March 21, 2010
And may they all be boiled in oil

219 Democrats voted tonight to wreck the U.S. health care system.

May their victory be Pyrrhic, short-lived and reversed.

Speaking of which -- the RNC has a new website "Fire Nancy Pelosi", where you can donate to support this year's Republican House candidates.

And Dr. Dan Benishek, running against Bart Stupak in Michigan-1 is just getting his campaign off the ground. His Facebook group has gotten about 10,000 new members this evening.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 21, 2010 08:43 PM | Email This
Comments
1. There's no faster way to wreck anything than to apply a collectivist ideology. They said Social Security would work too.

Democrat disintegration in November.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 21, 2010 08:41 PM
2. A pox upon them all. Let's hope the voters remember in November.

Posted by: Burdabee on March 21, 2010 08:47 PM
3. May God forever curse these criminals and all who voted for them.

Posted by: Saltherring on March 21, 2010 08:53 PM
4. Love the black mourning banner!
Would have thought with 9X% of the bill not going in to effect for so many years and the terrible cost happening moments after the bill's passing, that there would be celebration for Republicans.

Guess the inevitability of Republican majorities in 2010 and an Obama ouster in 2012 and therefore, the certain repeal of this soon to be law is not as certain as some would have us believe.

Black mourning banner indeed.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 21, 2010 08:55 PM
5. Bloodbath in November.

Posted by: komodo_dragon on March 21, 2010 09:05 PM
6. It will be a significant uphill battle to reverse the harmful effects of this legislation and it will take every bit as much determination as the Republicans showed in opposing this bill and the House leadership showed in passing this disastrous bill.

The will of the people is on our side. The Tea Party movement is here to stay and there are some sliver linings as shown below (source: Powerline).

With Stupak's collapse, passage of the Democrats' government medicine bill is assured. This is a dark day in American history; one of the darkest. But there are many reasons for optimism. Here are a few:

* The health care battle is just beginning. Next, the Senate will try to enact the House's "fixes" to the original Senate bill. Some Senators say that won't happen. If not, then President Obama has the option of signing the original Senate bill--now passed by the House--Cornhusker Kickback and all. I assume he would do that, but the resulting blowback from House Democrats, not to mention the American people, would be something to behold.

* The health care bill's taxes will go into effect promptly, but its substantive provisions are, for the most part, deferred for four years. This means that we have plenty of time to repeal the legislation. Sure, it will take a new Congress and new President. But repealing this disaster of a bill will by a rallying cry for the American people for years to come. Moreover, even if the Republicans only take over the House in November, and not the Senate, won't it be possible to throw roadblocks in the way of the bill's implementation? Won't budget appropriations be necessary to sustain the various federal tentacles the bill seeks to establish? What will happen if the House simply refuses to fund them?

* The Republican party's Congressional leaders have fought this battle to the end on behalf of the American people--with intelligence, toughness, persistence and good humor. The contrast between the parties has never been starker than in today's debate. If any intelligent Democrats were watching--there must be some left--they had to be embarrassed for their party.

* Paul Ryan has emerged as one of the conservative movement's strongest spokesmen. In the years to come, I think we will hear the words "I'm a Paul Ryan Republican" with increasing frequency.

* The health care debate has energized the conservative movement and awoken the sleeping giant, that is, the American people. The Democrats misinterpreted their electoral victories in 2006 and 2008 as a mandate for socialism. Now a majority of voters are intent on disabusing them of that misapprehension. Just about all of the political energy today is on the right--a remarkable fact, only sixteen months after the Democrats' high-water mark in November 2008.

* Barack Obama has used his political capital--pretty much all of it--on unpopular legislation that will continue to rile the voters for years to come. As a result, Obama is a remarkably unpopular second-year President. And he hasn't even experienced any bad luck yet. It is hard to see how he will be able to regain his footing.

So, be of good cheer. To paraphrase a great American, we have not yet begun to fight.

UPDATE: Tim Pawlenty tweets:

Hard to believe Congress would pass this mess of a health care plan. It will put us further into debt & dangerously expand scope of gov't.

PAUL adds: Repeal may not be out of the question, but my advice is to exercise more and improve your diet. Try to minimize your encounters with Obamacare and delay your encounter with the death panel in whatever form it takes.

Posted by: KDS on March 21, 2010 09:15 PM
7. It has been a depressing 16 months since BHO was elected. It is difficult to think of anything positive that has happened since Nov 08. I dont see anything positive until, perhaps, Nov 2010. May the cheering begin and we can regain our country.

Posted by: Marge on March 21, 2010 09:15 PM
8. KDS @6--Really good post

Posted by: marge on March 21, 2010 09:23 PM
9. The biggest lie of all in this thread is that the will of the people is on your side. You lot stand for the law of the jungle. The rest of us -- the vast majority -- stand for building a better society and a better civilization.

I pity you poor deluded fools who think YOU are the ones who will make political hay of this. Reality will hit you lot VERY hard, and it will be well deserved.

Posted by: ivan on March 21, 2010 09:25 PM
10. $562 Billion of new deficit. Taking $463 Billion from Medicare which is already an unfunded mandate in the trillions. And Social Security, another unfunded mandate in the trillions. Little wonder Moody's is lowing the US AAA credit rating. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 21, 2010 09:33 PM
11. Gee, Mr. S., tell us how you really feel! (And please, give me time to get some more popcorn.) How do you stand living in a district which sends Dr. Single Payer to Congress with 75+% of the vote, each and every election? I guess being the beneficiary of liberal policies lessens your discomfort, does it not? Move to Mogadishu; it has no government to interfere in your precious freedom to die poor from medical problems.

The will of the people is on our side.

Which certainly explains the election results in 2006 and 2008, which led to today's outcome.

...there are some sliver linings as shown below...

Best typo ever!!

Posted by: tensor on March 21, 2010 09:38 PM
12. Stefan,

Please delete the cut and paste, and replace with a link. Thanks.

Renner, learn how to post with a link and not cut and paste.

It's not that hard. As you comment, enter this in to your text, without the double quotes on either end, and replace with the content you want people to read.

"Click here."

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 21, 2010 09:48 PM
13. Hey, Roger! Most of those uninsured could afford to buy insurance; they just didn't want to. Took their chances with ERs.

Most people with pre-existing conditions only had to wait a few months before they were able to get insurance. Mainly they didn't like paying higher premiums but that probably isn't going to change much.

In this country, no one has to go bankrupt due to medical care. Hospitals, health plans, charities all have funds to help with extraordinary expenses. Many people just didn't know where to look, were too proud to ask or didn't want to make monthly payments since it would crimp their lifestyle.

The real problem is that people didn't want to spend the money for insurance because they thought they were entitled to cheap coverage and spent their money on houses they couldn't afford, cars and vacations, expensive TVs and audio systems, etc.

Their priorities didn't include mundane things like health insurance. They wanted the next cruise to the Bahamas or the vacation in Europe. It sounded like more fun to go to Mexico over Spring break instead of buying insurance.

It's all about personal responsibility and many people have none.

Posted by: Clean House on March 21, 2010 09:50 PM
14. Obama lied; this won't lower anyone's insurance premiums. If mine go down, I will come on here and acknowledge it. But we all know they won't. And how will taxes on employers lower insurance costs for them? it won't. This is evil. Insurance premiums will now go up. Innovation will be stifled. Taxes will go up on employers. Employment will be hampered. The democrats have begun their attack on medicine in order to destroy private insurance and having government run it. They want to control you. This is one more BIG way that they will. Dogs.

Posted by: Michele on March 21, 2010 09:58 PM
15. Shark is a pussy, cmon post the comments!

Posted by: Shark on March 21, 2010 10:13 PM
16. Mine are going up. Those who have high deductible plans and pay out of pocket cash for the rest will see a rise, because those high deductible plans will be eliminated. There's not enough wealth redistribution to fund Obamacare in the high deductible plans for those who manage their own healthcare. So the high deductible plans will either be eliminated, or higher premiums will be charged to attempt to fund the bloated healthcare mandate, that we all know will never be truly funded.

Clean House has it right. I've had to pay for accidents that were less than my high deductible, but greater than the cash I had on hand. The ER was happy to allow me to take out a loan. And because I have integrity, I paid the hospital back, and had to forgo some other lifestyle choices. There are many who opt for flat screens instead of personal responsibility, and Democrats love to enable more of that behavior to create dependents.

The irony, is that ultimately removing personal responsibility has far greater costs than even Democrats can afford. Their plans will collapse under their own entitlement weight. Social Security going cash-negative.


Posted by: Jeff B. on March 21, 2010 10:16 PM
17. Roger Rabbit: Do you misanthropes actually believe people liked being uninsured, thought pre-existing condition exclusions were a good thing, and looked forward to going medically bankrupt? You think that's a platform you win with in November? Good luck with that.

I hope you really think this is a good argument: giving people a pile of green goo and saying, "it's got raisins in it."

I really hope you're that legally unaware and politically naive.

Makes our job so much easier.


ivan: The biggest lie of all in this thread is that the will of the people is on your side.

EVERY poll I could find put the people AGAINST passing this bill at more than 10 points above the people in favor of passing this bill. (And no, the Economist poll Steny Hoyer cited today didn't actually ask about this bill, so it doesn't count, obviously.)


You lot stand for the law of the jungle.

No. We stand for THE LAW.


The rest of us -- the vast majority -- stand for building a better society and a better civilization.

No. First, you're a minority, thankfully. Second, you stand for forcing your ill-informed view of what is "better" on everyone else, against our will, and against the Constitution.


I pity you poor deluded fools who think YOU are the ones who will make political hay of this.

Shrug. I really hope you believe that.


tensor: Move to Mogadishu; it has no government to interfere in your precious freedom to die poor from medical problems.

You're a liar, in your mischaracterization of Stefan's views.


The will of the people is on our side.

Which certainly explains the election results in 2006 and 2008, which led to today's outcome.

Neither election, in 2006 or 2008, was about health care. NO ONE believes they were.

Today was a day of firsts. First time ever, for example, that the government mandated that everyone must do a particular thing (in this case, buy health insurance). But if that's not fascist enough for you, it's also the first time ever that Congress passed a major, transformative, domestic bill that significantly impacted almost everyone, without bipartisan support. And the first time they did it without a majority of the country behind it, too.

And to top it all off, almost the entire bill is blatantly unconstitutional.

The good news is the individual mandate, if it is not repealed first, will probably be thrown out by the Supreme Court. Much of the rest, due to terrible but longstanding and broad precedent, probably won't be, not because the Court doesn't believe it's unconstitutional, but because the conservatives are, being conservative, loathe to overturn such precedents.

But "that's what elections are for," and the Democrats are going to pay dearly for this. It will bring a small bit of joy to our hearts to see them lose for their arrogance and lack of shame and respect for the rule of law or the will of the people. But it's not enough to fix the terrible problem they've given this country.

Posted by: pudge on March 21, 2010 10:21 PM
18. And if that doesn't happen, as Frum has pointed out, what then? Civil Disobedience?

Posted by: Well Now on March 21, 2010 10:23 PM
19. Well Now: MOST of the bill can, and hopefully will, be repealed.

The worst parts of this bill are the taxes, the mandates, the "minimum standards," the health insurance exchange. All of that, except the taxes, can be killed before they're implemented, and no one except the far leftists will complain.

Posted by: pudge on March 21, 2010 10:29 PM
20. David Frum is not so optimistic about any gop takeover


...We are encouraging a mood of radicalism in the party that is not just uncivil, that's not the problem, the problem is it makes you stupid. It makes you make bad decisions, it leads you to think that President Obama with 53% of the vote is as beatable in 2009 as President Clinton with 42% of the vote in 1993, and that's obviously not true.

Posted by: Well Now on March 21, 2010 10:37 PM
21. Pudge,

What if you're wrong @18 & 20? What are you going to think/say/do if people like the change, the economy doesn't tank, the "bums" don't get thrown out in November?

I'm really curious about what you folks on the right will do if it turns out that you're wrong.

Posted by: Michael on March 21, 2010 10:41 PM
22. Pudge,

What if you're wrong @18 & 20? What are you going to think/say/do if people like the change, the economy doesn't tank, the "bums" don't get thrown out in November?

I'm really curious about what you folks on the right will do if it turns out that you're wrong.

Posted by: Michael on March 21, 2010 10:41 PM
23. Have no illusions- ABORTION will get funded.

May Stupak enjoy his 30 pieces of silver.

Very fitting for Easter- the effing Judas.

Posted by: Andy on March 21, 2010 10:42 PM
24. Yeah, Obama lied and all this spending doesn't help "regular" Americans.

Just as much as Bush lied about those magical WMDs in Iraq, and how all that spending in Iraq & Afghanistan helped "regular" Americans.

Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on March 21, 2010 10:42 PM
25. #10 is lying. The republicans ARE on the side of the vast majority of Americans who did NOT want this bill. Did you simply decide to ignore the polls, ivan? Did you really think you could ignore them and come here and claim that the democrats were on the side of the majority of America? They weren't. America does not want this travesty. May it be destroyed somehow or other and something far better take its place. Meanwhile, democrats need to be punished bigtime in November for jamming this down the throats of the 65%+ of americans who said NO to this!

Posted by: Michele on March 21, 2010 10:55 PM
26. Let's not forget that when Social Security was first passed in 1935, that it was promised that neither the employer or employee would ever pay more than 3% of their income on the first $3,000 a year. That would equivocate to $47,649 today due to inflation. Does anybody stop paying their 3% after $47, 649 today?

