Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs the Senate moves towards including some form of public option in health care reform, it is worth remembering all the Washington "experts" who already declared the public option dead.
The list is long, distinguished, sometimes surprising and, thanks to the open source web, the list is growing. A diarist at DailyKos, "BrookylnBadBoy," just began counting. It ranges from bearish Senators (Kent Conrad) to Republican operatives (Brad Blakeman, Dana Perino) to sympathetic progressives (Nate Silver, Jane Hamsher) to, naturally, a long list of professional pundits (Klein, Gergen, Cillizza, Brooks, O'Donnell, Krauthammer, O'Reilly). You can add to your own nominations over at "Daily Kos," or here in our comments section.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
maybe not dead,
but most certainly wounded with gangrene setting in.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 08:36am
And the gangrene is getting guillotined.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2009 @ 08:40am
Seems like quite a few HERE as well, no?
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 08:44am
Its about as secure as Reid's re=election!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 08:45am
smoke and mirrors, mask.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 08:46am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 08:46am
FZ, nothing less than single-payer would satisfy you, would it?
Just like nothing less than total abolishment of the Fed will...or a 90% cut in defense spending....or mandatory hybrids ownership.
All or nothing or the Frosty One stays pissy.
It's why we love you...heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 08:58am
It still is Reid wont get 60 votes for this
Posted by limoman at 10/27/2009 @ 09:05am
smoke and mirrors.
the fed is bankrupting america.
single-payer is the only way.
90% cut in defence and maybe america will survive.
mandatory hybrids??? c'mon, mask, you can do better.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 09:10am
and if you're not "pissy" by now, you'd better install some more ram chips in your brain.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 09:11am
if there is to be even a slim hope for our constitutional republic to continue, this incrementalist approach to implementing national healthcare/single payer must be stopped.
We shall see if there are any Democrats who still believe in the Constitution, but I won't hold my breath.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:30am
if there is to be even a slim (anti) hope for our constitutional republic to continue, ... Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:30am
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2009 @ 09:33am
larry cares more about a piece of paper than real people.
hey, larry, what does the constitution say about the internet?
air travel?
otc derivatives?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 09:57am
From one of our greatest presidents on the danger of govt healthcare
<But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.>
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine (recording (1961)
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:57am
More from Reagan on the danger of UHC
<The doctor begins to lose freedom. . . . First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then doctors aren't equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him, you can't live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will go. . . . All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.>
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine (recording (1961)
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:59am
hey, larry, what does the constitution say about the internet?
air travel?
otc derivatives?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 09:57am
Internet-the Fed govt should have no involvement
Air Travel-only to ensure that states do not hinder travel between the states and to regulate and control incoming air travelers from foreign countries.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:00am
FZ-
forgot the otc derivatives-the Fed has right of regulation under Article 1, section 8
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01am
reagan was an asshole.
reagan doubled federal debt, increased federal bureaucracy, made deals with murderers, drug dealers, and islamic fundamentalists, and most damagingly, let loose the beast of financial deregulation that ultimately has lead america to the verge of collapse.
freedom is only good if you remove the dumb.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:03am
the Fed has right of regulation under Article 1, section 8
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01am
the constitution was written in 1913?!??!??!?!?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:08am
here's another expert who declared the public option dead:
"PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IS ACTIVELY DISCOURAGING SENATE DEMOCRATS IN THEIR EFFORT TO INCLUDE A PUBLIC INSURANCE OPTION with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.
The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:42am
Two words:
BUDGET RECONCILIATION
Let's stop playing games with this and get a STRONG public option through budget reconciliation with 51 votes and move on.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/27/2009 @ 10:49am
In the spirit of making wild predictions...
A public-option with opt-out provisions for the flyover states will result in exodus of the uninsured to those states that do not.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 10:50am
Public option? What's that? Must be something democrats dreamed up.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/27/2009 @ 10:59am
"Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine (recording (1961)"----Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:59am
Forty-eight years ago....but today?
Republcians are saying this...
"The Republicans said they aimed to "protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of health-care reform," in a statement and an accompanying op-ed written by RNC Chairman Michael Steele and published in Monday's Washington Post."
"Katie Wright, an RN!spokeswoman, said Republicans still believed in controlling Medicare costs but think "money shouldn't be taken from Medicare to fund a new entitlement."----Wall St Journal August 29, 2009
"There is a strong possibility that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will lose benefits under competitive bidding," said Hatch, who proposed leaving the funding at current levels. Any reductions to those benefits would violate Obama's pledge that no one would lose his or her current coverage under healthcare reform."---The Hill September 23, 2009
"BOEHNER ON THE PRESIDENT'S TALKING POINTS ON MEDICARE
"[H]e said, ‘I will protect Medicare.' But the Democrat plan includes more than $500 billion worth of cuts to Medicare over the next 10 years. And there are reports after reports making it clear that benefits, or services will be cut to Medicare recipients. Secondly, I would point out that part of their so-called pay-for in this plan, in Medicare cuts, would be to -- to take away Medicare Advantage. About 35 percent of seniors get their health care through Medicare Advantage. And there isn't any question that, if you cut the Medicare Advantage payments, seniors are going to get less services." www.gopleader.gov
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 11:06am
FZ- forgot the otc derivatives-the Fed has right of regulation under Article 1, section 8 Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
--the gov't has powers, not rights.
