuits, and insurance companies.
All so Obama can falsely claim victory. They got played for suckers by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies and got nothing they actually wanted.
Opposition to government healthcare were also big winners. I'm failing to see why Liberals are happy. No one should be happy with the massive debts this is projected to cause once you include the costs deliberately left out of the esitimates sent to the CBO.
Despite all the rhetoric, the fat cats in for profit medicine are high-fiving after this blunder by Liberal mental midgets.
Complain about this comment
Well said indigenous englishman.
Complain about this comment
Government intervenes when private business abuses. The railroads, coal, industrial child labor, worker saftey, health insurance, banking, etc. When the private sector is unrestrained history clearly shows that it will abuse the citizens for profits and power. It is a clear as any process within a captialistic system. The private sector is in the business of making money and has no sense of social responsbility. Those who do not want government must than support greater controls of the private sector. The "free market" should not be that if you kill your customers that people will go somewhere else to buy those services. The banks colluded to get rich and depleat the retirements of millions of people and this is not the first time that industry has wreaked individual wealth and national economies and put the costs on the taxpayers. "Private Sector, Free Market" types simply deny history and the abuse that the private sector heaps on the citizens and the prostitution of the elected to facilitate all of this.
Complain about this comment
Frankly, the Republican party and American conservatives were determined to hate Obama from the beginning. It does not matter how much he wanted to change the political system, he can't do it alone and neither Nancy Pelosi nor John Boehner have the slightest interest in working with the other side. In their defence, the two sides seem to genuinely have little in common.
This health care reform package is a lot of things, but what it is not is the end-of-the-world apocalypse scenario that the Republicans keep braying on about. Things will go on as usual and most people will hardly notice the difference. For a young person like myself, just out of college and without insurance, it will mean that if I get diagnosed with some terrible illness before I land the big job (with health insurance) I can pick up insurance and get treated. If it does what it promises to do, which is hold down the premium cost of health insurance, then I might even be able to afford private health care before I get sick, which would be ideal.
I am personally proud of Obama. He is gentle when he needs to be and forceful when need be as well. In the end, the Republicans simply refused to compromise on a number of key issues and so he made use of the large Democratic majority to put through his reforms. The bill is heavier than it needs to be and isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. I hesitated to vote for Obama in the last election but when Sarah Palin was named as McCain's VP pick I knew I was voting Democrat. I am annoyed enough at the conservative head-spinning that I am quite certain that I will be voting for Obama again in 2012.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr (#29): "I understand your deductive logic on the race/infant mortality issue, but before you cast aspersions on all of us evil middle class white Americans, maybe you should also check out the percentage of African-American babies born out of wedlock, born to crack addicted mothers, born to HIV infected mothers..."
This comment is wrong on so many levels. Such a lack of solidarity is abhorrent and criminal.
How do you expect someone who's been left to fend for herself, without a job, without proper medical care, and without quality affordable education to know what's best for them. For the poor in America (and especially poor African-Americans), getting hooked on drugs is not an individual choice; it's a societal choice imposed on them from being abandoned in the gutter. Maybe if they were provided with basic services without regard to their ability to pay, they would know to make better life choices and feel that they are part of this American dream you are so proud of.
Congratulations to Mr Obama and to legislators who passed this legislation. The fight was hard but will show dividends for decades to come.
Complain about this comment
Thank you President Obama for standing up to the other side.
Thank you for setting us free...free at last.
Psalm 33:5
Complain about this comment
97. At 1:35pm on 22 Mar 2010, Gregory T Shannon wrote:
A lot of it has to do with fundamental differences on how Americans view the role of government in our lives. Sometimes the views and government and the ignorance on race issues in the U.S.A. collide and you get comments like #29 from Oldoadr.
Could you please enlighten as to how my comments show ignorance on race issues? I grew up in Kentucky and now live in SC. I think I have a good grasp of race and its effects on our society and politics. However, maybe you don't understand how infuriating it is to watch the Black community continue to self destruct while all the time blaming the "evil rich white men." That goes back to my earlier comments on self-reliance, which used to be common-place in the US and is now a rare commodity amongst all of the races, ethnicities, etc.
Complain about this comment
Old loader.
I see no buyers remorse. Those that complain seem to be the same ones that said Nobama before the elections.
Same with this site. Those that have opposed from the start are still opposing.
Sure Some have thought "Obama is not radical enough" but are you suggesting he only pander to them?
Not that I would be totally opposed to the concept.
Complain about this comment
So I guess I'll be either getting a government subsidy or going to jail for failure to pay taxes. Thanks Obama, great idea.
Complain about this comment
"... this messy business of backroom deals and arm-twisting has further lowered the reputation of Washington."
I don't think so. The reputation of Washington politics has always been low. The question is how it affects the reputation of Democrats vs. Republicans in Congress. That depends on how you feel about getting a health care bill. For me, being in favor of it, the Democrats stock has gone up and that of the Republicans has gone down. I see the Republican Party as irrelevant, unable to anything but obstruct. For others, that is what they want, to obstruct progressive legislation.
The passage of the bill means that we will have a clear basis for debate in the coming Congressional elections.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It seems not every British citizen likes NHS and sees it as something worth recommending to Americans.
For example one of them (Toad in the Hole) writes [cf. HYS]:
"It won't be long before you Americans are as heavily taxed as us Brits. Don't get me wrong, I think the British NHS was a great idea, but over the past 30 years or so, it's become a waste machine, producing inefficiency & incompetency at all levels which cost the British tax payer ever increasing amounts money.
Still you get what you vote for, something the British people need to remember come May 6th 2010."
Americans voters, on the other hand, will have to wait till November.
Complain about this comment
"'I understand that it is unconstitutional but I think we should do it anyway' position"
You don't have to accept this. Because it is not against the constitution. That is a fabricated view point used to try to legitimise your view point. BUT it is not true. No amount of semantics take away from the fact that health care could be considerd part of the general welfare.
It does not matter how well educated you think you are. It is not unconstitutional. Indeed seeing as there is care for the elderly it is only constitutional to increase coverage to ALL.
Because there is to be no discrimination on age. That has been upheld.
Complain about this comment
109. At 2:28pm on 22 Mar 2010, Philly-Mom
Interesting you should say that. The last president that succeeded in upsetting both ends of the spectrum was Jimmy Carter. Interestingly, his successor, after his one term in office, was Ronnie Reagan who got along better with (and accomplished more with)Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neal than ol' Jimmy did. The difference, I believe, was that Ronnie and Tip didn't always agree, but they understood each other and knew where each was coming from.
Complain about this comment
@busby2Republicans attacked Obama's health care plans as "socialising" health care. If so, why do they support free public education paid by taxpayers as surely that is "socialising" education?
Charlieatlantic replied
"Education is run by the states, not the federal government. This bill pertains to the federal government. Therein lies the difference. Again, we ignore the facts. America is a constitutional republic with a federal system. Britain is a unitary state. Learn the difference!
(N.B. And yes, there is a federal Department of Education which is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment and needs to be abolished. The states, however, are well within their rights to nationalise education, health and pretty much anything else. Not so the federal government.)"
Actually, the UK is not a unitary state. We have a separate Scottish parliament, and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. Only England, who pays the bills, is ignored!
I don't suppose Charlieatlantic that you sit on the Supreme Court so your case that Obama's bill is unconstitutional is just hogwash, isn't it as after all the insurance companies operate across state borders? And isn't the same true for your comments that the federal Dept of
Education is unconstitutional under the 10th amendment? You know full well that the Supreme Court very rarely declares any law unconstitutional under the 10th amendment.
Complain about this comment
103 He lives in the UK and wishes one day to go to the USA.He knows nothing and meets no tea party people.
He mentioned this a few weeks ago.He takes advantage of the health care there though. He admits to that, because he pays his taxes as a semi employed musical entertainer.(Busker)
But he is deeply opposed to the idea of taxes paying for health care.He cannot see the hypocricy in his situation and way of life.He should move and live without health care.But he doesn't. WHY?
He cannot understand that in an unhealthy society germs win the war.The viruses and bacteria win.
Ask a scientist what happens if anti biotics are used in the wrong dosage,I suspect you have already thought of the consequences of the poor buying service as they can not when they need it.
I very much doubt Atlantic Charlie knows what I am talking about on this.
Nor any that are so opposed to another nation getting health care when he enjoys the benifits today and every day as he lives.
And here is the funny thing. Generally Americans who are against reform shout and scream at "europeans"(anyone that was traitor enough to set foot in europe) to stop interferring with america .
But those same stay very quiet when Charlie steps in.
Complain about this comment
President Obama's first year in office can be summed up by the phrase "wrong priorities, poor results even on those."
America needs a repair to its health insurance system, there is no doubt of that. But it needs to fix its economy far more. The economy is not fixed, it is not recovered. It is still in serious trouble where it counts, in the pocketbooks of Average Americans far too many of whom are unemployed, underemployed, or are very worried about losing their jobs. Obama did just about nothing to fix that. His performance on health care insurance has been more than a disappointement. Back room dirity dealing resulting in some of the most poorly crafted legislation in memory that is probably unconstitutional on several grounds, he had to twist a lot of arms just to get it this far barely squeaking through even though his party holds majorities in both houses of Congress. To insure an additional 10% of the population he will have bankrupted what is left of America's economy and eventually give us the same failed kind of socialist system they have in Europe with its waiting lines, rationing, inferior quality. Before this travesty goes into effect, it should be junked and a real bi-partisan effort should be made to start all over again.
In foreign policy he did the same. He has completely neglected what should be America's number one concern, Iran's program to acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems and instead focused on the trivial such as Israel building apartments in Jerusalem which he failed to stop anyway. Again ineffective as was his efforts on climate change (another of what should be a back burner issue) and it took him forever to commit 30,000 of the 40,000 extra troops his expert General McChrystal said we needed in Afghanistan if we are not to lose the war there. Even there, the discrepency was fudged over by pretending that 10,000 additional far less capable NATO troops will somehow make up the difference.
A failed presidency on track to be the worst ever, challenging Woodrow Wilson's nearly 100 year old record in that regard.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell,
You do understand what else
Complain about this comment
"charlieAtlantic" is back, grinding his Tenth Amendment (states' rights) axe once again. The reality is that very little federal legislation is rejected by the US Supreme Court on tenth amendment grounds. There will be litigation over this act, and there may even be some details which are held to be unconstitutional, but I expect that most of it will survive court challenges.
Complain about this comment
I see that the same old (tired?) arguments are still being tossed back and forth. I suppose it's too much to hope that a) people will start debating what this bill will do for them rather than b) continue the ping-pong game for -- heaven help us all -- another four years?
Why, anyway, does most of this bill not apparently come into effect until 2014 (except for extending coverage to 'children' up to 26'? it's almost as though the intention was to allow time for endless revisions, alterations, emasculations and even repeal of most of it.
(What's the age of majority in the USA again? I read an American sociologist's conference paper a couple of years ago which said that 'late adolescence now extends to 26". Is that why? I was rather please, because I've worked out, I'll never get old. If we're now a 'youth' until, say 36, a 'young adult' till 56, and middle-aged at about 76, I reckon I won't get 'old' till I'm 96 at least, and only really, really old after about 116. Hooray!)
(And a quick word about the late U-boat victim, who had had some good points to make and added to the gaiety of this blog at the same time rather more than the few obviously rather outraged at those views coming from an American, who themselves have contributed virtually nothing of substance, little insight, and virtually no relevant information on the subject. And continue to do all three.)
Complain about this comment
First, we have to realize that the majority of American citizens are woefully underinformed, and tend to make emotional reactions without analyzing facts. There's also a strong lobbying industry dedicated to tarting up the interests of corporations and disguising them as 'people's movements,' the best example of which would be the 'tea parties.' The average Republican voter is, therefore, less likely to be acquainted with the following statistics than would a Conservative in another developed country:
1. The United States is the only developed country without universal health coverage.
2. The McClatchy-Ferguson Act that exempted insurance conglomerates from anti-trust laws enabled the growth of the industry, resulting in the present controversial situation.
3. This bill is good for insurance companies, and the insurance companies, not the voters, are the actors driving the protest against health insurance.
Complain about this comment
BluesBerry (#57) "I believe this manner of ratification is non-constitutional."
"Ratification"? What do you mean, exactly?
The Senate Democrats had the votes to pass the reconciliation bill before the House voted on it. It will be passed in the Senate sometime this week.
Complain about this comment
119 Tyler. That was really very very beautifully put.
Thank You
Complain about this comment
EyesWideShutHi charlieatlantic, thanks for accepting my challenge. Can you please tell me what exactly the people attending the tea parties are angry about ? Will you publicly disassociate your movement from Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachman. Surely the tea party cannot be taken seriously if these two are your pinups.
Just to clarify: it's not my movement, and I'm not directly involved. I responded to you because I am happy to associate myself to a degree. Broadly speaking, the Tea Party movement appears to be highlighting the same issues as me: earmarks, out-of-control spending, a disregard for federalism at the expense of states' rights, and the flagrant violation of the constitution in the name of expedience. It is also deeply concerned about the national debt, as am I. I see in many of these people the same fear I have; that being that the American enlightenmnt principles of constitutional republicanism, individual rights and limited government are under threat, and that - albeit for benevolent aims - the country is heading too far from its founding ideals. As such, as far as this group represents a reaffirmation of constitutional principle I am happy to associate myself therewith. I wouldn't, however, associate myself with any form of intolerance, nor with any pro-life wing, nor with any member who considers there to be a difference between Republican and Democratic spending, but these are not sentiments that I think are held by a vast majority of those involved. I have a problem with the timing of the tea party movement insomuch as I would have liked to see these people out on the street during Bush's terms, but that does not negate the fact that they are here now.
I find it slightly strange that you want me to publicly disavow Beck and Bachman as I'm not sure what this will prove. But given that you've asked, my pin ups are certainly not these two, instead being Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison and so on.
I think that people on this forum need to be careful before dismissing anyone who holds genuine libertarian views with any of the easy buzzwords designed to discredit them ('selfish', 'pro-big business', 'Sarah Palin', 'hick'), or concluding that they aren't 'educated'. It is precisely because I have studied American history and her constitution that I hold these views. There does seem to be a British conviction that Europeans and Democrats are 'clever' and 'forward looking', whilst Republicans are ignorant, intolerant religious nutjobs who care for no-one but themselves. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but this sort of absurdity needs watching. There are legitimate reasons for people to oppose this bill, and they transcend the easy thrill of writing invective.
Complain about this comment
120. At 3:03pm on 22 Mar 2010, adelor
This comment is wrong on so many levels. Such a lack of solidarity is abhorrent and criminal.
Actually, I expect every American to make good choices for themselves and their children. None of us do all the time, but most responsible people accept their failures and don't try to blame society. I grew up in a working poor family and I have family members that have made similar poor choices, but I don'[t allow them to blame anybody but themselves in my presence. The fact that I insist that ever American take responsibility for their own actions does not seem abhorrent to me, especially when those choices threaten the lives of the health care workers who are trying to help them. Could you explain how insisting on personal accountability is criminal?
Complain about this comment
#106 Charlie
That's what I meant by my first comment on this blog that outsiders find your political system baffling. Because technically the Fed Govt cannot act as a national govt, surely by extension nothing would ever get done on a national scale? Seems cumbersome to me. What was Obama supposed to do, persuade Congress to change the constitution before he does anything on national healthcare? Again this appears to be a handy get out clause for opponents of anything "national" coming out the Whitehouse.
The Second Amendment - would love to have that debate, but I don't think this is the place for it. However, I have to ask - Do any US States prohibit the bearing of firearms?
Thanks for an intelligent debate - I'm signing off now, but I'll keep an eye out for you in the future. As you say across the pond "Have a nice day" :)
Complain about this comment
TrollBoothIt is not unconstitutional. Indeed seeing as there is care for the elderly it is only constitutional to increase coverage to ALL. Because there is to be no discrimination on age. That has been upheld.
Medicare is unconstitutional as well (as is Social Security). There is nothing in the constitution which allows the federal government to run these programs. The constitution is a document of limited jurisdiction. Just because this has been abused, does not mean it is untrue. The federal government is simply not permitted to get involved in healthcare without a constitutional amendment. The states, on the other hand, can run whatever programs they want.
Complain about this comment
#5, DemRR: I've been hollerin' about thinly (and not so thinly) veiled racism ever since Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for President in August '08. What do YOU think motivated that diehard 13% of Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for McCain/Palin? The GOP strategy of NO: opposing everything President Obama wants passed in Congress -- even if it's popular, uncontroversial or something the individual member will now look stupid and hypocritical for opposing because he or she USED to support it -- is nothing so much as the end game of the Nixonian Solid South strategy, based on the backlash to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. The Conservative Southern Democrats of that time changed parties because they couldn't stomach all that integration and liberalisation of social values. They have been using racial hatemongering couched in code language ever since to stay in power.
Nobody likes to watch the sausage being made...and American lawmaking is messier than anyone imagines who didn't pay attention in 10th grade civics and history. But we always come out of it with something reasonably workable, if not immediately popular. And we keep tweaking it until it runs smoothly. Healthcare will be no different. In a few weeks the Republicans will find something else to hyperventilate about and by the next election cycle, they will no doubt try to scare voters with lies that huge "Democrat" cuts to the deficit will threaten "Obamacare." I may expire of irony.
Complain about this comment
busby2 (#130) "You (charlieatlantic) know full well that the Supreme Court very rarely declares any law unconstitutional under the 10th amendment."
He no doubt knows that very well, but libertarians generally put themselves ahead of the Supreme Court as interpreters of the Constitution.
The Libertarian Party typically receives about one-half of one percent in presidential elections. That's how seriously they are taken.
Complain about this comment
busby2Actually, the UK is not a unitary state. We have a separate Scottish parliament, and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. Only England, who pays the bills, is ignored!
That's a fair point. I didn't express myself properly. What I was pointing out was that the parliament of Scotland and the assemblies or Wales and Northern Ireland are created by act of the British parliament, whereas conversely the federal government was created by the states.
I don't suppose Charlieatlantic that you sit on the Supreme Court so your case that Obama's bill is unconstitutional is just hogwash
Only Supreme Court justices can have legal opinions?
isn't it as after all the insurance companies operate across state borders?
No. They don't. It's part of the problem. They are not allowed to.
And isn't the same true for your comments that the federal Dept of Education is unconstitutional under the 10th amendment? You know full well that the Supreme Court very rarely declares any law unconstitutional under the 10th amendment.
That doesn't make it right.
Complain about this comment
· At 05:31am on 22 Mar 2010, DemRR wrote:
for those of us who lived through the early days of the civil rights movement, survived busing, dealt with outbreaks of the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers, sit-ins, be-ins and such,one can see the thinly veiled racism that drives the anti-Obama movement. The republican party vowed to destroy his presidency. This health care reform debate has NOTHING to do with health care, economics or anything reasonable. It is unfortunate, but the United States is a classist, racist, economically and socially backward and bigoted country. I am a white woman who is educated and lives in the South. Believe me, this is about our President's race, nothing else. blah blah blah
======
The resistance to this bill would have been held with the same level of intensity (and also by the majority) if the president were white, green, yellow, or red. To claim this is all about race is just a pathetic attempt to smear the entire opposition to this bill and anything else that Obama does. There are racists in both parties, but that does not make either party inherently racist. There is plenty in this bill to dislike, and none of it has to do with Obama's race. Only a very narrow-minded (and perhaps bigoted?) person would make such a claim.
Complain about this comment
TrollBoothHe [charlieatlantic] lives in the UK and wishes one day to go to the USA.He knows nothing and meets no tea party people. etc..
This always comes down to this, ad hominem attacks. I've never pretended to be American. When this has (inexplicably) come up on here before, I've said then what I will say again now: I am British. I've spent a great deal of my life in America. I have American family. I've lived there. I currently live in England but I have spent much of the last year in the States.
None of this is news, nor a secret, nor relevant.
Why not respond to my argument, and not my person?
Complain about this comment
ref #129
Oldloadr wrote:
109. At 2:28pm on 22 Mar 2010, Philly-Mom
Interesting you should say that. The last president that succeeded in upsetting both ends of the spectrum was Jimmy Carter. Interestingly, his successor, after his one term in office, was Ronnie Reagan who got along better with (and accomplished more with)Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neal than ol' Jimmy did. The difference, I believe, was that Ronnie and Tip didn't always agree, but they understood each other and knew where each was coming from.
_____________
Despite their political difference Tio O'neil was not a petty small minded individual. Pelosi is both and vindictive just ask fellow Dem Jane Harman
Complain about this comment
123. At 3:15pm on 22 Mar 2010, TrollBooth wrote:
Old loader.
I see no buyers remorse.
I have seen buyer's remorse. The people who I have talked to who have expressed such sentiment were hoping that he would keep his promise to reach across the aisle and not his promises that he made to the far-left base of his party. It appears he has done the latter and not the former.
Complain about this comment
re. 18. Gavrielle_LaPoste:
All true, and I might add that Congressional elections are essentially local elections turning on local events, issues, and personalities--in spite of talk about them being a referendum on national policy or the president. And incumbents have a big advantage.
Complain about this comment
I appreciate the actual intelligent commentary from people addressing this article. It shows me that the conservative tea party folks do not really have the upper hand, they are the minority and that good, common sense will indeed prevail, however quietly. We peacemakers are just as determined to quell the madness as those inciting it are to provoke violent outburst.
And I do disagree with anyone who says this isn't about race.
When you have lived through the turmoil of the late 1960's in the southern part of the U.S., it is unmistakable - these signs are the same ones I saw as a young person. Racism is a form of classism - it is the worst sort of immoral, ignorant, fascist selfishness. I am ashamed of the grown men and women carrying obscene and racist signs and cursing, slinging mud and spitting on congresspersons. The times they are changing, and we will get through this. But ignorance seems to remain forever - a constant, like weather and tides. Good luck to all of us.
And regarding abortion - when men stop raping women and impregnating them, abortion should be banned. Until then, women have no recourse in the case of rape or incest. So guys, change male behavior please.
Complain about this comment
@BluesBerryI believe this manner of ratification is non-constitutional.
I can't see that the Democrats didn't much wrong constitutionally in terms of its passage. I'm not sure it was very clever with a piece of legislation this big, but when it is signed tomorrow it will become law fair-and-square. The content, however, is another story.
Complain about this comment
squirrelist (#135) "What's the age of majority in the USA again?"
It's 18, although generally older (depending on state) for the consumption of alcohol.
Complain about this comment
re. 28. AndreaNY:
It's strange that Massachusetts hasn't been discussed more by democrats. Why do you think that is? One would have thought that they would be promoting it as the "model" for the rest of the country. Instead, it's rarely mentioned.
It's rarely mentioned by ANYBODY--Democrats, Republicans, or the news media. Which I think is weird. I bring it up practically every time I get involved in a health care thread on this blog, but no one seems interested. The final bill that passed is a lot closer to the Massachusetts model than the universal health care that liberals wanted. And the Massachusetts plan was signed by a Republican governor and was cited by Scott Brown in his special election victory as a reason he was against the federal health care bill.
Complain about this comment
18. At 07:30am on 22 Mar 2010, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
By the time November rolls around the ugliness will have faded from everyone's memory and we'll be talking about banking and immigration reform. Serious issues that the Republicans stand a good chance of being on the wrong side of again - which could seriously damage their chances in November.
=====
Banking reform, maybe. Immigration reform is DOA. Obama does not have the political capital for that heavy lift after this. That will be at least as divisive a fight as health insurance was. But this will not fade from people’s memory come November - I can promise you that. The Dems will lose the House, and probably only hold the Senate by 2-4 seats. The opposition supporters are much more motivated now, and there is no way Obama gets the turnout that he had in 2008.
====
"In any case, most people will be over their "it's a socialist takeover" hysteria and find that they are satisfied with the health insurance reforms and trust that Obama will deliver on other major legislation as promised."
==
This may not be a “socialist takeover” per se, but it certainly is a step in that direction. This legislation is meant to destroy the insurance companies, and it will do that if left unchanged. Forcing them to accept any pre-existing condition, coupled with no caps on benefits, no dropping anyone’s coverage, and having only minor penalties for not having coverage (compared with the cost of coverage) will bankrupt many companies. To stem the losses the only thing the insurance companies can resort to are massive premium hikes on EVERYONE. Of course Obama et al. will deride this as another “insurance company abuse”, and then he will try to outlaw that too. The system is gamed for them to fail, so then the “solution” to this government caused problem is, of course, more government, in the form of a public option or single payer. The health care system will then be effectively nationalized, which is the definition of a socialist takeover. Oh yeah that’s right, Obama/Pelosi are now going to get to work on real cost control...yeah lets see how that goes.
Complain about this comment
I don't know a single member of OFA (Obama's "base") that isn't thrilled with this bill. Mark, the BBC is mired in the DC bubble. Stop watching cable!
Complain about this comment
142 Have a nice Day
Complain about this comment
@mightbloozeThat's what I meant by my first comment on this blog that outsiders find your political system baffling. Because technically the Fed Govt cannot act as a national govt, surely by extension nothing would ever get done on a national scale?
Indeed. That's how it was designed!