Now the original income tax is an even more delusional story. If you think this is a good idea, God help us all.

Posted by: RBW on March 21, 2010 10:56 PM
27. Obama has proven himself to be a narcissist who cares most about "making history" and is willing to sacrifice the Dems in office to promote his ideaology. He is all about himself and implementing his "vision" while shredding the Constitution and ignoring the will of the people. He will indeed be a one term President.

Furthermore, do you libs really not believe that there will be hell to pay this coming November? Voters care a hell of allot more about jobs than handing more power and more of their money to big government.

Your socialist savior has been in office for more than a year now. Don't you think it is time to stop ripping on Bush and start paying attention to how the current administration is systematically trying to destroy our country? The last thing this world needs is for the United States to become just another weak, misguided country with socialist "ideals" and programs.

Sure, celebrate your victory now, but know that this is not the end. Obama and the Dems will pay dearly for their shameless deceit and assualt of the Constitution.

Posted by: Gary on March 21, 2010 11:07 PM
28. Obama has proven himself to be a narcissist who cares most about "making history" and is willing to sacrifice the Dems in office to promote his ideaology. He is all about himself and implementing his "vision" while shredding the Constitution and ignoring the will of the people. He will indeed be a one term President.

Furthermore, do you libs really not believe that there will be hell to pay this coming November? Voters care a hell of allot more about jobs than handing more power and more of their money to big government.

Your socialist savior has been in office for more than a year now. Don't you think it is time to stop ripping on Bush and start paying attention to how the current administration is systematically trying to destroy our country? The last thing this world needs is for the United States to become just another weak, misguided country with socialist "ideals" and programs.

Sure, celebrate your victory now, but know that this is not the end. Obama and the Dems will pay dearly for their shameless deceit and assualt of the Constitution.

Posted by: Gary on March 21, 2010 11:08 PM
29. We'll shove it down YOUR throat, Michele. And you'll swallow.

Posted by: ivan on March 21, 2010 11:27 PM
30. ivan will huff and he'll puff, and he'll blow your house down.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 21, 2010 11:36 PM
31. In a tight labor market the middle class will get browbeaten more on the job because the financial consequence of losing that job just became alot worse. Failure to maintain coverage could put you in the high risk pool for 6 months which happens with car insurance in California...you will pay big time!

The lower class is gonna get hit with HSA's, high premiums, and raped by doctors looking to make up for the reduced insurance payouts. The Selective Service System can now pick the most appropriate "useless eaters" for conscript military service since the health system will know much about everyone. If you have a 4 year university degree the worst possible scenario is that you become an officer in the military or civilian corps where you get first class treatment and respect, hardly a catastrophe. Lawyers get to keep gaming the system for their own benefit so long as they don't get greedy.

The destruction and dismemberment of Russia and Iran are the only items left on the Bill Clinton to-do list. Your voting the Republicans into congress should help to speed up that process.

Posted by: Don Swanson on March 21, 2010 11:37 PM
32. Yesterday, the House decided we no longer need liberty. well I say fight back. Drive out the new slavers, Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Liberty or Death

Posted by: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner on March 22, 2010 02:11 AM
33. ... without bipartisan support. And the first time they did it without a majority of the country behind it, too.

The first statement does not support the second. The Democrats now have a larger majority than the Republicans did after the 1994 elections.

Your line about mandates is also wrong, of course; just last week, you whined about how your Census form contained questions you did not like. Guess what? A Census, by definition, includes everyone in the country.

And to top it all off, almost the entire bill is blatantly unconstitutional.

Words alone cannot express my utter contempt for your risible interpretations of our Constitution. You've already been shown to have ignored decades of Supreme Court rulings on the 4th Amendment (abortion) and the Census.

...because the conservatives are, being conservative, loathe to overturn such precedents.

It took decades of right-wing court-packing to enshrine the NRA's aberrant doctrine, which applies the Second Amendment to individuals. (The positive text of said Amendment specifically applies it to states.) Republicans have made overturning Roe an absolute litmus test for holding office, and some (e.g. Robert Bork) even oppose the older Griswold ruling. Claims of conservative respect for stare decisis, like claims to pass balanced budgets, are subject to comparison against the evidence. Such claims then fare very, very poorly.

It will bring a small bit of joy to our hearts to see them lose for their arrogance and lack of shame and respect for the rule of law or the will of the people.

We're gonna party like it's 2006!

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 02:54 AM
34. ... without bipartisan support. And the first time they did it without a majority of the country behind it, too.

The first statement does not support the second. The Democrats now have a larger majority than the Republicans did after the 1994 elections.

Your line about mandates is also wrong, of course; just last week, you whined about how your Census form contained questions you did not like. Guess what? A Census, by definition, includes everyone in the country.

And to top it all off, almost the entire bill is blatantly unconstitutional.

Words alone cannot express my utter contempt for your risible interpretations of our Constitution. You've already been shown to have ignored decades of Supreme Court rulings on the 4th Amendment (abortion) and the Census.

...because the conservatives are, being conservative, loathe to overturn such precedents.

It took decades of right-wing court-packing to enshrine the NRA's aberrant doctrine, which applies the Second Amendment to individuals. (The positive text of said Amendment specifically applies it to states.) Republicans have made overturning Roe an absolute litmus test for holding office, and some (e.g. Robert Bork) even oppose the older Griswold ruling. Claims of conservative respect for stare decisis, like claims to pass balanced budgets, are subject to comparison against the evidence. Such claims then fare very, very poorly.

It will bring a small bit of joy to our hearts to see them lose for their arrogance and lack of shame and respect for the rule of law or the will of the people.

We're gonna party like it's 2006!

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 02:54 AM
35. And Dr. Dan Benishek, running against Bart Stupak in Michigan-1 is just getting his campaign off the ground.

No, the good doctor will be running against the winner of the Democratic primary, and we progressives will work hard to ensure that person is not Stupak.

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 03:38 AM
36. Pyrrhic and short-lived political entertainment strategies

"So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours."

Nobody could have predicted.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 04:59 AM
37. Well, let me be the first to admit I was wrong.
I didn't think this HCR bill could lead to economic devastation, but Erick Erickson of RedState fame and CNN employee has shown that our local economy shall soon be laid low by the repercussions

"I'll give up Starbucks to fund these guys."

ONOZ!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 05:22 AM
38. The fight is not over yet. We need to drive back the slavers, Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Drive back there Amistad Health Care.

Posted by: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner on March 22, 2010 05:50 AM
39. To augment your black banner mourning pathos

Chopin - Funeral March

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 07:37 AM
40. Thanks Minnesota for electing Stuart Smalley to the Senate, which put them over the top in getting this horrific piece of legislation through.

The 34 Democrats who voted against this should get no quarter either. They support Pelosi and give the Democrats the necessary majority to get this bill passed.

It's going to take many years to undo the damage this legislation is going to cause. And it's going to be widespread and profound.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 08:48 AM
41. The final chapter on the House vote to pass ObamaCare last night will not be written until after the 2010 Congressional elections at the earliest; and maybe not until after the 2012 ballots are counted.

Meanwhile, as already pointed out by others:
New taxes to pay for ObamaCare will start right away, while a lot of expensive benefits are held in abeyance for several years; to support the ridiculous claims that this travesty will reduce the deficit. If a private company tried to pull something like this, their corporate officers would go to jail for blatent and substantive accounting fraud.

And: While the jury is still out on final outcome, in listening to the televised debate and related comments on this bill:
IMO (R) House members Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and my own Congresswoman Cathy McMorris-Rogers spoke especially well in opposition. Here's hoping their arguments for rational government actions to reform health care (which I agree is needed) eventually prevail; and not the monstrosity that passed last night.

SIDEBAR: Nothing demonstrates the unwillingness of the (D) majority in Congress to address serious health care reform; than the TOTAL absence of meaningful tort reform in the bill that passed.

Posted by: Methow Ken on March 22, 2010 08:48 AM
42. Jeff B. @ 33:

I canvass door-to-door, I phone-bank, I raise money, and I organize volunteers. You might consider that "huffing and puffing." That's your opinion, and that's fine. But with my help, my side wins elections in this state and your side most assuredly does not, and that is fact and not opinion. How's Governor Rossi working out for you?

It will be only a matter of weeks after Obama signs this bill into law that people will begin to benefit from it. For some seniors, their drug costs will go down. Some parents will be able to carry their children on their insurance who had not been eligible before. And on and on.

It will sink in soon enough, and the voters will turn on those who opposed reform. Guess who that will be. We WILL blow your house down!

Posted by: ivan on March 22, 2010 08:51 AM
43. The only pleasure we chance to gain from Obongo's Marxist policies is watching the leftist trolls go down with them.

Posted by: Saltherring on March 22, 2010 08:59 AM
44. Good point # 46!! Remeber our progressive members do eat their own (including these trolls!!) Their healthcare $ then who do you think will be whining!!It's time for pink slipping folks!

Posted by: Laurie on March 22, 2010 09:23 AM
45. I am a conservative ready to campaign against Republicans after listening to Dave Reichert (R) on The Dave Ross Show just now. This is a liberty issue and he is ready to work "in a bipartisan fashion" to "correct" this legislation. Rs may get into office in November...big deal. They'll just get comfy again doling out the chairmanships and dollars. Nice run America...I hardly knew ye!

Posted by: Jody on March 22, 2010 09:24 AM
46. FOOTNOTE to my prior at #44:
Besides the 2010 and 2012 elections, there is of course one other key action that will be taken:

A long list of state attorneys general are lining up to sue the Feds; on the grounds that FORCING everybody to buy health insurance is unconstitutional; i.e.:
Driving may be a privilege, for which the government can reasonably require you to have auto insurance, but if anything is a basic constitutional right breathing is.
And if the Feds can force everybody to buy health insurance, what's next:
Life insurance, fire & flood insurance, etcetera, etcetera ad infinitum ??

That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have insurance; of course it is. But if government can FORCE you to do what ''big brother'' thinks is best in each and every case, where does it end ??
I know the scary answer:
It ends VERY badly; for our freedoms and liberty.

SIDEBAR: While more and more I've taken to just ignoring the lefty progressive trolls, I'll make a rare exception 4 Ivan @ #45:
Latest reputable polls show Dino Rossi leading Beltway Harry Reid's buddy Patty Murray, and he's not even an announced candidate. IMO either Dino or AG McKenna would have a very good shot at giving Patty here walking papers; but I'm kind of hoping Dino runs for the Senate, and Rob McKenna knocks off Gregoire in 2012. Think of what a huge positive change it would be 4 WA if both Dino and McKenna won those races.

Posted by: Methow Ken on March 22, 2010 09:27 AM
47. Looks like another state's attorney general will sue!! Idaho's Governor will sue himself!!more to come as attorney generals lineup to do this!A silver lining to this mess!!37 considering it.

Posted by: Laurie on March 22, 2010 09:28 AM
48. Gosh, we haven't had this much fun since Dino lost the recount.

There are a number of immediate benefits to this reform bill, and frankly I think it's going to be hard to campaign against them over the summer.

So let's just see how this plays out this fall. I know you were all sooo convinced Dino was going to walk off with the Governor's job the second time around too and he didn't even come close.

Right now, I'm feeling pretty good about our chances.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 09:31 AM
49. Ivan, I know it's shocking that a party that promises to dole out goodies to a huge chunk of the population, to be paid for by others, gets a great deal of support.

Posted by: MOR on March 22, 2010 09:31 AM
50. Boiled in oil? You call for our elected represetitivies to be boiled in oil. How disgusting you have become. Your hatred of America is obscene.

hint: you're head line has been shared with the Secret Service. You may NOT threaten our elected officals.

Posted by: John Gault on March 22, 2010 09:36 AM
51. I give in to temptation and add just ONE more thought for today:

Former British P.M. Margaret Thatcher said it best:
The fundamental problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

It's not surprising that the parasitic classes, ''community organizers'', and other beneficiaries of direct government largess love big-brother handouts while they last. But history and logic teach us that eventually EVERYBODY loses at the end of the socialist road. Yea, verily. . . .

Posted by: Methow Ken on March 22, 2010 09:40 AM
52. hint: you're head line has been shared with the Secret Service. You may NOT threaten our elected officals.

Seriously? You really believe he was literally calling for them to be boiled in oil? You actually believe he was calling for them to be murdered?

Idiot.

Posted by: Mike H on March 22, 2010 09:52 AM
53. Uncle Witz @ #39: Could you please outline what the "immediate benefits" will be? For me, as it is right now I believe my insurance premium will pretty close to double AND it's features will probably be eliminated (high deductible, catastrophic care). Is that one of my benefits?

But beyond Witz's stupidity, another interesting aspect of this tragedy (that everybody has missed) is that it will be administered by the IRS. Everybody's income will be monitored so that the proper insurance taxes, coverage or penalties can be deduced. I forget the numbers of new agents that will be needed just to for this but it was an eye-bulging number. If anybody here has ever had to deal with the IRS on just tax matters, this extra-monster layer of heartless bureaucrats added to your health care will not be good. And that is understatement. If you think waiting two weeks for an appointment to see your doctor is bothersome wait until, out of the blue, you have to start wading in the IRS end of the pool.

And lastly, I'd like to mention that between myself and my friends we have been wondering when the tipping point in this nation will/would come. That point when the population that takes can vote itself more goodies on the backs of those that contribute. Unfortunately, it seems that we are here now . . .

"A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship"

- Alexander Tytler 1787

A sad day in America boys and girls.