--and the fed gov't has the power to regulate health care/insurance under the interstate commerce clause.
constitutional crisis averted.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 11:24am
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 11:06am | ignore this person | warn this person
We're Raising a Generation of Would-be Killers Monday, October 26, 2009 By Glenn Beck
Classic class (generational) warfare.
Very sad.
Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 11:27am
This is how Beck depicts our young folks - he imitates the "typical" young person's view of ObamaCare.
"Dude, like how could you be against free health care, man? And free meh-de… medi-chlorian… meh... .you know, free pot?"
Very sad.
Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 11:31am
If "opt out" states have their way, red states will add to the list of such firsts as highest porn consumption, that of No. 1 in rate of bodily inflammation.
Remember, if you're going to support the insurance profiteers, avoiding medical attention will increase their bottom line. Look for a new red state license plate bearing the motto, "Sick & Proud."
Posted by Sorelish at 10/27/2009 @ 11:33am
We need a Public Option. Not all companies provide coverage for their employees and the alternatives are too expensive. I used to work for near minimum wage in an Automotive Garage with no insurance. Private companies offered insurance at $800.00 a month. How in the hell is anyone supposed to have health insurance and pay their bills on meager wages? I lived uninsured because there was no way I could afford such outrageous rates. How are the poor and underprivileged supposed to obtain vital heath care without a public option and still pay the bills?
Posted by jfair at 10/27/2009 @ 11:36am
the Fed has right of regulation under Article 1, section 8 Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01am the constitution was written in 1913?!??!??!?!? Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:08am |
I'm fairly sure he meant govt not reserve, but the money trust under Wilson may as well have been both.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:44am
FZ- forgot the otc derivatives-the Fed has right of regulation under Article 1, section 8 Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
--the gov't has powers, not rights.
--and the fed gov't has the power to regulate health care/insurance under the interstate commerce clause.
constitutional crisis averted.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 11:24am
Agreed on the correct verbage as power rather than right on derivatives.
As to interstate commerce, this is a misuse of the intent of that clause. The founders were very specific that this was intended for twofold purpose.
1. To prohibit the states from overriding Fed policy on foreign trade
2. To ensure unhindered commerce between the states. It was never intended to control how they conduct that commerce. That is up to each state as currently exemplified by each state now controlling healthcare insurance. The states already control what can be offered, what price it can be offered at, renewal provisions, who can be offered, in other words, all aspects of this commerce.
There is no role nor need for Federal involvement.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:46am
Agreed on the correct verbage as power rather than right on derivatives.
--it's not just on any topic...the fed gov't has no rights...only powers.
As to interstate commerce, this is a misuse of the intent of that clause.
--says you
The founders were very specific that this was intended for twofold purpose. 1. To prohibit the states from overriding Fed policy on foreign trade 2. To ensure unhindered commerce between the states.
--where's that language in the text of the constitution?
It was never intended to control how they conduct that commerce.
--says you.
That is up to each state as currently exemplified by each state now controlling healthcare insurance. The states already control what can be offered, what price it can be offered at, renewal provisions, who can be offered, in other words, all aspects of this commerce.
--prescription drugs flow between states. people often travel over state borders to receive medical care. these are clearly interstate commerce.
There is no role nor need for Federal involvement.
--says you.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 11:46am | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 11:56am
"if there is to be even a slim hope for our constitutional republic to continue, this incrementalist approach to implementing national healthcare/single payer must be stopped."
all the more reason to distrust ANY republican who is oh so concerned about funding for medicare/medicaid in recent weeks/months....
yes, it's all about healthcare.
forget those two trillion dollar wars. those are protecting our freedom and liberty!
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:05pm
Public option is alive!
Except in any state that declares it dead.
State legislatures are notoriously susceptible to bribes. State legislators are soon about to make mucho prohibiting state residents from receiving public health insurance.
Only in America, land of opportunity.
Posted by sloper at 10/27/2009 @ 12:07pm
This is how Beck depicts our young folks - he imitates the "typical" young person's view of ObamaCare.
"Dude, like how could you be against free health care, man? And free meh-de… medi-chlorian… meh... .you know, free pot?"
Very sad.
Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 11:31am
With that type of respect toward the youth it is no wonder why the republican party is dying.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 12:08pm
With that type of respect toward the youth it is no wonder why the republican party is dying.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 12:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It is pretty amazing disdain for the upcoming generations who are supposed to pay off government war and military entitlement debt, and support the full faith and credit of the United States.