Seems cumbersome to me. What was Obama supposed to do, persuade Congress to change the constitution before he does anything on national healthcare?
Absolutely. A constitutional amendment passed by Congress and the three quarters of the state legislatures.
Again this appears to be a handy get out clause for opponents of anything "national" coming out the Whitehouse.
Perhaps, but given that that was the intention of the constitution I think it's only right
The Second Amendment - would love to have that debate, but I don't think this is the place for it. However, I have to ask - Do any US States prohibit the bearing of firearms?
No, not outright. California, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Maryland and Iowa have no constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms, and thus the state or local government could impose such a prohibition. The federal government could not.
Thanks for an intelligent debate - I'm signing off now, but I'll keep an eye out for you in the future. As you say across the pond "Have a nice day" :)
Ditto! Nice to meet someone on here with whom I disagree who hasn't resorted to personal attacks! See you soon.
Complain about this comment
As a Brit/Canadian living in the US the whole attitude toward healthcare amazes me. I’ve used the NHS and the Canadian healthcare system. Whilst neither is perfect the US one has many problems of its own. The simple facts, both health related and financial, from other nations that have social healthcare in some form or other are compelling. I have company provided healthcare but I still end up paying a lot of out of pocket expenses plus have to deal with the ludicrous level of administration that adds no value, just cost. It’s an expensive broken system. The conservative right here thrives on the ignorance and fear it can instill in the public. Socialism is an evil thing, big government is evil etc etc. These things are not fundamentally bad. Its blatant fear mongering and there are plenty of people here who lap this sort of stuff up. I believe most people here who are so fervently against this bill are so because conservative media has told them it’s bad, not because they understand the pros and cons of the actual bill.
The right wants Obama to fail even if it means the US suffering for 4 years. I remember hearing this from prominent conservatives here after Obama won. It’s petty minded and ignorant. The right should think about what’s good for the US not what’s bad for Obama and the Democrats. Politicians should act based on the needs of the people not for their own gain or out of spite toward the incumbent. US politics is in big trouble in my mind and Obama is trying to do what’s good for the country and people should try to work with him.
Complain about this comment
as a conservative registered independent and lifelong student of history i can only sit back in amazement at anyone who says this bill is a good thing.It was passed with a paper thin majority and it expressly ignores the fact that it is unconstitutional to force me to go out with my hard earned money and do business with a private enterprise. whats next....forcing me to a certain grocery store at the point of a gun?maybe the government will just take my pay and tell me what food i can by or which brand of tv/cell phone/computer/car to buy...this is the first step down a very slippery slope....approximately 1/50th of the population or 7000000 people are going to be taxed to pay for this bill. The benchmark is set at 250k per year. Thats right...if you make 250k per year or more you and not me will be paying for my families care if i currently enroll because i fall under the guidelines where my family is eligible for FREE care....I dont want it.....I would rather pay my own way with who i want when i want.....lets not forget that many of the representatives last night went against the wishes of the majority of their constituents.....we elect them to represent us...not to vote their conscience(go away spelling police...i worked a long shift last night)here in ohio Steve Driehaus will not make it back to congress for another term because his people wanted a no vote on this unconstitutional,illegal bill and he voted yes....anyone who voted yes better get the spin machine moving because come november they will be gone if they do nothing....This is a sad day for America and her citizens and just an side....this has nothing to do with race....I voted for him and still think he has many good ideas...I just happen to believe this bill is so wrong for myself and my children...thre are already many programs out here...he could have expanded the limits for medicaid to include a higher income bracket...he could have worked on fixing medicare....but requiring me to do something with my money......DONT TREAD ON ME!!!!!
Complain about this comment
I've lived in the South all my life, a white male. I love Obama and what he has helped do; moreover he has repeatedly tried to find middle ground, but it's clear the Republicans have little dignity left, listening too much to white, christian bigots who claim not to believe in Big Governement (unless it's preventing an abortion or promoting christianity). I've never seen a clean political fight in my 50 years and didn't expect one on this one. I continue to have faith that most US citizens will tire of the frenzied, extreme, frantic support that big business drummed up to support their heartless policies. Obama is the best leader we've had since Eisenhower.
Complain about this comment
mightyblooze (#141) "That's what I meant by my first comment on this blog that outsiders find your political system baffling."
Outsiders would find our (US) political system less baffling if they were to seek explanations from a broad range of constitutional scholars and political scientists, rather than merely a few self-appointed constitutional "experts" who actually represent a rather narrow and extreme point of view.
Complain about this comment
This has never been about healthcare or about the American people. It is all about power. Republicans lost power, big time. They had to get it back. To do that, Obama had to fail. Whatever he wanted, Obama had to fail. Obama didn't fail.
Democrats will lose seats in November. The in-office party always does. But the world didn't end March 21, and it won't end in November either.
Obama didn't fail. Good for him.
Complain about this comment
@GH1618He no doubt knows that very well, but libertarians generally put themselves ahead of the Supreme Court as interpreters of the Constitution.
The Libertarian Party typically receives about one-half of one percent in presidential elections. That's how seriously they are taken.
Given that Florida, Virginia, Idaho, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama have all, since yesterday, expressed their intention to sue on tenth amendment and/or limited jurisdiction grounds I'm not sure I'm that much on the fringe.
Complain about this comment
144. At 4:14pm on 22 Mar 2010, GH1618 wrote:
busby2 (#130) "You (charlieatlantic) know full well that the Supreme Court very rarely declares any law unconstitutional under the 10th amendment."
You are historically correct. However, there has never been an act of congress that, so far, 38 states have either passed counter legislation, or their attorneys-general have already started preparing their strategy/briefs to challenge said act. This could be interesting and may well reset the relationship between the states and the federal government. Said relationship has been constantly tilting towards the feds favor since the Civil War.
Complain about this comment
89. At 1:23pm on 22 Mar 2010, IndigenousEnglishman wrote:
The Republicans have been deliberately whipping up a climate of fear around this harmless Bill.
I find it hard to believe the American people could be so obtuse as to prefer the current system of insurance companies who will find any excuse they can to deny treatment, over a system where all can expect treatment regardless of wealth. It would be like sheep voting for the butcher.
As for the 'Tea Party' movement, that appears to be nothing more than barely disguised small-minded bigotry. I saw the video of their disgusting behaviour where they taunted and mocked a Parkinson's sufferer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFOnG9a1Pzw
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your post & link,that suffering American,showed courage
and a quiet dignity whilst being taunted,of the highest order.That chap
was/is an example for us all...
Complain about this comment
So what about this mandatory health insurance?
Do you have to have a right to carry since it's now going to be portable?
Complain about this comment
147. At 4:29pm on 22 Mar 2010, charlieatlantic wrote:
Why not respond to my argument, and not my person?
Have you ever noticed that people on both fringes go below the belt early? That's because they usually don't know why they believe (or feel) the way they do. I often tell people that I'm somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh, but, at least, I know why I feel, think, vote that way. I was raised Democrat, but I didn't leave the party, it left me. When killing unborn babies, grabbing guns and giving sexual behavior a civil right became more important to the Party of Jefferson than workers' rights, as a Christian, I could no longer support that party.
Complain about this comment
As a 54 yr.old American I "do" believe that what's become our health care system over the last 40-50 years needs to be addressed.
We need to ask some deep, hard questions..
When money is involved, what is the value of a life?
When someone makes money keeping you alive, or in treatment, does the line between life and death, or good heath and bad get blurry?
What length of life do we have a right to, young or old?
What does quality of life mean from one person to the next, and who pays for the difference ?
How responsible are we as individuals for our own health?
If I get cancer and decide I want to live as long as possible no matter how much it costs, but can't afford to pay for the care required, who pays?
If I get cancer and decide I do not want treatment, can I let my life run out, or take my own life at a time of my chosing?
Who decides who lives and dies when we are all paying the bill?
Is there a cut off point?
What do we really think about death, if we think of it at all. And why are we all so afraid of it?
When did we decide to fund private insurance companys/business via mandatory payments from the tax payers?
Two years ago I decided to drop my health insurance. I simply couldn't afford it, and eat too.
But I was "free" to do so.
And I was "free" to take responsibility for that decision.
Each year my deductables have gone up. Because my insurance company wasn't making the money it needed to prosper.
It upped it's prices to the point that I opted out.
When I was a child my parents paid for every Doctor or Dentist visit completly out of pocket.
And my Mother did a lot of at home "doctoring".
As had her Mother, and her Mother before her.
Now everyone runs to the Emergency Room or Doctors office.
As we've been programed to do.
Ever counted the commecials on TV for drugs that will fix this and extend that?
All with nasty possible side effects?
It's big business folks!
Over the last 45 years I've watched Medicine/Health Care become a big, big industry here in my corner of the world.
We do need re-think heath care.
But I don't think President Obama went deep enough.
Complain about this comment
Stupak caved on the promise of a Presidential edict from Obama that will, supposedly, protect the taxpayer from being stuck with the bill for abortions. Talk about naivete on the part of a guy who I thought would stick to his anti-abortion beliefs come hell or high water. Over the past year Stupak has watched Obama break campaign promises one after another until not one is left to deliver on. How stupid Stupak will look when Obama breaks yet another promise in his over-riding zeal to get his way. Obama was bound to promise anything to get Stupak and his anti-abortion group to vote for this "abortion" of a health reform because without them it would have been dead in the water. And even if Obama signs that promised protection for the taxpayer it will not be worth the paper it's written on, and the signer knows it!
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr (#165), your observation is correct that there are efforts underway in several states to challenge aspects of the health care act. I don't predict that everything in it will be upheld, but I expect most of it will be.
In any case, it is for the Supreme Court to say what is Constitutional. It is hard to predict how it will turn out, because in recent years there have been so many five to four decisions.
Complain about this comment
The bill passed because the elected representatives of the people passed it -- isn't that how it is supposed to happen?
If the Republicans cannot accept that simple fact, then democracy in the US is in the toilet .
If we are honest, the overfunded lobbying, the misinformation campaigns and the ugly protests have created a situation where nobody can claim to know what the American people really think -- let alone what they would think if they were given the straight facts without spin from either side.
Obama promised to seek bipartisanship and he did that. The Republicans are now behaving like the Japanese on Saipan after WWII.
There is plenty more work to be done. Let's get on and do it.
Complain about this comment
166. At 5:22pm on 22 Mar 2010, ukwales wrote:
Thank you for your post & link,that suffering American,showed courage
and a quiet dignity whilst being taunted,of the highest order.That chap
was/is an example for us all...
2 things:
1. I don't know what country both of you are from (I assume that IndigenousEnglishman is from the UK), but would you all be willing to accept guilt for every murder committed in your country? I would think you would, since you want to paint the entire Tea Party movement with such a broad brush...
2. Do you all have such a problem with freedom of speech when you don't agree with said speech? Freedom of Speech (in the US that is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution) means that people can say what they feel, especially political speech. In spite of post-modern PC thought, the Constitution does not grant the right to not be offended; that would negate the 1st Amendment...
Although I censor myself in the interest of decorum and good judgment, I never condemn a fellow citizen for expressing themselves, no matter how inflammatory or egregious their speech may be. Full Disclosure: Since I spent 24 years of my life defending said right, I may be a little bias in favor of peope saying what they want, no matter how offensive it may be to others…
Complain about this comment
@Mike In New MexicoThis has never been about healthcare or about the American people. It is all about power.
On that, we can agree.
Complain about this comment
"While many voters chose Obama because he talked of a different way of doing things, this messy business of backroom deals and arm-twisting has further lowered the reputation of Washington"
It's not possible to lower washington's reputation. I do however disagree with MM's assessment above re arm twisting/back room deals, the usual government stitch-up with cronies in smoke-filled rooms does (e.g. defense contracts, pork-barrel policies) tend to annoy Americans but in this instance executive courage via more robust techniques enhances my view of El Presidente and showed the republicans (for whom I usually vote) as rank obstructionists who want nothing more than to scupper any achievement of the president going into the mid-terms.
The rhetoric employed by the Repubs (and many of those opposed to health care reform) made me sick to my stomach. As supposedly the 'greatest country in the world' it's high time we lived up to it and getting one step closer to universal health coverage is a step in the right direction. Next we need a public option. I embrace the Red Menace and am proudly ‘socialist’ in this matter as nothing short of human dignity is at stake.
Complain about this comment
1) This bill was/is NOT ABOUT HEALTH CARE! It's about CONTROL. 17,000 new IRS goons, not ONE DOLLAR for a doctor or a nurse. 159 new bureaucracies between patient and doctor. A national ID card to TRACK AND MONITOR. Big brother IS growing!!
2) Impossible math. Millions of new patients entering the system, about 1/3 of docs surveyed (depending upon which poll data you use) retiring. Loss of estimated 700,000 medical personnel (support staff) jobs. WHO is going to be treating all of these people? The IRS?
3) UN stats (most frequently cited) are inaccurate because different countries determine infant mortality rates differently. The % of GDP states cited are lower for other countries with socialized medicine BECAUSE THEY RATION CARE! Longevity stats are lower than some other countries because we are a MELTING POT versus a country like Japan which is predominantly one race. (Negroes have the lowest longevity of any race, no matter what country they live in, and when this number is plugged into the equation it pulls our average down.)
4) A doctors' group (NOT the AMA, to which only ~20% of our physicians belong) is predicting abortions exponentially increased, euthanasia, infanticide, genocide. HISTORY TELLS US THAT THAT WILL BE THE CASE. Europe, your turn is coming -- again. First they have to get the "playing field" leveled (all countries at the same stage).
5) Government can't run ANYTHING efficiently or solvently -- USPS, Social Security, etc. are all FLAT BROKE. Why would health care be any different?
6) Unconstitutional. Despite the lies of the left, the U.S. government can't force someone to purchase a commodity (WHICH IS WHAT HEALTH CARE IS, IT'S NOT A RIGHT!). That's why they have to play semantic games to fool the idiots in this country and call it a "right."
Communists TOLD US they would take us over without firing a single shot, and they told us they would brainwash our children via public schools. They have succeeeded.
BEWARE OF SO-CALLED "PROGRESSIVES" and "TRAVELERS," those are the enemies who want to take America down. The others are harder to spot, many hiding under the banner of the GOP.
Complain about this comment
ref #172
JayF wrote:
The bill passed because the elected representatives of the people passed it -- isn't that how it is supposed to happen?
If the Republicans cannot accept that simple fact, then democracy in the US is in the toilet .
If we are honest, the overfunded lobbying, the misinformation campaigns and the ugly protests have created a situation where nobody can claim to know what the American people really think -- let alone what they would think if they were given the straight facts without spin from either side.
Obama promised to seek bipartisanship and he did that. The Republicans are now behaving like the Japanese on Saipan after WWII.
There is plenty more work to be done. Let's get on and do it.
________________
Then you will support the Republicans when they regain majority status and vote to have the bill abolished?
Obama was extremly partsian because unlike George Bush he had actual executive experience.
Complain about this comment
@81 AndreaNY
Do you remember when improvements in health were a part of Obama's reform message? Well, I do. I wondered how exactly he planned to do that. Now I know. He's not.
Yes, I do remember. And yes, they are still in this bill. Where? In the Medicare legislation that will force doctors and hospitals to stop running unnecessary tests and procedures that have little or no benefit for the sake of padding their bills and focus on those that do some real good. As well as in forcing insurance companies that join the exchanges to provide preventative health care measures in all of their basic plans, which ensures a level of quality for the consumer.
Are you aware that many of the tests you get billed for are the exact same test but with a different name and under a different billing code? Most people, including most doctors, do not even know this. But the clerks do. When a blood panel is ordered most doctors will only check the results they are interested in and ignore everything else - then shove it in a file and forget about it. More than half the time when they order new tests looking for other results to refine their diagnoses, they would find that if they'd simply looked at the second page of the first test, that information is already there. And if it isn't, there is generally no need to draw new blood, because the original set of blood draws are still sitting in the lab and can be used for further tests - you know they always take more than they need. But they either don't know or don't care and order new tests at great cost to both the patient and the insurance company.
Now this is just one example of the kind of nonsense that goes on, and the kind of thing the new legislation will be looking at in regards to Medicaid and Medicare expenditures. Not just fraud, but waste. And once Medicaid and Medicare have some set procedures down, the insurance companies, which take their cues from these agencies, will follow suit. Thus improving health care and lowering cost overall.
Complain about this comment
Squirrelist (135)
At 16 we are free to drive and crash our cars, at age 18 we can join the military, and at 21 we can drink alcohol. So, we are trusted to be responsible with guns in a foreign land long before we are trusted with a beer here at home. Cheers.
Economically - college has become a cultural holding cell, ensuring that the job market isn't slammed by area baby boom trends.
Unfortunately - students can only accrue academic debt for so long before they must try to snatch jobs from their parents and grandparents. Often, grads get stuck without long-term benefit providing jobs.
Small business start-ups are increasing... because if no one's going to hire you, you might as well work for yourself. But small businesses may not be able to provide strong employee medical plans.
IOW - improving health insurance could boost the economy if plans become affordable and businesses are free to grow.
As for what our HCS looks like in another 10 years?
I've not a clue, but I'm hoping it looks better.
Complain about this comment
"This is the most significant victory for Obama since he took office"...and the most significant victory for his corporate patrons. The banking bailout is a close second of course, but in the end this latest total sellout to corporate interests should prove more lucrative. The insurance giants will be substantially enriched and the suffering public further impoverished. "The cool professor has" caused many Afghans, Iraqis and Palestinians to be "bloodied in battle", and now he has further "earned his spurs" by digging them into the ribs of America's own lower classes. "But at what cost? What price will he pay?" We'll probably have to wait for Judgement Day to find that out, since the System takes care of its own and corporate valet Obama will be amply rewarded for his faithful service to his corporate masters. "While many Americans seem genuinely to yearn for the cross-party accord they call bipartisanship"...it's simply a euphemism for a one-party state. "And politicians at least pay it pious lip service"...while paying corporate titans pious political service. "This lengthy debate has revealed a gaping ideological chasm"...between the debate that never was - about a single-payer plan - and the corporate media's misconstrual of the coverage of it.
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon #12: '"His (Obama's) approach to international affairs is unprecedented, and immediately raised our level of respect everywhere after a decade of very bad ratings."
Really? "Unprecedented?" Don't you think you're being a little exaggeratory? Come on. No other previous president actually honestly believed in, and tryed to work with the world and not against it? Who actually saw torture as bad and the constitution as good? Who truely saw war as a necessary last resort?
OleBlue30 #40: '"As an American living in Europe I can assure you quite confidently that Obama has not raised the level of respect held by the international community. American's are viewed as war-mongers who meddle in everyone else's affairs, self interested neo-con's,
brash and uncultured, and ignorant to anything outside of the American bubble."
Americans? Or The American government? Because there's a huge difference. And still? After all the actions he's taken? From the executive order closing Guantanamo Bay (due to Congress's unjustifyable and unfounded fears, ineptitude and the US government's seemingly mild contempt for our constitution it still unfortunately remains open,) to his having banned torture, to the throngs of Europeans and others who flocked to see him whenever he traveled abroad to, of course, his having been awarded the Nobel Peace prize last December? Where in Europe do you live? Is this view held among the majority of Europeans do you know? Can any of our European contributers shed some light by helping to answer these questions for me?
"It's going to take a little bit more than a hopeful man paying lip service to world peace to restore America's street cred."
Just what is it going to take, then?
"You don't impress the international community by getting 'revolutionary' health care bills passed in your country through secret deals, bribery and what was it - arm twisting."
Yeah, because that stuff is unheard of in Europe. And even if it were, if the Republicans actually cared about this country and the general welfare of the American people and weren't so damned narcisistic all the time, and if the Democrats weren't so afraid of their own shaddows not to mention the minority, then perhaps those measures wouldn't have had to have been resorted to.
Complain about this comment
This is great news. I think it is about time the more liberal democrats lost their fear of pushing through potentially controversial legislation. They must demonstrate that they are leaders, with a program that will in the long term benefit the people of the U.S.A. Only with dynamic leaders and an agressive program of positive change can the hope to be reelected.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark,
This is the first time I am contributing to your blog. Like yourself I am a legal alien living in the U.S for work. I am an economist and have tried hard to understand the way American political system works. This whole debate about health-care has taught me a couple of things. It has taught me that economic rationalism is not so obviuos to everyone. This bill makes good economic sense but has been opposed tooth and nail by a party solely on emotional grounds. I am deeply intrigued by their opposition as they all seem educated and informed enough to realize how malfunctioning the health-care system has become and there is no better way to overhaul it than to adopt some kind of reform. I would be grateful if you or other readers could throw more light on the 'real' reasons of this staunch opposition to something which appears so rational even to outsiders like myself.
Complain about this comment
"for those of us who lived through the early days of the civil rights movement, survived busing, dealt with outbreaks of the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers, sit-ins, be-ins and such,one can see the thinly veiled racism that drives the anti-Obama movement. "
_____________
This is a sad commentary on the lack of understanding of the issues. There is no race issue here, but there are fundamental issues related to the size of government and the cost of this bill. It strikes me as being "racist" that people so easily look to the color of someones skin to explain why they disagree. Perhaps a little more study of the facts would be helpful.
Complain about this comment
The courage demonstrated by President Obama, Pelosi, Reid and most congressional Democrats when they tackled and pursued an issue that divided the country and caused great consternation to members of his own party says a lot about their character and sense of duty.
Instead of taking the easy way out they fought for what they, and millions of Americans, believe is the right thing to do. Many of us would have preferred a more encompassing plan, including a public option, but most of us are satisfied with what has been accomplished, accept the fact that this legislation is not perfect and that changes will be needed in the future, and understand that further progress must be incremental.
I also think it took a lot of courage for President Obama to issue an Executive Order banning the use of public funds for abortion, a decision that is not popular among many members of his own party. Not surprisingly, the opposition, which is allegedly "pro-life", does not like that either.
President Obama's performance in bringing this task to fruition restored much of the credibility he had lost when he embraced many of President Bush's foreign policy decisions. Hopefully the next items on the agenda include financial reform, the economy, unemployment, energy independence, and desperately needed improvements to our education system.
As for how I will vote in November, all I can say is that if Mickey Mouse runs against my congressman (Mica, R-FL) I'll vote for Mickey!
Complain about this comment
Saint Dominick #48: '"While I am very disappointed that the public option had to be removed because of ideological and cost considerations, I believe this is a step in the right direction and hope it will serve as a starting point towards a more effective and efficient system."
It was removed because of manipulation and caving, More like. But me too.
"Considering the determination of the opposition, including
some scared Democrats, to what are really benign changes to a corrupt system I think it will be a very long time before we embrace a healthcare model similar to what exists in Europe."
Due to the large intractable role that private insurance companies play in our health care system, you're right in predicting that we'll never, unfortunately, have an NHS. But Europe has lots of different health care systems, and if, one day, we ever do get a strong and robust public option, preferably the availability of Medicair for all, then we might have a system similar to that of Germany, for example.
Complain about this comment
Ref 172, Jay
"The bill passed because the elected representatives of the people passed it -- isn't that how it is supposed to happen?"
Absolutely! The Democratic majority in Congress acted on behalf of their constituents and passed legislation favored by most Democrats.
Similarly, the Republican majority in Congress when President Bush was in office passed legislation, and approved the invasion of two countries, consistent with the desires of their constituents.
Complain about this comment
the people who shouted the racial slurs do not represent the Tea Party it is quite likely they are plants from liberal hate groups like Move on org.
There is a remour of a new airport in Stupak's district, lets see if it is true.
Complain about this comment
To understand the Healthcare situation , you must look at the American political system and how it is structured . Private , for-profit healthcare is costing Americans dearly . Many Americans go bankrupt trying to pay off their healthcare bills - even when they have health insurance . Health insurance companies have strong , well-paid lobbyists who are only concerned with the bottom line . I have read many books on the state of America . The best one so far is " Crossing The Rubicon " by Michael C. Ruppert . America's health system is slanted to those who can afford to pay the most. The people who are the most negative about changing the health system are either ignorant of the facts or they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Complain about this comment
I have health insurance and enough medical bills to last a lifetime. I truly hate the thought of paying increased premiums, but even more, I hate the thought of anyone suffering needlessly.
We pay for Iraqis to have health insurance – the same people that the previous administration said was partially responsible for 9/11 and was on the verge of attacking us with the WMD’s we gave them – why wouldn’t we pay for Americans to have health insurance? Oh wait, we ALREADY pay for Americans to have health insurance and now, the government is going to help us pay that bill.
All I can say is that it’s about darn time that the government steps up and helps the American people. However, it’s too bad that the vampires can’t see the truth staring them in the face.
If an avid voter views this as a loss to America, then they do not have a heart and would rather support the enemy and not their very own fellow American. The Democrats have always been for and about The People: a woman’s right to vote, moving forward the civil rights movement, social security, Medicare, furthering the discussion on global warming, and now health care reform.
Goodbye Rush Hudson Limbaugh III; now if we can only get you to take Glenn Lee Beck with you, we could finally sing, “Oh what a wonderful world this would be.”
I’m ecstatic!