Posted by: G Jiggy on March 22, 2010 09:56 AM
54. I'm sensing an apparent pervasive fear sweeping this blog...that goes something like this, Holy sh** what if this works? We'll see. :) [Remember you never see a hearse pulling a U-Haul]

Posted by: Duffman on March 22, 2010 10:02 AM
55. Bunkl Ditz like many is dumb enough not to comprehend how he will be hurt by this bill.

Because morons hate choices and need to be led by the nose, neither were many of those led down the garden path in Europe.
There are always people who need others to take care of them, and we will continue to take care of him one way or another.

It will take many of the rest of us with the honesty, integrity, and reasoning ability to save ourselves (and him) from his idiocy.
And if we are not up to it, this stupid bastard will now far more likely die because some government moron like him destroys all
of the alternatives and controls all of his choices.

Clearly Ditz actually believes in the outright lies and phony charitable crap sold to support this "Health Care Reform,"
Under his tortured pretense of fatalism and blind obedience to false authority he gleefully trades his individual freedom
for the blatantly false promise of "free" social benefits it represents.

He is too dense to recognize that yesterday he surrendered both, and unless WE as conservatives insist on it, he will receive neither.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 10:07 AM
56. To Jiggy @56:

Here are ten benefits which come online within six months of the President's signature on the health care bill:

Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents' policy until their 27th birthday
Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
Free preventative care for all
Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they're still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees' health insurance.
The "donut hole" closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders' amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
AND no more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 10:07 AM
57. @56 G Jiggy on March 22, 2010 09:56 AM,

"Could you please outline what the "immediate benefits" will be?"

1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents' policy until their 27th birthday
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
4. Free preventative care for all
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they're still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees' health insurance.
7. The 'donut hole' closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states.
Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. No more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick

Probably you should start with repealing these 10 + repealing the Death Panels.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 10:07 AM
58. 22: how would I know if he means it or not. He chose to publish it. I'm happy to let law enforcement decide if he meant it. In America 2010 we don't have time for terrorist threats, whether he meant it or not. We've watched the GOP go off the deep end lately, flying planes into buildings cause they don't like paying taxes. Shouting nigger at our elected officials. Shouting baby killer on the House floor. The right in America is consumed by hate and violence. I would put nothing past scum that hate America so deeply.

Posted by: John Gault on March 22, 2010 10:15 AM
59. There will still be plenty of people that have no insurance. They will just be charged at tax time with a fee on their returns. This "fee" or reduction of a refund will amount to less than the cost of the insurance so many will still opt for that method. Why? Isn't that crazy not to have insurance? Well, if they get sick or injured and are heading to the emergency room, they can then sign up for insurance after the sickness or injury and it is mandated that the insurance companies write them a policy. Welcome to abuse of the "insure every American" plan. How will this reduce the cost of insurance? It won't. It'll get passed along to the consumer.

Posted by: Marmstro on March 22, 2010 10:18 AM
60. Duff:

You've hit the nail on the head @57. The Right had to do everything in their power to stop this because they know it just might work and then they are really in the crapper.

After taking the country over a cliff with two wars and a complete meltdown of the financial system, they know their brand is pretty tarnished. The only way to regain some ground was to start throwing mud at the opposition. Hence the apocalyptic language they used to describe this bill, the Democratic Leadership, and President Obama.

Now that the bill has passed, and the sun actually did come up this morning, and all the doctors and hospitals are still open for business, they know the most folks (who really don't give a rip about this stuff anyway) will simply refuse to take them seriously.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 10:19 AM
61. Roger Rabbit:

Your need is not a blank check you can cash on my life, liberty or property.

If I wanted to live in a socialist worker's paradise, I'd move to Venezuela. How about YOU move instead, and stop destroying my country?

Posted by: Richard on March 22, 2010 10:33 AM
62. It might work? Ha, ha, libs don't even belive in this crap enough to say that it WILL work. Then again, how can they since most of them don't even know what they voted for. Based on the government's track record of successes, don't hold your breath. Then again, libs never admit that they are wrong, so we will continually be bombarded with lies and whitewash. Oh, I know...it's all Bush's fault.

Posted by: Jack on March 22, 2010 10:43 AM
63. John Gault, you need to learn to read. He wrote "And may they be boiled in oil"... not calling for them to be boiled, not encouraging them. It's no different then saying "A pox upon them", "A curse upon them", "may they rot in Hell", or anything like that.

Are you seriously that paranoid?

Posted by: Mike H on March 22, 2010 10:50 AM
64. 61: Do a little research before you state something as fact. Joseph Stack was and alt-country music (ie. Dixie Chicks, whined about Pres. Bush) registered democrat. Communist by his own admission

You forgot to mention that Liberal. Socialists (democrats):
- Shot two police officers at the Pentagon
- Destroyed two radio towers in Everett
- Firebombed UW in 2001
- Beat Vincent Chin to death in 1982
- Bombed the Pentagon in 1972
- Bombed the Capitol Building in 1971
- Bombed NYPD HQ in 1970

You can keep your European Socialist Movements. They have already brought death and torture to millions.

Posted by: Suiattle John on March 22, 2010 11:16 AM
65. Hey Pudge-

The worst parts of this bill are the taxes, the mandates, the "minimum standards," the health insurance exchange.

May I humbly suggest, you left out the racial preferences and the student loans. And no doubt, additional boobytraps too numerous to mention, once we finally get to read what's really in whatever bill that Obama signs.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 22, 2010 11:19 AM
66. For all the blather and crying on the right, I have yet to see ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE of how this bill is going to "wreck the US healthcare system". There is a lot of BS about "your doctor will lose control", "death panels", "out of control costs". NONE of which are true. The ten benefits mentioned above are REAL, and will occur within 6 months.

So...please. Tell me, EXACTLY, how this bill will wreck the US healthcare system? As far as I can tell, all it does is muzzle insurance company bureaucrats, and restrict their profits.

Posted by: Proteus on March 22, 2010 11:22 AM
67. No, NO, NOT STUDENT LOANS!!!

Posted by: John Jensen on March 22, 2010 11:28 AM
68. 69. Have you read the bill?

Posted by: Jack on March 22, 2010 11:38 AM
69. Jeff @ 33. Ivan is NOT the big, bad wolf. He's the little fat piggy that built a house of straw.

Posted by: katomar on March 22, 2010 11:46 AM
70. And only fat little Ivan would think of targeting Michelle with such a disgusting double entendre, but that's probably all he's fit for.

Posted by: katomar on March 22, 2010 11:49 AM
71. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents' policy until their 27th birthday and children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions.

These will cost a great deal more because insurance companies will not be able to provide these benefits without increasing premiums. When they do, the government may limit the increase and the insurance companies will close up shop.
Free market competition is the only method to bring down cost. We should regulate standards but leave the markets alone. Now we will suffer the consequence of losing all of our choices in the false hope that the government will be nice to us.

No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage.

Insurance companies will back away, the government will take over and drastically ration of care. Are you stupid or just stupid?

Free preventative care for all.

Nothing is ever "FREE" you friggin idiot. You pay one way or the other. We are giving up our options to choose how. The cost of health care is prohibitive today largely because of government intrusion, but it will be far more expensive and far less accessible when the government takes control. In Canada this means that the only health care you may receive is either care that Americans all already receive largely for free (Medicaid) or care that will be eliminated in order to finance the new government system. We are just emulating the emergent bastardization of a Canadian style system that doesn't work well for its citizens. Canadians come here for their care, where will we go dipshit?

Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they're still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.

Exclusion is largely a myth created to justify the need for the government to take over the system. The government will institute the worst type of wide-spread exclusion in the form of health care rationing. Anyone stupid enough to ignore this obvious fact is beyond help.

Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees' health insurance.

This was discussed by those who supported the bill but it is not part of the health care bill. Nevertheless, businesses run on profits and tax credits don't pay to capitalize already struggling businesses. They can only be obtained after the cost of insuring employees has been financed by a business. Businesses will not hire partly because the economy is already burdened with excessive regulation including health care costs and other government mandates that are unsustainable.

The "donut hole" closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.

The bill has no provision to close the donut hole and it will not be closed because the government does not control the pharmaceutical companies . . . yet. It will allow the government to control direct costs which will eliminate coverage for expensive drugs and thereby it will create health panels that will ration drugs.

Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.

Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders' amendment).

These centers already exist all across the country.

Go ahead, lie some more, that's what liberals do.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 11:58 AM
72. @74 Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 11:58 AM,

Well sounds like repeal of the bad & monstrous HCR law should be easy then.

Now, what are you going to do about being PWND by Liberals about repeatedly promising to kill the bill?


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 12:14 PM
73. Fun to hear Sean Hannity foaming at the mouth and attempting to reassure us that they will repeal all this.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 12:14 PM
74. Duffman @57 Kudo's for the best post so far. A little humor is what is needed. Everyone needs to calm down a little (BOTH sides).

Posted by: tc on March 22, 2010 12:17 PM
75. @71 Have you read the bill?

Has anyone actually read the whole bill, for that matter? I doubt none of the folks who voted for it has.

Posted by: Mike H on March 22, 2010 12:42 PM
76. MikeBoy,

Thanks for the acknowledgment that this "HCR law" is indeed bad & monstrous.

Unfortunately (usually) lots of people must be hurt before motivated repeal happens, but history proves that such legislation can indeed be repealed.
In today's instance, it is a matter of whether enough Americans have sufficient respect for our Constitutional Republic or not.

We know what side you are on. That may change when you are hurt by giving away your freedom (although having read your many posts I rather doubt it). It is difficult to imagine a person such as you who makes the appearance of having reasonable intellect and talent that would follow the obvious traps, lies, and duplicity of a Pelosi, Obama, or Reed.

I'm hoping and praying that there are enough Americans who understand the importance of individual freedom, its role as our founding principle and its enduring importance today.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 12:45 PM
77. @79 Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 12:45 PM,

"I'm hoping and praying that there are enough Americans who understand the importance of individual freedom, its role as our founding principle and its enduring importance today."

No, you are hoping a majority of Americans believe in what YOU state is individual freedom, blah, blah, blah.
Elections matter. Political strategies matter.

The cries of socialism, unconstitutional, blah, blah, blah and now black banners of mourning are political crap and infotainment fodder.

As Frum correctly stated months ago, the strategy of getting in bed with wingnuts wasn't going to work, and the bet that it would has paid out disastrously for conservatives.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 12:54 PM
78. I would be interested in Pudge's opinion as to whether this is an overreach of Federal power under the Constitution.

Posted by: Duffman on March 22, 2010 12:58 PM
79. I find it interesting that now David Frum is some sort of voice to be listened to.

And here all this time I thought he was simply neo-con mouthpiece for Boooosh.

Posted by: jimg on March 22, 2010 01:27 PM
80. Jimg:

Don't ya think it's telling when even right wing ideologues and party hacks like Frumm are starting to say what the rest of us already know? That aligning yourselves with the lunatic fringe like the Tea Baggers is not going to win the hearts and minds of mainstream America?

You guys all went around telling us the sky is falling over the last year. And now, if it doesn't fall, your party will become even more irrelevant than it was before yesterday.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 01:44 PM
81. The poll numbers don't lie. The marx-lib moonbats do lie.

If the election were held today, Barack Hosein Obama - UMMMM-UMMMM-UMMMM, would not be re-elected. The commie trolls who frequent this website are ecstatic because they assume they have "won". I don't think so. The voters will have another chance to respond to the libs (who spend their political lives trying to deny that they are far left wing socialists) in November. This time around, the voters will have experience of what Barack Hosein Obama - UMMMMM-UMMMMMM-UMMMM, and his acolytes are all about.

Posted by: Attila on March 22, 2010 01:55 PM
82. Unkl, you're not paying attention.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 01:55 PM
83. aligning yourselves with the lunatic fringe like the Tea Baggers is not going to win the hearts and minds of mainstream America?

You mean the 59% of "mainstream America" that opposes this health care bill?

You guys all went around telling us the sky is falling over the last year.

Obama told us that unemployment would not rise past 8% if we passed his stimulus. So much for that.

He and his minions are raping the treasury, and it's going to take years before we feel the effects of it. But it will happen, and blaming Bush isn't going to work.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 02:01 PM
84.
Libs got what they have always wanted... passage of the "Repeal America Act".

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 02:12 PM
85. Palouse:

Did it ever occur to you that some sizable fraction of those 59% don't like it because it doesn't go far enough to reform the system? And another sizable fraction don't like it because they actually believe the demagoguery the Right has been pouring out for the last 14 months. And finally, another sizeable fraction don't like it because they don't like anything the Democratic Party is trying to accomplish; they want Obama to fail.

So when it all turns out to be not so bad after all, all those constituencies are likely to lose interest.

Meanwhile, you and your tea baggers just keep on truckin'. We LOVE the entertainment.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 02:22 PM
86. Here come the IRS brownshirts.

Posted by: VRWC on March 22, 2010 02:24 PM
87. The Dems have blown it and now we all will see them packing on November.

Posted by: Scott on March 22, 2010 02:25 PM
88. No, it didn't occur to me because (from the same poll):

* 70% say the federal budget deficit will go up under the Democrats' health care bill; only 12% believe it will go down.

* 56% say the bill creates "too much government involvement in the nation's health care system," 28% say about the right amount, while 16% say not enough.

And anyone who actually follows the chicanery in the numbers in this bill knows it's not Republican demagoguery at work here.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 02:28 PM
89. Palouse, I think folks like Unkl are beyond reach. They need us to take care of them. It's pretty much that simple.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 02:32 PM
90. Well...

I guess we'll see in November.