Young people just aren't going to have it, nor are they going to buy it.
On the road to default..................
Repubs are setting new records for disgusting and stupidity. Their arrogance is telling.
Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 12:17pm
Only in America, land of opportunity.
Posted by sloper at 10/27/2009 @ 12:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Kick the can down the road.....
Opt-out is cop-out.
Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 12:20pm
Hilarious that some republicans are now cocerned about the constitution.
Posted by jobbo at 10/27/2009 @ 12:24pm
57% of Americans support a Public Option. It seems clear that the politicians don't work for the American People, they work for lobbyist that donate to their campaign.
Posted by jfair at 10/27/2009 @ 12:49pm
This is the subtlest axe of all...if individual states are allowed to opt out, two things will happen...states like California with Republican governors will opt out and when the legislature tries to override that we have another obstacle with a 60% majority not being made; so not only no budget but no health-care.
The other thing is any state which chooses the public option will have a migration of poor, free souls with little or no income and devoid of personal wealth to clog their system. It will be another kind of immigration concern based purely on money. The states who opt out will not want to pay for the states which opt in and there will be a serious breakup of this land into big money and no money, like Gaza, West Bank, and Israel.
We are a failed state and a military dictatorship is not far away.
Posted by apolloguide at 10/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
The other thing is any state which chooses the public option will have a migration of poor, free souls with little or no income and devoid of personal wealth to clog their system.
Posted by apolloguide at 10/27/2009 @ 12:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I concur with your first point. Although, at some point, California will have a democratic governor again and it will pass. Once a state has the public option it would be political death to try and remove it at a later date.
But I disagree with your second point above, primarily because there is no guarantee that the public option will be affordable. I believe that in all liklihood it will be priced competitively with private options and have very little influence on overall prices. So, there would be not a reason for mass migrations for healthcare. It is not going to be free. It is not going to be akin to single payer.
My biggest concern about all the healthare reform, single payer or not. Is that it does not seem to be addressing he affordability issue. Tied hand in hand with that is the coverage issue. What will be covered? What will the deductibles be? etc.
A big wait and see game, I suspect that even with a public option, healthcare coverage will be out of reach for most who currently cannot afford it. So they will be fined.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 1:04pm
Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 11:27am
Again, bit odd a "progressive" who likes to cite Glenn Beck.
"odd"
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 1:09pm
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he'd back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care reform bill.
Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program -- even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid's has said the Senate bill will.
"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. "To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don't think we need it now."
Lieberman added that he'd vote against a public option plan "even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."
His comments confirmed that Reid is short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill out of the Senate, even after Reid included the opt-out provision. Several other moderate Democrats expressed skepticism at the proposal as well, but most of the wavering Democratic senators did not go as far as Lieberman Tuesday, saying they were waiting to see the details.
Lieberman did say he's "strongly inclined" to vote to proceed to the debate, but that he'll ultimately vote to block a floor vote on the bill if it isn't changed first.
"I've told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now I will vote against cloture," he said.
"I can't see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company," Lieberman added. "It's just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/27/2009 @ 1:11pm
the Fed has right of regulation under Article 1, section 8 Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 10:01am the constitution was written in 1913?!??!??!?!? Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:08am |
I'm fairly sure he meant govt not reserve, but the money trust under Wilson may as well have been both.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:44am
No, I did not mean the Federal Reserve which I believe to be an unconstitutional act of the US govt.
Article 1, Sect 8 provides that Congress shall regulate coinage and securities.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/27/2009 @ 1:11pm
Joe has to suck up to the only people who even pretend to like him.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 1:20pm
We are a failed state and a military dictatorship is not far away. Posted by apolloguide at 10/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
Probably. But it will take the form of democratic govt, not dictatorship, with the MIC & Wall St calling all the shots that concern them. They don't have to pull a coup, just keep proceeding as they are now. Most media will play right along, as most are controlled by MIC members & Wall St interests.
And academia will line up, hands outstretched for govt grants, while most churches will pray for the regime's success in exchange for subsidies & privileges.
Dissenters will be marginalized, by force if needed.
Posted by sloper at 10/27/2009 @ 1:25pm
It was never intended to control how they conduct that commerce.
--says you.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 11:56am
Say the Founders
Joseph Story-commentary on the constitutional convention
<Now it is well known, that in commercial and manufacturing nations, the power to regulate commerce has embraced practically the encouragement of manufactures. It is believed, that not a single exception can be named. So, in an especial manner, the power has always been understood in Great-Britain, from which we derive our parentage, our laws, our language, and our notions upon commercial subjects.>
http://tinyurl.com/yb42bmd
So the constitutional notion of regulation of commerce was to encourage domestic manufacture over foreign imports. They used tariffs to accomplish that as our history shows.