Complain about this comment
Fascinating that the vast majority of comments, both here and elsewhere, are nothing to do with healthcare. They're either about Obama and how black / how liberal / how tyrannical he is, or about the Republicans and how heartless / how racist / how fascist they are.
And therein lies the problem with American politics.
Why should politicians behave any differently when all they see from the public is a compulsion to hurl debatable "facts" gleaned from Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Fox and CNN at each other?
There is good and bad in this legislation. But both sides of the aisle will continue to focus on the negatives of each other's entrenched positions. It's a crying shame, and such a waste of......everything.
Complain about this comment
The difference between a statesman and a politician: When your congressman is voting according to the will of his people, he truly represents his constituency. When he believes that that his position, education, or social class makes him a better judge of what is right for the people, or maybe he is just corrupt and votes only for what is in his own interest. That last example doesn't deserve to stay in office until he can be replaced in the November election, we have this great political instrument that we call a recall election. Perhaps your state does not exercise that power, but occasionally it is required.
Complain about this comment
During the entire televised pre-vote debate from the floor of the House of Representatives, I kept waiting to hear a valid argument for an entire political party voting as a bloc against this bill.
That is, until the post-vote debate about specific language. Then it became clear. The opposition amounted to a stand against abortion - like nearly every other domestic debate over the past 25 years . Speaker after speaker for the Republicans argued that the bill would lead directly to federal funding for abortions. Really? In this nation?
Elected Republicans claim to agree that health care reform is needed...but not this bill. And not now. After eight years of letting the problem fester under George W. Bush, however, it was fair for Democrats to ask 'then what bill, and when?' In this age of fierce partisan politics, should we really believe that scrapping the bill would have led to a better, bi-partisan outcome? I wouldn't have believed that, no matter which party controlled Congress or the Presidency.
We keep hearing about how Americans don't want this bill. I doubt the clamor is coming from many of the millions who will now be turned over to the free-enterprise health insurance industry, rather than government Medicaid in the emergency room.
If Republicans had succeeded in killing this, the party would have bought itself a real problem in 4 - 8 years. Any Democratic candidate would be a fool to touch health care reform again. It would become a Republican problem to deal with 60 million more babyboomers joining the Medicare roles and 40 million more uninsured tapping into Medicaid. We're going to reach the public option by attrition, whether we fix this problem or not.
Being on the wrong side of social justice for the third time in 60 years can't be a good feeling for any political party. Trying to win the next election by promising to repeal a sick kid's medical care sounds heartless. And how does continuing this gutwrenching national debate for the next year grab you? Yet, that's exactly what the Republican party seems to be promising in November - just so they can get their name on the bill.
Complain about this comment
"... we have this great political instrument that we call a recall election." (from GreyScuirrel1867)
No member of Congress has ever been recalled, and it is doubtful whether an attempt to do so would be held constitutional.
Grey's analysis is simplistic, because the US is approximately evenly divided on the health care reform bills. Most congressional districts are also divided, with significant numbers on each side of the question. Politics is not so simple as merely choosing whether to follow the (nonexistant) will of the people or not.
We have representative government in the US. We do not have plebiscites on federal questions. Our members of Congress are expected to exercise their judgement, taking into account the interests of their constituents (which are many and varied), and of the nation generally, and to be accountable to their constituents at the next election, if they choose to run.
Complain about this comment
Here's a link to a thoughtful opinion piece by David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute on where the Republicans should go from here: from CNN
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr:
Pretty much anyone outside of the US (and many from within) won't realize that tea party attendees had a legitimate concern and platform for complaint/discussion until Fox came and hijacked it from them.
They have been eclipsed by fear mongering, hateful people. A good deal of whom have bad spelling apparently, judging from many of their signs.
As for someone else to mention that Move On planted the racists...Glenn Beck is probably going to steal that for his latest conspiracy if he hasn't already.
Complain about this comment
"The Republicans are now behaving like the Japanese on Saipan after WWII." (from JayF at #172)
After the fall of Saipan during WWII, you mean. If only.
Complain about this comment
I have yet to define how I feel about this bill. It is not because I think it may lead to government tyranny. It is not because I think it may not be a great bill that will heal our nation. I don't know how I feel about it because I do not know what is all in it. I have only heard of a few bullet points that each side likes to point to in order to support their argument. I want to know more, but have not found a recent, comprehensive, and readable summary of this bill and its cost/implications. There are many here that know more about it than me, but I am probably a decent representative of John Everyman; at least here in the upper mid-west. It seems that everyone is attached to one side of this fight (make no mistake, it is a fight), but nobody can seem to do more than repeat the same 3-4 bulletpoints that everyone else on their team is using. A 1200 page document cannot be summed up in 6-8 bulletpoints. We need an unbiased layman's guide to this whole thing, without the filters that each side wants everyone to look through.
Another part of this that weighs on my mind is the politics of the whole thing. Weeks ago, all I heard was that Obama and the Dems need a victory on this healthcare bill to have any chance of re-election. Now that they have achieved this, another (or perhaps the same) sect seems to have risen up saying that now that this has passed, anyone who voted for it in a swing district will be unelectable next election. Come on now fellows, its time to admit that you just plain don't like the other side. If they found a way to solve all of our problems with no negative impact, it would still hurt you to support it because you are so attached to your party or ideology that any loss feels like a personal attack.
Instead of the far-left and far-right fighting tooth and nail for what they have decided is part of their platform, we need moderates on both sides of the fence deciding what is best for our country.
Complain about this comment
188. At 7:55pm on 22 Mar 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
"The people who shouted the racial slurs do not represent the Tea Party..."
Agreed.
"... it is quite likely they are plants from liberal hate groups like Move on org."
Probably not. Impersonating the opposition is a tactic rarely if ever used in the U.S. If caught, the damage to the organization perpetrating the fraud is devastating.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 171, GH1618:
"In any case, it is for the Supreme Court to say what is Constitutional. It is hard to predict how it will turn out..."
If the Court strikes down this health care law an being unconstitutional, it'll have to do it in a way that doesn't strike down Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid or it will create complete chaos. That's a tall order. I don't think they can do it. We'll see.
Complain about this comment
Andy Post (#200), well the constitutionality of Social Security was settled long ago, despite the opinion of "charlieAtlantic." That's not going to change. The core issue in the challenges is the mandate to buy private insurance, as I understand it. That doesn't put the whole act in jeopardy, I think. But it's complicated. I'll just wait and see how it turns out.
The "buy insurance or pay a fine" provision is a bit puzzling to me. How would that work administratively?
Complain about this comment
200. At 9:24pm on 22 Mar 2010, Andy Post wrote:
"If the Court strikes down this health care law an being unconstitutional, it'll have to do it in a way that doesn't strike down Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid or it will create complete chaos. That's a tall order. I don't think they can do it. We'll see."
They will likely strike down very specific portions and, as you said, do so in a way that protects SS etc. I think they will strike down the mandate which will make the pre-existing conditions laws fail completely. Otherwise many people would cancel their insurance. Hard to tell what would happen next, another try for a fix or a grab for single payer I would guess.
Complain about this comment
201. At 9:44pm on 22 Mar 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"The "buy insurance or pay a fine" provision is a bit puzzling to me. How would that work administratively?"
I have been looking as well. CNN had a bit about it and the fines are less then I had originally heard but they are unclear as to how they are applied. A fine for every worker? Every household member? I have no idea.
Complain about this comment
It is too bad that all of these liberal politicians suffer from a mental disorder known as 'The Robin Hood Syndrom". They love to take from the rich but never themselves, spread the wealth (but exempt theirs), think they are more capable of spending money more wisely than those who earned it in the first place, decide that it is necessary to modify the coverage of US Citizens (but not their own), run up bills that it will take generations to pay for, and are far more intelligent than the masses, who should be ruled rather than represented. The rest of us know that the happy ending in the Robin Saga is a nice story. The reality is that their ending may not be so happy. Washington, DC has turned into a Fantasyland inside a beltway.
Complain about this comment
Well, Colorado is joining the lawsuit. There's also a move to put a proposition on November's ballot prohibiting the state government from enforcing the law. If that passes, we'll have a lot more potholes to deal with on our highways. I don't think a state can stand up to the federal government anymore, but if any state is pigheaded enough to try, it's Colorado.
Does anybody know of case history in this area? I can't think of anything remotely analogous.
Complain about this comment
ref #190
If Alec Baldwin who promised to leave if GWB was relected goes with Rush can we call it even?
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
It's no coincidence that all the good stuff like getting rid of dropping sick people, prior conditions and insuring your kids until they are 26 instead of 18 kicks in right away. In four years, when the taxes and mandatory insurance start it will be a totally different story. The folks that think this is such a great idea will all act surprised when their taxes skyrocket.
Complain about this comment
#40 OleBlue30 wrote:
"Spoken like a true American, no doubt. With all due respect, as an American living in Europe I can assure you quite confidently that Obama has not raised the level of respect held by the international community."
Of which you are confident by living in some anonymous part of Europe? Is "international community" code-speak for "European Union"? Or do you really think you are qualified to speak for the entire rest of the world? Sounds like you're dividing the world into "America" and "Not America", which does a bit of a disservice to the diverse group of cultures that make up the international community.
I, as an American living in the US, don't even feel I am qualified to speak for Americans, yet you, as an "American living in Europe" can comfortably speak not just for people from the country in which you live or people from Europe itself, but rather for people from everywhere in the world. Presumably you wouldn't even be able to understand most of them without a translator, but you know their minds.
Complain about this comment
#40 OleBlue30
"American's are viewed as war-mongers who meddle in everyone else's affairs, self interested neo-con's, brash and uncultured, and ignorant to anything outside of the American bubble."
The sad thing is that I'm sure there's a nugget of truth to this. I'm sure there are plenty of people who actually think this way, and, for some Americans, it fits. But I find it very hard to believe that it goes any further than that. These are well known American stereotypes, and they're nothing new. Every culture has its stereotypes. People from the UK are unfailingly polite pushovers. People from France are rude snobs. And people from the US are gun-toting hyper-religious whackjobs. It's all nonsense. There's a nugget of truth somewhere that the stereotype was built upon, but the final product is a twisted parody of reality, and has nothing useful to add to discourse.
Stereotyping is a fact of human existence. There are plenty of intellectually lazy people in the US who reach for the easy stereotypes and end up with wildly uninformed opinions about people in other parts of the world. The people you described do much the same thing. Those are the people who think Americans are war-mongering, brash, and uncultured. Those are the people who evidently think only the stereotypes about themselves are incorrect. And I am hardly willing to accept that those people represent the world community. If I did, I'd be buying into the stereotype of the "American-hating European", assuming that that is representative of Europeans, and I'm not going to do that on your dubious word alone.
Complain about this comment
GH1618Andy Post (#200), well the constitutionality of Social Security was settled long ago, despite the opinion of "charlieAtlantic." That's not going to change. The core issue in the challenges is the mandate to buy private insurance, as I understand it. That doesn't put the whole act in jeopardy, I think. But it's complicated. I'll just wait and see how it turns out.
I'm not sure why you put me in inverted commas. I do exist.
For what it's worth, I think this has two levels. Are Social Security and Medicare classically unconstitutional? Yes. Would they be affirmed in today's court? Yes. Does that make it acceptable? In my opinion, no.
However, the individual mandate is what is going to cause the headaches in this bill.
The reality is this: Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional according to the founders' intentions, and there are no amendments which negate that fact. However, one lives in the world into which one is born. As such, I hope they strike down the individual mandate so that in fifty years my children are not subject to the indignity of the derisive comments of GH1618's children who are pointing out that "the constitutionality of Congress requiring 'free' citizens to buy healthcare (or x/y) was settled long ago."
Complain about this comment
99. At 1:52pm on 22 Mar 2010, Oldloadr wrote:
We obviously travel in different circles. Most of the Obama supporters (during the campaign) I work with either a. say nothing now, or b. are expressing buyer’s remorse. This is because we have studied the history of countries that are now socialist and we don't like what we see. The USA was founded on a combination of teamwork and self-reliance. From the history I see, as a country becomes more socialist, the former diminishes and the latter disappears altogether.
Actually, America was founded by people who were comfortably middle class and what team work there was consisted of community endeavors to improve the function of society in general. Similar to what we are doing now.
What you and your friends are failing to look at is the grand sweep of history in terms of the nation's psychology. Every nation has one, you know. Ours is based on the fact that those colonists who originally came here in the early 17th century were, for the most part, well off enough to purchase an expensive passage without going into debt, bring furniture and goods to build up households and educated enough to create schools, churches, courts and form governments to establish laws. These were not the dregs of society, otherwise known as "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free." Those people came much later. And with the exception of New York City, or New Amsterdam which was founded by the Dutch for the sole purpose of making money, all the other colonies were founded by middle class men and women with very middle class ideas - even if their religious beliefs were not considered "mainstream" at the time. Though you can't get much more mainstream than Catholicism, but let's not get picky about the existence of Maryland.
The American revolution, or rebellion for our British friends, was not at all like those that happened in Europe. It was not a religious rebellion as in the Dutch Revolt or the Revolt of the Netherlands of the mid to late 16th and early 17th centuries, nor was it a revolt by the poor masses and downtrodden lower middle class against the rich nobility as in the French or Russian revolutions. It was a revolt of the middle classes, i.e. business owners/land owners against a representative government that was thought to be stifling colonial commerce. The rebellion in America was not at first supported by the poor. They, in fact, had to be bribed to take up arms with promises of land grants in the West and money. And for the most part, the rebellion was funded by well-to-do middle class men.
What all this means is that America's psychology is firmly middle class, and therefore, not given to extreme swings to either the left or the right. Of course we have our extremists at both ends, but America is like a cautious bowlegged man moving forward and to either side in slow, careful strides while keeping nervously to the middle course at all times. Our forward momentum may move us too far in one direction or another, but we will always correct once we perceive our mistake and move back to the middle. We may or may not lose ground when we correct, but we will never fall completely off the path that we have set for ourselves. No matter what happens, America keeps moving forward. And while you may find this slightly leftward swing disconcerting, you must not fear that it will not swing back slightly to the right in another generation when the nation feels it has corrected enough for the missteps it took during the last one. That will happen when the country missteps a little too far to the left for most everyone's comfort. Which is what inevitably will happen, as it happened that we stepped a little too far to the right and allowed our economy to be brought down, our finances to be destroyed and our medical and health insurance industries to be subverted by powerful corporations.
This is the great American gestalt. Previous generations have always moved us forward, but kept us in the middle and on a course that, while it may not seem to be a good path at the time, invariably turned out to be a wise and fruitful direction. Trust in your fellow Americans, Oldladr. For now, we are moving just slightly to the left and correcting our direction from having gone too far to the right. Whatever happens, we will weather it. And trust that if we do move too far to the left, the vast American consciousness will see that it is not a good path and move back toward the right. The Republicans will have their day again - just not right now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 188 MagicKirin wrote:
"the people who shouted the racial slurs do not represent the Tea Party it is quite likely they are plants from liberal hate groups like Move on org."
Sure they are, MK, sure they are.
[Bearing in mind that MK's excuse for his constant misspellings is that they are inserted by the Moderators...]
Complain about this comment
All we who are independent voters who opposed President Obama and his extreme left wing politics both domestic and international and said he was hiding his true agenda and methods giving false reasurances to other independent voters who didn't see through him can say to them now is, we told you so.
Complain about this comment
# 196 CNorwood wrote:
2Pretty much anyone outside of the US (and many from within) won't realize that tea party attendees had a legitimate concern and platform for complaint/discussion until Fox came and hijacked it from them.
They have been eclipsed by fear mongering, hateful people. A good deal of whom have bad spelling apparently, judging from many of their signs."
That explains why MK is so fond of them...
Complain about this comment
# 205 Opposing federal laws by the states was done in the 1800's on several occasions and the use of Federal troops was threatened on a small number of occasions, however confrontations were avoided by the states calling up their militias. Many states send more tax revenue to the Federal Government than they receive in benefits from the Federal Government. Also contrary to popular opinion, the ability and legality of actual secession was never decided by the conflict of 1861 to 1865. Lincoln's actions during the war implied that he regarded it as a state's right. Jefferson Davis was arrested for treason after the war and released after 18 months, because the Federal Government was afraid he would be aquitted and they would have to explain the rational of the loss of well over 600,000 Americans to a very unreceptive populace.
Complain about this comment
#204 FrankMcG:
"liberal politicians suffer from a mental disorder known as 'The Robin Hood Syndrom". They love to take from the rich but never themselves, spread the wealth (but exempt theirs), think they are more capable of spending money more wisely than those who earned it in the first place, decide that it is necessary to modify the coverage of US Citizens (but not their own), run up bills that it will take generations to pay for, and are far more intelligent than the masses, who should be ruled rather than represented."
The irony is that, sadly, they are. The masses stand to gain from most provisions the democrats push forth. It's the wealthy that generally stand to lose. And yet many in the masses are easily manipulated with phrases like "death panels" or "socialism", or with garish displays of patriotism or catchy but ultimately meaningless evocations of former US glory, like the Boston Tea Party, which ultimately is not remotely analogous to what the current Tea Party people stand for.
The republicans scare people by threatening that we will be turned into a European-style nation, and the reality is that the majority would stand to gain if that were true.
Complain about this comment
211. At 10:44pm on 22 Mar 2010, charlieatlantic wrote:
As such, I hope they strike down the individual mandate so that in fifty years my children are not subject to the indignity of the derisive comments of GH1618's children who are pointing out that "the constitutionality of Congress requiring 'free' citizens to buy healthcare (or x/y) was settled long ago."
Funny how the Constitution should be disregarded due to it's age but just one judicial ruling of whatever age is set in stone. I wish the courts were a bit less deferential to precedent and instead fixed erroneous judgments of past courts occasionally.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 202, csgators:
"I think they will strike down the mandate which will make the pre-existing conditions laws fail completely."
I'm not sure how federal laws could fail completely. In my experience, they stand until they're repealed.
If just the mandate is struck down as suggested above, the insurance companies will be fit to be tied. Part of the deal was that since they lost pre-existing conditions and policy caps, they'd be compensated with a larger pool of applicants (from the mandate), but it's not in the law and the Court won't consider any such backroom deal when making its decision.
While I'm sure they were wary of the Democrats, I can't imagine that the insurance companies were expecting to get the screwgie from the GOP! This might get uncomfortable for members of the GOP who accepted large contributions from these companies.
Complain about this comment
@Andy Post
It's not the GOP that the insurance companies are funding, they are drooling over this bill and I suppose fail was a poor choice of words on my part.
I do not mean to imply they do not fund the GOP at all but like any savvy industry attempt to bribe both sides.
Here is decent read on the subject, the most spending goes to the team with most power:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030701748.html
According to this article, the Democrats are currently winning the big money push:
http://www.insurancenewsnet.org/html/LifeInsurance/2009/0818/Insurance-Industry-Campaign-Contributions-Lean-in-Favor-of-Democrats.html
Complain about this comment
135. At 3:50pm on 22 Mar 2010, squirrelist wrote:
Why, anyway, does most of this bill not apparently come into effect until 2014 (except for extending coverage to 'children' up to 26'? it's almost as though the intention was to allow time for endless revisions, alterations, emasculations and even repeal of most of it.
The important parts of the bill come into effect immediately. The rest will take time to physically organize and set up. As well as allowing for people and industries to transition. The same thing happened with Medicare. The day the bill was signed every senior was covered and as soon as they got their card, could go to the doctor, but the system itself took a few years to set up.
(What's the age of majority in the USA again? I read an American sociologist's conference paper a couple of years ago which said that 'late adolescence now extends to 26". Is that why? I was rather please, because I've worked out, I'll never get old. If we're now a 'youth' until, say 36, a 'young adult' till 56, and middle-aged at about 76, I reckon I won't get 'old' till I'm 96 at least, and only really, really old after about 116. Hooray!)
50 is the new 30, didn't you know?
155. At 4:45pm on 22 Mar 2010, ClownD wrote:
Banking reform, maybe. Immigration reform is DOA. Obama does not have the political capital for that heavy lift after this. That will be at least as divisive a fight as health insurance was. But this will not fade from people’s memory come November - I can promise you that. The Dems will lose the House, and probably only hold the Senate by 2-4 seats. The opposition supporters are much more motivated now, and there is no way Obama gets the turnout that he had in 2008.
There's not going to be any heavy lifting before November - at least in the House. But there will be lots of talk used to draw out the Republicans on the issues. And you might be surprised at how much Democrats and Republicans actually agree on immigration reform.
As for the elections, you might have been correct if they were held this past January or February, but as the passion about health insurance reform fades, so too will your angry hordes. The Left is also well motivated to get to the polls - just to prevent the Right from regaining control before we take care of all the business that needs doing - after your party messed things up.
This legislation is meant to destroy the insurance companies, and it will do that if left unchanged.
Insurance company stocks rose the day before the vote, based on the idea that they'd have 30 million new paying customers. Next bogus, hysterical claim please.
Complain about this comment
"Where does this leave Obama?"
Well, it actually leaves him with something concrete to judge him on in the future (finally), unlike the air and smoke that has shrouded him so far - anyone YET figure out just how he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
And, now that he has this "accomplishment" on the books, I think that future historians will not look upon him so favorably - with much of that view being based on just what the conservatives do in the near future:
- If this bill is allowed to mauture to it full glory, expect the deficit to continue to expand.
- If the conservatives don't repeal most of its provisions and insert some true reform, expect the insurance companies to get richer, and insurance premiums to continue to increase unabated.
- Expect rationing - even beyond what the insurance companies do already (and is already happening in all of the countries that have "free" health care, inspite of the denials by so many on this forum).
Basicly, this will most likely be a big black mark on Obama's legacy.
Complain about this comment
#191 tigerbob06:
"Fascinating that the vast majority of comments, both here and elsewhere, are nothing to do with healthcare. [...] And therein lies the problem with American politics."
Well, I don't see any reason why a comment thread can't diverge from its original subject to at least some extent, but your larger point that we are less issue-minded and more adversarial is a good one. I suspect the adversarial nature of American politics is a consequence of the two-party system. If no one party had the power to bar legislation or to force it through and they were all forced to work together and form allegiances with other parties, I think they'd all be more diplomatic and issue-minded. In a multi-party system, if you take a scorched earth approach to winning elections, you may alienate enough other parties to get them to band together to shut you out of policy making. In a two-party system, if you can win a majority, the other party can, at most, hinder you, and if your majority is large enough, not even that. So you might as well play to win, regardless of the cost.
And the people themselves treat political parties almost like sports teams in how willing they are to grant allegiance. The analogy of opposing teams is all the more evocative in our recent healthcare battle. If it were a matter of issues alone, does anyone really think every republican would have voted against this? The republicans and democrats are not so ideologically divergent as to make that plausible without the adversarial nature of the game.
Complain about this comment
Ref 219, csgators
"Funny how the Constitution should be disregarded due to it's age but just one judicial ruling of whatever age is set in stone."
What would be funny if it wasn't so sickening is the cynicism of those who just a few weeks ago voiced their outrage against the public option - calling socialism and just about every name in the book - and now plan to challenge the constitutionality of the mandate that obligates all Americans to buy health insurance because subsidies using taxpayers money will be used to buy a product (health insurance) from private companies.
The rationale being used to challenge the mandate is that Social Security, MEDICARE and MEDICAID use taxpayers money to deliver government SERVICES, while the mandate uses taxpayers money to provide subsidies to help poor people buy a PRODUCT from private companies.
It remains to be seen whether or not the mandate stands, and I expect many Democrats from conservative districts will lose their seats in November, but I have the feeling that Republicans are also walking on quick sand. If the improvements afforded by the new legislation are implemented soon and people like what they are going to get this whole thing could backfire on the Republicans that opposed it every step of the way. I guess time will tell...
Complain about this comment
@SaintDominick
But aren't the same people pushing the mandate the same ones saying that we can't privatize SS because companies can't be trusted? Both sides are hypocrites, not much I can do about it.
Complain about this comment
Amazing and a bit sad to me that a Brit (charlieAtlantic) is more knowledgable about our rule of law than most Americans are.
Complain about this comment
Post 173,Oldloadr,
Sir,There is a difference between freedom of speech = argued/debated & abusive = threating/insulting,that poor fellow was given the latter.
He was bullied & it was ugly,but he was softly spoken & courageous.
Being offended was not the issue.
PS Wales is next door to England ..
Complain about this comment
# 218 It is not about material gain. It is about the freedom of choice. Over the course of my 65 years of being here, I have seen the basic freedoms of individuals severly eroded by this process of establishing the Government as the be all and end all for everybody's problems. A prime example being Native Americans, who upon signing the various treaties became wards of the government. The only tribes that have been recently successful are those opening casinos and using the profits for their betterment. They have even managed to piss local governments off by buying back land and incorporating it into the reservations. My hat is off in a salute to them. I for one am not willing to allow the Federal Government to intrude into my life and ultimately wear a slave collar with US Government stamped on it. If you want European Socialism, board a plane and go there.
Complain about this comment
It's just like the lot of you to think that this is about racism...it is not. Lest you forget that Barack Obama is half white also?
I am a white, middle class male married to a black woman in TEXAS. Don't talk to me about racism. We LIVE Dr. King's dream, thank you.