Not sure I'd put too much reliance on that one poll. You folks haven't been right on this stuff once yet, so maybe it's your turn. But I doubt it.

In the meantime, I really like the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the faces of and voices of your party. And an unruly mob of Tea Baggers is your constituency.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 02:35 PM
91. That's just the latest CNN poll, but most polls on this thing in the last 6 months have been consistently in opposition.

Just wait until people start feeling the impacts of this bill, it will all be on Democrats. They own health care now.

Small insurers can't make money any more, and they are going to fold. The big insurers will consolidate. The result? Less competition and higher premiums. Who do you think people will blame for that?

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 02:46 PM
92. Unkl, while you're here, can you please explain how the states are going to pay for the expanded Medicaid costs?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 02:47 PM
93. Again..One concrete example please of how the bill will "wreck the US healthcare system". Anyone? Anyone?

The REAL reform hasn't actually come yet. That would involve switching away from a fee-for-service model. Coupled with better funding for medical schools, to increase the numbers of primary care physicians, and you'll start to make some serious progress.

The final step would be a public private partnership, like Medicare for all. This is the system that WORKS in countries like France, Germany, Japan, etc. Government provides basic, taxpayer funded high-copay/deductable catastrophic care for all, and private insurance exists to provide additional services/coverage.

Posted by: Proteus on March 22, 2010 02:51 PM
94. #96 "The REAL reform hasn't actually come yet."

Oh.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 02:55 PM
95. Oh, Proteus, can you answer the question I posed to Unkl since you're here?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 02:57 PM
96. @96, see post 94 for one example.

Another example is the enormous cuts to Medicare reimbursements. They're taking $463 billion out of Medicare, which is completely unsustainable and would put a huge number of hospitals out of business completely. Reimbursements from Medicare/Medicaid are very low right now, and there are thousands of providers who don't accept these patients at all. Cut their reimbursements and the ones who do take them will drop out completely. So the net result is less doctors, not more.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 02:58 PM
97. Palouse, exactly right. They are going to take $500 billion from seniors who paid this insurance their whole lives and give it to young people who don't give a shit.

Doctors are starting to turn seniors away already.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 03:02 PM
98. "Just wait until ...." Funny. Is that the new slogan? Just wait? :-D


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 03:02 PM
99. MikeBoyScout, glad you're here. Can you tell us how the states are going to pay for the increased Medicaid costs?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 03:07 PM
100. What about the bunnies?

I hope it was simply a mistake on #59, but I didn't see where we get our free bunnies on that list of immediate benefits.

Is that in later years?

I would have thought we got them right away ... oh, and are they being delivered, or do we have to pick them up (that would be kind of inconvenient).

Posted by: James on March 22, 2010 03:16 PM
101. YEAH!

Just you wait!

We're gonna retake the House & Senate, repeal this heinous bill, and then fix everything just like we did last time we were in power.

Uhhh, that's right, isn't it Rush? ... Glenn? .....Sarah? anybody?

Posted by: Eliza Doolittle on March 22, 2010 03:16 PM
102. @102 Gary on March 22, 2010 03:07 PM,

I could, but for the sake of liberty why don't you utilize your constitutionally protected freedom and read HR 4872 yourself?


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 03:24 PM
103. Obamacare IS Romneycare. Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same coin.

Do you really believe that if we have another Republican Revolution like we did in 1994 Congress will overturn this.

Do we even remember how the Republicans betrayed us the last time they had control of the House of Representatives?

Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2010 03:24 PM
104. #105 You could, but you won't.

Okay, Unkl, Proteus? Do you know?

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 03:28 PM
105. Greg @106:

"Do we even remember how the Republicans betrayed us the last time they had control of the House of Representatives?"
Yeah, we sure do. They gave away the store to the wealthy with tax cuts, took us into two wars that will end up costing trillions, passed legislation allowing the government to spy on us, and wrecked the economy.

That's why any current poll reveals approval ratings for the Republican Congress fifteen points behind the Dems.

But if the Tea Baggers want to think Health Care Reform is going to rehabilitate the Republican Party, why spoil their little fantasy?

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 03:35 PM
106. You're right, Unkl, the Republicans should have sought bipartisan support for the wars... oh, wait.. they did, and they got it.

Can you answer Medicaid question?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 03:39 PM
107. Michael: what would Thomas Jefferson do to a government that become destructive to the ends of securing individual liberty?

Insufficiently Sensitive: the student loans have not even passed the Senate yet.

Eliza: you don't appear to have a point.

Proteus: One concrete example please of how the bill will "wreck the US healthcare system". Anyone? Anyone?

Sure. It will virtually eliminate the competition between insurance products, for starters: all insurance will be required to offer the same basic care, to charge the same basic prices, and so on. This will drive out smaller insurers who will no longer have any room for offering competitive advantages, and homogenize what's left.

By homogenizing insurance, you necessarily homogenize care, too, obviosuly, which also necessarily reduces the incentives toward coming up with new and better care, if it's expensive.


The REAL reform hasn't actually come yet. That would involve switching away from a fee-for-service model. ... The final step would be a public private partnership, like Medicare for all.

Exactly. But whenever we pointed out the fact that Obama wants to move to single payer, we are shouted down with "YOU LIE." But we all know that's what's coming which is precisely why the Democrats refused a compromise bill. They lie and say it's because Republicans won't compromise, when the real reason is because they want single-payer, and they need some of these provisions to get there.

Posted by: pudge on March 22, 2010 03:43 PM
108. Stocks rise on tech sector and healthcare bill

Dow Rallies to Highest 2010 Close After Health Care Vote

Investors bullish on reform

WTF? Haven't these folks read the news?
Democrats wrecked the U.S. health care system!
Taxes! Deficits! SOCIALISM!!!
For crying out loud, (un)SP is flying a BLACK BANNER!
ARMAGEDDON!!

Well, here's what we know for sure; wingnut bloggers typing on their blogs are much smarter than these investors.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 03:48 PM
109. Unkl@93 writes, "I really like the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the faces of and voices of your party. And an unruly mob of Tea Baggers is your constituency."

Indeed. It's telling that the posts on this blog that attracted the most comments recently were titled "And may they all be boiled in oil" and "How do I oppose thee?". The Republicans are the party of no ideas except the idea of "No" -- satisfying for cranks like Stefan and pudge but not exactly a winning election strategy.

Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2010 03:53 PM
110. @111, right because a one day small uptick in the market is indicative of how successful a new massive government bureaucracy is going to be. Surely, you aren't this dumb.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 03:54 PM
111. MBS @111 Don't forget Boehner's dead body that is very much alive (i.e., Boehner's quote last week that the bill will pass over his dead body).

Posted by: tc on March 22, 2010 03:54 PM
112. When do our annual per-person savings of $2,500 in insurance premiums start?

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 03:54 PM
113. @ 80,
Don't kid yourself. There is no "black mourning," here. I recognized the inveterate bet to lies and stupidity and therefore hoped that the bill would pass so that we could have this confrontation. It is about time that liberals get squashed like the shameless dishonest mental defectives they are, and this activates a majority that will do it. Underestimate it . . . please.
Otherwise at some point, people like you and I will be situated across from each other on a battlefield and that will not work out well for you.

When you say:
No, you are hoping a majority of Americans believe in what YOU state is individual freedom, blah, blah, blah;
you conclude that I have no constitutionally based individual freedom to make choices for myself including those respecting my health care?

You state, Elections matter. Political strategies matter.

Yes and even someone like you is capable of recognizing that we do have a constitution, it provides ways to change our social recognition of god-given fundamental rights, and it was designed specifically to limit the use of elections and extra-constitutional political strategies to achieve change.

On this hazy basis you are comfortable to conclude that you are entitled to get together with your dim-witted buddies and decide that I must do as you say regardless of the constitution? Believe it or don't, that is not going to work.

You refer to, cries of socialism, unconstitutional, blah, blah, blah and now black banners of mourning are political crap and infotainment fodder.

Your view that our constitution is political crap and infotainment fodder is at the heart of your disrespect for my freedom. In the longer run that is not going to work out for you either.

I had hoped you had something more intellectually honest and compelling to offer.
No surprises here.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 03:55 PM
114. Right, pudge, someone on the INTERNET claimed that the final step is Medicare for all, so thus it's mainstream policy. Because SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET said so. Having 24 million people buy private health care insurance through state-run exchanges, while retaining the vast majority of people in the employer-provided insurance market isn't even a half-inch move toward single-payer.

all insurance will be required to offer the same basic care, to charge the same basic prices, and so on.

Insurance will not be required to charge the same basic prices no more than t-shirt companies are required to, but usually do because of free market principles. Insurance will not be homogenized any more than the idea that t-shirt companies make the same size of each product: S, M, L, XL, etc. T-shirt companies, and insurance companies, are free to determine the most efficient way to provide their product.

Here's why you're wrong: You're looking at the insurance industry from the perspective of consumers, but simply ignore that insurance is itself a massive consumer of care. Efficiently delivering care is exactly what we want insurance companies to compete on.

Right now, insurance companies compete over how to get the most healthy, least risky individuals in their plan. That's the wrong type of competition, but it's exactly the type of competition you think we need more of.

Posted by: John Jensen on March 22, 2010 03:56 PM
115. the Republicans should have sought bipartisan support for the wars... oh, wait.. they did, and they got it.

And we all know how well Cheney & co. did with that bipartisan support. Why, it's almost like bipartisanship does not predict future success!

Glad to see the black banner. It reminds us of that great day, when Judge Bridges explained that claims require evidence, and that shouting "FRAUD!!" over and over and over again just doesn't cut it. Also, pretending you're oppressed Europeans seems silly when they have better healthcare.

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 04:01 PM
116. #117 "Right now, insurance companies compete over how to get the most healthy, least risky individuals in their plan. That's the wrong type of competition,..."

So start your own company and compete however you want. Oh... can't do that anymore. Someone like me, who practices a very healthy lifestyle will now subsidize the premiums of those who choose not to.

When do my premiums go down by $2,500 a year, John?

What day does that start?

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:02 PM
117. @116 Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 03:55 PM,

Which of your constitutional rights is violated by the inevitable HCR law?

Be specific please. If you can, please cite a precedent.

If you can neither cite a specific individual constitutional right or a specific legal precedent for your assertion, please humor us with your wingnut ranting. :-D

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 04:04 PM
118. MikeBoyScout, you're pro-2nd Amendment, right? You believe people have a right to defend themselves, right? Do you think the federal government can pass a law saying that you must buy a certain kind of firearm?

I say they don't have that power. What about you?

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:07 PM
119. Oh, and MikeBoyScout, the obligation is on you to tell where Congress gets the authority to make us buy stuff as a condition of citizenship.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:09 PM
120. Sure Gary, I'll be glad to. Just as soon as you tell me how we're going to pay for the war in Iraq.

The Right always seems to think it's money well spent if we use it to blow things up and kill people. But it's waste and fraud if we use it to help out the underprivileged.

And yeah, yeah, yeah; you are where you are because of your hard work and righteousness. And all those poor folks deserve their lot. They are stupid and lazy, unlike you.

Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 22, 2010 04:10 PM
121. re: Constitutional violations, that could be an entire separate post, which I'm sure pudge will get around to. Besides the tenth amendment arguments, you could argue the insurance mandate violates free association rights, and the government checking into whether I actually have insurance (or fining me with a tax if I don't) violates the 'right to privacy', which is a debatable right, but has been established through SCOTUS decisions.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 04:10 PM
122. Uhkle, please. Tye increased Medicaid costs will be borne by the *states*. They cannot borrow money like the feds can.

It's okay. You can't answer. Don't worry about it. You don't worry about anything else.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:13 PM
123. Obviously healthcare is the dominant topic today in light of the Democrats shoving the Mitt Romney-Barry Soetoro healthcare takeover bill down our collective throats. The question now on everyone's mind is what happens next?

The bill doesn't take full effect until 2013, and that's not a coincidence. If you're Barry Soetoro you don't want this unpopular government takeover of one-fifth of the economy getting in the way of your 2012 re-election campaign. So does that mean if we the people elect enough Republicans to Congress this fall to give them majorities in the House and Senate they will be able to repeal it?

Maybe.

First of all, any repeal of the healthcare bill to come out of a potential Republican Congress in 2011 or 2012 would need the signature of the President to become law, unless there are enough votes to override a veto--which is highly unlikely.

Second, every Republican running for office this year will probably make a campaign pledge to vote for repeal of the healthcare bill initially, but what happens when the Democrat they're running against responds by saying they're trying to take healthcare away from the poor, minorities, and single moms?

Remember when the Republicans tried to decrease the rate of growth of entitlements after they took over Congress in 1994? They weren't even cutting funding for programs, just reducing the rate of the increase in funding and they got skewered as forcing old folks on Social Security to starve or eat dog food.

And as most Republicans are prone to do when faced with such scrutiny, they buckled. If past history is indeed indicative of future performance, then I would expect at least some Republicans to buckle on the campaign trail this fall, if not later once elected to office, on their efforts to repeal once the Democrats start making their typical emotion-based nonsensical arguments, and if only a few buckle that will be enough not to stop this.

Not to mention the fact that it's tough to overcome an emotion-based argument when you accept its faulty premise. The Republicans, with a few exceptions like Iowa's Steve King, by and large have never argued that this is unconstitutional and thus illegal, instead they have made "pragmatic" arguments like "we can't afford it right now" or "the majority of the American people don't want it." So does that mean when the people change their mind and the economy is improved this will somehow be less unconstitutional?