I will provide more commentary in my next post.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:30pm
more from Justice Story on the convention and the commerce clause
<§ 1089 [sic]. In regard to the rejection of the proposition in the convention "to establish institutions, rewards, and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures," it is manifest, that it has no bearing on the question. It was a power much more broad in its extent and objects, than the power to encourage manufactures by the exercise of another granted power. It might be contended with quite as much plausibility, that the rejection was an implied rejection of the right to encourage commerce, for that was equally within the scope of the proposition. In truth, it involved a direct power to establish institutions, rewards, and immunities for all the great interests of society, and was, on that account, deemed too broad and sweeping. It would establish a general, and not a limited power of government.>
So, the convention decided that going beyond the encouragement of domestic manufacture over foreign imports with the implementation of institutions, awards, and immunities (regulation), was deemed TOO BROAD A POWER FOR THE FEDERAL GOVT.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:35pm
I'm trying to get has many people to realize that prohibation doesn't work. If aborbtion goes illegal do you know babies will start being tortured to death with wire hangers on the black market and women will start giving birth in bathroom stalls. All drugs should be legalized and stop this war on drugs costing so many lives and being a burden on the tax system. If we legalized prostution and put it on the outskirts of every town and city it would take it out of the projects where grandparents and children can see it. Legalize gambling and put casnios and race tracks on the outskirts of every town and city and use the profits instead of stimilus checks.
Posted by wizzile at 10/27/2009 @ 1:48pm
Lieberman once again fails to represent the American public. Where is he on military spending which consumes 50% of the real budget. Even a miniscule reduction in this area would freeup spending that he claims the country doesn't have for some thing the people need. What a joke. Wake up Connecticut to this clown.
Posted by jobbo at 10/27/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--he (story) who was a child when the constitution was ratified? haha!
the text of the constitution is what you always try to hold other people to when you disagree with them. I'm holding you to the same standard.
pills move across state lines. people move across state lines to get medical treatment.
they both easily fall under the plain language of the constitution: the congress shall have the power to regulate commerce...among the several states.
keep ignoring the text antisocialist--you're the one who's putting the constitution in danger.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
<The doctor begins to lose freedom. . . . First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then doctors aren't equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him, you can't live in that town. They already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will go. . . . All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.>
Reagan must have really been hitting the kool aid that day. He probably thought he visited somewhere where this fantasy is occuring rather from the John Birch press releases that served as his substitute for an education. And this guy was president for eight years? I think it best not to quote him, you are making a case for national healthcare.
Posted by jobbo at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
Posted by jobbo at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
You must be another one of the high school students who visit here. You need to sue your teachers for failing to educate you.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:58pm
Again, bit odd a "progressive" who likes to cite Glenn Beck.
"odd"
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Your paranoia grows daily Maskie - like Beck's.
Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 1:59pm
I only wish it were dead -- utterly and completely. Please understand: the so-called public option is bullshit. Single payer is the way. The profit-driven private health insurance is all about taking care of insurance companies, not people, and it just plain doesn't work. It has to be dismantled COMPLETELY.
HR 676, Medicare for All.
Posted by davidmintz at 10/27/2009 @ 2:03pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:35pm
Maybe if story had actually been part of the constitutional convention or part of the congress that proposed the admendments his statements might have some credibility, but he was not. There were lots of varying opinions collaborating on the document and its admendments. I really love ho you gind a statement you think supports your position and then hold it up as if it is sacrosanct and the end of discussion.
The long and the short of it is the constitution gives the supreme court the judidicial power to intrepret what is or is not constitutional. They have not said that welfare is unconstitutional, and YOU are the only one I ever hear trying to debate the constitutionality of healthcare. Until the day that the supreme court declares it unconstitutional I will continue to believe your that YOUR interpretation of the constitution is bogus.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 2:07pm
keep ignoring the text antisocialist--you're the one who's putting the constitution in danger.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 1:55pm
I don't ignore it at all. You are merely joining in with the radical interperetation brought in by the FDR court to create an entirely new meaning to the commerce clause
<James Madison, Preface to Debates in the
CONVENTION OF 1787Farrand 3:547--48 The want of authy. in Congs. to regulate Commerce had produced in Foreign nations particularly G. B. a monopolizing policy injurious to the trade of the U. S. and destructive to their navigation; the imbecility and anticipated dissolution of the Confederacy extinguishg. all apprehensions of a Countervailing policy on the part of the U. States.
The same want of a general power over Commerce led to an exercise of this power separately, by the States, wch not only proved abortive, but engendered rival, conflicting and angry regulations. Besides the vain attempts to supply their respective treasuries by imposts, which turned their commerce into the neighbouring ports, and to co-erce a relaxation of the British monopoly of the W. Indn. navigation, which was attemted by Virga. the States having ports for foreign commerce, taxed & irritated the adjoining States, trading thro' them, as N. Y. Pena. Virga. & S--Carolina. Some of the States, as Connecticut, taxed imports as from Massts higher than imports even from G. B. of wch Massts. complained to Virga. and doubtless to other States. In sundry instances of as N. Y. N. J. Pa. & Maryd. the navigation laws treated the Citizens of other States as aliens.>
http://tinyurl.com/yz2onww
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:07pm
We are a failed state and a military dictatorship is not far away.