THIS is about the health care legislation that will BANKRUPT this country. Someone has to pay for it. And WE will pay dearly.
I voted for Obama, and he has systematically violated all that he said that he would do. This legislation violates our US constitution in numerous ways, and since it won't take effect until 2014 (if it ultimately does get enacted, to wit, there is still work left to do), that will give the Supreme Court enough time to throw it all in the trash bin. Once Obama lends his chicken scratch to this bill, the court challenges begin. Bring it on. I will continue to stand against it, as an American citizen and former GI with years of service, I will not stand idly by and watch our country follow in the footsteps of countries whose similar systems of health care continue toward fiscal insolvency.
Complain about this comment
Stupak was never going to go to the mat on abortion. That was never his intention. (There's a video of him somewhere on the net saying just that.)
Complain about this comment
Forget about the Healthcare Bill; what is way more important is that we finally have a President who is willing to 'stand up' even when it is considered politically dangerous. Can you imagine having a President who has determination, courage, intelligence and a sense of decency; what a novel and unusual concept and definitely dangerous to his political health. First we throw out a President who does not possess those traits and now many wish to eliminate one that does. Lack of logic or a dollop of bigotry?
Complain about this comment
ref #207
It seems that criticzing Ted Kenndy is now a censorable offense by the moderators
ref #216
The Dems did more fear mongering that the Tea Party did non the healthcare debate. Labor Union and George Soros funded groups like the fraudulent Media Matter lied about the whole debate.
And yes it is more likely Soros groups planted the racists in the tea party crowd.
Complain about this comment
233. At 00:21am on 23 Mar 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
"ref #207
It seems that criticzing Ted Kenndy is now a censorable offense by the moderators"
Well you don't want to beat a dead horse...err I mean...oh never mind.
Too soon?
Complain about this comment
Post 232 artomas
Granted it is unusual to see a politician risk his neck for something he believes in, rare indeed. However, what you call "determination, courage, intelligence and a sense of decency" I call tyrannical. This is only a philosphical disagreement about the role of government. Interesting how disagreeing with Bush is a 1st Amendment right but disagreeing with Obama is hate speech.
Complain about this comment
Charlie. excuse me. I see no way your arguments merit any real response. They are works of interprative fiction.
As would mine be. But the constitution despite the false trails you lead away from it does not prohibit health care.
Complain about this comment
the health care baby
birth of a baby.
excuse me for not capital letters i am typing with a cat on the lap and he wants his ear rubbbed.
back to that birth i was talking about.
health care is like a baby.
a bunch of planningwhile nurturing
a bunch of cravings
abunch of shouting or screaming
a bunch of pushing
a final shove and the what is quite frankly not the prettiest form the baby is born
it takes some nursing
it gets fleshed out,
builds some fat
produces wind at both ends
takes some nurturing
takes some feeding
takes some educatin
takes some learning
but you love it.
Complain about this comment
If healthcare were a baby, the Democrats would have it aborted
Complain about this comment
Dave Fury:
Unfortunately, you are not the whole entity of protesters so you saying it's not about race does not change saturday's ugly behavior. You are not racist and you do not support the bill, that's great.
Did you feel that because you oppose the bill you were being called a racist? I am married into a black family also, it did not form any personal basis of my views on health care (most came from my NHS/ US health care experiences); I can only note that those most in need of care are the poor with little to no access to health and dental care and most of those people are minorities. In some parts of this debate, largely much of the spectacle of the media right, there is practically class warfare.
If you feel that this health care legislation will bankrupt our country, then what do you think is best? The republican mantra that we should all work to look after ourselves and pay for our care is all well and good if jobs were in ample supply, that those with the passions to develop their careers for more can do so but if that were the case why do we have so many graduated students without work?
Do you think then that they deserve no health care? What about those who can no longer work? Should we also buy insurance for other important services like fire emergencies? What about children in poor households (or worse those children to substance abusers) do we just forsake them of care because of cost? We should let insurance companies cover only what they feel like doing and raise the premiums as they see fit?
Americans are worried that if they ever did have a government option their health care quality would fall. When I was pregnant vomiting blood I was in ER in the waiting room alone for 9 hours, got seen in another 3. Quality care, with a $2000 price tag.
Never had that with A+E and I was there quite a few times to look after my mother with her Addisons.
Complain about this comment
csgators (#226) "But aren't the same people pushing the mandate the same ones saying that we can't privatize SS because companies can't be trusted? Both sides are hypocrites, ..."
Assuming that were true, it is nevertheless not hypocrisy. Many people who support the health care reform legislation in its current form, including mandates, might very well prefer a single national health insurance plan modeled after Social Security. It doesn't matter, because that option was not on the table and could not have been passed.
Pragmatism is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is advocating one course of action and acting in a contrary way. And by the way, it applies to individuals, not to groups. If, for example, I were a Congressman who stated publicly that I would never support mandated private insurance, then worked behind closed doors to support putting it in the bill, then voted against the bill knowing that it would pass anyway, you might call that hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with Social Security. If I voted for the bill, I would not necessarily call that hypocrisy. I could have changed my mind for good reasons.
Now consider the case of Stupak. He made a show of opposing the bill for reason of its provisions relating to abortion. Then he supported the bill in exchange for an executive order reinforcing the prohibition against spending public money for abortions. Some think the executive order doesn't change anything anyway. Was the whole thing a dog-and-pony show for the benefit of Stupak's constituency? If so, maybe that could fairly be called hypocrisy.
When some individual (not a group) is accused of hypocrisy, I want to see an actual of quote of something he said, and documentation that he acted in some contrary way without a good explanation.
Complain about this comment
Oh and you just know grand dad would be pleased.
Complain about this comment
No but you are trying to kill it
Complain about this comment
On the subject of the constitutionality of federal health care: I heard the Attorney General of Nebraska (one of the states planning to sue) on the radio tonight say that the legislation is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not "specifically" define it as a federal power. This is just spin. I have to believe that any attorney general would know that the word "specifically" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution relating to the federal powers. The Articles of the Confederation did provide that the federal government held only powers "expressly delegated," but this language was not carried over to the Constitution.
Why do advocates so often make up language for public consumption to prop up their case? I suppose because their case is weak and needs help, and because they hope nobody is paying attention to the details.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 221, csgators:
"It's not [just] the GOP that the insurance companies are funding..."
They fund both sides, yes. They knew they'd already lost the Democrats, though. This has got to come as shock. Now, there getting it from both sides.
I just can't help relishing the thought of all that money and lobbying coming to nothing. I get a small sense of victory for the People, there. We can't be bought!
Well, at least not all the time.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 221, csgators:
"...they are drooling over this bill."
Yep, Wall Street's gain today was fueled by a surge in guess what sector?
I'm curious to see what will happen if they lose the mandate.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 240, GH1618:
"Now consider the case of Stupak. He made a show of opposing the bill for reason of its provisions relating to abortion. Then he supported the bill in exchange for an executive order reinforcing the prohibition against spending public money for abortions. Some think the executive order doesn't change anything anyway."
No, it doesn't change anything, but I do think it's important. The President is giving his word that this bill won't be used to further abortion rights. Going back on that would be political suicide.
Complain about this comment
The more I think about it, the more I think the mandate will stand a challenge in court because it promotes the general welfare. Nothing trumps that.
Complain about this comment
Andy Post (#247) "The more I think about it, the more I think the mandate will stand a challenge in court because it promotes the general welfare. Nothing trumps that."
Perhaps, but I've been reviewing Tenth Amendment cases, and it's a complicated matter, despite the libertarian view that it's obvious (they think everything is simple). Over the years, the position of the Supreme Court has varied quite a bit between conservative and liberal construction of federal power. With a philosophically divided court, I think it's impossible to call.
A curious fact I stumbled on: In 1918 Justice William Day in the majority opinion in Hammer v. Dagenhart inserted the word "expressly" which is in the Articles of Confederation but not the Tenth Amendment, in holding an act unconstitutional. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented. Today, we remember Holmes, not Day, and it is his dissenting opinion which influenced later courts.
Complain about this comment
Here's an interesting article by David Frum, GWB's speech writer. I have to say I agree with him and wish the Republican party had listened more closely to what he'd said, instead of the media talking heads and their listeners.
Complain about this comment
GH1618:
On the subject of the constitutionality of federal health care...
The Attorney General of Nebraska is right. The Constitution spells out the powers of the Federal Govt and the 10th Amendment states that those powers not given to the Federal Govt will reside with the States.
Complain about this comment
I love all these republicans stating firmly and categorically that "The American people do not want this!"
Really?
Last time I checked I was an American, and I wanted it. I think it's a great idea to have everyone eligible for affordable health coverage.
I also loved the person who made the comment that having this bill squeak through the House on a slim margin constituted "the tyranny of the majority".
I'm sorry, but what the hell would that be? Majority rule is how representational democracy WORKS, and is supposed to work. Look it up. And it doesn't have to be a huge majority. Just enough to tip the scales. It would be far more tyrannical if a dissenting minority were to spoil it for the rest. And don't think the GOP hasn't squeaked a few things through when they had the upper hand. That's how these things work. Now go eat your sour grapes and pout.
Complain about this comment
Like Social Security and Medicare before it, once a middle class entitlement program is enacted there is no going back on it in total. The Republicans and conservatives would be silly to try. Changes will be made by Congress annually to "Obama Care", but Obama Care is here to stay.
Complain about this comment
This is all a matter of "intent" ~ the intent might well be honorable but people are working overtime to misconstrue the intent. I questioned Stupak motives from the offset But it pleases me that he stood up and spoke for the unborn at this critical time. While it is true an Executive order is not law, it validates overwhelming "intent" that will require address if and when uncertainty arises.
Laws have always been a doubled edged blade and can easily be used to cut both ways.
It's disheartening that the GOP took the stance of "over my dead body" to this piece of legislating. They will find themselves on the wrong side of history. However, their memory is short and ability to ~to be embarrassed small, I find it much easier to worry an old hound dog to death.
That they will play this down to the very last card rather then fold and accepting their losses,this tells us much about their mindset and makeup. They hold no interest in conservative expedience yet hold a death grip on their ideas, even if it kills everyone. Lost in the journey and to blood hell with the destination, another "Bridge over the river Kwia" played out in real time.
Left now to threaten the DNC with November ~ Obama is not concerned with November but "today". November will take care of itself.
Complain about this comment
This isn't just about race. Some the earlier comments--and comments elsewhere--claim the opposition to Obama is solely based on his skin color. This isn't true. There are some who oppose Obama simply because they cannot wrap their heads around the idea of a black man in the White House. I didn't want to believe this, but it is true. However, as much respect as I have for those who have stood up for civil rights in the past, a lot of the opposition to Obama now has nothing to do with the racial issues of the past. Consider the Blue Dog Democrat, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin. She voted against Obama's health care bill twice, against climate change legislation, and will likely vote against every piece of progressive legislation offered up in the next few years. Her reasons are simply ideological: she understands the role of the federal government to the states differently than progressives and looks far less favorably on budget debts. I know progressives will continue to see cries of "state's rights" (or, more properly, state powers) as thinly veiled racism--the same line has was in the past to window dress first a pro slavery ideology and then Jim Crow laws, but under past examples there is an older ideological battle about American Federalism that goes back to Jefferson and Hamiliton. There really is a more sophisticated disagreement over what powers are delegated in the Constitution (either explicitly or implicitly) to Washington by the states who are in the federal sense considered to have existed prior to the national government. Tea Partiers would do well to read the decent of former Chief Justice Rehnquist in Gonzales v. Raich for a more eloquent unwrapping of their position.
Complain about this comment
IMO the House races in Nov. 2010 will turn more on whether the ACTUAL unemployment rate has improved, rather than the sausage-making details of the just-passed Health Care Reform act. There are, however, some possibly unintended impacts of the HC act. The HC act starts assessing taxes (on the rich) and benefit cuts (on Medicare beneficiaries) within a very short time; and most of the benefits of the HC act won't kick in until 2014.
People who run businesses considering expanding their operations HATE uncertainty. They want to know what the regulations will be that impact their business. If you have 45 employees, you want to know what the tax rates will be. If you are thinking about increasing to 50 employees, and the govt. has just adopted a new law that fines your company IF YOU HAVE 50 employees, but not 45 (under some circumstances) it is prudent for you NOT TO hire more people, because that may expose your business to these fines. Passage of this bill brings on a number of uncertainties and may have the effect of cooling any expansion by businesses in the margins between "small" -- too few employees to be impacted -- and "larger" (already enough employees so that they will be impacted).
Since many smaller businesses will be in the margins on this bill's provisions, the enactment of this may, in fact, tend to cool the economy, postponing a job-helping recovery. Interesting.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
The vote on this healthcare bill simply showed that House Republicans are no longer operating as responsible Congressmen should. The Republican representatives are ruled by the Republican Party, not by their own morals, values, and judgment, and certainly not by their constituents. There were Democrats on both sides of the vote, which is how it should be. Republican representatives need to start to think for themselves, and truly listen to their constituents.
America wanted healthcare reform. The people on the bottom of the social pyramid need healthcare reform, and deserve it. Obama did listen to America concerning this bill; he did not listen to the corporate string-pullers on Wall Street nor to the wealthiest one percent. Come November, once the dust has settled and people see that the world has not ended as a result of this bill, I think that Democrats will be enjoying a comfortable position in both the Senate and the House. Hopefully next time 'round there will be some bipartisan participation from the Republicans.
Best,
A Concerned (and Relieved) American
Complain about this comment
228. At 11:58pm on 22 Mar 2010, ukwales wrote:
Sir,There is a difference between freedom of speech = argued/debated & abusive = threating/insulting,that poor fellow was given the latter.
He was bullied & it was ugly,but he was softly spoken & courageous.
Being offended was not the issue.
1. Not in the US, not yet anyway. Abusive speech is still protected by the 1st amendment, as long as there are no spoken threats that would give a reasonable person cause to fear bodily harm.
2. I really hate how hyperbolic the language has become. Bullied use to only apply to physical abuse. Now days if you hurt some poor little perpetual victims feeling, it's bullying. Just like if you disagree with His Oneness, you're a racist...
3. I really didn't read your location into your user name, but I get it now.
Complain about this comment
195. At 8:56pm on 22 Mar 2010, GH1618 wrote:
Here's a link to a thoughtful opinion piece by David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute on where the Republicans should go from here: from CNN
----------
249. At 03:06am on 23 Mar 2010, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
Here's an interesting article by David Frum, GWB's speech writer. I have to say I agree with him and wish the Republican party had listened more closely to what he'd said, instead of the media talking heads and their listeners.
__________
David Frum was very briefly one of GWB's speechwriters.
His family is very well connected, and quite well to do.
His mom was one of the greatest Canadian journalists of all time, long time host of "As It Happens" and later "The Journal", which was in essence the same thing, but televised. She was in the center of the Canadian political spectrum, an intelligent moderate, and a compassionate voice of reason.
How the son ever ended up in the Bush, Jr., White House, I never understood.
----------
The Republican party has spent the last 35 years alienating its true base. It used to be a predominantly secular party. It used to be the party of guys who had University degrees from Ivy League schools, who ran businesses, and who played golf on Sunday. Quality guys. Guys who knew how to make reasonable compromises. Guys who knew how to get things done.
Nobody cared about their religious beliefs - or whether they had any at all. Nobody cared if they liked to drink Scotch and play cards. If they had a mistress, well, so long as they were quiet and discrete nobody made much of a fuss. None of that stuff was relevant.
But now?
Not a born-again Christian? Good luck trying to get a Republican nomination anywhere without pandering to religious groups.
An atheist? No chance.
Don't viscerally oppose abortion? Forget about being nominated. You will even have loud-mouths telling you that you are can't be a "Conservative" if you don't oppose abortion. (Excuse me, sonny, I've been a Conservative longer than you've been alive.)
Think that immigration reform might help the industries that now employ illegal aliens to do the jobs Americans don't want? Better not say it out loud if you are ever thinking of running for office as a Republican.
Speak a language other than English? Better not be caught doing it on camera.
Think that it is important to keep church and state separate, and to teach science in science class? Must be a "Liberal".
Actually have a background in Science and Engineering? Too educated.
The party has spent 35 years driving talented, educated, highly capable people out of its ranks.
So the party arrives where it is today. The arguments trotted out, the fear mongering, the ridiculous labelling "communist", "Socialist", "Fascist", "Liberal", "Traitor". It is shrill. It is raving. It is the triumph of ignorance over rational thought. In some places there is still an underlying implicit racism - we have seen it in some of the postings on this blog.
We see it in the nonsense spouted here against healthcare as a threat to liberty. Reality check: 30-odd democracies have public healthcare, the sky isn't going to fall if America adopts it, too. It is therefore outside the realm of reasonable behaviour to scream about "liberty", or "communism" or "socialism" when discussing healthcare. And when people behave like that, it drives away fair-minded, intelligent, reasonable, hard working, well educated professionals with ability in droves.
These are the people who have the knowledge and experience to lead a country. These are the people who are able to build a big tent coalition to win elections. These are the people able to reach across the aisle and make government work.
The country needs effective governance. It needs its legislators to set aside their differences and concentrate on what they can agree on, not fabricate over-excited excuses why they can't.
But people like that are being driven out.
Instead, the party is following the course of intellectual bankruptcy.
It's killing the party.
__________
As a final note, did anybody else notice that, proportionately, hispanics were the minority group most likely to see the largest immediate benefit from extension of healthcare coverage?
If you are a Republican in Florida, Texas, or California, maybe a few other places, what do you think that does for your chances in November?
Do you think and Obama White House is going to fail to get out the vote in November?
Complain about this comment
Re charlieatlantic #139
Hi Charlie -you say the tea party stands for 'earmarks, out-of-control spending, a disregard for federalism at the expense of states' rights, and the flagrant violation of the constitution in the name of expedience'. So all these trump the fact that americans are DYING because they have no healthcare and that the number one reason americans go bankraupt is due to medical bills. Yes you have a right to be concerned about spending but surely the focus of cuts should then be on defence, space programs, farm subsidies etc. How much was spent by the last administration on the Iraq war and tax cuts for the rich ? Why should a poor person have a shorter life span than a rich person ? America is the ONLY developed nation that does not attempt to provide healthcare for all its citizens. What is your answer to the healthcare problem ? I will also say that i doubt that a lot of the people attending tea parties have an understanding of the issues you raised.
You also say 'There does seem to be a British conviction that Europeans and Democrats are 'clever' and 'forward looking', whilst Republicans are ignorant, intolerant religious nutjobs who care for no-one but themselves'. I would agree completely with your assessment - the republicans keep amazing me with their stupidy, greed, selfishness - I could go on and on. I used to have respect for the republican party - but not anymore. How could a serious party pick Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate ? why does a serious party have people like Michelle Bachman as representatives ? Why does the chairman of the republican party apologise to Rush Limbaugh for calling him (Rush) an entertainer ? why did so many members of the republican party refuse to criticize those questioning the nationality of Barack Obama ? why do so many republicans call water boarding 'enhanced interrogation techniques' ? why did the republicans leak the name of a CIA agent to the media ? why did the republicans call for Obama to intervene in the Iranian elections when this would have played into the hands of the mullahs ? Why do the republicans criticize the bailout when much of it was started under the previous administation ? why did Newt Gingrich say that the democrats suffered for 40 years for passing the civil rights legislation - in effect he is saying for political expediency the republicans would not have done the same ? The republicans at least the current crop - are selfish, greedy and stupid - the British view of them is very correct. The republicans say they will campaign to repeal the healthcare bill - what parts of it ? 1) the part that says insurance companies must cover preexisting conditions 2) the part that says you cannot lose your insurance when you fall sick 3) the part that says young people can stay on their parents policies till they are 26.
The republicans had control of congress and the presidency for a long time and did not do anything about healthcare reform - the least they could have done was not to spread falsehoods about the only plan in town.
Complain about this comment
No matter what your persuasion or your views on subsidised state healthcare you have to admire the political courage shown by Obama in his brave stance on USA's healthcare reform bill.
It seems the ill informed prejudicial minority haven't thought out the full implication for the USA economy of this grandest and brilliant of plans. The 'Redneck' voters that so willingly vote to trash Iraq at great tax payers expense and loss of life, don't see the positives of Obama's wisdom. If only their anger was trained to focus on Wall Street where the greatest thefts have occurred.
With 32million American people poorly for in the privatised system, what a clever way of finding localised money in a national network of rejuvenated healthcare expenditure.
Presumably spending on new infrastructure, building programmes, training, contracts, services through thousands of localised expenditure programmes will have a great effect on ensuring local investment and stimulation on service demand. The legacy has the potential to be long lasting and have great social equality credibility.
When over critical middle America sees the money flowing their way, they may yet realise the merit of the plan. When the impoverished out of work numbers reduce,with the created employment they will have less to waive wagging fingers at, and when their Granny's & Grand Pappys start getting older and in need of these same services, with reduced pension plan payments, they might actually appreciate its caring benefits also.
Complain about this comment
ref #260
thetopbrummiecat wrote:
No matter what your persuasion or your views on subsidised state healthcare you have to admire the political courage shown by Obama in his brave stance on USA's healthcare reform bill.
_____________-
No I don't, I am disgusted by his inflexibility and his lie about this being an open process. Obama resents a politic machine apartic at worse.
The Republicans and those Democrats who stood up to the bullying by the Dem leadership showed the real courage
Complain about this comment
ref #256
America wanted healthcare reform. The people on the bottom of the social pyramid need healthcare reform, and deserve it. Obama did listen to America concerning this bill;
___________________
At the expense of the rest of us? You seem to think there needs outweigh everyone elses. I would like my health isurance to go down and I live in Mass.
If Obama had listened and was a true leader he would have said yes weed to start again and incorporate good Republican ideas. But Obama is too shallow and narcistic to show that courage.
Complain about this comment
MagicKirin
I think your wrong, this was a stated elected mandate issue , he has a senate majority and he has used it. To include the whole house in the debate has improved the debate and possibly the delivery choices, but the losers of the election are using the process as a hobby horse to claim foul. Stupid huh?
Complain about this comment
Unlike Obama who delegated his VP choice to a committee, John McCain kept his own councel on his VP choice, Sarah Palin was never the Party favorite, because she would not be controlled & refused to read from their script. Perhaps you beleive that Sarah is a chracter from an SNL skit.
Complain about this comment
"Subsidized federal health care"?????!!!! What we are getting is AT BEST $6000 in tax credit to help you pay for a policy that will cost around $20,000 a year. The people who can't afford health care insurance NOW aren't going to be able to afford it with THAT kind of "subsidy". If you PAY THE FINE and "run naked" without health insurance, you will lose any savings you have. We are being threatened up front with IRS audits to ensure compliance (Obama's idea of creating jobs, hire 16,500 IRS auditors).
And even if you HAVE the MANDATORY health insurance it doesn't mean that an illness will not wipe you out financially...you will find yourself with co-pays, you will find yourself with deductibles so that you can't USE your insurance unless you truly have a major health problem and need hospitalization.
Tied with this bill is a move to pour money into America's failing cities. Forget it if you live out in rural America, you aren't going to get any of the improvements, they are earmarked for the inner cities!
The baby boomers will be hitting 65 in a few years and MediCare has been gutted! Social Security is already a joke so just where are seniors supposed to pull the money out of to pay for MANDATORY health insurance?
This law was passed KNOWING that it was unworkable. Knowing that it will lead to a demand for a so-called "government option". The thing is a government run health system won't work in the USA. I don't care WHAT you have in your little Soviets in Australia or Canada, it won't work HERE! Our government is incapable of managing ANY federal program effectively or efficiently.
Also look at the chicanery involved in pushing this bill through Congress! This isn't how our Congress is supposed to work! I don't mean the lack of bi-partisanship, it is fully understandable why Republicans oppose this monstrous bill, but the very fact that this bill IS so hopelessly unacceptable to orderly government indicates that it is wrongly conceived, wrongly constructed and wrongly executed.
The notion that Congress should pass BAD legislation for the GOOD of the people is ludicrous, and yet that is what the Democrats want us to believe. They know that as people start to try to comply to the twisted reasoning of this bill, it will require YEARS of legislation to even begin to unsnarl the already apparent faults. Perpetual employment for the ruling elite!
And what is Obama doing...he is going to fly at enormous taxpayer expense all over the country as if we haven't seen enough of his tent-show. He is going to take off his jacket as if we believe that that makes him look like a working man and not AUTHORITY backed ultimately by the gun! He is going to TELL us, even SHOUT at us that we want this as if telling the same lie over and over and over will make it the truth.
Complain about this comment
@GH1618On the subject of the constitutionality of federal health care: I heard the Attorney General of Nebraska (one of the states planning to sue) on the radio tonight say that the legislation is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not "specifically" define it as a federal power. This is just spin. I have to believe that any attorney general would know that the word "specifically" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution relating to the federal powers. The Articles of the Confederation did provide that the federal government held only powers "expressly delegated," but this language was not carried over to the Constitution.
Absurdly, flagrantly, desperately untrue. For a start, these two lines appear in the Constitution:
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Tenth Amendment: "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."