Of course not. But that's why liberal incrementalism works, because they can afford to move slowly and steadily since their Republican opponents accept the premise of their arguments, therefore they're always on offense moving in the direction they want to go.

Conservative incrementalism doesn't work, however, because Democrats aren't stupid or cowardly enough to accept the premise of any of their opponents' arguments. So that means unless conservatives argue principle first they are going to either be on the defensive or actually moving the ball down the field for the other team while trying to do the right thing.

On top of that, conservatives care about their churches, businesses, and families more than the government--the state is not the basis for their religion or existence like it is for the Left. Therefore, liberals are always going to be more consistently engaged in government than conservatives, which mean they can afford the patience of incrementalism.

That's my problem with Republican pragmatism, it just doesn't work.

So as we begin vetting candidates for the June 8th primary in our weekly candidate interviews that begin today, I urge you to look for candidates that provide substance to the issue statements they make because that's how you can typically tell if they're a person of position or a person of conviction.

For example, if they say this healthcare bill is unconstitutional do they explain why? If they say they plan on challenging it if elected, can they explain how? If they say they have a better plan to make healthcare more portable, affordable, and consumer-friendly without increasing the burden on taxpayers do they offer specifics?

Posted by: Nate on March 22, 2010 04:13 PM
124. Pudge@110 boils, "whenever we pointed out the fact that Obama wants to move to single payer, we are shouted down with "YOU LIE.""

I'm honestly not sure whether Obama wants single payer, but even if he does, so what? The important thing is that he never proposed single payer. Who cares what he wants to do later, or what some other Democrats want to do? How is that relevant to the bill that was under consideration?


But we all know that's what's coming which is precisely why the Democrats refused a compromise bill.

Um, you just alleged that Obama wanted something more liberal than what he proposed and got. Isn't that the very definition of a compromise?


They lie and say it's because Republicans won't compromise,

Well, I can't prove that Republicans won't compromise, but they certainly haven't compromised so far, have they? That is, aside from their kind offer to let Obama scrap the proposal that was on its way toward passage and start over.


when the real reason is because they want single-payer, and they need some of these provisions to get there.

Huh? How is expanding private insurance now "getting there" toward single-payer? If they can get the votes for single-payer in the future -- and I hope they can -- they could always get "these provisions" passed later too. But they wanted the bill passed now because it's the best they can get given the need to compromise. If that leads voters and Congress to support single-payer later, that would be an endorsement, not an indictment as you imply, of the current bill.

Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2010 04:15 PM
125. The whole idea is to destroy the middle class and have America exist as a banana republic.

Posted by: Crusader on March 22, 2010 04:17 PM
126. #127 "I'm honestly not sure whether Obama wants single payer, ..."

You are kidding, right?

You guys have no idea how much power you have given up.


Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:18 PM
127. @124 Palouse on March 22, 2010 04:10 PM,

You are talking out of your a**, but it sounds the same as McKenna.

Here's the 10th 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.

Show me the clause in the bill passed yesterday and that the president shall sign tomorrow that assumes a power not delegated in Article 1.

Hint: Don't go to AG McKenna for help. He doesn't know either.

p l e a s e humor us with your homespun legal wisdom and tales of Thomas Jefferson patriot mind reading, pudge. :-D

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 04:23 PM
128. I think the better question for our liberals friends is, what *don't* you want the federal government to run?

MikeBoyScout, it's very simple. The federal government can not make me associate with a company.

You've given them everything, MikeBoyScout. People so willingly give up their freedom. Happens over and over.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:29 PM
129. Liberals win because they stick to their principles, through thick and thin. GOP cowards don't.

Posted by: Crusader on March 22, 2010 04:31 PM
130. 131 Gary on March 22, 2010 04:29 PM,

"The federal government can not make me associate with a company."

Is that what the law passed yesterday does?
Or maybe you have given up your freedom to read the law?

Gary, I'm very comfortable with your not purchasing health insurance, and confident the law as passed takes in to account your freedom under constitutional limits in Article 1 of the US Constitution.

But don't believe me. Go read the bill.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 04:37 PM
131. ...have never argued that this is unconstitutional and thus illegal.

For the very sensible reason, "The Congress shall have the power ... to regulate interstate commerce." Healthcare insurers operate all across the country, making regulation of them a federal matter.

Second, every Republican running for office this year will probably make a campaign pledge to vote for repeal of the healthcare bill initially, but what happens when the Democrat they're running against responds by saying they're trying to take healthcare away from the poor, minorities, and single moms?

Yeah, whining inconsolably for thirty years about how every pregnant woman should give birth kinda makes you look churlish when you deny her proper care, both during her pregnancy and after birth. No one could have predicted, etc.

Not to mention the fact that it's tough to overcome an emotion-based argument when you accept its faulty premise.

Yeah, we libs are always using sneaky appeals to emotion, like, "A policyholder should receive the health care for which he has already paid, and should not be thrown off the rolls for needing care." Who could argue logically against that?

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 04:38 PM
132. I think the better question for our liberals friends is, what *don't* you want the federal government to run?

We could start with reinstating our Founders' opposition to a standing army, given that we are under exactly zero threat of invasion or occupation.

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 04:42 PM
133. #135. Okay, we have one answer. No military.

Others?

You agree with, MikeBoyScout? No army?

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:46 PM
134. Okay, we have an answer from tensor. No military.

Others?

You agree with that, MikeBoyScout? No army?


Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:48 PM
135. At # 120, which of my constitutional rights is violated?

Case law or citations of any specific part of the constitution are unnecessary.
Unless the constitution specifically says otherwise (as in conscription or payment of taxes), the government has no constitutional right to force any individual to buy anything. Some argue that the congress may not impose conscription or taxes either, but it certainly does not require that a citizen buy a product because some addle brained liberal morons say they must.

The real question is what portion of the constitution allows such authority? The answer is none, and you cannot not show where the congress might possibly get such authority except by a mandate of a bunch of other self righteous liberal morons on a power binge.

Even dim-wits like you know that Congress must follow the constitution. Conscription and the payment of taxes are grounded in the constitution narrowly but nevertheless grounded.

The health care bill does not change the constitution. Just because they have gotten away with violating it (as in the Roosevelt "New Deal period) doesn't mean they are justified in overreaching on this account. Violations of the constitution such as Roe v. Wade are balanced on the type of blatantly dishonest law that this law was. Isn't it a little silly that in Roe you dipshits cite nothingness in the constitution to protect women from intrusions of their bodies and here you cite nothingness to do the opposite? What might be the problem here? Consistency? Legal precedence? Citations of the constitution?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 04:53 PM
136. confident the law as passed takes in to account your freedom under constitutional limits in Article 1 of the US Constitution.

Oh, you're confident? I guess it's settled then. How is this bill NOT requiring you to associate with a company, whether you like it or not?

As for the 10th Amendment, just what enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass this? The "general welfare" clause? Madison and Jefferson think otherwise.

"Giving Congress a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole Constitution to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. The Constitution was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 04:54 PM
137. #143 "For the very sensible reason, "The Congress shall have the power ... to regulate interstate commerce." Healthcare insurers operate all across the country, making regulation of them a federal matter."

Health care insurers can sell across state lines?

Really?


Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 04:57 PM
138. Gary, read case law on interstate commerce. Get back to me when you've read up.

Posted by: John Jensen on March 22, 2010 05:02 PM
139. What does mandating that everyone carry health insurance have to do with interstate commerce?

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 05:06 PM
140. Palouse, it doesn't matter. They are making it up as they go along.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 05:09 PM
141. all i have to say is November can not get here soon enough.plan parenthood just said how happy they are with the bill that pasted the house last night.bart stupak is a phony POS who lied when he said he was prolife.i don't care if you want a abortion i don't want to pay for it._uck all libs this has become a bloodsport bring it on.

Posted by: jtm371 on March 22, 2010 05:09 PM
142. @138 Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 04:53 PM,

"Case law or citations of any specific part of the constitution are unnecessary."

Of course they're not. That would be a silly way to discuss law. Thank-you.

@139 Palouse on March 22, 2010 04:54 PM,

"How is this bill NOT requiring you to associate with a company, whether you like it or not?"

Nowhere in the bill is there any sort of requirement requiring you to associate with an NBA franchise.
Now you give one.

"The Constitution was intended to lace them up straightly"

Well that unattributed snippet settles it then. The damn law is not laced up straightly!

No worries folks. Veto proof majorities for straight laced constitution abiding Republicans are assured in 2010 and the bad and monstrously unconstitutional HCR law will be Pyrrhic, short-lived and reversed, or may you all be boiled in oil.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 05:10 PM
143. Case law or citations of any specific part of the constitution are unnecessary.

Cause I say it, therefore it's true. What part of that do you traitor libs not understand?

Okay, we have one answer. No military.

Wrong. I clearly wrote about a "standing army". Learn to read. Seriously, what need have we for a standing ARMY (bunch of guys with guns on the ground) when we face ZERO threat of invasion? We've depended on a Navy or Air Force for our protection during our entire history, and it has worked well.

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 05:13 PM
144. #146. We depended on the Air Force for our entire history? Cool.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 05:18 PM
145. We depended on the Air Force for our entire history? Cool.

You guys really are losing it, aren't you?

We've depended on a Navy or Air Force for our protection during our entire history, and it has worked well.

Maybe Obamaramacareadingdong can get you a much-needed brain transplant.

Learn
to
Read!

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 05:24 PM
146. Nowhere in the bill is there any sort of requirement requiring you to associate with an NBA franchise.

Funny. But this law does require me to associate with a health insurance company.

Well that unattributed snippet settles it then. The damn law is not laced up straightly!

The attribution is in the previous sentence. It's by Thomas Jefferson......you know, that guy who helped write the document.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 05:25 PM
147. Lighten up, man. You won. Liberals are angry even when they win.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 05:26 PM
148. @147 Gary on March 22, 2010 05:18 PM,

Funny. I thought you were refusing to read the law because you are obstinate. Turns out you have a reading comprehension problem. you missed the "or" statement.

Try this

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 05:29 PM
149. MikeBoyScout, I didn't miss the "or".

Liberals have no sense of humor.

Posted by: Gary on March 22, 2010 05:34 PM
150. Boy @ #145.

As usual you have nothing but empty meaningless tactics.

No surprise.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 05:38 PM
151. @152 Gary on March 22, 2010 05:34 PM MikeBoyScout, I didn't miss the "or". Liberals have no sense of humor.

or maybe your joke isn't funny cuz it makes no sense?

@149 Palouse on March 22, 2010 05:25 PM,

"But this law does require me to associate with a health insurance company."

Bullshit. Prove it. Show it.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 05:39 PM
152. Boycott Cupcake Royale!

I will never venture into your stores again.

Your support of the fascist takeover of the healthcare system doesn't deserve to recieve my hard earned dollars!

Posted by: TheDoc on March 22, 2010 05:42 PM
153. Too comical! Rizzo, (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives)@ 141 is telling someone to read law?
Very amusing indeed.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 05:45 PM
154. Liberals are angry even when they win.

We haven't won yet. The parasitical private health insurers still stand between us and the health care we have already paid to receive. President Obama did backroom deals with them, even after Senator Obama promised full transparency. We have a long way to go before we lift the burden of private insurance from our productive businesses. American firms, like my employer, still face uphill competition from Europe, and other places where everyone is insured. Leveling that playing-field will take some time. This is but the very beginning of the change I voted for.

Posted by: tensor on March 22, 2010 05:45 PM
155. Boy at 154.
Assertion that the HC law does require us to associate with health insurance companies
speaks clearly for itself and doesn't need more proof moron.
Your expressed inability to understand it is not an argument.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 05:54 PM
156. Bullshit. Prove it. Show it.

The bill requires that I carry health insurance. Who do you think provides that?

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 06:01 PM
157. @158 Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 05:54 PM,

"Assertion [snip]
speaks clearly for itself and doesn't need more proof moron.
"

Don't know if you are amused, but you are amusing.
Hint: You don't get it.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 06:01 PM
158. Once again MikeBoy shows that he has no argument to support his blind support for liberals or their health care power grab; only meaningless smart-ass rejoinders.
Like Obama, Pelosi, and Reed et al. all empty suits playing to morons like Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives).
Nothing new here.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 06:10 PM
159. No worries Amused by Liberals.
Veto proof majorities for straight laced constitution abiding Republicans are assured in 2010 and the bad and monstrously unconstitutional HCR law will be Pyrrhic, short-lived and reversed, or may you all be boiled in oil.

ARMAGEDDON!!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 06:16 PM
160. This will be found unconstitutional by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision and then President dingle-Barry Obama, Reid and Pelosi will be back to square one. If these socialists and their supporters want the government wiping their bottom from cradle to grave, they're more than welcome to move to the country of their choice that provides such services. They certainly don't represent the founding fathers vision for this country, nor that of the majority of Americans today.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2010 07:15 PM
161. Boiled in oil?? I think that is too kind. A good piece of hemp may be more appropriate.

Posted by: Harry on March 22, 2010 07:22 PM
162. RickD@163 worries that Americans favoring healthcare reform "certainly don't represent the founding fathers vision for this country."

Very true! But who cares? Their vision certainly didn't include health insurance companies, either. Or an African-American president....

We don't run our personal lives or businesses the way the founding fathers envisioned; why should we run our country that way?

Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2010 07:24 PM
163. Rodger Rabbit @9

> Do you misanthropes actually believe people liked being uninsured,

Rodger Rabbit @9

I absolutely do. When I was in my 20s and early 30s I declined to buy health insurance, although I could have. I'm sure there are hundreds, nay thousands today just like I was then. I hope that many thousands more tell the 59 new bureaucrasies to stick it.