Posted by apolloguide at 10/27/2009 @ 12:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Pretty much already there. We are closer to Corporate Fascism than we are to democracy. The Healthcare Debate is a splendid example, and we just can't seem to bring the troops home or reduce a bloated military budget.
We've had supplemental war appropriations for years now, and the CIC is vested with extraordinary powers. No prosecutions for war crimes, and illegal domestic surveillance of citizens continues....on and on.
Government using "state secrets" to circumvent litigation, and bestow immunity.
All that is missing are the military parades at the Capitol.
Posted by OneVote at 10/27/2009 @ 2:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:07pm |
Perhaps someday you'll recognize that the convention wasn't solely composed of Federalists and stop pretending that their opinions represent the entirety of "the founders".
Until then, you're "whistling Dixie".
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:16pm
Urmy,
Here is the transcript of the convention debate on the commerce clause
http://tinyurl.com/yls9225
Show me anywhere in their debate where they contemplated the Fed govt regulating the content or pricing (other than shipping costs) of commerce between the states?
It doesn't exist. What is relevant is what I've previously provided. That the regulation of commerce was a term taken from the British on enabling and encouraging domestic manufacture.
This modern govt interference is a contrived invention of liberalism that has no relationship to the original intent. ALL SO-CALLED REGULATION ON CONTENT, MARKETING, AND PRICING WAS LEFT TO THE STATES.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:16pm
The long and the short of it is the constitution gives the supreme court the judidicial power to intrepret what is or is not constitutional.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--not explicitly.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 2:20pm
Keep talking, the public option is DOA just like Reid.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:24pm
Keep talking, the public option is DOA just like Reid.---Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:24pm
Oh, boy....RIO made a prediction!!!!
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 2:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:16pm |
From Res 6 of the Virginia Plan as presented by Edmund Randolph on May 29, 1787...
<6. Resolved, that each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts; that the Nati[ona]l Legislature to be empowered to enjoy the Legislative right vested in Congress by the Confederation, and moreover to Legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent; or in which the harmony of the U.S. may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation. – to negation all laws posses'd by the several states, contravening, in the opinion of the Nat'l Leg'l the Articles of union, or any Treaty subsisting under the Authority of the Union; -- and to call forth the fource of the Union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.>
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:40pm
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:40pm
He'll just cite ANOTHER "Founder" and an interpretation to counter, snowball.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 2:44pm
Oh, boy....RIO made a prediction!!!!
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Just stating an obvious fact as the Demoncrats want to be re-elected.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:48pm
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 2:44pm |
Does he know any others besides Madison?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:00pm
Public option is alive! Except in any state that declares it dead. Posted by sloper at 10/27/2009 @ 12:07pm
Er, won't states that do not utilize a public option, by the very nature of emergency room and county/rural medical facility costs for the uninsured-- will have much higher state budgetary deficits than those utilizing a public option?
Any state government running their state into the ground, especially for so obvious an observable human tragedy-- would be committing political suicide.
How many governors stated publicly they wouldn't accept fed tarp funding but then did?
http://tinyurl.com/dbemxz
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2009 @ 3:00pm
No Snow No Lieberman, 40 moderates won't vote for it, easy to figure out!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 3:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:16pm
Yeah like we were always wanting to be like soooo British...
Oh and setting minimum wage isn't a fed power either!?!?!
That essentially leaves control of 'We the People' to the multi nation corporations... for whatever... is profitable.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2009 @ 3:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:16pm
Yeah like we were always wanting to be like soooo British...
Oh and setting minimum wage isn't a fed power either!?!?!
That essentially leaves control of 'We the People' to the multi nation corporations... for whatever... is profitable.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2009 @ 3:20pm
Still struggling with reading comprehension?
Were do you think that many of our terms drew their origin?
The Fed has no constitutional authority to set wages.
Your conclusion of control left to multinational corporation is at best infantile
You might try reading the 10th amendment. States have that authority.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 3:58pm
1.Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:07pm |
Perhaps someday you'll recognize that the convention wasn't solely composed of Federalists and stop pretending that their opinions represent the entirety of "the founders".
Until then, you're "whistling Dixie".
Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:16pm
I don't whistle Dixie, I'm a native Californian. Nor have I ever claimed that only Federalists were involved. However, Who wrote most of the draft Constitution?
James Madison and Gov Morris of Pennsylvania wrote most of the constitution. That's why Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution.
The Federalist papers have been cited in Supreme Court decisions 291 times as of 2000.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 3:59pm
Connecticut, please, we beseech you: Please deliver us from Lieberman.