But even if they didn't, the AG of NE would still be correct. The assumption that the federal government was only intended to do those things specifically enumerated is patently obvious if you even briefly read the debates between those who wrote it. When the Bill of Rights was being drafted by Madison there was a clear reluctance from the Federalist contingent to ratify it at all. Not because its members were opposed to the provisions, but because, as Hamilton argued, ‘here… the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.'
'Particular reservations' were a clear concern for the Federalists and a clear majority of the founders precisely because should certain rights be enumerated, the very purity of the principle that the federal government was free only to act in such a manner as it had been explicitly allowed to might be corrupted. It was exactly 'by the manner in which the federal powers are granted' that 'the rights in question are reserved' warned Madison, worried that a Bill of Rights might lead to 'everything not expressly mentioned… being presumed to be purposely omitted.' This, it was worried, would contravene the central premise of the document - 'a charter of power granted by liberty, not a charter of liberty granted by power.'
Fundamentally, the Bill of Rights was a belt and braces move, motivated by political necessity, designed to allay popular fears, and which reinforced the most important of the rights already enjoyed. Looks like those who opposed the Bill of Rights were right. Once specific blocks on federal power had been inserted, slowly people began to assume that they were exhaustive. You just fell into that trap.
Complain about this comment
Post 257,Oldloadr,
I am not PC,not even a big fan of the BBC, but to their credit all opinions with in reason can be aired.I did not read into that U tube clip any reflection of any party in the US a total generalization. People are people the world over good,bad & indifferent. When passions are in flood folk get both barrels,but far more effective is cold reasoned approach,Ie Tom Paine & common scene,which was devastating,Dam it!.I suppose many felt for that fellow being yelled at by those strapping great healthy chaps,they did not do their cause any good,well!not with my value system any way.
Regards from Wales,(far more Beautiful than England)...
Complain about this comment
Ref 360
"If only their anger was trained to focus on Wall Street where the greatest thefts have occurred."
Judging by the public acknowledgments made by Republican leaders during the final debate regarding the need for healthcare reform is to obvious that even them recognize the old system was ineffective and inefficient. As a result, I believe their opposition was motivated by ideology and focused mostly on the process and solutions needed to implement reform rather than opposition to reform.
I think it is unfortunate that they continue to look for ways to repeal or undermine the historic improvement we just accomplished, instead of trying to find ways to improve the limitations or inefficiencies that may exist in the new approach to healthcare reform, but that is what people do when they do not have alternatives or positive ideas. Hopefully, pragmatic GOP politicians like Ryan and Cantor will prevail and manage to influence the radical elements that have taken over the Republican party, but I am not holding my breath.
When the GOP gave unprecedented powers to the Executive Branch in the Bush era assuming conservatives would stay in power forever they established a precedent that has come back to hunt them. Hopefully they will reflect on what they have been doing - and what they continue to do - or instead of having 3 or 4 political parties, as I believe we should, we may end up with only one...and it will not be the GOP!
Complain about this comment
"Tied with this bill is a move to pour money into America's failing cities. Forget it if you live out in rural America, you aren't going to get any of the improvements, they are earmarked for the inner cities!"
Of course it goes into Cities, that is how basic infrastructure of the western world works, greatest cost, maximum people - greatest influence.
If your a hick farming billy with gun and you shoot your own leg off, then you know you got to drive and the doc ain't gonna find you is he?
But I dare say you don't want them City folks having your hard earn't taxes spent on them, you would rather give your home grown soldier boy have a better weapon to go 2 iraq with and flyin the ole stars an stripes!
Complain about this comment
SaintDominickWhen the GOP gave unprecedented powers to the Executive Branch in the Bush era assuming conservatives would stay in power forever they established a precedent that has come back to hunt them.
Spot on. This is precisely the problem of authoritarianism and big government. It is wrong from both sides, and it is why constitutionalists are so against this bill and it's individual mandate. Once that precedent has been set for something 'good', it can then be used for ill. The GOP thought they were extending executive power for 'good', and are now regretting it. You may well find yourself in ten years saying: 'when the Democratic Party ignored the constitution with their healthcare bill they assumed that this would only be used to enhance federal power for x, now I am being forced to do y and there is nothing I can do about it.'
Complain about this comment
Ref 111, InterestedForeigner
"The Republicans are on the wrong side of history here.
There will be a day of reckoning for that mistake."
President Obama's legislative victory, and the position taken by conservative Republicans since then, have re-energized demoralized Democrats and have generated so much enthusiasm that the anticipated debacle in November may turn out to be another Democratic victory and the de facto demise of the GOP.
Complain about this comment
ref #263
thetopbrummiecat wrote:
MagicKirin
I think your wrong, this was a stated elected mandate issue , he has a senate majority and he has used it. To include the whole house in the debate has improved the debate and possibly the delivery choices, but the losers of the election are using the process as a hobby horse to claim foul. Stupid huh?
___________-
What possible justifdication did Obama have for rejecting tort reform or intterstate insurance purchases.
I noticed when Bush tried to reform social secuirty The Democratic Senators fillbustered that.
If you believe in the majority than I hope you will applaud the Republicans if they get back in power in 2012 and rescind the bill?
Barack is a special interest President: SEIU, Trial Lawyer and liberal activist and the now bankrupt ACORN are the people he cares about.
Or yes Palestinian terrorists
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick:
"I think it is unfortunate that they continue to look for ways to repeal or undermine the historic improvement we just accomplished, instead of trying to find ways to improve the limitations or inefficiencies that may exist in the new approach to healthcare reform, but that is what people do when they do not have alternatives or positive ideas."
This is so true. Obviously I am left leaning in nature but that is the path (to me) that is going forward, but I don't fall in with the democrats just for the sake of it. If the republicans could come back with some decent ideas I would listen. Or at least if they could discuss anything that didn't sound like criticism, sour grapes and outrage.
There are probably some key figures who need to move aside for new (or at least more centrist) blood before they really start to succeed again. Having seen John McCain's daughter here and there, I don't think she has much place in politics right now but will be in a good position to collect voters in the future. Not knowing much about her actual beliefs (aside from she seems more centrist), seems ready to engage and has a cultured, disciplined approach to politics. That's already an improvement on Sarah Palin who is likely to just make comedy fodder for however many months she'll be on the air for the next primaries (or whenever she's back).
Complain about this comment
ref #271
SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 111, InterestedForeigner
"The Republicans are on the wrong side of history here.
There will be a day of reckoning for that mistake."
President Obama's legislative victory, and the position taken by conservative Republicans since then, have re-energized demoralized Democrats and have generated so much enthusiasm that the anticipated debacle in November may turn out to be another Democratic victory and the de facto demise of the GOP.
____________
It may have rengerized the Dem base but the other side is energized as well. all the Polls say that this version of healthcare was not wanted and Pelsoi may be a poweerful speaker but she is very unpopular with almost the entire country.
The Dems ran sucessfully against Bush/Cheney
Let see how the Republican run against the even more unpopular Pelsoi
Complain about this comment
@SaintDominickPresident Obama's legislative victory, and the position taken by conservative Republicans since then, have re-energized demoralized Democrats and have generated so much enthusiasm that the anticipated debacle in November may turn out to be another Democratic victory and the de facto demise of the GOP.
Unlikely. We've heard this before. In 2002 the Republicans had put together a 'new conservative majority that would render the Democrats a thing of the past.' These things go in swings and roundabouts.
Complain about this comment
# 261 MagicKirin wrote:
"Obama resents a politic machine apartic at worse."
Translation anyone?
Complain about this comment
Ref 270, Charlie
"You may well find yourself in ten years saying: 'when the Democratic Party ignored the constitution with their healthcare bill they assumed that this would only be used to enhance federal power for x, now I am being forced to do y and there is nothing I can do about it.'"
Actually, I think the GOP is risking more by challenging the constitutionality of the "mandate" than the Democrats are.
In addition to telling people who are no longer affected by the pre-existing condition clause that the reprieve they suddenly enjoy is going to be short lived, or telling those that lost their insurance coverage because they contracted an expensive chronic illness that they have to suck it up and live with it, or telling small business owners who are now eligible to receive a 35% tax break to help them finance health insurance coverage for themselves and their employees that they are not going to get that break after all; the GOP is also putting all the subsidies that go to their beloved big business benefactors in jeopardy.
If subsidies designed to help average Americans buy healthcare insurance is unconstitutional, subsidies to big business share the same fate.
Complain about this comment
ukwales # 267
Good to see another Brit enjoying "the greatest show on earth" and up until now only the executive and legislative branches have performed for our enjoyment, with the judicial performers of the 3 ring circus being kept in reserve.
The 'mules' have been transformed into prancing show ponies intent on showing that they are the stars around today. The elephants have dropped a heavy load that requires cleaning up, yet their trumpeting of disappintment for being made the second act can still be heard from the enclosure outside.
Unfortunately the present day show leaves much to be desired.
Yes we have had Obama on the high wire doing his tricks yet maintaing his balance. Pelosi as an efficient ringmaster- [ringmistress sounds too PC] but even with all the spectacle involved the public appears to be disappointed that their performances tomorrow will include the use of an improved safety net. The world of America appears to object to change. Can they really want to return to the thrill of hit or miss bloodletting for many innocents?
Although it is not necessary to return to the lions, bears and tiger shows of yesteryear in real life, we must both cry crocodile tears of respect, since the closure of the Barnum, Bailey and Ringling clown school in 1997 resulted in the majority of their students entering politics and Congress.
I feel sure that you will agree that our [your] British parliament exhibits all the thrills and spills of watching paint dry, and is nothing compared with the USA extravaganza now occurring.
Regards from the continent of Southern Europe. [ As beautiful as Wales and the UK but just a touch sunnier]
Complain about this comment
266. At 10:04am on 23 Mar 2010, charlieatlantic wrote:
"shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So how, in a representative democracy (or republic, if we must chop logic) is "the people" defined? Clearly, they are not the same as "the States".
Complain about this comment
re#265
"I don't care WHAT you have in your little Soviets in Australia or Canada, it won't work HERE! Our government is incapable of managing ANY federal program effectively or efficiently."
----------------------------------------------------
Now that the US has joined the little Soviets of Israel ,Australia, Canada, UK etc, etc. Will they go the whole hog towards socialism and
Federalize the Mail service.
Subsidise farmers with tax payers dollars to grow nothing.
Federalize highways
Federalize space exploration
Have a government owned car industry.
Is there any irony in the fact that Europe, so often referred to as socialists by posters here has started to sell off government owned assets.
Holland has privatized its Postal Service recently and is going through discussions about privatizing the highways. ( pay as you drive)
Complain about this comment
Thank you Mark for a thoughtful analysis. I am interested to hear what our British friends think of what is happening here in America. I totally disagree with the woman who posted that this is all about race. She couldn't be more wrong. This is about FORCING Americans to purchase health insurance. No one has yet answered the charge that is is un-Constitutional, but they will be soon forced to answer because atleast 10 states are bring a lawsuit against our Federal government.
I am against this health care bill for two reasons: Number One: we cannot afford it! Number two: to be forced to buy govt insurance is un-Constitutional.
I think the President should have focused on insurance reform; that is where the real reform is needed.
Complain about this comment
Democrats who lose seats will do so because of their own record.GOP is fooling itself.The next few weeks will be about banking reform,trade with China,Ending tax cuts for the rich,expanding jobs etc....none of which GOP will be able to do because of their ties with Big Business.GOP has never gotten rid of S.S.,Medicaid,Medicare,S CHIP,Federal Bank,and many other social programs they say they disapprove of,so I doubt they will with health care.All GOP does is hand out Corporate Welfare,out source jobs,start wars,and give out money to the Super Rich with tax cuts.They have virtually nothing.And it's not a shock to me we have a health care plan,Congress has been working on it for over a year now.GOP will have nothing when DNC goes after bad business regulations and trade.By the way the Premier from China can gather all the U.S. CEO's he wants like Dick Devos(failed GOP candidate for Michigan Governor and wife former head of Michigan GOP and bother in-law Prince head of Black water)and others like him but their party isn't in control right now and can't force U.S. public into furthering to ruin U.S. workers.That will be the next big argument coming Trade with China.What will GOP do?
Complain about this comment
I truely despair and find many of the comments above very unpleasant in their tone and in their probable true meaning. There is much complex stuff here about the constitution, the 10th amendment and so on. What I see, however, is deep seated prejudice and the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude of the well insured majority- who also, at present, have no 'pre- existing' medical condition. Could it be that these people- or many of them- are really motivated by the knowledge that many of the deprived underclass also happen to be members of ethnic minorities- as is the President himself? Could it be that class warfare in the USA is actually more prevalent and nastier in its nature than it ever was in Britain? At least in this country these things are pretty transparent and easily confronted. In the USA there is great huff and puff about equality of opportunity and land of the free- but is that the reality? If in the 21st century a Western civilized nation cannot bring itself to accept that all its citizens should have a right to decent health care without expenses they cannot afford can that nation claim to be tuely civilized?
Years ago I had the opportunity of a good job in the USA. I had to turn it down. My late wife was a class one diabetic and as such uninsurable, even given the considerable salary I would have earned. The Republicans are calling the Democrats for employing the 'tyranny of the majority' when pushing through health care. However, the real 'tyranny of the majority' in the USA is that of the majority of its citizens- determined to deny basic cilivized treatmwnt for the poor amongst them, for fear it may cost them a few more dollars. I'm glad I never accepted that job.
Complain about this comment
SaintDominickIf subsidies designed to help average Americans buy healthcare insurance is unconstitutional, subsidies to big business share the same fate.
Damn right they do. Subsidies to big business are immoral and unconstitutional and need to be stopped immediately.
Complain about this comment
276. At 11:43am on 23 Mar 2010, John_From_Dublin wrote:
# 261 MagicKirin wrote:
"Obama resents a politic machine apartic at worse."
Translation anyone?
"Obama resents a 'political [Republican] apparatchik machine at its worst"? And who could blame him?
Complain about this comment
It doesn't matter what GOP or DNC wants but the largest voters who are Independents.Most Independents will wait and see who nominees are and how DNC handles issues like Bank Regulation,taxing the Rich,Trade with China,ending our wars which President Obama is doing a good job of,Job creation(which many federal building projects will have effects this year like DNC planed just ahead of elections,all the DNC has to do is stay away from Immigration Reform,and since Environment went out the window because of China they can wait out that issue till later.Besides that the hate filled supporters of Tea party which GOP is courting scares Independent and younger voters which GOP hasn't been able to sway to listen ,let alone want to engage with them,while they lose older voters everyday from natural causes.GOP is silly for using Boomers cultural issues that people under 40 are not interested it.They have nothing.If younger voter don't care about wedge issues,what's the GOP going to say Republicans want to lower wages,give more taxes to the rich and Corporations,end social programs for the poor,give more to over funded military,and start more Wars over seas,out source more jobs so you can eventually lower wages in U.S. to 3rd world countries, let businesses sell whatever they want and it's your fault if it dangerous because you spent money to buy it,let them pollute as much as they want because they own property next to government property to exploit public lands at no cost to them,give welfare to Corporation so The Stocks holder use tax payers dollars for workers salaries instead of the precious profits they have too much in the bank to spend anywhere,for you and the intelligent and physically work you supply.GOP is a dieing party.Period.they have resorted to hate groups for membership while diversity is growing in numbers.Sad Really.
Complain about this comment
Forcing you to buy something is unconstitutional. Subsides should be a choice. This bill leaves NO CHOICE, you have to buy it or be fined. This was an agenda of the President's from day one for insurance companies, they helped write the bill. This health care bill is really a glorified tax. Health Insurance through a company employment was non-taxable and a choice. 'Change you can believe in' my eye!
My fear is what this administration will tackle next. How is that jobless recovery working out America? My guess is they will now try to take over education and they already have a head start on that one. When/if they ever outlaw home schooling America is done for as the land of the free.
Complain about this comment
Ref 273, CNorwood
"If the republicans could come back with some decent ideas I would listen. Or at least if they could discuss anything that didn't sound like criticism, sour grapes and outrage."
Republican ideas - and/or threats - were quite successful and are an integral part of the bill that just passed. Democrats did not drop the public option because they wanted to, we did it because of a well crafted and executed demonization campaign launched by the Republican party and the insurance industry. The "Exchanges" that are a major component of the new legislation is pure Republican orthodoxy. The language that was introduced to ban illegal immigrants from benefiting from this legislation was drafted to satisfy Republican demands, and the maligned Executive Order that President Obama is going to issue banning the use of public funds for abortion are, in theory, a litmus test for most Republican social conservatives.
I was very impressed with the arguments, ideas, and eloquence of Reps, Ryan and Cantor, but I can't say the same for the rest of the gang. Hopefully, the few voices of reason within the GOP that emerged during the healthcare debate will influence the rest of the party and will lead to a more constructive strategy, but I doubt it very much.
Complain about this comment
Ref #265 S.O.F.E.
"I don't care WHAT you have in your little Soviets in Australia or Canada, it won't work HERE!"
Why not? I challenge you to find a public healthcare system anywhere else in the developed world that works less well than the US system. For that matter try and find a developed country where changing back from a public system to a market based system would not be electoral suicide.
Seems to me like you're passing out the Tea Party's "America is different" Kool Aid for them. Tell us what convinced you that there is no public system that could improve on market systems in the US.
The truth of matter is it will work. It wont be perfect by a long shot, but it will be cheaper than the current system and it will save more lives.
Complain about this comment
squirellistSo how, in a representative democracy (or republic, if we must chop logic) is "the people" defined? Clearly, they are not the same as "the States".
The point of these two amendments (ninth, and tenth) was to ensure that it was clear that whatever the federal government didn't do was the role of the states, and that the individual rights not explicity mentioned in the Bill of Rights were still protected. In other words, all is retained which has not been surrendered. Both reference to the 'states', and to the 'people' are needed because some rights (such as taxation, law and so on) are governmental, and some (free speech, right to a fair trial, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment) are individual. These two amendments were affirmations of the precept that unless the federal government was explicitly allowed to do it, it couldn't.
There was a raging debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarding the passage of the constitution, and subsequent ratification of the bill of rights. The former was against the inclusion of a bill of rights on the grounds that it would appear exhaustive,and imply that only those measures included within its bounds were protected. Reading this board, and looking at American history, it appears the Federalists were right, and the likes of Thomas Jefferson who considered that a bill of rights would just add to the existing protections without inferring that liberties outside of its purview were fair game were wrong.
The ninth amendment, which only mentions the 'people,' is largely the product of Anti-Federalist mistrust of Alexander Hamilton (not altogether unreasonable, given his future behaviour), who in Federalist 84, argued against it being needed, asking: "why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Their response to this claim (that the naming of certain liberties would imperil the others by implying they weren't protected) was to request a constitutional amendment designed to secure protection for all liberties not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. In other words, to re-affirm the principle accepted by both sides that the federal government could only do what was enumerated in the constitution.
Reading some of the comments on here, one would be forgiven for assuming that people think the debate was between those who thought the federal government should have carte blanche, and those who thought it should be limited. This was not the case.
Complain about this comment
Whatever you may think of the healthcare bill, Obama has showed admirable tenacity and incredible patience in getting this bill through, and I salute him for that.
The bill itself is nothing to write home about, and it doesn't break the ridiculous cabal of insurance companies who tried to smear Obama's name and spread lies about the bill, but it's a big step forward. Perhaps one day America will grow up enough to look at the rest of the Western world and realise that public options, kept in balance with rational libertarianism, do not lead to communism.
Complain about this comment
@RosalieI am against this health care bill for two reasons: Number One: we cannot afford it! Number two: to be forced to buy govt insurance is un-Constitutional.
I understand that most British people find this a difficult argument to digest, and are instead looking for the straw men of racism, greed or reaction, but I can honestly say that most people I know in the States who oppose the bill do so for precisely these two reasons.
Complain about this comment
A couple of insights on the new legislation. One is from Prof. Paul Krugman, who is unashamedly liberal, but also a Nobel Prize Winner [and apparently a critic of at least some of Obama's economic policies] - so perhaps rather more deserving of a hearing than those who hurl around semi-literate smears.
The other is an editorial from the UK's Guardian - again an unashamedly liberal paper, but a well-respected one.
Some interesting points
"...Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom ..." (PK)
"For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn't even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing healthcare system or of the moderate, centrist plan very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts that Democrats were proposing.
Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency." (PK)
"In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out" (PK)
"Not many leaders can claim to have delivered the major promise of their manifesto after one year in office"
"America yesterday also woke up to the comparatively new spectacle of a Democratic president who can get things done."
"For Republicans, who took a strategic decision to oppose healthcare reform no matter what it did, this episode has been a disaster and could postpone by at least one presidential term the day when they are deemed fit for office."
"Republican moderates were repeatedly offered a chance to shape the healthcare plan, which would surely not have been as alien to them as they claimed. A plan similar to the Senate bill was passed in Massachusetts when the Republican Mitt Romney was governor. By eschewing all contact with Mr Obama's satanic verses, they have abandoned a large swath of political ground. They don't know it yet but mainstream conservatives, appalled at the chants of a crowd of Tea Party activists on Capitol Hill, surely do."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/22/healthcare-reform-obama-victory-americans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/23/united-states-healthcare-barack-obama
Complain about this comment
# 285 squirrelist
Squirrelist bravely attempted, at my request, to translate some typical MK gobbledegook into English.
The gobbledegook was ""Obama resents a politic machine apartic at worse."
His suggestion was "Obama resents a political [Republican] apparatchik machine at its worst", and his comment on this was "And who could blame him?"
Squirrel, while I appreciate your effort, I regret that I cannot accept your translation. To do so would require me to accept that MK had written something sensible.
;-)
Complain about this comment
St.Dom, Gavrielle, Interestedforeigner: thanks for carrying the load with grace and intelligence.
We see little of that in Washington on the GOP side of the aisle these last couple of days, what with the outright thuggery of both protesters and Congressmen as well as downright dimwittedness. How, pray do explain, do Republicans plan to "run" on repeal of healthcare when the sitting President is going to veto their repeal bill? Unless they manage historic (no kidding...look it up) gains in both the Senate and House to render their bill "veto-proof," this is just dumb. American 10th-graders know this -- or should.
And, those of you who are so positive this ISN'T about race, please also explain those nasty incidents caught on camera before the Capitol steps. Don't try to dodge with "oh, they're just isolated incidents..." Oh, no, folks -- posters with the President masked as the Joker or Hitler and threatened with nooses and guns ARE racist. The TeaParty Protest movement has welcomed the hatemongering fringe into its ranks and is riding the tiger now.
Complain about this comment
Mark wrote:
"while many Americans seem genuinely to yearn for the cross-party accord they call bipartisanship, and politicians at least pay it pious lip service, this lengthy debate has revealed a gaping ideological chasm."
And so it has; McCain--what happened to the 'bipartisanship' there?--has thrown his chips on the table and said the Republicans will oppose the bill in the Senate, and then right on through to November. Not only that, but any and everylegislation proposed by the President or the Democratic Party.
I've been looking at some opinion polls; and, yet again, what they appear to show is mass confusion. A majority of Democrats think the Republicans are just 'playing politics'; a majority of Republicans think the Democrats are. Most Americans appear to think the neither party is actually interested very much in what's good for Americans.
A quarter of Americans apparently have had 'little or no' interest in this bill anyway; a majority of those who have don't think it will actually change anything much; only 1 in 5 positively think it will help them. (Funnily enough, that looks suspiciously like the proportion of people who are un- or under-insured.)
A majority admit they don't actually know what is in the damn thing and they're simply confused.
The chasm just now looks enormously wide. But it's not just a a gulf between the two major parties, or left and right, it's between the average citizen and the democratic institutions of the country. That is a real disaster.
And if, in future, any social legislation is immediately going to start on a long legal trek to the Supreme Court, why should any party with a majority even attempt it in future? Doing nothing, after all, only means you get flack for not doing anything, rather than electorally slaughtered for doing something.
Does that hand power to the individual citizen? Maybe in the 18th century pre-industrial revolution, or in some ideal pre-lapsarian rural paradise, but not in a modern urbanised country, it doesn't.
Complain about this comment
I am forced to "buy" things I don't want with my money the government takes everyday like military equipment,food from farmers getting money to over produce and waste natural resources,money for illegals exploited for wages who aren't citizens and come from countries that deport immigrants themselves like Mexico(one of wealthiest nations on earth),corporations like Oil,Pharma,Autos,gas and electric buy equipment and pay salaries with money from the government.I am fined everyday as a smoker(well over taxed for what smokers cost the system) to pay for other peoples sick children I am fined everyday for old people to take more than they ever payed into the system while they put this nation it debt with wars for OIL we don't really even need anymore and hand outs to Corporations and Foreign Nations.I would rather get money back from these fail programs.GET OVER IT.Health care is the government tax I care the least about,as it does something for the greater good of the public.By the way children from poor and middle class families don't always stay there and wealthy kids don't always stay wealthy.So those future citizens might be related to you.Just like education,food,it's an important part of making better future Americans and letting older Americans retire with some dignity.
Complain about this comment
I believe President Obama is doing his best to make a difference on the health care issue. It is unfortunate that this reform has taken so long to happen. Everyone here knows that the powerful health insurance companies are behind all of the protest. Who in their right mind would block something that could be of great benefit to the health of millions?