Posted by: Nishnabotna on March 22, 2010 07:32 PM
164. All of the Founding Fathers envisioned Michael Steele would make a fine ________________ .

ARMAGEDDON!!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 07:36 PM
165. We don't run our personal lives or businesses the way the founding fathers envisioned; why should we run our country that way?

Many of us do still, Bruce. Not all of us want mother government making our day to day decisions for us like yourself and MikeBS. It's called advancing into adulthood. We still believe in rugged individualism while you and Mike are still wallowing in the phase of learned helplessness. This will be only a short-lived victory for Dingle-barry. The SCOTUS will overturn this.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2010 07:39 PM
166. As of about 5:00 PM last night (his local time)Dr. Benishek had about 500 members. He is past 17,000 now and heading ever upward. By comparison, his opponent Mr. Stupak only has about 2200 "fans".


Go Dr. Benishek.


Posted by: komodo_dragon on March 22, 2010 07:40 PM
167. Gary:
Quite simple. If you actually read the bill, it includes additional Medicaid funding.

Palouse
"Another example is the enormous cuts to Medicare reimbursements. They're taking $463 billion out of Medicare"
Lie...or just blatant ignorance. The cuts are to private insurance subsidies for Medicare (aka..Medicare "Advantage") NOT Medicare itself. And, the vast majority of THAT is due to projected savings from increased audting, and a crackdown on medical device overbilling.

Pudge: (one of these days, I'll figure out how to do the cool italics)
"Sure. It will virtually eliminate the competition between insurance products, for starters: all insurance will be required to offer the same basic care, to charge the same basic prices, and so on"
Speculation..and unfounded at that.
All it does is provide a MINIMUM standard of service. Its a basic consumer protection, same as we do with auto insurance today. The bill simply says your carrier can't cherry pick customers, and can't drop your coverage if you get sick. There are plenty of opportunities for insurance companies to differentiate their offerings, based on doctor choice, specialist coverage, benefit copays, etc..etc. And you are correct this will likley lead to smaller health insurance companies going out of business. Medical billing and overhead is already insane (over 30%), so this will cut those costs. Most western nations get by just fine with only a few insurance companies.

As to the consitutional arguement about mandatory insurance...how exactly is this different from my MANDATORY auto liability insurance I need in all 50 states? Your right to not have insurance terminates when you force me (the taxpayer) to pay for your expensive emergency room coverage. We don't trust people in this country to self insure for auto liability...this is no different.

Posted by: Proteus on March 22, 2010 07:42 PM
168. rugged individualism = loner wingnut loser?

How rugged is that pc with internet? Got the back lit keyboard? :-D

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 07:48 PM
169. Mikeboy writes that I don't get "IT."
He gleefully surrenders all of his individual freedom to his supposed kindred spirits
on the pretext that Obamacare will lower costs, cover everyone, and fix ANY (let alone some) of our real HC problems.

Who doesn't get it?

Truly amusing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 07:55 PM
170. The cuts are to private insurance subsidies for Medicare (aka..Medicare "Advantage") NOT Medicare itself. And, the vast majority of THAT is due to projected savings from increased audting, and a crackdown on medical device overbilling.

The cuts to medicare are going to be used to subsidize people who can't afford their own insurance, and there is NO replacement for those funds from a program that has $35 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. There is no "projected savings". It's a lie. Nothing in this bill is going to magically make Medicare operate more cheaply. So the money they are cutting from the program will come from reimbursements, or maybe, like the rest of Obama's largess, he'll just print more.

how exactly is this different from my MANDATORY auto liability insurance I need in all 50 states?

Simple, driving is a privilege, and every road you use is public.

Your right to not have insurance terminates when you force me (the taxpayer) to pay for your expensive emergency room coverage.

Emergency room visits account for less than 3% of all medical care costs. Try another talking point.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 07:56 PM
171. @169, komodo_dragon on March 22, 2010 07:40 PM,

Yeah, but Sarah Palin has 1,482,194 fans. So, . . . she's Chief Justice... or.. . .. something else irrelevant.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 07:56 PM
172. The cuts are to private insurance subsidies for Medicare (aka..Medicare "Advantage") NOT Medicare itself. And, the vast majority of THAT is due to projected savings from increased audting, and a crackdown on medical device overbilling.

The cuts to medicare are going to be used to subsidize people who can't afford their own insurance, and there is NO replacement for those funds from a program that has $35 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. There is no "projected savings". It's a lie. Nothing in this bill is going to magically make Medicare operate more cheaply. So the money they are cutting from the program will come from reimbursements, or maybe, like the rest of Obama's largess, he'll just print more.

how exactly is this different from my MANDATORY auto liability insurance I need in all 50 states?

Simple, driving is a privilege, and every road you use is public.

Your right to not have insurance terminates when you force me (the taxpayer) to pay for your expensive emergency room coverage.

Emergency room visits account for less than 3% of all medical care costs. Try another talking point.

Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2010 07:57 PM
173. rugged individualism = loner wingnut loser?

I'm not the one that has been on here posting the last 14 hours on this forum in defense of an unconstitutional bill. If you want a loner wingnut loser, you need not look any further than in the nearest mirror.

If you have so much time on your hands, perhaps you should be putting your money where your mouth is and volunteer your time at a charity. Then again, liberals like yourself are usually all talk and no walk, so no surprise there.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2010 07:57 PM
174. Proteus- While I agree that the health care bill is constitutional (and good), there are differences between mandating health insurance and auto insurance:

1) Auto insurance is required only if you choose to drive. Health insurance is required for everyone.

2) Auto liability insurance covers damage you may do to others. (You're not required to carry collision insurance, which covers damage that may occur to your property.) Health insurance covers damage that may occur to you.

3) While society covers ER expenses, it does so out of choice, not constitutional necessity.

4) Some states, including Washington, actually do let you provide proof of self-insurance in lieu of auto liability insurance.

Again, I don't think these are critical distinctions relevant to constitutionality (or to the wisdom of the healthcare bill), but to be fair, they are relevant.

Posted by: Bruce on March 22, 2010 07:58 PM
175. MBS @ 174

Remind us again what office Palin is running for and who her opponent is that is up for re-election this November.


Thanks in advance.

LOL


Posted by: komodo_dragon on March 22, 2010 08:06 PM
176. kd:


We were hoping you'd draft her as RNC chairman. After Michael Steele, she would be an improvement.

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh Fan on March 22, 2010 08:24 PM
177. The sad thing is that we all lose in this ridiculous comedy of arrogant errors and fraudulence falsely referred to as "health care reform." There are no good arguments for the Obamacare bill just passed or mike boy or someone like him would make one. All they have is a repetition of the same baseless nonsense recklessly droned by broken records like Rizzo.

Obama, Pelosi and Reed are rarely (if ever) challenged directly and whenever confronted they scurry like rats into cheap tactics like mikeboy uses. The idea that Obamacare might have anything to do with some so-called "black mourning" is just a way of avoiding the facts, shifting attention to petty spite and attempting to overshadow mikeboy's own blatant sheepish inanity with disrespect for anyone that will think for themselves. He pretends to have some "legal" skill that he can bring to bear but there are no legal grounds to stand on. All bluff and bullshit.

None of the real questions will ever be explored by engaging a follower like mikeboy because he is merely following what others say. He has no grounding to stand on and no interest in the facts or the truth; just meaningless smart ass comebacks.

Nothing new really, like he says blah blah blah.
Thanks Mike for the usual nothing.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 08:29 PM
178. Cupcake Royale supports Obamacare? Actually, their cupcakes are really bad anyway. There's only one that tastes good---the "Triple threat" chocolate one. Don't even bother with the lavender ones. Or anything else.

Posted by: Yosemite Sam on March 22, 2010 08:33 PM
179. Kudos to AG Rob McKenna for suing to uphold the US constitution.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 22, 2010 08:35 PM
180. No ivan, I don't consider your legitimate activities as huffing and puffing.

I do consider you telling Michele that are you are going to shove it down her throat and she will swallow as huffing and puffing.
And exactly the violent rhetoric I would expect from a cowardly union goon who is used to using collective force to get his way.

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 22, 2010 08:57 PM
181. @180 Amused by Liberals on March 22, 2010 08:29 PM,

"the facts"

Okay, which of these is a fact and which is wingnut whack-a-doodie?

(A) President Obama Will Sign The HCR Bill In To Law Tuesday

(B) HCR Will Be Pyrrhic, Short-Lived and Reversed

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 22, 2010 09:58 PM
182. The authority conferred upon the states by the TENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution and which the states delegate to their political subdivisions to enact measures to preserve and protect the safety, health, WELFARE, and morals of the community.

Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution.

The right of states to make laws governing safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived from the Tenth Amendment, which states, "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." State legislatures exercise their police power by enacting statutes, and they also delegate much of their police power to counties, cities, towns, villages, and large boroughs within the state.

Posted by: HughJardon on March 22, 2010 10:05 PM
183. The authority conferred upon the states by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and which the states delegate to their political subdivisions to enact measures to preserve and protect the safety, health, welfare and morals of the community.

Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution.

The right of states to make laws governing safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived from the Tenth Amendment, which states, "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." State legislatures exercise their police power by enacting statutes, and they also delegate much of their police power to counties, cities, towns, villages, and large boroughs within the state.

Posted by: HughJardon on March 22, 2010 10:07 PM
184.
The authority conferred upon the states by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and which the states delegate to their political subdivisions to enact measures to preserve and protect the safety, health, welfare and morals of the community.

Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution.

The right of states to make laws governing safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived from the Tenth Amendment, which states, "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." State legislatures exercise their police power by enacting statutes, and they also delegate much of their police power to counties, cities, towns, villages, and large boroughs within the state.

Posted by: HughJardon on March 22, 2010 10:08 PM
185. I guess MikeBoyScoct thinks the Founding Fathers were wing nut losers.

Posted by: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner on March 22, 2010 10:17 PM
186. Bruce: The Republicans are the party of no ideas except the idea of "No" ... not exactly a winning election strategy.

Shrug. Considering the majority of Americans wanted our elected officials to say "No" to this, you're not actually making a rational argument.

Most Americans hear, in this health insurance bill debate, that the Republicans are "the Party of No," and they respond, "damn straight!"


I'm honestly not sure whether Obama wants single payer, but even if he does, so what? The important thing is that he never proposed single payer. Who cares what he wants to do later, or what some other Democrats want to do? How is that relevant to the bill that was under consideration?

Because this bill is DESIGNED as a stepping stone to single-payer.


Jensen: Right, pudge, someone on the INTERNET claimed that the final step is Medicare for all

Those "someone"s on the Internet were, among others, Barack Obama and Jacob Hacker. Shrug.


Having 24 million people buy private health care insurance through state-run exchanges, while retaining the vast majority of people in the employer-provided insurance market isn't even a half-inch move toward single-payer.

Correct: it's a MAJOR step.


Insurance will not be required to charge the same basic prices

False. That is what the bill says. Insurance plans are limited BY THE JUST-PASSED LAW in how much they can charge for premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.


MikeBS: Show me the clause in the bill passed yesterday and that the president shall sign tomorrow that assumes a power not delegated in Article 1.

Almost all of it. Insurance mandates. Employer mandates. Health insurance exchanges. The list is long.


Hint: Don't go to AG McKenna for help. He doesn't know either.

Yeah, um, the fact that you think McKenna doesn't know says a lot about how little you know.


"The federal government can not make me associate with a company."

Is that what the law passed yesterday does?

Yes, in fact, it does. That's the individual mandate.


Nowhere in the bill is there any sort of requirement requiring you to associate with an NBA franchise.

What's puzzling here is just why you think this is a clever response.


tensor: Yeah, whining inconsolably for thirty years about how every pregnant woman should give birth kinda makes you look churlish when you deny her proper care

You're a liar. Repealing this bill will not result in denying "proper care" to a single pregnant woman in this country.


Amused: Unless the constitution specifically says otherwise (as in conscription or payment of taxes)

There's nothing remotely related to conscription in the Constitution.


Proteus: Speculation..and unfounded at that.

Not really, no.


All it does is provide a MINIMUM standard of service.

"All it does" is a comprehensive set of limitations and requirements that will significantly homogenize coverage.


There are plenty of opportunities for insurance companies to differentiate their offerings, based on doctor choice, specialist coverage, benefit copays, etc..etc.

Not really, no. As to doctor choice, all health plans will be required to have a "sufficient choice of providers," to be determined by the government, which is basically going to eliminate that differentiation. Specialist coverage, same basic thing. Benefit copays? The bill establishes maximum limits for how much copays, premiums, deductibles, and so on can be.

These are all controlled by government in this bill. They will homogenize coverage drastically.


And you are correct this will likley lead to smaller health insurance companies going out of business.

Yes, which will further lead to less choice. Even though Obama said it wouldn't reduce choice.


Most western nations get by just fine with only a few insurance companies.

I've said this before, but maybe not to you, so I say it now: I honestly could not care any less about what other countries do. It has no bearing on my thinking whatsoever. I mean, it might be interesting, if it's something we could use or whatnot. But THAT other countries do something doesn't make it good or bad. I don't care if every country in the world doesn't have capital punishment, outlaws guns, or has single-payer health care ... the fact that they do those things is absolutely irrelevant.


As to the consitutional arguement about mandatory insurance...how exactly is this different from my MANDATORY auto liability insurance I need in all 50 states?