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/27/2009 @ 4:46pm
Whether the "reform" passes or not, Barack Obama will not prosper over his reneges: first from single-payer; second from public option. As with almost all of his pledges, in place of fulfillment the voters for Obama have gotten betrayal.
If Sen. Reid is successful in passing a bill that is not simply a federal guarantee to insurance companies, he will get the credit - not Obama. If Sen. Reid is unable to get a bill that is truly a reform bill, the blame will fall on Obama for not fighting the reactionaries.
This may be the Hoover-moment in Obama's presidency. I really hate to compare him to Herbert Hoover, a really decent, peace loving, caring man who just did not understand the catastrophe that was gripping our country in 1929.
Posted by goedel at 10/27/2009 @ 4:47pm
the bill before Congress has been examined by the Columbia Journalism Review who say it has "the fingerprints of the insurance industry all over it." It won't do. We haven't seen the text of the Conyers-Kucinich bill, nor has it threatened to get any attention in Congress as far as has been announced. Single Payer has been formulated on 26 pages, and it should be brought before Congress and voted on. Even they can find time to read 26 pages.
Ralph Nader's team put it together. Talk it up?
It took France a hundred years to develop the system it is now losing, because France feels it has to compete with the tax-slashing, labor-ignoring, executive-pampering US for industries. If it takes the US a hundred years to get social, that's 99 years for the global predators to bomb the whole world back to the feudal era.
The solution's there. We'd better see that it gets attention. eileen
Posted by eileenos at 10/27/2009 @ 4:56pm
We keep on hoping it's dead.
Who want's higher taxes, lower quality healthcare, and 65% of the citizens working for the government?
Today, $0.44 of every dollar is confiscated as taxes, 2/3 of that going to the federal government. This will go to over $0.50, and probably much higher under the Obama health care plan.
Many doctors do not take medicare or medicaid patients because of the massive amount of paperwork involved in getting paid for their services. The Public Option is medicare by another name. That means that most medical services will be delivered in the hospital emergency room, and after care will be by referral to doctors who do accept medicare patients. Most of these doctors are already overloaded with geriatric patients, and will be hard pressed to accept these new patients, and possibly even under qualified to treat their ailments.
Hawaii is a good example of what to expect when the government provides us with health care. It's unrealistic to think that only 12 million will enroll. Expect over 70% will eventually be enrolled. The cost of medical treatment issues aside, try to imagine the management issue. The same people who so inadequately manage medicare could not possibly handle this new work load. Medicare will become the largest employer in the country, employing hundreds of thousands, if not millions. All on the taxpayer funded payroll, of course.
That's what health care reform will deliver. Damn right we hope it's dead.
Posted by Elcobar at 10/27/2009 @ 5:14pm
Your conclusion of control left to multinational corporation is at best infantile Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 3:58pm
'We the people's government create the laws and regulates whatever corporations in it's power to legitimize. States have little power over each other much less multinationals that have more wealth than the states they can easily control.
And thus dear sir by your own moldy outmoded comments you must have your head buried so far up your own internal track that the only reality you're able to perceive pondering our lives interconnectedness is but a faint dimly lit particle of dust in thick fog slowly shuffling crisscross between your ears. And from that slight impression create the happy delusion that rather than your head being buried, perhaps your head is simply so comfortably snuggled close upon a corporate lap.
How easily you roll over and what great tricks do you do as well.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2009 @ 5:29pm
Posted by Elcobar at 10/27/2009 @ 5:14pm
unsupported propaganda.
There is no reason to believe that the government wont just outsource the public option to a private company.
It will not look like medicare, because it IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. If you want take part of a public option you will have to pay for it just like you would a private plan. The hope that progressives have is that without a profit motive it will be more affordable than the private alternatives. But that is a big unknown. There is a possibility that a public option will be less affordable than a private option, depending on the requirements placed on it by congress, they may even mandate it makes a profit. It may have super high deductables, high monthly rates, etc. We just don't know. What we do know is that unlike Elcobar's fantasy above it is not going to look anything like medicare or medicaid.
All the Elcobar post does is spew fear and propaganda. He is clueless about the difference between single payer "socialized" healthcare and a public option.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/27/2009 @ 6:03pm
We don't need public option. Under the interstate powers clause, we need to outlaw the insurance industries altogether and replace it with a real medical system, like they have in Britain. If it's so bad, why aren't Britain or Canada bankrupt yet? Why haven't the Brits, or the French, whom we know will rise up to protest anything, stood up to ban a national health system? So what if you have to wait for a few rare/experimental surgeries? We cannot afford to permit greed to remain in this healthcare system a minute longer. Health care is about health care.
Why, by the way, are the trolls from the rightwing still posting here, polluting the boards, if they insist on throwing shade on every idea the Democrats have? Though the Democrats, in truth, are to be hated - for being so weak and not fighting, and playing to the irrelevant middle.