The U.S. appears to be a country where money talks and those without it are out of luck. If other countries can thrive with a government health care system, why can't it work here?
Limitations such as coverage refusal due to a pre-existing condition, terminating insurance when a health crisis arises and high premium costs need to be fixed. How? Through government regulation, a competitive government health care alternative and caps on charging.
I have great hope in positive change, that is if big business does not destroy reform before it has a chance to launch. The current system as it stands lacks a social conscience and the roadblocks standing in the way appear to be fueled by greed.
Complain about this comment
post 278,Watermanaquarius,
The analogy with a circus is good & accurate.As for the Republicans vs Dems
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA6YXuagiuU
Complain about this comment
284. At 12:59pm on 23 Mar 2010, charlieatlantic wrote:
"Subsidies to big business are immoral and unconstitutional and need to be stopped immediately."
These arguments are getting both very literal in one way, and too vague in another. Since when did the US Constitution--or much law, for that matter--define what is 'immoral'. In this context, that is not a legal or moral issue, it's purely a political one. And politicians make laws.
Nor does, AFAIK, anything become 'unconstitutional' until the Supreme Courtsays it is.
I would have thought someone who was 'Oxford educated' (but not in law, constitutional history, or PPE have to presume) would have had the wit to consider the history of Supreme Court decisions as well as reading his own -- or the current Tea Party's -- interpretation into the Constitution. You can't separate the two.
I could argue that the restrictions placed by the US Congress--every two years, hasn't it been?--on Federal funding for abortions could be 'unconstitutional' after Roe v. Wade, but that's an opinion, and I don't see dozens of State Attorneys General rushing to a Federal Court to start the process of testing it. Yet surely, not only that part of the health bill and the 'Executive Order' deal over the weekend conflicts with it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Rosalie #281 wrote "I am against this health care bill for two reasons: Number One: we cannot afford it! Number two: to be forced to buy govt insurance is un-Constitutional".
Number 1. America cannot afford the current health care "system"!! it is unsustainable, hence the need for reform. Americans pay 2.5 times per head for health care than we do in the UK but their life expectancy is less than here in the UK. Health care insurance doesn't cover a huge section of the US population who are poor or who have pre existing medical conditions. 2 million Americans go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay medical bills - this means goodbye to a comfortable retirement, college education for their children etc. You are defending the indefensible when you oppose Obama's proposals to redorm health care provision.
Number 2. I think America should have an NHS paid for out of general taxation, with the option for Americans to take out additional private health cover which is the system here in the UK. Obama's proposal is nothing like as good as ours but to complain that it is unconstitutional is just sour grapes from selfish Americans who don't give a da*n about fellow Americans who cannot currently get or cannot afford the health care insurance. That is shameful and yet large numbers of these opponents to health care reform call themselves Christians.
Number 3. If you can cite the constitution as a reason not to provide health cover for the poor and for those with pre existing health conditions, then it is evident that your constitution is not up to the job of meeting the needs of the 21st Century and that it remains for ever stuck in the Eightenth Century whilst the rest of the world moves with the times. That is very bad news for the future of the USA.
Complain about this comment
And now, universal health effort having been dead, perhaps BHO and his Admninistration would finally, belatedly turn its attention to what's really bothering most American voters?
That is the state of U.S. economy and a high rate of unemployement?
[The federal deficit being the third on their priority list.]
Complain about this comment
If every Republican who b1tched about abortion adopted a baby, I'd listen to their moanings and groanings.
I know a number of folks who have chosen to adopt.
Some dear friends of mine even tried to adopt a 'Crack Baby.' They went through all the heartache of de-toxing a newborn child and eventually saw the child grow and develop into a healthy chubby child. Then, before the child's 2nd birthday, they were notified that the mother had graduated from rehab and that she would like her child back.
Imagine the heartache of my friends as they returned the child they had come to love as their own.
Imagine the joy of the mother who had been given a second chance.
IOW: Anyone who bemoans Health Care because "THEY CARE ABOUT BABIES" needs to put up or shut up.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
squirrelist (#279) "So how, in a representative democracy (or republic, if we must chop logic) is "the people" defined? Clearly, they are not the same as "the States"."
"People" just takes its ordinary meaning: living, breathing human beings. The people, individually, have certain enumerated rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, but may have other rights as well. The "right of privacy" is not enumerated but has developed out of case law.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
SaintDominick (#277) "If subsidies designed to help average Americans buy healthcare insurance is unconstitutional ..."
The subsidies are a separate thing from the mandate. It is primarily the mandate imposed on individuals which is being questioned.
We do mandate payment for retirement insurance (Social Security) from individuals, but that is a tax for a government program. Whether the distinction matters remains to be seen. Perhaps if the mandate for private insurance is ruled unconstitutional, we will end up with tax supported health insurance instead.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
charlieAtlantic (#266), can you not read? The word "expressly," which appeared in the Articles of Confederation, was not carried over to the Constitution, nor was it replaced with "specifically." That is the difference between the original confederacy and the United States under the Constitution.
Complain about this comment
Grey.. (#264) "Unlike Obama who delegated his VP choice to a committee, ..."
Not true. Read Game Change by Heilemann and Halperin.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Andrew (#254), the dissents in Gonzales v. Raich were by Justices O'Connor and Thomas. The opinion of the Court was given by Stevens. Please clarify.
Complain about this comment
gnowe (#250) "The Constitution spells out the powers of the Federal Govt ..."
It does not spell out the word "specifically" or the word "expressly" in connection with the federal powers. Why is this point so difficult for some to grasp?
Complain about this comment
I'm still new to the U.S. and getting used to it's ways. However, one thing has amazed me with the whole healthcare debate - How can a political party get away with simply saying "NO!"? In the UK, if one political party has objections to a Bill, they have to come up with an alternative - the press would have their guts for garters if their policy was simply to waffle around "we don't like this bill and we don't want it".
Bi-partisan politics requires full and open communication. It appears to me that President Obama has spent that last 12 months trying to get a bi-partisan heath-care reform bill passed. But that required all parties to engage in dialogue. All that has happened is the right wingers have declared NO! We can't afford this bill.", whilst completely ignoring the issue that the U.S economy can't afford to do nothing about heal-care either!
The President has shown that he is a worthy leader of the U.S. He has sought agreement, but in the face of an opposition that behaved as if politics works the same a toddler squabbles, he has shown himself to be the Grown-Up.
Complain about this comment
redconn (#116) "The Liberal party has blown it."
The Liberal Party is a Canadian party or a UK party. What do either of them have to do with this?
Complain about this comment
Sorry - but I'm a bit cranky today. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite pleased about the step made towards a fair and equitable Health Care Plan, but I've been hearing too many people griping that they feel 'under-represented'.
-- Well, cry me a river folks - but it won't be as big as the Delaware.
_____________________
Please, allow me to educate you [Sub-Urban American] folks about America:
Estimated 2009 US Population = 307,006,550
TOP 10 MOST POPULATED STATES
CA 37,000,000
TX 34,000,000
NY 29,000,000
FL 18,000,000
IL 13,000,000
PA 12,000,000
OH 12,000,000
MI 10,000,000
GA 9,600,000
NC 9,500,000
2009 Population Estimates as perWikipedia- 'cause they had pretty charts.
TOP 11 MOST POPULATED CITIES
8,200,000 New York, NY
3,800,000 Los Angeles, CA
(LA is the biggest when you count the whole LA Basin area. Sry NY.)
2,800,000 Chicago, Il
2,200,000 Houston, TX
1,500,000 Phoenix, AZ
1,400,000 PHILADELPHIA, PA
1,300,000 San Antonio, TX
1,260,000 San Diego, CA
1,260,000 Dallas, TX
930,000 San Jose, CA
910,000 Detroit, MI
2007 Estimated Data fromInfoplease
I had to squeeze Detroit on there 'cause they've been having such a hard time lately. I'd hate to leave 'em out of the picture. (Hang in there, Detroit!!)
You know - America wouldn't be worth crap were it not for her cities and it is a dang shame that all you sub-urban vocal minority types have been dissin' us for so many years. Chill. Suck it up. Relax.
-- And remember - we're all on the same team. Right?
Have you considered visiting Philadelphia?
Remember the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?
They were signed here.
We were the nation's capitol.
And NOW... we are have a disgustingly high crime rate and about 17% poverty.
How DARE you complain about stimulus money coming here.
Bad Americans.
Shame Shame Shame on you.
You never call... You never write... You've forgotten your Mother.
But don't you worry, kids.
Your MaMa has left the light on for you, and you can come up here and be proud of Philadelphia whenever you like.
I forgive you.
Complain about this comment
ref #296
Did you hear McCain full statement "Democrats poisoned the well" McCain has a record of bipartsianship that is why he has a conservative primary challenge. Obama, Pelosi and REid have no record of bipartsianship.
Complain about this comment
Moderators are approximately 100 minutes behind the postings.
That's roughly the length of time it takes to watch "Casablanca" from start to finish.
Come on, guys, need to step it up a bit. The blog loses its back-and-forth flow and ebb when it takes 3 hours to make a posting, a response, and a reply.
Complain about this comment
#297 I think you make a good point.
Like public water/sewer systems...essential for public health, and a similar battle erupted for Prez T Roosevelt and the Progressives in the 20'-30's. When he said "...This is particularly true because there has not only been lack of information--and information difficult to understand--but there has been in the past few years, as the Federal Trade Commission has shown, a systematic, subtle, deliberate and unprincipled campaign of misinformation, of propaganda, and, if I may use the words, of lies and falsehoods. The spreading of this information has been bought and paid for by certain great private utility corporations. It has permeated the schools, the editorial columns of newspapers, the activities of political parties, the universities and the printed literature in our book stores. A false public policy has been spread throughout the land, through the use of every means, from the innocent school teacher down to a certainly less innocent former chairman of the Republican National Committee itself..." and "...This means, when that duty is properly exercised, positive and active protection of the people against private greed!
So much for the simple, clear and definite theory of regulation --a theory which today is observed more in the breach than in the observance..."
http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932a.htm
Complain about this comment
After 9/11, it felt like all hell broke loose. The wars, the recession, drug violence, terrorism, swine flu, the list goes on and on. It was as if we were in a tunnel that kept getting darker and spiraling more and more out of control.
For the first time since 9/11, I feel the most hope and optimism I have ever felt. Perhaps I do not agree with all aspects of the new health care bill, but something needs to be done. Today feels like there is more light in America than has been here in years. It makes me want to shout, "YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!" :)
President Obama has delivered on his promise to helping America become better and stronger.
As to the Republicans who say it is not the will of the people, they are wrong to speak for everyone. Half of America wanted the bill, half didn't. This is not anything new. We have been split since the beginning of the wars- one side for, one side against. This division then became in the form of health care. But the health care bill cannot be against the will of the people, when half of the people wanted it. So the health care bill is for the people and not against our will. The Republicans have much much difficulty accepting the Democrats decisions. But we have had to accept theirs, as they now have to accept ours. That is America. We are Democrats, Independents and Republicans, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Today is a new day for America. God Bless America and her Allies forever and ever.
Complain about this comment
276. At 11:43am on 23 Mar 2010, John_From_Dublin wrote:
Translation anyone?
Obama represents a political machine. (He's nothing more than an) apparatchik.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 248, GH1618:
"Perhaps, but I've been reviewing Tenth Amendment cases, and it's a complicated matter, despite the libertarian view that it's obvious (they think everything is simple). Over the years, the position of the Supreme Court has varied quite a bit between conservative and liberal construction of federal power. With a philosophically divided court, I think it's impossible to call."
Just for the fun of it, I'm going to predict that the law will stand. I can't find anything in the Constitution that prohibits the Federal Government from requiring that the People have health insurance. It's unusual, yes, but not unconstitutional.
A number of posters have referenced the 10th Amendment. Here it is again:
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 curious thing to me about those references is that they ignore the last clause: ...or to the people. The states aren't the only entities protected by the amendment, and when push comes to shove, the People take precedence. Members of Congress are the People's duly elected representatives. The fact that private polls indicate general dissatisfaction with the bill (now law) is irrelevant. The only polls that matter are those taken by the government (i.e. elections).
Complain about this comment
"Does that hand power to the individual citizen? Maybe in the 18th century pre-industrial revolution, or in some ideal pre-lapsarian rural paradise, but not in a modern urbanised country, it doesn't."
Guess what, squirellist.
U.S. is nor not "a modern urbanized country".
As anybody who botheRED to travel west of Mississippi, let lone west of of the Rockies would have known.
[The Guardian and Wiki can't substitute for a first hand experience]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GO WEST, MIDDLE AGED MAN!
Complain about this comment
Ref. 287, Kebcreation:
"Forcing you to buy something is unconstitutional."
Really? Where does it say that?
Complain about this comment
Ho-hum. (Blood in the water again.)
However, apart from that, since my last post I've caught three buses, collected some medicine from the chemist and been shopping in the supermarket. (Slowly, because I use a crutch.) It'd be quicker to have a debate with the Mars Rover. Or even to ask Voyager what it thinks.
I see that Mitt Romney is going to tell that old guy with the silly braces on CNN that the Repo-men are going to repeal the bill. Another six months or twelve months of this? I don't think the rest of the world can stand it.
On the bus home I was informed by an Irishman from Northern Ireland that Americans are supplied with crutches from the same company in the English West Midlands that made my NHS one--which may be true--and that the NHS was founded by Catholics, is run by priests and nuns under the orders of Opus Dei. (Which I'm pretty sure isn't.)
What is it about me that attracts them? (Unless it's the rather obvious fact I can't run away from them, at least not in real life, Squirrel considers glumly.)
So, OK, any takers for US Health Reform being a Catholic Plot? Or a Protestant one? (I don't mind which, or even any other), but I haven't seen that particular objection yet I realise, and it's about as reasonable as many of the others, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
302. At 2:52pm on 23 Mar 2010, busby2 wrote:
If you can cite the constitution as a reason not to provide health cover for the poor and for those with pre existing health conditions, then it is evident that your constitution is not up to the job of meeting the needs of the 21st Century and that it remains for ever stuck in the Eightenth Century whilst the rest of the world moves with the times. That is very bad news for the future of the USA.
They can cite it all they like, but that doesn't make it true. We mandate that everyone pay federal income taxes and for more than a century (all the way back to the Civil War, in fact) there have been lawsuits arguing that it is unconstitutional, yet we still pay our taxes.
There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. It is simply so well written and incredibly flexible that each generation may interpret it differently to suit the needs of the present without remaining completely bound to the past. Each generation engages in what we call "The Great National Debate" on what is, or isn't constitutional. Which is why we consider our constitution to be a "living" document as opposed to something static that needs to be rewritten. That's part of the reason why the United States is also called The Great Experiment. So, relax. We are used to this sort of thing. Challenges to the constitionality of laws happen every single day here. It's nothing new and will be adjudicated by the appropriate scholars in good time.
Complain about this comment
308. At 3:17pm on 23 Mar 2010, GH1618 wrote:
Perhaps if the mandate for private insurance is ruled unconstitutional, we will end up with tax supported health insurance instead
That is exactly what will happen. A public option for single payer health insurance will be passed. Most likely with Medicare being expanded and opened up to anyone who wants it. The Republicans might bite off a bit more than they can digest by pursing this course of action.
Complain about this comment
294. At 1:57pm on 23 Mar 2010, John_From_Dublin wrote:
"Squirrel, while I appreciate your effort, I regret that I cannot accept your translation. To do so would require me to accept that MK had written something sensible."
Well, it did also rather depend on assuming the Magick Giraffe had changed its viewpoint and politics as well, but, you see, we of the Red Squirrel Party, like all proper Communists and Socialists, do believe in the perfectibility of humankind, so we refuse to accept that either is impossible.
(Unlikely, possibly. Impossible, no. We do admit the Squirrel Socialist Re-Education Programme has on occasion met with some annoyingly stubborn resistance, especially from across The Pond.)
(We're working on getting 'Social Security' known as 'Squirrels' Socialist Security', since we do not care for just the two letters on their own. Especially now.)
Complain about this comment
All: I've withheld comment since this bill passed. While I can see benefits, as I've indicated I have some deep reservations about the real costs and sustainability. Watching the back and forth about which "side" is on "the wrong side of history" has bothered me enough to weigh in again.
The principal questions to ask about this bill, or about any bill, are:
a. What is the long-term (50 years minimum, since we should be looking far enough ahead to take care of our grandchildren) projection of costs for this program? Obviously the projection has to embody the greatest integrity we can provide. Equally obviously it's not going to be terribly accurate at the 50-year point; however, long-term analysis repeated over time can at least provide some trendlines.
b. How do those costs fit into the long-term (same measure) balance between government spending, private spending, and the maintenance of the wealth base that sustains this spending?
With regard to (a), the CBO estimates for this bill are not helpful because (1) they do not run out far enough and (2) they depend in part on requiring a future Congress to enact spending cuts in other programs. There are no guarantees that Congress will do this, and a long history of Congress failing to do this. A more reliable method would have been to crank the spending cuts into the bill NOW, with a future execution date, and language that prevented continued funding of the program if the future Congress failed to enact the cuts. Congress NEVER makes such commitments, however, and they didn't here. In summary, it requires a considerable suspension of disbelief to accept the CBO estimates.
With regard to (b), this is probably the most critical question we have to answer about our financial future. Our private wealth base has to support all the public and private spending we do, and is in turn maintained (or not) by decisions we take not only about spending, but about saving, education, etc., etc., etc.
In a day when public spending was a small fraction of private spending and an even smaller fraction of the private wealth base, and the private wealth base was controlled by many, many hands, this was not as critical a question because neither public nor private spending decisions could drastically affect the private wealth base. Today, however, both individual public spending commitments and private decisions can have a significant effect on the private wealth base, and there's much less reserve or wiggle room available. Managing the private wealth base therefore has become a much more critical activity than it once was.
This is even more true as we consider how that wealth base changes due to changes in technology (e.g. the continued movement toward automation), in the business and legal practices of the private sector both here and abroad, and in the technology, business, and legal directions taken by other nation-states. How much and what kind of education we are going to require and provide is a factor here. Obviously there are other factors as well.
Analysis of all these factors to the best of our ability to estimate (+/- 10%?) should be carried out regularly by our leadership, the results communicated to the society, and Federal policies adjusted based on the results.
That's what should be happening. Since there is no evidence that such is taking place (if it were, it would already have been front and center in the discussion), it requires considerable suspension of disbelief to believe that it really IS taking place anywhere within our society.
Side note to non-US citizens: You have exactly the same questions to answer regarding the long-term balance between spending and the private wealth base. If you aren't asking the questions, and if you aren't getting credible answers from your leaders, you are just as much in the dark about your future as we are about ours, and you are just as unprepared to make decisions about your future as we are about ours.
My conclusion: Since we cannot have high-confidence estimates of what this program is really going to cost, particularly over the long term, and since we absolutely don't know how this program fits into the overall balance between spending and the wealth base, then it seems that any claims that this bill represents "progress" or "the beginning of the end" have no foundation in fact, and any determination of which "side" is on "the wrong side of history" is emotional nonsense at best.
With regard to the decision: It's water under the dam now, and will now assume the same dimensions as all other Federal programs: delivery of some benefits to some folks, with incoherent and unaccounted-for costs, political favors to favorites, and the attraction of the Willie Suttons. That's the nature of Federal programs--ALL of them--without fundamental changes in the Congress, the Executive, and the society, none of which are likely. Any belief to the contrary denies history and human nature both, and are unsupportable.
If the decision makes you feel good, or bad, that's your choice; however, don't be misled into thinking that this decision was arrived at soundly, or that its sustainability is in any way knowable (yea or nay) based on the information collected and presented to date.
My hope is that we might learn from this awful experience, and (a) demand more rigor from ourselves, our fellow citizens, and our leaders with regard to gathering facts, analyzing them, and making sound long-term decisions from them; (b) have much less tolerance toward ourselves or anyone who either jerks emotions around in order to achieve their own ends, or chooses to satisfy their perverse emotional pleasures by demonizing those that disagree with them; and (c) really begin thinking for our grandchildren about the long-term sustainability of this society, and have the courage to make the changes necessary to ensure that it will remain free when they are as old as we are. That's OUR WWII, and OUR Moon shot; it's past time we were about it.
That's my hope, and my goal, and my direction.
Regards,
Arclight
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know which senators were the advocates in the Senate Finance Committee of the individual mandate/fines, and the squashing of the public option?
I would love to see the trail back to the insurance industry...like little golden breadcrumbs I bet
Complain about this comment
Ref. 325, LucyIllinois:
"As to the Republicans who say it is not the will of the people, they are wrong to speak for everyone. Half of America wanted the bill, half didn't."
Yes, and what's more the half of America that have strong objections to the bill are evenly divided amongst those that were against it because it represents a strengthening of the Federal Government and those that were against it because it didn't include a public option. Those two groups are in diametric opposition to one another and will never join forces to form a single opposition movement.
Complain about this comment
326. At 4:26pm on 23 Mar 2010, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
276. At 11:43am on 23 Mar 2010, John_From_Dublin wrote:
Translation anyone?
Obama represents a political machine. (He's nothing more than an) apparatchik.
Nope, don't like that one.
Complain about this comment
“And while many Americans seem genuinely to yearn for the cross-party accord they call bipartisanship, and politicians at least pay it pious lip service, this lengthy debate has revealed a gaping ideological chasm.”
True, but what would President Obama have done when the other side's only interest is to destroy his administration. Many including myself had became rather inpatients with him for trying to accommodate the republicans who had declared from the start that they had no interest in bipartisanship and have no intention of working with the democrats to pass the bill; and if for anything, they will invest their energy to ensure its demise.
The American systems is not a parliamentary systems and yet not even one Republican in the house had voted with the Democrats to pass the bill. This is definitely more than “ideological chasm” -- there is something far more sinister on the Republican side. Among other things, the losers want the President to fail and they don't care about the repercussions on the American people.
What use is democracy if after an election, the losing side undermines the will of the majority and set about disrupting the elected government.
BTW I would imagine Rush Limbaugh is now in Costa Rica – as he had promised himself if the bill passes.
Complain about this comment
squirrelist, your reply to CharlieAtlantic is right on the mark. Understand that CA appears to be libertarian, so what you are getting from him is the libertarian liturgy, which is a selective and distorted reading of history, political science, and law. Libertarians set themselves above the Supreme Court, therefore know what is unconstitutional before the Court rules on it. Rulings of the Court which conflict with their views are ignored. CA has even cited an earlier Court opinion as refutation to a later one!
Where the text of the Constitution is insufficient, they introduce words such as "expressly" or "specifically" or "enumerated" to support a restricted view of federal power, hoping that no one will notice.
Where the thought of the founding fathers have matured, such as Madison's concerns in his later years about the excesses of states' rights being a threat to the union, these can be ignored. The early writings of them as young men are preferred. Yet it is supposed that we know what they would think about today's controversies nearly 200 years after their death.
Simplistic thinking in the extreme, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
John_From_Dublin # 276.
The sekret John is livin a live having use less handrighting, and triing to reid proscriptians ritten bi colleegs.
Magik was mayking a medicul reservation abowt Obama atakking Repulicants an the tee partee.
MK- "Obama resents a politic machine apartic at worse."
Meening- Obama re-sends a polly tick, making a party cat worse.
Germinal whorfair. TragicK seas parasights evrywear.
Complain about this comment
203. csgators wrote:
"The "buy insurance or pay a fine" provision is a bit puzzling to me. How would that work administratively?"
201. GH1618 wrote:
I have been looking as well. ...
____________
I won't claim to speak for Capitol Hill, but it sounds like a basic "Opt Out Fee."
Medical Insurance Providers offer coverage rates to employers based upon risk assessment conducted on the institution. This assessment includes a very complex survey regarding the location, whether employees travel, where they commute from, employee ages, whether the employees have children, prior claim history...
Note: Insurance rates increase for the entire business if employees are married with children &/or have had cancer.
[I once made an executive decision to not tell a CEO that his insurance rates increased because of new births and two aging employees. I was afraid he'd find excuses to fire his 'high risk employees'.]
So,
A small rural business has less risk and lower rates.
A large sub-urban business has moderately high risk spread over many many people, which brings moderate rates back down to a reasonable level.
A mid-sized urban business might have higher risk and fewer employees to carry the cost of the risk... making rates very very high.
Now - lets make this even more fun!
If a medical plan is purchased by a company for their 200 employees based on the fact that 150 of them elected coverage last year, but then only 100 employees actually enroll in the new plan... rates will increase again because the risk is calculated across a smaller population.
[I've seen Dental Plans die because rates increased, so more people dropped, which boosted the rates, so people dropped...]
So -
Some companies will curtail this risk-based-cost (and maybe encourage people to enroll?) by charging an "Opt Out Fee." That is, even if you decide to opt out of the plan, you must pay towards the company's coverage. This is sort of fair, because the company's risk analysis includes your data (age/health/family size) whether you enroll or not.
BTW: This is why regional insurance plans are cheaper than smaller local ones... the risk calculation includes a much larger population. Now, imagine a national risk assessment calculation! (cheap cheap cheap...)