No such mandate for auto liability exists. This is a fact. Please realize that you are making it up. You have to have auto insurance only if you CHOOSE to drive on public roads. But under this bill, you have to have health insurance simply for being alive. That's a huge difference. We have never before, ever, in this country, required everyone to do something just because they are alive.

The closest we've come is requiring all men to sign up for selective service etc., but I find that to be a terrible affront to liberty as well, as many other people do.


Your right to not have insurance terminates when you force me (the taxpayer) to pay for your expensive emergency room coverage.

Utterly false. That claim is philosophically bankrupt. *I* a not forcing you to pay for my emergency room visit, *YOU* (the people, democratically) are CHOOSING to pay for it. And your choice to pay for that care cannot logically be used as a lever to take away any single right I have.

Further, it's legally bankrupt: you cannot leverage any statute, or collection of statutes, over the Constitution.


We don't trust people in this country to self insure for auto liability...this is no different.

Other than the fact that auto insurance is only forced on people who make a choice to use public roads, and health insurance is forced on EVERYONE, yeah, no different!

Posted by: pudge on March 22, 2010 10:30 PM
187. Insurance plans are limited BY THE JUST-PASSED LAW in how much they can charge for premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.

Premiums are not regulated.

Posted by: John Jensen on March 22, 2010 10:42 PM
188. Premiums are not regulated

False. Section 2701.

Posted by: pudge on March 22, 2010 11:00 PM
189. I must say that I am saddened by the level of gloating and mean spiritedness spilling out from those on the left. Your "side" won a particularly ugly battle in the body politic and you wasted no time trying to rub the noses of those who were against the bill in it. I see a lot of vindictiveness and ugliness on this thread today that sheds a lot of light on just how little this issue is about what is good for the country and how much of it is about beating down your fellow Americans who disagree with your world view. It is shameful and despicable. From some of you it does not surprise me - your contempt is perpetually evident.

A special Note for Unkl Witz - what happened to civil discourse? I guess I can no longer grant you the benefit of the doubt.

Most of you would never recognize in yourselves just how contemptible your behavior is, hiding behind a thin veneer of moral superiority that is in direct odds with the foundations that are supposed to be the root of the superiority of your world view - showing it to be a bankrupt and groundless view that devolves into the ends justifies the means.

You are poor losers and apparently even poorer winners, screeching like harpies about how great it is for your side that you managed to push through a monstrosity of a bill that could not have passed without a huge amount of bribes and arm-twisting OF YOUR OWN SIDE. And you know WHY you are gleeful - not because it is a good bill, but that you "won" despite the the bill, despite the desires of the population, and despite the real impacts to the country.

I think the worst part of this whole "health care" process was how it was done - not as a well thought out piece of legislation, brought about by serious debate of the real problems facing our nation but as a hodgepodge of deals, gifts, slight-of-hand manipulations and ram-down-the-throat politics - perpetuated to the end to give a "win" to "your" side. It is an ugly piece of work that will have political ramifications to the detriment of the whole country for many years to come and you have the total lack of perspective to dance with glee over its passage.

Posted by: Eyago on March 22, 2010 11:13 PM
190. pudge, the government does not set the price of premiums as you claimed. The regulations do prevent price discrimination based on health, but insurance companies are free to offer a set of products at whatever price that makes sense for them.

Posted by: John Jensen on March 23, 2010 12:40 AM
191. @192 Eyago on March 22, 2010 11:13 PM,

"despite the the bill, despite the desires of the population, and despite the real impacts to the country."

And despite any indisputable evidence of your alleged reality.

Let us bow our heads in mourning and salute the black banner flying at SP in memory of the health care free market paradise which generated the best health care system in the universe, which has been destroyed by evil Democrats elected by the people to represent in Congress with the largest majorities in a generation, who then threw us in to ARMAGEDDON by ram-down-the-throat politics of public votes.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 23, 2010 05:38 AM
192. Proteus wrote:

All it does is provide a MINIMUM standard of service. Its a basic consumer protection, same as we do with auto insurance today. The bill simply says your carrier can't cherry pick customers, and can't drop your coverage if you get sick.

Then how about treating it like auto insurance and letting the States decide? Minimum liability amounts and coverages are set by each State, not by the Federal Government.

Additionally, I don't buy - in fact, CANNOT buy - health insurance from a company out-of-State. I buy from a Washington company. What right does Congress have to dictate what happens solely in an intrastate commerce transaction? None.

This whole deal is bullshit, and you and your fellow leftists are just bleating and bleating. Liars and thieves the lot of you...

MikeBS wrote:

evil Democrats elected by the people to represent in Congress with the largest majorities in a generation, who then threw us in to ARMAGEDDON by ram-down-the-throat politics of public votes.

And overwhelming those people who elected them do NOT WANT THIS BILL. CNN and CBS News just released polls showing 15-20% majority OPPOSED to the bill, even on Sunday. Evidently the dolts in DC don't listen to the people...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 23, 2010 05:57 AM
193. Eyago:

I think the worst part of this whole "health care" process was how it was done - not as a well thought out piece of legislation, brought about by serious debate of the real problems facing our nation but as a hodgepodge of deals, gifts, slight-of-hand manipulations and ram-down-the-throat politics - perpetuated to the end to give a "win" to "your" side. It is an ugly piece of work that will have political ramifications to the detriment of the whole country for many years to come and you have the total lack of perspective to dance with glee over its passage.

EXACTLY! We had that joke-of-a-health insurance summit a few weeks ago where the President got to pontificate with his puffed-up ego, and promised to push a bill - a NEW bill, not the utter crap that was already passed (and is now law) - that includes the input of the Republicans.

Bullshit. He simply played to the press, and there is not hint of bipartisan nature or process here. It's a scorched earth approach, and these dimwit lemmings on the left just march along to the orders, squawking as good little idiots should do...

In all the actions of Gingrich or Bush, NOTHING was CLOSE to this partisan and unilateral as we just saw happen. Clearly the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate are the most dictatorial, one-sided, and partisan leadership we've seen in DC for decades.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 23, 2010 06:08 AM
194. Jensen: the government does not set the price of premiums

False. I did give the wrong section though, in my haste: it's 2718.


MikeBS: And despite any indisputable evidence of your alleged reality.

Oh give it a rest. There's no "indisputable evidence" of anything YOU'VE said the bill WILL DO.

Do you realize even your fellow liberals think you're a joke?

Posted by: pudge on March 23, 2010 06:18 AM
195. The Queen has voiced her opposition to McKenna's decision to fight this unconstituional bill-
When Gregoire learned of [McKenna's} plan [to file suit over the constitutionality of the bill], she phoned him.
It was cordial, but I was clear that I don't agree," she said.
Gregoire felt McKenna had a "duty" to discuss it with her, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and House Speaker Frank Chopp before proceeding.
"Had he consulted with any one of us we would have been clear about what the benefits were to the people of Washington state and that his attempt here to undermine that benefit is just wrong," she said.
McKenna said the critics are "mixing the policy issues with legal issues. My job is to evaluate whether the bill is constitutionally adequate.
"They could mandate every American should eat one avocado a day and it wouldn't be constitutional. They don't have the power," he said...Gregoire contended joining the suit is not in the state's best interests and will harm many individuals, businesses and hospitals that stand to benefit from the reforms.
"Who does he represent?" she said. "He may represent the people of Florida but not on the dime of the taxpayers of the state of Washington."
source

The Governor needs to know her role. If she wants to make AG decisions, she has my blessing (and urging) to step down as Governor and run for the office- otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself. Clearly she has relegated party politics above the US Constitution and is clueless as ever in the blue bubble of ignorance.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 23, 2010 06:39 AM
196. Rick, and there's the reason why AG is a separately elected position. Because otherwise, it's a shill position like Eric Holder is with Obama. Good for McKenna. The libs are up in arms over this, and I couldn't be prouder of him.

Posted by: Palouse on March 23, 2010 07:47 AM
197. Mikeboyscout,

Thank you for re-emphasizing my point for me. It was a perfect followup.

You also flunk basic logic (again).

Just because the American people bought snake oil doesn't mean they want to keep drinking it down once they discover what it is.

The Dems were not elected on a mandate to fix health care, and even if they were, they were not elected specifically for THIS bill in any way shape of form as can be evidenced by the same electorate that has made it abundantly clear that they din NOT want it. You seem to want it both ways.

Posted by: Eyago on March 23, 2010 08:44 AM
198. MBS @194
I feel you have crossed the line in this post. Eyago has been considerate and constructive in his comments. To slam him tells me that you do not desire civil discourse and make you no better than the idiots on the weekend who slung racial slurs at Congressmen.

Now a couple of general comments:
1. Constitutionality - Is not McKenna's and the other state's lawsuits only about the mandates part of the bill? Is there other things included in their lawsuit? If this is the case (i.e., lawsuit is about mandates), then it is false to say that other parts of the bill are unconstitutional. The AG's are not fighting such things as the fixing of pre-existing conditions bans, the closing of the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, etc. Therefore, it would be productive when arguing that something is unconstitutional to argue on the specific part and not generalize the argument to the whole bill.

2. Lawsuit Success or not - I for one do not trust the Supreme Court (after Citizen's United) to decide this case based on past precedent. With this activist court, past precedent means nothing. Therefore, I would not be so giddy to think that the AG's will not be successful in their fight. However, even if they are successful, it does not negate the other parts of the bill. The ruling would only affect the mandates section (I believe).

3. Repeal of the Bill - A word of advice to the tea partiers etc. If a Republican candidate states donate to me because I will fight to repeal this bill (aka John McCain), keep your hand on your wallet. They are simply trying to rake money out of you. They know they can't "repeal" the bill. For to repeal the bill, they would need to either: (a) wait until the 2012 elections and hope that a Republican President is elected and that they have majority in the House and a 60 vote, filubuster-proof majority in the Senate, or (b) assume that in 2010 they will not only get majorities in the House and Senate, but 2/3rds majority (i.e., enough to overturn a Presidential veto). No, just like their false claims on abortion, they are simply going to use the fear to raise funds to pad their campaign war chests. Always assume it is about power, not ideology. They want the power and status. They don't give a rip about ideology. Look at the recent issue regarding earmarks. When push came to shove, a significant majority of senators from both parties turned back the no-earmark pledge of the house. Why, because McConnell, Dodd, etc. are more concerned about their power and winning elections than any sort of idiology. So watch your wallets. Ask these so-called repeal candidates specifics on how they actually are going to repeal the bill. Ask them if they believe they will get 2/3rds majority, which is impossible in the Senate this go-around (not enough Democrat seats up for reelection--even if they swept every single one). They are just trying to pad their campaign chests.

Posted by: tc on March 23, 2010 09:19 AM
199. Pudge at #188,
You say that "There's nothing remotely related to conscription in the Constitution."
In reasonable speculation that you know better, I could simply use your idiotic tactic of calling you a liar.
Instead the obvious fact that you are wrong (as usual) will suffice.

The grant to Congress of draft (conscription) power to raise and support armies, considered in conjunction with the grants of the powers to declare war, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and to make laws necessary and proper for executing granted powers (Constitution, Art. I, ยง 8), includes the power to compel military service, exercised by the Selective Draft Law of May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76. This conclusion, obvious upon the face of the Constitution, is confirmed by an historical examination of the subject.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/245/366/case.html

The point is that the Congress has to have a specific basis in the Constitution before making any law that may affect individual freedoms.
Congress has the constitutional basis to make laws to draft citizens for military service to defend our country against foreign enemies; they do not have the right to compel a citizen to buy health care insurance to supposedly reform our health care system or satisfy liberal-progressive Democrat power hunger. There's lots more to prove my point, but this is enough.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 23, 2010 09:22 AM
200. Mike boy at 184,

Keep stirring your boring repetitive crap in the hopes that it will turn into something more than boring repetitive crap.

You are almost as tediously inane as Rizzo.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 23, 2010 09:30 AM
201. And an unruly mob of Tea Baggers is your constituency.

I'm pretty sure King George III and the British Parliament felt the same way.

Posted by: Bastiat Fan on March 23, 2010 11:44 AM
202. Therefore, it would be productive when arguing that something is unconstitutional to argue on the specific part and not generalize the argument to the whole bill.

The entire bill as passed is unconstitutional for the very reasons that McKenna has laid out. The federal government does not have the authority to mandate that citizens within a state purchase a private good or service. It's obvious that Queen Christine needs to attend remedial law courses, as she doesn't give one legal argument for why McKenna is wrong. She just regurgitates DNC talking points ad nauseum.

...tells me that you do not desire civil discourse and make you no better than the idiots on the weekend who slung racial slurs at Congressmen.

There has been no video proof of any of these actions happening. It is merely hearsay, and given Sheila Jackson Lee's record of race baiting her arguments, consider the source and accept it with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 23, 2010 12:49 PM
203. Rick D @205
So, you are saying each and every part of the bill is unconstitutional. Glad to have you on record.

Re: the idiots - Um, first hand eyewitnesses are always accepted as reliable. So, you are saying that the congressman who was spit upon, did not experience the spit hitting him. You are saying that Barney Frank did not hear idiots call him names. You are saying that John Lewis did not hear what he heard. Wow! Utterly amazing. Of course, you know better than the first hand accounts.

Posted by: tc on March 23, 2010 01:55 PM
204. Given the track record of recent claims by the left for when they "hear" stuff that just ain't there, I would not buy anything they say without some evidence. I mean when people say that they "heard" Joe Wilson say "you lie, boy" when he did not. When people claim there were racial chants at Palin events and the audio proof shows there was not. When Rachel Maddow claims she was assaulted by right wing haters, then I tend to remember the story of the boy who cried wolf.