Posted by Kristev at 10/27/2009 @ 6:07pm
And I find it both disgusting and humorous that Republicans who didn't give a dog's tail about the Constitution during the Bush years, and loved prevent filibusters while pretending Presidents were Kings, are only now concerned with the Constitution and the rule of law. What? Did a change from the rule of crimson to the rule of magenta (there's no blue to be found anywhere) suddenly shock you? I don't get Republicans at all, anymore. They're only alive because of the Christian church's support and how easy it is to spread racism in this country.
Posted by Kristev at 10/27/2009 @ 6:22pm
We shall see if there are any Democrats who still believe in the Constitution, but I won't hold my breath.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:30am
Larry, why be dramatic when you can be....
melodramatic!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:28pm
Posted by apolloguide at 10/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
Leaders of states usually do not have the power to "opt out" of federal programs...that is usually up to the State Legisatures...remember the instance where some Republican numbnut governor (can't remember which one) in the South said he wouldn't take Federal money from Obama's recent stimulus? He was overruled by his Republican majority legislature. They know how to get and spend federal dollars....even when they SAY they're against it.
As for California, if Arnold were to even THINK about opting out, he'd be recalled in an instant, as would any Republican governor. In fact, I imagine it might even be an issue in the upcoming governor's race in...California.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:36pm
This modern govt interference is a contrived invention of liberalism that has no relationship to the original intent. ALL SO-CALLED REGULATION ON CONTENT, MARKETING, AND PRICING WAS LEFT TO THE STATES.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:16pm
Larry, just curious...how would the states have any control of, say...modern marketing techniques in this day and age of satellite communication where a satellite's reach is worldwide?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:42pm
As for California, if Arnold were to even THINK about opting out, he'd be recalled in an instant, as would any Republican governor. In fact, I imagine it might even be an issue in the upcoming governor's race in...California.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:36pm
Certainly I'm going to be looking for a candidate for governor who comes out against this socialism.
As to Arnold, you Democrats have owned him. Why do you think that the Republicans wouldn't even let him address their state convention?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:44pm
Larry, just curious...how would the states have any control of, say...modern marketing techniques in this day and age of satellite communication where a satellite's reach is worldwide?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 6:42pm
Simple; fine them or ban them from doing business in the state if they are guilty of fraudulent marketing.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 7:41pm
How many experts have declared the public option dead?
I think it might be more interesting to pose the question "How many opinion polls have shown a majority of Americans against this 1500 page, unseen monstrosity...and yet Congress proceeds along as if the public's opinion doesn't matter?"
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 8:05pm
Why haven't the Brits, or the French, whom we know will rise up to protest anything, stood up to ban a national health system? So what if you have to wait for a few rare/experimental surgeries?
Posted by Kristev at 10/27/2009 @ 6:07pm
First of all, the French will not rise up to protest just anything. They're Europeans. They rise up to protest anything that demands they act self-sufficiently. They protest any move that takes them away from the nanny state.
A couple years back they protested because the government wanted to make it easier for employers to actually fire dead weight, unproductive employees in order to make room for somebody more motivated. Heck, they didn't just protest, they committed violent vandalism during that one. Because you have a right to your job, see? Even if you refuse to be very good at it.
So that's why they won't "rise up" to protest nanny state healthcare.
And having to wait longer for experimental surgery?
People in Canada and Britain don't wait longer for experimental surgery. They wait longer for every type of surgery. Canada's Supreme Court even admitted their healthcare system kills people because of these time lags.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/27/2009 @ 8:34pm
How many experts have declared the public option dead?
Ummm .... Joe Lieberman for one.
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/27/2009 @ 9:07pm
Yep, as I said way back when-- Lie berman is a f-ing snake in the grass and dems shoulda stomped on him when he lost the dem nom:
http://tinyurl.com/yg3yh9l
Shoulda, coulda, woulda ...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2009 @ 11:00pm
A question. What if a version of the public option passes that is limited to the uninsured and then unions and businesses all around the US negotiate termination of employment based benefits. What will happen if upon agreement people just drop insurance?
Will not the system have to absorb the uninsured workers of say Boeing, GM, GE? Will not that save those companies billions of dollars and at the same time guarantee that the initially weak public option becomes the major way to provide insurance offering finally true competition?
Posted by dimik72 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:31am
Certainly I'm going to be looking for a candidate for governor who comes out against this socialism. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 6:44pm |
You're gonna line up to vote for Meg the Mormon? heheh
Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:32am
Posted by dimik72 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:31am |
Boeing + GM + GE == 164k + 244k + 323k == 731k (total employees, worldwide, union or otherwise).
This is less than one quarter of one percent of the US population.
And most of them will probably be in "opt-out" states.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:40am
Snowball, I get the statistic for the three companies. They are just examples, and recognizable ones (though I appreciate the meticulous counting). What I am asking is whether a movement for dropping employee mandate is the way to make a limited public option into single payer?
Posted by dimik72 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:59am
Will not that save those companies billions of dollars and at the same time guarantee that the initially weak public option becomes the major way to provide insurance offering finally true competition?