Complain about this comment
Obama has bullied his way through an issue that matters less to most Americans, and he and his House and Senate cronies have maneuvered in an unenviable fashion to have their way, 'buying vote's at the expense of the other 85 percent of America. Politicans are elected practioners of the world's oldest profession, as was proved by the 'pork' left on the 'bedside' tables of the 'fence-sitting' Representatives this week.
As the old adage says, "If you spend all your money on licorice, you'll have nothing left for icecream." My guess is Obama has no currency left for 'icecream' and the closer he gets to mid-term elections the less valuable his little remaining currency will be...even the spoiled public and private employee Union members are going to remember that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a host of other left-leaners were initially willing to tax their Cadillac healthcare plans.
Next up, 12 to 15 states are resisting the federal take over of healthcare in court as 'unconstitutional' and beyond the authority of regulating interstate commerce, i.e., a violation of state's rights. It will be interesting to see how the currently, slightly lop-sided Supreme Court will rule when that reaches their level.
My guess is, that knowing this Obama may be wishing he could have back the cheap-shots which he so gracelessly, and publically threw at members the U.S. Supreme Court during his stand-up comedy routine, aka, The State of the Union address, regarding corporate freedom for campaign advertising...although I'm sure they're all honorable men, with short memories and prone to exacting objectivity.
In any case, it ain't over til the seven sleepy Justices sing, and precious few of 'them' will still be around after 2010, 2012, and 2014 when we're going to try to send them all home.
Complain about this comment
328. At 5:00pm on 23 Mar 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Guess what, squirellist. U.S. is nor not "a modern urbanized country".
Well, I won't argue with 'not modern' then.
But the definition of 'urbanised' has nothing to do with how empty bits of a country are:
World Urban populations:
China
535,958,000
India
312,887,000
USA
232,080,000
Brazil
151,925,000
Indonesia
104,048,000
Russia
102,731,000
Japan
101,831,000
Mexico
80,073,000
Germany
[mapsofworld.com, 2005, est.]
And:
Population living in Urban Areas
225,956,060
( % 79.219)
Population living in Rural Areas
59,274,456
( % 20.781)
["Urban areas include all urbanized areas (over 50,000 population) and Urban Clusters (2,500 to 49,999 population)"]
[US Census 2000]
This is much the same, oddly enough, as the highly densely-populated UK, which was 81% in 2001. [UK Census]
Though the definition of an 'urban area' is slightly different: "The definition of an urban area depends on the circumstance and experience of the wider area in which it is set. It is perfectly reasonable for different countries to have differing definitions of what makes an area urban and this is the case in the UK. The latest definition in England and Wales is an area with 10,000 people or more; in Scotland this is 3,000 people or more; while in Northern Ireland5 it is 4,500 people or more."
Sorry, but it is a fact of social and economic life that people now come together for community and support in urban, not rural, concentrations. And the political, legal, social and economic structure and framework must reflect that.
It took London (somewhat different to other capital cities because it was, still is to a certain extent, also an industrial urban environment) quite a while to get to grips with that through the latter half of the 19th century.
(If it doesn't, as a recent BBC2 documentary demonstrated, you get a disaster like Detroit in 2010.)
Complain about this comment
Ref 339.
Actually it's very much off the mark. As is every other comment in response to CharlieAtlantic. None of you have been able to provide a well reasoned contra-argument to him. Blankly denying his correctness is about all you can do. In case of squirelist it's mostly absurdities anyway as it has always been. His/her arguments are mostly subsumed under famous words of Solzhenitsyn who said that most people don't want freedom, because they wouldn't know what to do with this. Most of you would prefer someone made most or all decisions for you so you don't have to face responsibility for anything.
That is why you justify your poor judgment by nonsense about racism, constitution as "living document", and absurd allusions to Christian morals. Your every pathetic attempt of an argument was gracefully disputed and nullified and yet you still cling to your obstinacy and lack of logic.
Complain about this comment
BBC:
Congratulations to Katty Kay on her analysis of the political effects of this legislation. I thought it was spot on. Koppel couldn't have done better.
Complain about this comment
ref #338
What use is democracy if after an election, the losing side undermines the will of the majority and set about disrupting the elected government.
________________
Did you feel that way when the roles were reveresed and Dems were fillibustering Bush judicial nominees?
Complain about this comment
I see it as a good day for anyone that might happen to become ill.
I like the idea that everyone is required to be apart of the health care system.
I dislike living in a country where "who's really paying for health care unclear and uncertain."
I dislike the way some Emergency rooms are ran. I had a brother fall off a ladder and was admitted at a Corpus Christ Medical Emergency facility. They xray'ed him found nothing broken and told him to leave. ( He had Long Shoreman Insurance ) but it wasn't clear at the time. He couldn't walk, one foot having ligament damaged and the bicep in his right arm completely seared into. ~ He asked for a wheelchair and was pushed to the parking lot where he caught a cab. ( any family was 800 miles away at the time.) That was August of 2009 ~ since then he's had three surgeries and is permanently gimmick from the weeks of healing that took place before he finally got "professional treatment"
That's just one of many stories of how wonderful the present medical care system in America can be to anyone at any given time. ~ It all depends on the mood of the people on duty and how they look at you.
If you are dirty, or your medical coverage unclear or not a pretty person or have on ragged work cloths, finding yourself unable to defend yourself, no family at your side, you are at the mercy of whatever suites them.
And that's just the way it's been. My hope is , this will change.
Complain about this comment
339. At 6:04pm on 23 Mar 2010, GH1618 wrote:
squirrelist, your reply to CharlieAtlantic is right on the mark
Yes, well, perhaps that's because I wasn't educated at an Oxford College (neither of the University, nor Correspondence).
Complain about this comment
Just spoke to small business owner (republican) who is tickled pink! He has less than 50 employees, pays well over $150,000 a year for company health insurance with each employee chipping in around $3,000 a year...went to his agent (fearful from the caterwauling) and found out that under the new law he won't be required to carry policies plus his employees (and he himself) should be able to get coverage through an exchange (which he can elect to subsidize through salary or not). It remains to be seen how much this exchange premium would be. The public option would also have put him in a better position. His agents only surprise was that there are no rate caps or industry cost controls in the bill ... curiouser and curiouser...maybe these are left to the states to control.
Complain about this comment
344. Bogdan:
How kind of you. Appreciate it.
And your 'well-reasoned' argument is?
Complain about this comment
Philly-Mom (#341), I meant how are the mandates to be in administered as far as determining who is not insured who should be, and imposing a fine.
With mandated automobile insurance, it's easy. You send in proof of insurance when renewing your license. That model doesn't apply. Also it doesn't work very well. People license their vehicle then drop their insurance.
Complain about this comment
328. At 5:00pm on 23 Mar 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"Guess what, squirellist. U.S. is nor not "a modern urbanized country".
343. At 6:29pm on 23 Mar 2010, squirrelist wrote:
Well, I won't argue with 'not modern' then.
______
Ouch. You know, just because we neither bury our wires nor provide universal health care... and... um... well... I did notice a pony cart in the NW recently, but I think they were being ecologically conscientious. Or, maybe they were Luddite tourists?
-- Ponies. The USA's New Green Technology!
Complain about this comment
344. At 6:34pm on 23 Mar 2010, Bogdan wrote:
"Your every pathetic attempt of an argument was gracefully disputed and nullified. . ."
If you care to actually read CharlieAtlantic's posts, they are all essentially a repetition of "What is not expressly allowed to the Federal Government of the USA in the Constitution is forbidden."
Complain about this comment
Bogdan:
So then do you....
Feel we should do nothing to the current health system?
Let the poor/working poor continue to die or be chronically sick because of lack of access to care?
Do you feel they deserve no access? If so, why? What about children?
What about the people losing their homes or going bankrupt due to getting cancer or other illnesses through no fault of their own?
What about the cost of losing working business because of people taking off due to sickness that could have been minimized or avoided altogether if people didn't have to take chances on their health due to costs?
Complain about this comment
Andy PostThe curious thing to me about those references is that they ignore the last clause: ...or to the people. The states aren't the only entities protected by the amendment, and when push comes to shove, the People take precedence. Members of Congress are the People's duly elected representatives. The fact that private polls indicate general dissatisfaction with the bill (now law) is irrelevant. The only polls that matter are those taken by the government (i.e. elections).
This is perhaps my favourite ever post. Brilliant! Your argument is that the Tenth Amendment - part of the Bill of Rights, all of which are restrictions on power of the federal government - was designed to reserve power for the 'people,' so that those 'people' could then oblige the federal government to do what it is forbidden to by the Tenth Amendment, those rights being reserved to the states or the people.
Wow.
Complain about this comment
Philly-Mom # 341
Perhaps inappropriate but observations from Europe.
A couple of years back 2006? Holland combined Private and Public heath care to start a compulsory"Folks Insurance" for all.
Penalties that now can be applied are 130% of all missed payments extending over a 5 year period [when big brother eventually catches you].
If you are an employee, I would imagine that the employer is responsible for collection of the premium, but the self employed have to be on their toes.
Fortunately our costs for basic cover are a lot less than your probable costs with 1150 Euros p.p. giving 12 months basic care. Add Dental and Physio, Hot and Cold running nurses, single room etc etc and it comes out at around 2300 Euros.
With Obamacare picking the brains of all other International health care providers if any penalties should be applied I feel it will be something similar. BTW It works. No problems. Look forward to saving money when the whole shooting match kicks in.
Complain about this comment
Bogdan (#344) "None of you have been able to provide a well reasoned contra-argument to him."
Well, one either accepts that the US Supreme Court is the final authority on what the US Constitution means, or one does not. CharlieAtlantic has asserted that certain decisions of the Court are incorrect. I would not do that; I would merely say that I would have preferred a different outcome, or that I prefer the point of view in a particular dissenting opinion to the Court's opinion. It's not something that is subject to proof. That's another problem with libertarians. They believe in such a thing as correct policy and believe that you can get there by objective analysis and "proof." I had a mathematics professor long ago who said "proof is what convinces me." I am not convinced by libertarians' "proofs" of the "correctness" of their policies.
"That is why you justify your poor judgment by nonsense about racism, constitution as "living document", and absurd allusions to Christian morals."
I am positive that you will not find anything from me anywhere in this forum making appeals to "racism" or "Christian morals." As for "living document" I have not used that term either; it was someone else. Nevertheless it is a fact that judicial interpretations of the Constitution have evolved over time, and sometimes a Court makes significant shifts from earlier constitutional doctrine. The Tenth Amendment is one area where doctrine has shifted back and forth, depending on the particular case at hand and the composition of the Court. I am interested in the complete history of the Court, whereas libertarians are mainly interested in those opinions which reinforce their own views, which they judge "correct." This is a ridiculous point of view worthy only of ridicule, not counter-argument.
Complain about this comment
Ref 296, Squirrelist
"And so it has; McCain--what happened to the 'bipartisanship' there?--has thrown his chips on the table and said the Republicans will oppose the bill in the Senate, and then right on through to November. Not only that, but any and everylegislation proposed by the President or the Democratic Party."
Sen. McCain is doing what he does best: change positions and adjust to circumstances to improve his re-election chances.
This is the man that denounced the "agents of intolerance" a few years ago only to cozy up to them during the presidential campaign to get their support. Now he is facing a tough nomination in his home state against an ultra-conservative that is challenging McCain's conservative credentials. Not surprisingly, good ole John morphed himself once again and he is now well to the right of Nixon, Reagan and Bush II. What a guy!
Complain about this comment
Check this out, this is fun ...
First, Al Sharpton says: "I think that this is — began to transform the country the way the president had promised. This is what he ran on."
Then Geraldo says: "Some argue to socialism."
Then Al Sharpton (SARCASTICALLY) says: "Well, first of all, then we'd have to say that the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589814,00.html
So now Palin says that Al Sharpton says that Obama ran on a campaign to transform America into a socialist country. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589803,00.html
I think this is called making it up as you go along...
Complain about this comment
Here is a link to an interesting letter from James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist (1832):
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mjmtext:@field(DOCID+@lit(jm090141))
on the subject of "nullification" of federal laws by a state legislature, in which he ridicules those who selectively cite Jefferson, ignoring those statements of his which were against them.
Madison was our fourth president, and is known as the "Father of the Constitution." He was one of the last of the founders to die, in 1836. At the end of his life, he was not averse to interpreting his work in the contemporary context.
When people cite the founders selectively to support their narrowly drawn views, as if the founders were similarly narrow-minded, I am reminded of a scene from Woody Allen's Manhattan in which he pulls out Marshall McLuhan from behind a plant to refute some self-appointed "expert" on McLuhan's theories. I wish life were like that.
Complain about this comment
349. frayedcat:
Oh dear, oh dear. Now the 'Public Option' has been dropped, I think I hear down the line the sound of a train wreck as it comes off the rails after colliding with the Law of Unintended Consequences.
(Or, what happens when you do deals for votes by dropping some bits of a bill and stuff other bits into the cracks.)
Complain about this comment
"What is not expressly allowed to the Federal Government of the USA in the Constitution is forbidden."
See it's not that hard to understand after all is it. If you want the government to do something else, amend said Constitution.
Complain about this comment
House Minority Leader John Boehner promises this reform will destroy the US economy. I'm wondering what he will say when it fails to?
Certain he'll come forward with something, they always do. I look forward to hearing it. Boehner is bought and paid for by special interest caring little about the nation only friends, supporters and contributors. For his purposes, that is America.
And John Mc Cain has not worked across party lines displaying any "Maverickism" he likes to take credit for. His tipple dipping retired constituents from the welfare state of Arizona are fearful someone might get something they don't deserve. What we see is not the John Mc Cain I known, but a man running scared.
"I'm living on a fixed income" ~ is the common retort! Well?
I live on what I can chase down and it a day to day job.
People got some twisted views about whats happening today.
The ones that seem to worry the most and scream the loudest fear their comfort zone perhaps compromised.
This will all work out better for everyone in the long run, unless you think 3rd world countries a better place to live and raise a family.
Complain about this comment
352. At 7:36pm on 23 Mar 2010, Philly-Mom wrote:
"Ponies. The USA's New Green Technology!"
Cor! They'll be sending them down the mines soon, then. And getting the US mail delivered on time. That's exciting!
Complain about this comment
squirrelist (#353) ... they are all essentially a repetition of "What is not expressly allowed to the Federal Government of the USA in the Constitution is forbidden."
Actually, James Madison took a narrow view on this point. Here is a link to a veto message of his in which he rejects as unconstitutional an act providing for federal funding of roads and canals:
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
This constrained view of federal power went out with President Theodore Roosevelt (who built the Panama Canal). Today, we take for granted the federally funded Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, and the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers over navigable waterways, including the building of locks, dams, and control structures.
Complain about this comment
355. charlieatlantic;
362. At 8:34pm on 23 Mar 2010, csgators wrote:
"What is not expressly allowed to the Federal Government of the USA in the Constitution is forbidden."
See it's not that hard to understand after all is it. If you want the government to do something else, amend said Constitution.
The Constitution of the United Sates Article 1 Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States"
"The Congress shall have power . . .to make all laws which shall be necessary and properfor carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powersvested by this Constitution in the government of the United States."
14th Amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
You have to take both Constitution and all the Amendments together, first of all. And neither define what these 'other' rights to be 'retained by the people' are, I don't think. To argue just from the Seventh and Tenth is to go round in circles.
Complain about this comment
Ref 328 powermarkeet-
"U.S. is nor not "a modern urbanized country".
As anybody who botheRED to travel west of Mississippi, let lone west of of the Rockies would have known."
I have traveled, by automobile, west of the Mississippi, and west of the Rockies over a period of 30 years. My last trip was in October of last year. The prairies and plains are sparsely populated. Urban centers like Omaha, Des Moines, Lincoln, Denver, Cheyenne, Casper, Phoenix, Tuscon, Las Vagas; to name just a few, have grown and spread out like weeds in a fallow field. More than once I've driven on to stop at a fondly remembered diner in a small rural community to discover that the community no longer exists. Maybe one or two vacant buildings.
The United States stopped being a 'rural' nation by the late 1960's. The last four National Censuses have documented that more people live in urban and suburban areas than in rural areas. Urban and suburban areas continue to gain population because jobs are very limited in rural areas.
I left the farm in 1970 to move to the city where there was opportunity. Farming is very mechanized to the point that it is possible for one person to farm 1,000 acres of land; or easily tend 100 head of dairy cattle. I have a cousin who farms over 5,000 acres of land with his wife and teenage children assisting when needed. Associated agri-businesses do not offer many jobs. Walmart and other "big-box" stores close local businesses and reduces employment opportunities. There has been a constant lament in rural communities that an overwhelming number of their youth leave the area after graduation from high school.
The U.S. is an urban society and has been for decades.
Complain about this comment
I've had enough I think. I've just remembered I invented 'Squirrel's First Law of the Internet" intending to avoid the consequences.
And I am so glad we don't have a written constitution, given the bother it seems to cause.
Complain about this comment
#361 Who better to follow the crumbs back to the dastards than a squirrel?
#362 WRONG...ponies=methane=global warming...how bout pneumatic tubes?
#367 Unfortunately I was asked NOT to use lengthy quotes from the Grapes of Wrath any more
Complain about this comment
366. At 9:48pm on 23 Mar 2010, squirrelist wrote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
And how does the 14th Amendment give the Federal government power to mandate health insurance coverage? I could actually argue that the 14th makes the Mass. law unconstitutional.
Complain about this comment
squirrelist (#366) "You have to take both Constitution and all the Amendments together, first of all. And neither define what these 'other' rights to be 'retained by the people' are, I don't think. To argue just from the Seventh and Tenth is to go round in circles."
Yes, but more important is to take into consideration all Supreme Court opinions on the subject. If we adhered today to Madison's limited view of federal power, we would be a third world country today.
The reason the argument goes round and round without resolution is that people start with different axioms. If two mathematicians start with different axioms, you can't expect their proofs to coincide, even though their logic be faultless.
Complain about this comment
PS - Mr. Mardell - rumor has it that the Tea Party movement WAS created, financed and influenced through health insurance lobbiest groups, connected to a group called Freedomworks...'grassroots' like a snake in the grass...roots...but no matter
Complain about this comment
367. At 9:49pm on 23 Mar 2010, publiusdetroit wrote:
"The U.S. is an urban society and has been for decades."
Well, it's like a lot of other things. It's not what really exists that matters, only what you want to believe. Sort of Bishop Berkeley in reverse. There's a cow in the field because I believe there ought to be one, even if there's no field for a cow to be in.
Complain about this comment
69. At 10:09pm on 23 Mar 2010, frayedcat wrote:
"#361 Who better to follow the crumbs back to the dastards than a squirrel?"
The squirrels say they were tempted, but there are more important things to think about and time presses. . . .you do realise what season's coming up?
We'll ask the hares if they'll do it, they'll be mad enough to say yes for another week or so.
Complain about this comment
GH1618If we adhered today to Madison's limited view of federal power, we would be a third world country today.
Why? Given that there is no real restriction on the power of each state, why could whatever it is you think would be missing not be administered at that level?
The reason the argument goes round and round without resolution is that people start with different axioms. If two mathematicians start with different axioms, you can't expect their proofs to coincide, even though their logic be faultless.
Yes, there is a great deal of truth in this.
Complain about this comment
Ref 375 charlieatlantic-
"Why? Given that there is no real restriction on the power of each state, why could whatever it is you think would be missing not be administered at that level?"
Careful, or you will be opening up a mixed bag of fifty more constitutions to be considered. State Constitutions may take their basis from the U.S. Constitution, but the become quite diverse from there.
Complain about this comment
I'll revise my assertion in post #371 from "third world country" to "second rate power." Meaning that we could not have done such things as building the Panama Canal, a project which some members of Congress thought unconstitutional. Whether the union could have been preserved is an open question. We know that Madison in the 1830s was focused on preservation of the union, but we don't know whether he could have achieved it without adjusting his notion of federal power.
In any case, it is merely speculation and it doesn't matter. It is an argument for pedants. I am a pragmatist and I accept the nation as it operates today as my starting point.
Complain about this comment
"There are dangers to his left as well as his right. He's harmed his reputation with his own power base, for many liberals feel there have been so many compromises the bill is hardly worth it.
So it's a pivotal moment. But it's not clear which way the balance will swing."
well yes, there are always dangers, it comes with the job of the 1st chair position. But "No" I feel you over estimate the disenchantment of "some" progressives. What danger might they offer? Are they going to turn into republicans or something? I think most of our member's while perhaps disappointed with some things, offer no danger!
The danger comes from short minded people that have been caught up in the process, all sense of reason overwhelmed, feeling compelled to throw bricks through government window to register their disappointment with the outcome. ~~ Childish, criminal behavior.
I don't know who these people are exactly but my guess is they enjoy going to Tea Parties and I'd question their ability to process rational thought. Now what would we find in such a citizen heart that would do such a thing? This is more the acts of the North American Teliban , attempting to insight terror and fear while hiding their faces under a bed sheet. Cowards and crybabies attempting to get more attention then they worthy of. The system has failed to render the desired results ~ so the system has failed? No ! They just didn't get their way this time around.
They are out numbered by rational citizens. However, In their mind, they are a majority, that they only wish to watch, speak and visit with people that think and believe as they do ~ mere coincidence? No, these are the same people that that kept 43 in office and his programs popular for so long. Showing great intolerance for any descending voice. Willing to bully and shout down anyone that offers any sense of reason into the politic process.
Yea ~ they still walk among us as free people. I'd like to fix that, perhaps we can if we can draw they out into the opening. After 9 years I've about had a belly full of them.
There still some fine tuning to be done to this bill, it's not over yet. Many states have filed suit ~ it'll work it way though the system regardless of how many brick they throw or how many condescending expletive they shout.
It's started out as a cloaked racial issue, unable to withstand the naked light of reason, in sprite of all the side trails and denials, and it still~ it fuels the flame consternation and resentment.
I say to you ~ Obama was the best of the choices we were offered ~ accept that and bring forward better talent next time. Where would we be now with an McSame / Palin administration, I shutter to consider it.
The GOP hated Clinton and everything that was Clinton, and he was Anglo ~ so multiply that 50 times and that how they feel about Obama just for "openers". Understand and accept it, for only then does what we see and hear make any sense regardless of the ruse or red herring they throw while hiding their true motive too unworthy to speak in public.
Complain about this comment
Squirrelist...dying here...there was some kind of lag and all I saw was you tag and "#69 at 10:09pm" or somethin and thought it was fresh and I was like "Dude...awesome..." but thought it was kind of strange you'd post n all, you talking about the "season" and all...sick man, I need health care
Complain about this comment
164. At 5:15pm on 22 Mar 2010, charlieatlantic wrote:
"Given that Florida, Virginia, Idaho, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama have all, since yesterday, expressed their intention to sue on tenth amendment and/or limited jurisdiction grounds I'm not sure I'm that much on the fringe."
Given that all these suits are the work of Republican attorneys general, I'm not sure the issue involves principle, not politics. Judging by the character demonstrated by the Republicans (I'll not discuss their hangers-on) since the last election, I feel free to assert that it is most likely only politics. Remember that the Republican governor of Massachusetts set up a remarkably similar program for that state, and that the states' rights argument hasn't held water for about fifty years.
It would be amusing to see the Bush court devolve federal authority.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
281. At 12:21pm on 23 Mar 2010, Rosalie wrote:
Thank you Mark for a thoughtful analysis. I am interested to hear what our British friends think of what is happening here in America. I totally disagree with the woman who posted that this is all about race. She couldn't be more wrong. This is about FORCING Americans to purchase health insurance. No one has yet answered the charge that is is un-Constitutional, but they will be soon forced to answer because atleast 10 states are bring a lawsuit against our Federal government.
I am against this health care bill for two reasons: Number One: we cannot afford it! Number two: to be forced to buy govt insurance is un-Constitutional.
I think the President should have focused on insurance reform; that is where the real reform is needed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with you at so many levels. First of all, Money is a complete fiction. Talk to the guys on Wall Street who manipulate it and to the Fed which constantly creates economic voodoo.
This is about the innate issues of class inherent in racism. It also has to do with the profound moral failings of the United States citizens who can't be bothered to care about those less fortunate than they are and yet wave the "we are Christian" flag. Last time I checked, charity was a virtue and we were all taught about the value of sharing as kids. Maybe some folks skipped that day in class and took the alternate course on badgering and bullying.
This has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility - that is the veneer on top. This is about hate - which is evident in many of the posts here in response to the original blog entry - with clever and sometimes factual forays into explanation. But the bottom line is this - Americans do not care about their own citizens, especially if they are of a different religion, ethnic background or economic class than they are. Until we do, it will be bad and get worse. And while our President is not perfect, nor should he be (after enduring eight years of G W Bush, it is just nice to have someone who can talk in regular English,) at least he is forthright. I know many disagree - but let's recall who made up "weapons of mass destruction" so he could go kill Saddam. I mean really. Let's calculate the expense George's wars!
I have a sneaky feeling the GOP is in for a very hard time. Hopefully Rush Limbaugh and his compatriots will sail away to the islands soon and let those of us who care start the work of improving our broken society.