The problem is, libs seem to really believe that all conservatives are racist, homo-phobic, anti-women haters. Since they are not challenged in those assumptions, it is easy for them to "manufacture" the hate as a way to slander the messenger when they can't win with the message. More evidence is the constant repeating that the tea parties are full of racists.

So, no. Their word is NOT good enough.

Posted by: Skeptik on March 23, 2010 02:37 PM
205. tc:

So, you are saying each and every part of the bill is unconstitutional. Glad to have you on record.

It doesn't matter if every part of the bill is unconstitutional. It only matters that ANY ONE aspect of the bill is unconstitutional, thereby making the entire bill unconstitutional(You know this,of course, but just can't seem to bring yourself to admit it here it would appear). This would mean that Congress would need to go back to square one and try to cobble together a bill that has NO provisions contained within that are unconstitutional. Don't blame us; Rob McKenna or the other 12 AG's suing over this flawed legislation. Blame the Congressional Democrats for passing and a supposed "constitutional scholar" Obama signing it into law even though it has mandates contained within it that are inherently unConstitutional.Blame the 3 stooges- Reid, Pelosi and Obama.

Of course, you know better than the first hand accounts.

As I said above, there is no video proof that the events alleged actually happened (media or Youtube). First hand accounts from members that are politically motivated to try to marginalize ordinary citizens that are there to voice their opposition of this bill is a classic Democrat ploy as we both know. Besides, were there any reports filled by Capitol police out to report this alleged assault (spitting)? If so, did the police make any arrests? Answer: No.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 23, 2010 06:08 PM
206. Amused: In reasonable speculation that you know better

I do know better. That is why I pointed out the fact that conscription is not in the Constitution.


The grant to Congress of draft (conscription) power ...

... does not exist.


includes the power to compel military service

False. Statists want you to think that, but it is not -- in your words -- what "the constitution specifically says." You can think it is IMPLIED -- though that seems extraordinarily stupid -- but to say it is "specifically" in the Constitution is simply false.


This conclusion, obvious upon the face of the Constitution ...

Nonsense. By this logic, the federal government is literally unlimited in its war powers. If it can essentially take ownership of individual human beings, then it has no limits. Upon the face of the Constitution, there is no conscription power whatsoever. (I'd also argue that conscription is explicitly outlawed by the 13th Amendment.)


http://supreme.justia.com/us/245/366/case.html

Yes, the Supreme Court is often wrong. Note that the same Justice who authored that decision also was in the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson (a case in point).


The point is that the Congress has to have a specific basis in the Constitution before making any law that may affect individual freedoms.

Correct. And there is no "specific" basis for conscription.


Congress has the constitutional basis to make laws to draft citizens for military service

False. Though our courts last ruled that it's true, they are wrong.


they do not have the right to compel a citizen to buy health care insurance

True.

Posted by: pudge on March 23, 2010 07:15 PM
207. The constitutional arguement is a strawman.
Look at your paycheck.
You are REQUIRED by law to pay for retirement insurance (Social Security)
You are REQUIRED by law to pay for SOCIALIZED, GOVERNMENT medical insurance (Medicare).
Neither is unconstitutional.

You are REQUIRED by law to pay for auto liability insurance. And yes..almost EVERYONE in this state needs to drive, in order to work, so don't try the bullcrap "driving is a privilege" arguement

Regardless, this is all covered under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I section 8). Makes perfect sense. For example, my company operates in all 50 states..and offers the same health insurance plans in almost all those states.

Bottom line is, Obama is simply delivering on a campaign promise. Americans voted in 2008 to abandon the failed policies of GW Bush, and the GOP congress. Its going to take a while to clean up the $11 TRILLION debt that Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr left us ($5 TRILLION from GW Bush alone). Don't worry though, we're still running well under the 17% deficit/GDP ratio that we had under Reagan.

Face it. The "teabag" movement represents a MINORITY. Right now, Americans are still figureing out what this final bill means to them, and how they will benefit. Once they do, the GOP won't have a leg to stand on in November.

I'm still waiting to find ONE part of the bill that will negatively affect me or my family directly. Please..do tell!

Posted by: Proteus on March 23, 2010 09:57 PM
208. Proteus: The constitutional arguement is a strawman.

You do not know what "strawman" means. Seriously.

Regardless, you are ignoring the ways that the health insurance mandate is difference from Social Security, Medicare, and auto liability insurance (and in this, YOU are the one guilty of a strawman). For Social Security and Medicare, both are taxes for government programs. The health insurance mandate is for a private company, and thus subject to, among other things, the freedom of association.

Most importantly, however, NONE of them are required of EVERYONE. Social Security and Medicare taxes apply only to people who have non-exempt income, and auto liability insurance applies only to people who drive.


don't try the bullcrap "driving is a privilege" arguement

It's not a "privilege" so much as it's a choice. It's clearly different. If I am so opposed to insurance, I can choose to not drive on public roads. If I am so opposed to those taxes, I can choose to not earn money. I have a choice, as bad a choice as it may be for most people.

In the health insurance mandate, there is no choice. You must comply or be punished.

That's a huge difference, whether you care to admit it or not.


Regardless, this is all covered under the Interstate Commerce clause

It's idiotic to claim that forcing people to participate in commerce is a rational exercise of the right to regulate commerce.


Bottom line is, Obama is simply delivering on a campaign promise.

That it is a campaign promise is irrelevant to whether it's unconstitutional. It's also false: Obama came out AGAINST an individual mandate in the campaign. Just one of his many broken promises.


The "teabag" movement represents a MINORITY.

I know of no such movement. There's a "Tea Party" movement, perhaps you are referring to it? And as to whether it's a minority, shrug. So what? The people who support this health insurance bill are a minority.


Right now, Americans are still figureing out what this final bill means to them, and how they will benefit. Once they do, the GOP won't have a leg to stand on in November.

Yawn. Obama and the Dems have been using this line since the beginning, and at the same time have also been saying we know what's in the bill because we've debated it for many months.

The latter is the most correct: the people DO know what's in it, which is why they dislike it.


I'm still waiting to find ONE part of the bill that will negatively affect me or my family directly. Please..do tell!

No, you never asked that. You did not ask how it would negatively impact YOU or YOUR FAMILY. You asked how it would negatively impact "the US healthcare system." And I told you. And you responded.

And you even admitted I was right, when you conceded that "this will likley lead to smaller health insurance companies going out of business," which necessarily decreases choice and competition, which will almost surely have an adverse effect on prices.

Posted by: pudge on March 23, 2010 10:49 PM
209. Proteus wrote:

You are REQUIRED by law to pay for retirement insurance (Social Security)
You are REQUIRED by law to pay for SOCIALIZED, GOVERNMENT medical insurance (Medicare).

False. You can actually have a good income and pay ZERO Medicare and Social Security taxes. Legally. Capital gains are not taxed for SS or FICA and thus means you can legally not pay into those systems.

This bill does not tax income at all; rather it is a specific penalty for not taking an action. It forces a man to actually make an association or face penalty.

It is in NO WAY like Social Security or FICA.

($5 TRILLION from GW Bush alone)

Failed to mention the $2.7 trillion added by President Obama, or that $2 trillion of that GW bush total happened on Obama's watch as the House and Senate - which create the budgets, you know. Meaning that President Obama has already added nearly $5 trillion to the debts, and has promised to add another $10 trillion over the coming decade.

And you're happy about that? Sick, twisted puppy...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 24, 2010 02:53 AM
210.
USA TODAY/ GALLUP POLL

Source: USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,005 adults Monday. Margin of error: +/-4 percentage points.

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-po

Posted by: cat on March 24, 2010 08:00 AM
211. cat: yeah, keep dreaming ... that poll is obviously very flawed. A full one-quarter of self-identified Republicans did NOT oppose the bill in that poll. That's ridiculous on the face of it.

Posted by: pudge on March 24, 2010 09:04 AM
212. Its rather simple. Most people believe the role of government, in many respects, is to provide a base level of security and subsistence for people, and to work for the betterment of society.

To this end, we have a lot of provisions in our laws and tax code designed around this. The system encourages marriages and families (by providing tax deductions). It encourages home ownership (by providing deducations for mortgage interest and property taxes). And now, it will encourage obtaining medical insurance (by creating a small tax penalty for those who decide to become a burden to society by going without coverage). Pretty simple really.

If you decide to go without coverage, and you get hit by a car, or you get cancer, then we..society, are required to pay your expensive emergency room bill. That is bad.

If you decide to go without coverage, then you get diseased, and you then go out to buy medical insurance, then that hurts insurance companies, who are required to raise rates on everyone to compensate. That is bad.

So basically, you can have your freedoms..as long as it does not affect the rest of society.

Understand now? This is probably THE fundamental difference between libertarians and normal people. Libertarians believe in a 19th century frontier society..where everyone does whatever the hell they want down home on the range.
Normal people realize that we live in dense urband and suburban communities, and that laws and regulations are necessary to restrict actions and "freedoms" that affect others, and society in a negative light. "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few..or the one."

Posted by: Proteus on March 24, 2010 09:24 AM
213. Pudge At # 206
Making up the rules as you go along is for liberals . . . pudgy
You only believe that you know better.
While interesting in a perverse sort of autocratic fashion the world according to Pudge is not persuasive to anyone but you.
If you actually believe that you would prevail before the supreme court in a test of the conclusions you assert here you are more arrogant and deluded than even you realize.

Again that nasty pride of yours clouds your vision and makes you say things you cannot back up.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 24, 2010 10:20 AM
214. Proteus at 212,
How nice for you that you have it all figured out.
Now go play.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 24, 2010 10:29 AM
215. Amused: the world according to Pudge is not persuasive to anyone but you

Yawn. A majority of the SCOTUS usually agrees with me. Rob McKenna agrees with me. Many, many, people agree with me.

You don't, but ... so what?


If you actually believe that you would prevail before the supreme court

I never implied that.

That said, the individual mandate is very likely to fall in court. I am not predicting anything, but there's a very good chance.


Again that nasty pride of yours clouds your vision and makes you say things you cannot back up.

Yawn. Provide an example of something I can't back up.

On the contrary, I am one of the most careful people you'll find in saying pretty much only what I *can* back up.


Proteus: Most people believe the role of government, in many respects, is to provide a base level of security and subsistence for people

First, I hope people don't believe that. Second, anyone who believes that is wrong. Read the Declaration of Independence. The purpose of government is to secure individual liberties.


If you decide to go without coverage, and you get hit by a car, or you get cancer, then we..society, are required to pay your expensive emergency room bill.

First, that's false. That's only if I, or some charity or friends or relatives, do not pay for it.

Second, that's only because YOU, as society, CHOOSE TO. You cannot leverage your choice to pay for my emergency care to take away my right to not buy insurance. That's insanity.

That's like saying society is going to decide to fix your car if it breaks down, and because society does that, you therefore have to buy a Japanese car, because that reduces society's costs for your car.

YOU CANNOT DO THAT. It's irrational on the face, and terribly immoral.


So basically, you can have your freedoms..as long as it does not affect the rest of society.

You don't believe that. If you did, then you would allow me to not have insurance, as long as I opted out of society paying for any health problems I incur.

But the Democrats didn't do that because they are lying: it is not about paying for my health care if something happens and I am uncovered. That's a complete and total lie, and always has been. The people being forced to get insurance provide a NET GAIN in revenue to the system. THAT is the point: literal wealth redistribution.

Saying it's about covering me in case something happens to me is a lie. It's never been about that. If it were, the Democrats would allow me to opt out, simply.


Understand now? ... Libertarians believe in a 19th century frontier society

I've always understood. YOU are the one who does not. YOU are the one who still thinks it is some odd, backward, hateful philosophy to demand that the government not violate my constitutional rights.


"The good of the many outweighs the good of the few"

Yes, that is a nice little Marxist quote. But our Founding Fathers said that the few must be protected FROM the many.

Posted by: pudge on March 24, 2010 07:14 PM
216. Perhaps you should go back and read the Declaration of Independence again..seems like you're taking things a bit out of context.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Notice the "Life" and the "Pursuit of Happiness" piece? Miss that did you? Note that "Life" and the "Pursuit of Happiness" don't include things such as denying a 12 year old kid a lifesaving transplant, because they can't afford to pay. Or throwing Grandpa out into the streets because his 401k tanked, and social security is "socialist".
Its not what Jesus would do either. But..apparently its perfectly fine with you guys.

Actually that quote is from Star Trek, and its just paraphrasing the original from the Bible.
"Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." John 11:50

Curious where it says the "few must be protected from the many", since we're supposedly a Christian nation. Certainly doesn't sound like our founding fathers. Source please?

Posted by: Proteus on March 25, 2010 11:09 AM
217. Cheese - milk's leap toward immortality.
http://utorepyqere.erufa.com/side-effects-of-weaning-paxil/why-antidepressants-are-a-bad-idea.html - why antidepressants are a bad idea http://uputde.erufa.com/trileptal-zoloft-bipolar/prozac-qod-dosing.html - prozac qod dosing http://uperyryru.erufa.com/coffee-prozac-cigarette-fine-give/coffee-prozac-cigarette-fine-give.html - coffee prozac cigarette fine give http://uperyryru.erufa.com/xanax-hypotension/does-valium-help-with-opiate-addiction.html - does valium help with opiate addiction http://uperyryru.erufa.com/clinical-depression-prozac/valium-japanese-producer.html - valium japanese producer

Posted by: Maho on March 27, 2010 08:06 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?