Posted by dimik72 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:31am
How will eliminating the customers of private insurers--which would drive those insurers out of business--finally offer true competition?
Who'd be left to compete with Big Brother?
We'd have to settle for whatever lame, waiting list, no new expensive drugs, we're not covering you because you're too old type care the government felt like giving us. And there'd be nowhere else to turn.
How do you compete against a taxpayer-funded entitlement program that can run in the red for as long as it needs to in order to drive you out?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 02:04am
We shall see if there are any Democrats who still believe in the Constitution, but I won't hold my breath.
Posted by antisocialist
Just out of morbid curiosity, Lar, tell me specifically where the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits a publicly funded health care system. Maybe I missed it somewhere, so, you know, indulge me. And I mean, specifically, you know, like where, if you can find it, it says Congress shall make no law mandating health care....
Posted by kennyboy at 10/28/2009 @ 04:58am
How do you compete against a taxpayer-funded entitlement program that can run in the red for as long as it needs to in order to drive you out? Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/28/2009 @ 02:04am
Oy, like FedEx, UPS,...?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2009 @ 08:13am
It is a wealth at all costs argument angle that is being taken here. The conservatives posting actually think the federal governments power diminished in the past 29 years(20 of them with Republican administrations).They believe the Patriot Act gave them more freedom. The Bush tax cuts(under reconciliation) gave more power to the wealthy. The people posting are members of neither group but as I call them the"Ostrich wing" of the Republican party. If Obama was a strong leader the Republicans would have been blown out of the water by now. The vacillations of the Administration has kept the Republicans halfway pertinent. A strong health care reform package will cripple a tottering Republican party with no strong leaders. The economy and its grim perceptions coupled with insurance companies inability to curb its greed has been a boon to public support for health care reform. The people in the middle of the economic spectrum are in the end going to make their representatives vote for their interests.
Posted by whatozz at 10/28/2009 @ 08:16am
Posted by dimik72 at 10/28/2009 @ 12:59am |
You missed the point about the opt-out states though...if a company does that across the board, most of their employees will be left out in the cold with no access to the public-option.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 08:16am
the point about the opt-out states though...if a company does that across the board, most of their employees will be left out in the cold with no access to the public-option. Posted by snowball777 at 10/28/2009 @ 08:16am
But the state would then be left holding the bag per a drastic increase in the emergency room over-usage costs and inefficiencies.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2009 @ 08:41am
THE LIEBERMAN BETRAYAL--IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION IN WASHINGTON
Lieberman is shameless about his connections with the health insurance industries. He has not only taken more than $1 million dollars from them in campaign contributions, but has amassed thousands of STOCKS from the industry. The same is the case with many of the so-called "conservative Democrats" who oppose real health care reform that will benefit the people, not the industry. If this is not CONFLICT OF INTEREST, what is? When a member of Congress says he is opposing health care reform with public option, they should be called out for what they really are. Journalists should ask them to declare how much of health industry stocks they hold and how much they have taken in campaign contributions from the industry. Many of these corrupt politicians will most likely end up in the Boardroom of health insurance companies when they leave Congress. Political mobilization by progressives should be focused on shaming these corrupt politicians and making sure that they are never again entrusted with the people's business. They are no friends of humanity! They are consumed by selfish individuality of the worse kind. The Democratic caucus should immediately end its fruitless marriage with Joe Lieberman and strip him of his chairmanship of Homeland Security Senate Committee for a start. Dr Sam
Posted by drsam8 at 10/28/2009 @ 08:49am
Every argument that the new con repubs and now Lie berman, have made against the public option has been disproved. But that hasn't stopped them from repeating the lies over and over again, like FAUX SPEWS: flare un-balanced. A typical anti-argument with no factual content linked to the reality of the situation 'now'.
Since people are so susceptible to habits and memes, it makes perfect sense that dishonest advertising is used against 'We the People's best interests. The truth isn't as profitable; like lying us to wars that kill and disable us, simply for corporate profiteering.
Sure most politicians bend the truth some to align with the goals they're attempting to achieve. The problem is new con repubs lie more and to achieve goals that would benefit corporations-- to 'We the People's ultimate detriment.
Arguments to the contrary just have not held up.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2009 @ 09:02am
when will these people lose credibility? this is how we got into iraq
Posted by ericbasta at 10/28/2009 @ 12:54pm
Reagan was a boob, a mouthpiece, a has-been, a never-wuzzer. People thought he was their kindly old grampaw, but by the time he got to the whitehouse, he was a zombie, willing to eat their brains.
Lieberman is an illustration of short term gain vs. long term loss. He quit claiming to be a Democrat, he supported the Republican presidential candidate, why is he still in the caucus? The Dumbocrats should have cut him loose even if it caused a little inconvenience.
Posted by Qroger at 10/29/2009 @ 07:31am