Complain about this comment
DemRR # 381
"I have a sneaky feeling the GOP is in for a very hard time. Hopefully Rush Limbaugh and his compatriots will sail away to the islands soon...."
And return like Walter Raleigh with new benefits for America's future health? [More tobacco and potatoes?]
Nothing like dreaming, but one swallow does not make a summer, though appreciate your hopes of mending any broken society.
Despite Rush and friends possessing a moral compass that was going south for years, today in the wilderness even a fool can circle the wagons and prepare for the play-offs.
Time out. Change present day play book tactics. Choose different 'good book' quotes. Change of strip. Move the goalposts. Injure / foul an opposing player. A friendly referee sitting on the benches......The possibilities are endless.
Would suggest you lay up for a seige. A couple of crates [zero cal, non alco], nuts and seeds [antioxidants, omega3] and watch the big game move into overtime.
“The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not.”
Mark Twain.
Complain about this comment
Squirrellist of the Red Squirrel Party agrees graciously that U.S. is not a modern country.
Indeed U$A ain't.
Because Socialists have a looooong way to go to make it into yet another modern Socialist disaster.
P.S. Red Squirrel International [Squirintern] could do worse that read a list of Nobel science prize laureats for the last 60-70 years.
Or the list of crucial patent holders for the same period.
Obviously raised and educated in a backward country. :-))))))))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
379. At 01:37am on 24 Mar 2010, frayedcat wrote:
Squirrelist...dying here...there was some kind of lag and all I saw was you tag and "#69 at 10:09pm" or somethin ...sick man, I need health care
Sorry, must have missed the '2' out. There's soon to be a new Government Health Warning for forums like this:
WARNING: Banging your head against a brick wall may seriously affect your mental health. In extreme cases leading to a comatose or even incurable vegetative state.
Complain about this comment
383.powermeerkat:
Squirintern is allied with the Camel Front ('Camelot'). They haven't forgotten, and they've still got the hump.
Complain about this comment
Re # 385
squirrelist,
Looking at actions of some of camel drivers you sympathize (ally?) with Im' not so much concerned about Camel Front as poor camels' behinds.
Complain about this comment
An important piece of legislation for the Americans. The real benefits will be known only after a while & the political fall out will be known by the year end. But for now, it is celebration time for the president!!
Complain about this comment
I never gave up hope. When all around the bill was dead - I never gave up hope and now:
49% Approval for this Healthcare Bill and the Dow is up by 109 since passing the bill.
Look at the historic laws that were enacted last century - all be Democrats. What does that say about our society??
1) 1935 Social Security Bill (F Roosevelt(D))
2) 1964 Civil Rights Bill (L. Johnson (D))
3) 1965 Medicare Bill (L. Johnson(D))
1995 We should have had Health Reform (under Clinton)
It took at further 15 years to get
(4) 2010 Healthcare Reform Bill (B.Obama (D))
So granted, we know who the party is that is going to take care of its people towards their goals of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".
It is the right thing to do. However, this Bill largely reforms the excesses of the greedy Health Insurance companies (corporate welfare at the expense of the American people).
It is a BIG start to providing coverage for all. More provisions will be made to this Law over time, and I believe, that we will get a Public Option and a single payer in years to come. You have to walk before you can run and obviously this is the way to go to making our society a stronger healthy and wealthy one!
You are wrong if you think the status quo can exist. Is it Ok for people to go to ER in the hospitals and expect to get emergency care for FREE at the cost of $1000 per household. That is stealing and that is why everyone needs to be covered just like car insurance.
We can't force anyone to buy a car but we do make it mandatory to have Car Insurance and this reform law is a victory for Americans. It stops discrimination.
How can it be a "pre-existing condition" to be a women: a woman who has had a c section or has had a baby. We don't need discrimination in this country any more. US is about inclusion not exclusion.
Barack Obama has already proved in passing this bill that he is more than capable. He is experienced and strong and is possibly the most exciting president we have ever had next to Kennedy and Clinton. The time is right - he did the right thing. He campaigned on this reform and reform is what he has given us albeit the bill is not yet perfect it is a great start for the future and health of the American people.
The reconciliation bill is going to pass albeit with obstruction from the Party of no. They are so jealous and acting like spoilt little boys. All they can do is moan.
The Republicans:
Where is their bill?
Where was their reform when they ruled the House and Senate 2000-2005.
The soul purpose of the Republican amendments are to kill Healthcare Reform in the Reconciliation.
They are so put out that they have not done anything historic except the outrageous following:
1) Tax Cuts in 2003 that cost 398 billion
2) increase in 2003 to Medicare part D that cost 348 billion
3) Tax Cuts in 2001 that cost 1.3 Trillion
TOTAL of $2 TRILLION AND WAIT FOR IT
NONE OF THIS WAS PAID FOR!!! JUST LIKE THE 2 WARS THAT CURRENTLY ONGOING.
Obama did the right thing and he is to be heralded as a Great President.
Thanks for your time.
Complain about this comment
# 384 Now you tell me
Complain about this comment
"That is stealing and that is why everyone needs to be covered just like car insurance. " exactly ! well said, thank you.
It's not free! The bar is placed at a position more people can participate making it more affordable to more people.
There will always be someone outside any system but this is a start in the right direction.
"Where does this leave Obama?" Well? it not about Obama, as he has stated countless times. He has affordable health care. This is about a nation of people, North Americans. People that say they embrace democracy but in truth we are split down the middle and the balance embracing hypocrisy.
So where does this leave Obama ? Current views? hated by half of us and beloved by the other half. As far as American History going, he's offered solid leadership when there was none! He's offered us a vision of the future that still elude many Americans. They don't want to see it or can't see it. He shown great patience and resolve while being under constant attack for his birth, his place of birth, his pastor, his social work, his family, his childhood, his presence in the party of people he had no control of, his ideas of social equity, justice and fairness ~~ everything but his educational achievement.
Obama will always be hated by some , just like Lincoln , yes there are American's that hate Linclon, hate what he did.
Sometimes you can judge "Greatness" by how many people hate you.
Great men and women don't achieve greatness by worrying where they are liked or not.
Obama is walking down the road to greatness, still having plenty of time to stumble and fall. But I don't see it coming, he plays a flawless poke hand so far.
Complain about this comment
"Cool professor" indeed!
I am confused by this fan magazine gushing over Obama. It is so extreme that it borders on parody.
Obama has won a personal victory at a tremendous cost. The US is exhausted by unemployment, foreclosures and recession. The antics and hysterics over this bill have finally ended. I don't know of many people who are happy about it or even interested any more.
The idea that all people who oppose the bill are fanatics is simply absurd.
The question that no one has answered is: Who is going to pay for this?
Taxes will hit the fragile economy very hard. That is not a cause for rejoicing.
Complain about this comment
quote,"I think the President should have focused on insurance reform; that is where the real reform is needed."
Indeed, and it was ~ It was referred to as "comprehensive health care reform" which included all aspect of offering quality heath care at a price more people could afford. From a--hole to appetite, strong on prevention and wellness visits and who's paying for it.
There is still much to do ~ it not over. Just like with the banks, it's not over. These issues are bleeding American dry. We're patching these "holes" while attempt to to create commerce and more jobs.
We are going through a transition, changing our focus and direction. It saddening so many resist this change, it slows our recovery. It's going to take several years to get many of these project started. The engineers and draftsmen, scientist, soil samples , impact studies, feasibility studies, right of ways,investors, attorneys all have their work to do first. Until then, we won't see many new jobs. But they are coming.
I don't see a rose garden in the near future and it's just made worst and taking longer by our simpler GOP friends and how they wish to conduct affairs. Who do they really serve? Insurance Companies or the American people? They do us a disservice by refusing to compromise on any and all initiatives offered by the present administration. This breakdown renders government ineffective, we already had 8 years of ineffective government and they attempt to cripple this one.
Complain about this comment
390 Darwan - thanks for you comments.
We live in a democracy and if the GOP want to obstruct congressional law then they are not being democratic. The are demonizing the whole process. It is time for the good old boy to pack up and go home. People like McCain, Grassley, Coburn, Hatch et other.
Tuesday was a great day for American politics. I hope that Obama takes on financial and education reform but first he has to focus on jobs jobs and jobs.
Complain about this comment
388 - I made a mistake the dates the Republican Party ruled both houses was 2003-2007. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
There is countless ways to transfer wealth from one pocket to another and it doesn't have to come by way of Taxes. There exist a break point when it comes to matters of "counting" or attempting to offer balance that is often overlooked. Like the biblical story of the woman that gave to the church only one (1) mite. While such a small amount, it was everything she had, making her a larger contributor to the church then people who gave much more.
I received an interesting mail-out from my State Texas State House of Representative Lon Burnam district 90 showing interesting accounting that reflect this disparity in accounting as well.
The graph is titled " Texas households with the lowest income pay the highest percentages in state and local taxes.
example; a family making under $24,899 Annually , 12.8% is consumed in taxes. While a family making up to $45,271 pays 7.6% in taxes.
Now if you are luck enough to make over $109.182 annually , only 4.7% in consumed in taxes. This is almost "2/3rd less income" paid towards taxes then people that only make 1/4 as much. Now how do we reconcile that?!!!!!! Hmm? How is that considered fair for everyone? I don't think that we can ~ it's much easier to just ignore it ~ especially if you are on the winning end of it. ~ That some have great jobs, pretty families, quality educations, make $109,000. a year AND enjoy Federal subsidized health care through your employer just makes it sweeter! ~ Every tax payer is helping pay for your health care ~ Great! Good deal, proud for you! ~~ but is it too much to ask, to see the disparity
Now this family that makes under $ 24,899 can't afford major medical insurance ~ costing half of their annual salary, considering some company might be good enough to offer it to them.
Most of the people that find themselves in this position, work for you, they mow your yard, clerk at the food store, roof you house,bus your children to school, They serve society in countless way while paying a greater percentage of their income for the honor.
This " transfer of wealth" is nothing new and a critical function of "any" economy. ~ From the early 1800's as men with their families worked in the Coal mines of Virginia and was basically "owned" by the company store. Living off of the benevolence of the company and the equity of sweat and blood to today.
Wealth transfer is "not" new and it not always a bad thing , but today we have some disparities that need to be addressed.
And that's what's at the core " Comprehensive Health Care Reform" let's face it ~ if everyone was paid more this wouldn't be an issue
It's became a huge hole in "too many" American's bucket ~ making it impossible to participate in the American dream. Their bucket holds no water. The only way to plug their leaky bucket is not have insurance, not get sick ~ and be lucky enough to be ran over by a train or eaten by a shark.
Complain about this comment
391. At 03:52am on 25 Mar 2010, TimR1944 wrote:
"The question that no one has answered is: Who is going to pay for this?
Taxes will hit the fragile economy very hard. That is not a cause for rejoicing."
I beg to differ.
Taxes are supposed to be the means by which our government provides critical infrastructure. Taxes are good. I am happy to pay taxes. Yay.
Now, while I understand your concern regarding the timing and implementation of the taxes necessary to implement such a systemic macro-economic infrastructure such as general healthcare, I truly believe that the burden of economic liability that has been set upon our national economy due to our current health insurance will actually be lifted as a general plan comes into place.
I, too, am concerned. The current means by which our Tax/Budget process flows is convoluted beyond imagination.
But now is not the time to screw around. We need a national back-bone that will remember what it is to serve and to protect her people. This is not 'Socialism,' this is responsible government.
Our national infrastructure has become weakened and it is high time we re-invest in the systems necessary to facilitate economic growth.
Complain about this comment
395. At 2:16pm on 25 Mar 2010, darwan wrote:
I received an interesting mail-out from my State Texas State House of Representative Lon Burnam district 90 showing interesting accounting...
Texas households with the lowest income pay the highest percentages in state and local taxes.
example; a family making under $24,899 Annually , 12.8% is consumed in taxes. While a family making up to $45,271 pays 7.6% in taxes.
_______________
AHA! You noticed that, did you?
These games have been going on for years.
All those 'tax breaks for the middle class' -- well, you didn't seriously think that the upper-class was going to pay for everything, do you?
After all - poor people are the ones who really rely on public infrastructure. It only serves them (us) right that they bear the burden of their poor-man's choices!
Why - if they(we) were RICH and could send their kids to private schools, we(they) wouldn't make them pay so much for their public education and public transit!
(I think I need to walk... slowly... away... from the keyboard. The schizophrenia is making my head hurt. Or maybe that was the desk bruising the parietal lobe...?)
Complain about this comment
The media, this article included, frequently overly simplfies the impact of differences between Obama and his supporters. While the health care reform bill was less than expected, unhappy progressives understand that it was a leap beyond the present, that nothing remotely close would have come from a McCain administration and that voting for a Republican Presidential candidate in 2012 would jeopardize these hard-fought health care improvements for the 30+ million presently uninsured.
Complain about this comment
March 25th 2010 - Raucsh Limbaugh the extreme right wing radio talk show host is inciting republicans to "wipe out" the democrats get rid of them all he says. Since then 19 dems have been threatened by death calls Obama's death threat level rating has been increased 100%. This how the the Rep. have been ruling for the past 8 yrs. of Bush era our way or no way! Accoding to CNN polls 48% are in agreement of the the new rulng vs. 42% not in favor, rest have no opinions. Unfortunately in America the poor and destitute do not have a platform for their grieviances only the rich do! They have the lobbyist doing the job for them via paid media channels, CNN being the prime culprit in miss informing millions of Americans.
The country is cleared divided,and politicians are doing a damn good job at this!
Complain about this comment
"Taxes are good. I am happy to pay taxes. Yay"
Glad to hear it.
Just dont' tell it to the folks who "ain't paid no Whiskey Tax since 1792"
And who are not concerned about hand gun control, for their weapons of choice are not exactly handguns. :-)))
P.S. Pray, tell us, what kind of Obamacare needy Americans are going to get between now and 2014?
Complain about this comment
no? I don't remember any tax breaks for the middle, anymore then I hear it for the more affluent. ~ There is indeed many kinds and types of tax breaks ~( encouraging people to do certain things) for all sectors and consumers of our society. But to enjoy them, one needs to be an active and engaged player, pursuing hopes , dreams and ambitions. We have a hand to mouth situation that been created by status quo. While it's true this is and has always been common place it's easy to turn a blind eye to disparity. That some would take advantage of programs to crawl out of such a hole only to kick the ladder down to preventing anyone else from ascending I find all to common place, "I got mine, you figure it out"
But this fails to negate the fact ~ the lower income pay more of what they have, spent on taxes. nor does it negate the fact that infrastructure is required and used by business as well as the lower incomes. In fact, they can't conduct day to day business without it.
It such be a honor to pay your taxes, but it needs to be fair for everyone ~ That tax money is spent fighting wars to nowhere, not serving the nation but a few war profiteers ~ As money is stolen by fraud yet no crimes are committed, as we have immigration laws that can't seemed to be enforced, while our masses swell with people "outside" any system ~ This all makes for unhappy tax payers.
This HCR ~ is only the beginning ~ or indeed we have reach our zenith as a nation of free people.
It my understanding the Russian people have about had it with "Putin" over the same issues.
A strong middle ~ is whats a stake here and what been under attack far to long it is dwindling in size. ~ We kick the ladder down ensuring our position at the top. Just tell me it's not so. Tell me it's not been happening with legislation at Federal, State and county levels.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 355, charlieatlantic:
"Your argument is that the Tenth Amendment - part of the Bill of Rights, all of which are restrictions on power of the federal government - was designed to reserve power for the 'people,' so that those 'people' could then oblige the federal government to do what it is forbidden to by the Tenth Amendment, those rights being reserved to the states or the people."
1. The Constitution applies to all government, not just the federal government.
2. The People is a concept well ensconced in American law. The People have all the power. There is no appeal to the will of the People. We are a country of laws, yes, but those are laws made by the People. We are a government of the People, by the People and for the People. Or had you forgotten?
3. Your restatement was accurate. I stand by my argument. You haven't made any counter argument for me to respond to.
Complain about this comment
Ref. 205, my own post:
"Does anybody know of case history in this area? I can't think of anything remotely analogous."
This is the precedent to which the Republicans are referring.* It looks to me as if they have a case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=144
Personally, I find it less than convincing. It seems to rely on laws concerning commerce. Health care really isn't fundamentally commerce, is it?
* Thanks to the Denver Post forums.
Complain about this comment
Hmm? If the insurance aspect of health care was removed ~ perhaps not. But "insurance" is commerce wouldn't you think?
Complain about this comment
Obama is the man of the hour - there is no doubt that no-one can now say that he is inexperienced. What an achievement. I hope he tackles a job program and really puts his elbow in to real regulation for the financial sector. 20% of our wealth was wiped out by Wall Street. This is important reform for the future and then of course the education system needs an overall. There are endless issues that need resolving.
Well done Mr. President. Yes he did it. I am delighted.
Complain about this comment
Ref 399, politicalobserver
"Raucsh Limbaugh the extreme right wing radio talk show host is inciting republicans to "wipe out" the democrats get rid of them all he says."
Too bad Rush reneged on his word and did not leave the country when the healthcare reform bill passed and was signed into law.
Incredibly,his rhetoric appeals to millions of Americans and should give us time to pause and reflect. His calls for violence are extremely dangerous and could easily result in civil unrest and sequel to what happened at the Holocaust museum, the Pentagon and the IRS building in Texas. In fact, the scope of his influence can be found in some comments posted on this blog and this very thread.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"How can you (the US) lead the world under your cloak of psuedo-Christian ethics and morals and yet hypocritically deny the vast majority of your own people the access to health and well being?!"
On the contrary, nobody is denied care in the US. As an active practicing surgeon, I often - more often than I like anyway - do take care of uninsured patients. That's the nature of the job. Nobody is refused needed medical care because their wallet is empty. Let me say it again: it is a fact that anybody with a medical emergency in the US, with or without insurance, can go to the closest ER and get the best care that there is on planet Earth. The law that governs that is EMTALA and it's been in the books for a long while.
Not only for emergency situations, but even expensive elective care can be had for free if one knows how to play the system. During my training at the various county hospitals, I have quite often witnessed the presence of patients who are citizens of other countries (Mexico, Pakistan, Poland, etc). None of this is a secret either, it is well known. Urban areas in the US generally have taxpayer funded "county hospitals".
So what is the fuss all about? The issue is not about medical care, or access ("access to well being" as you so naively put it). The issue is that of freedom. The goal of the left wing in the US is to turn physicians into serfs, to turn the proud US citizens into "subjects," to turn the US into a European-style nanny-state.
If you accept that the money that keeps the US system going comes from the US population, then why the need for a federal bureaucracy? And if you believe that the federal bureaucracy is needed anyway, then you surely must believe that we need to socialize the grocery stores as well.... (just so that nobody will go hungry in the US :))
Complain about this comment
It amazes me that so many Americans just don't get it with regard to health care. Efficient health care can still be delivered in a cost effective manner.
Complain about this comment
This is the mother of all Pyrrhic victories.
One of the moments that finally defined Obama is when he said that "a victory will be remember as such, regardless of the process". One of the best political analyst promptly reminded us that Lenin said "the end justifies the means", and we all know what happened.
What is in now for Obama is well expressed at the piece "The Self Deluding Presidency - why It Will Fail", at http://www.robbingamerica.com
Complain about this comment
409. At 3:50pm on 07 Apr 2010, BubbaB wrote:
It amazes me that so many Americans just don't get it with regard to health care. Efficient health care can still be delivered in a cost effective manner.
____________________________
Please explain that. If you are still reading this thread, I'd love to read a coherent discussion of how we can have cost effective health care.
Believe me when I say - please! Let us have it.
KScurmudgeon
impatient of politicians and pundits alike.
Complain about this comment
52-60. At 11:39am on 22 Mar 2010, charlieatlantic
I find your posts extremely intersting and thought provoking. I often find your analysis right on the mark, but sometimes I just have to disagree, as in this case.
Constitutional strict constructionists, like Bible literalists, demand an absolute and unchanging document, one that is totally inflexible. If you tried to apply the constitution as written and as the fouding fathers obviously wanted it we would have slavery as well as numerous other objectionable characteristics still in force.
As you know, there are two sources of change: the very difficult ammendment process and judicial interpretation. The latter can be of the liberal or strict constructionist sort. I am slightly to the left of center on this. I don't think it is feasible to regard the constitution as a dead letter, nor would it be wise to change anything or everything on a moment's whim.
Also, that genie is already out of the bottle. Marbury vs Madison changed the whole dynamic of the government and it is solely based on SC interpretation not on clear constitutional grounds. Stuffing that genie back in the bottle and all subsequent such decisions would be, I submit, next to impossible.
Where I disagree with you, specifically, is that the Constitution plainly states that one of it's purposes is to promote the general welfare. I think that as social conditions obviously change especially over centuries, the "general welfare" of the population has to be understood to change with the times. We already have federally funded highways, air traffic control, and other essential systems that would be stupid, dangerous or outrageously expensive and or inefficient if done by individual states.
As to insurance, without some national oversight big, cash rich insurance companies could control the states. Smaller states with small populations would not have the ability of larger states to bargain for discounts. The "pool" system means that the larger the pool the more widely spread the risk and the lower the cost of the service. To me this means that a national system is more economically advantageous than a state based system and more equitable to boot. Why should Rhode Islanders pay triple the price of Massachusetts residents or Mass. residents pay triple the price of Californians just because they live in states with smaller populations?
And what if RI had no insurance and MA had good insurance and the RI residents took unfair advantage of that fact? It actually happened. When I was younger RI did not have mandatory auto insurance and MA did. Getting into an accident with an RI driver was very expensive as the OTHER driver has to pay for your damage and often the RI driver, with no insurance couldn't. This left one having paid for one's own insurance also paying the total cost of repair that the other party couldn't cover.
There are some things that must be national, and I think that health insurance might very well be one of them. I might favor something like the Federal Reserve, but with competing divisions that could offer service in all of the country. The problem would come when they found ways to collude or when the competition eliminated some competitors.
A good evening to you,
McJakome
Complain about this comment
74. At 12:42pm on 22 Mar 2010, EyesWideShut wrote: "What the democrats need to do is to make sure that they get a large propotion of these newly insured people to vote and they can be sure of winning elections for the forseeable future."
This [and the pending demographic shift] may be PRECISELY why the Republicans are so dogged in their opposition. There is, from the other POV, the possibility that the writer may have been correct who once opined that democracy is doomed when the people discover that they can raid the treasury for their own selfish purposes.
As to this, who does it fit more, the poor and middle class trying to make ends meet, or the selfish rich and CEOs who can't make do with just a few millions per year, a mere 6 or seven residences, and government bailouts when they mess up.
Complain about this comment
101. At 2:04pm on 22 Mar 2010, Mark wrote: "...And only a fool thinks a government that offers us mismanagement and corruption in the administration of Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and Postal Services will change its stripes with regards HC."
Thanks, I was looking for a way to explain why the GOP should not be allowed to take the government back any time soon. To mismanagement and corruption you could add unconstitutional laws, failure to enforce the law, collusion [with big corporations], failure to protect the citizens from invasion and poisoned/dangerous imports, and a number of other activites from the Bush years.
Definitely a good reason to keep the bums out.
Complain about this comment
145. At 4:22pm on 22 Mar 2010, charlieatlantic wrote: "...isn't it as after all the insurance companies operate across state borders?
No. They don't. It's part of the problem. They are not allowed to."
Both of you are too simplistic on this issue. My employer used to shop around for the best insurance policy available each year [I leave you to guess what an employer's idea of "best" is]. I work in Massachusetts and for a 2-year period my insurance was BC/BS of CONNECTICUT [Moderators: if this seems a bit too much like a violation of house rules, please delete or censor only the name-I thought it best to provide documentary support in the interest of journalistic responsibility]. Several times I had billing problems because providers tried to bill the Company's Massachusetts subsidiary.
It seems that either the state based subsidiary is considered a different entity, or the plans are differentiated by state [possibly both].
Complain about this comment
344. At 6:34pm on 23 Mar 2010, Bogdan wrote:
Ref 339.
“As is every other comment in response to CharlieAtlantic. None of you have been able to provide a well reasoned contra-argument to him.”
Yes and no. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he does, in fact, know what he’s talking about. Trying to pillory him as just a minority Libertarian, whether true or not, is an ad hominem argument which carries negative weight.
His views are a legitimate part of the ongoing constitutional debate that has engaged Americans since before the American Revolution. That he is not American carries no weight either since neither were any of the founding fathers [all of them, like Charlie, were British].
Everything comes down to checks and balances, the senate in opposition to the house, the legislature in opposition to the executive, the Libertarian, Republican, Democratic and corporatist philosophies in opposition to each other. Strict Constructionists oppose Implied Power advocates. The legislature and the Supreme Court have been known to oppose and reverse themselves and each other.
Out of order comes chaos and out of chaos comes order. This was designed into the system, and it has worked [not always smoothly] since 1789. Changing the obviously successful system would entail great risks as would starting over or making huge and unpredictable changes.
To return to my initial point, Charlie should be listened to in the same way that Hamilton and Jefferson, Adams and Otis listened to and debated each other.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS