Obamacare really is about taxes

In arguments before a Florida court, where the constitutional challenge to the insurance mandate is being heard, Justice Department lawyer Ian Gershengorn said health insurance is "a financing mechanism," not a product.

It seems to me that this opens a completely new line of argument about the constitutionality of the mandate. A financing mechanism is a taxation term. Again we have administration lawyers stating that the mandate is a tax, but in this case they are claiming that health insurance premiums are a tax.

Traditionally health insurance is viewed as a contract between the insurer and the insured, with the premium purchasing a menu of services in the event of certain occurrences. What Gershengorn is arguing completely changes what insurance, and the insurance market, has always been.

Is that you Cousin Mark?

I hadn't heard anything out of Cousin Mark in a while. He claims he's been really busy at work, but that sounds like an excuse to me. It's not like it's chemical engineering or anything.

His inartful question; would a Republican controlled SCOTUS possibly overturn parts or all of Obamacare?

I'm far from a constitutional scholar, but I believe the tension comes up between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

My understanding, again, I'm far from an expert, is that the Supremacy Clause has been ascendant since the War of Northern Aggression ended. The question the Court will face is whether to reinvigorate the Tenth Amendment.

Personally, I feel the time is ripe for a new look at the Tenth Amendment. Long before healthcare reform the federal government had become much to intrusive in our personal lives, and in mandating activities to the States. However, the SCOTUS is generally reluctant to overturn any precedent, especially Supreme Court case law, even if the current Court may find nits to pick with said case law.

Death to Dems?

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says that as many as 10 Democratic members of the House have received death threats over their vote on healthcare reform.

I can only say that there are clearly some crazy people out there. Come on, go to the public meetings your Congress critter has over the break and give them an earful. Be rude, call them socialist pigs, but death threats are way out of line.

It's just politics. We are far enough removed from Republican Rome that we don't have to murder politicians we disagree with.

Healthcare. (what else could it be)

The Democrats had their way and passed this monstrosity of a healthcare bill. I don't doubt their motives in so doing. They did what they thought was the right thing. But, it is very much a left thing.

There is plenty of room for discussion on the issues, but the bottom line is that there are two divergent views of the direction our country should be taking. One is the progressive/liberal view of expanded government, and cradle to grave social programs. This is very much the European model. The other is the conservative view that the country was founded on individual rights and self-sufficiency. The healthcare bill is a victory for the former.

Despite the protestations of the liberals it is bald faced socialism. Socialism is the taking from the general population in order to redistribute "equally". The left has not had the temerity to properly label legislation since the adoption of Social Security.

Pres. Obama: This is just the foundation

From the Puffington Host:

Obama argued to the group of progressive members that his health care reform bill should be looked at as the foundation of reform, that can be built on in the future. He asked them to help gather votes for the final health care battle and promised that as soon as the bill was signed into law, he'd continue to push to make it stronger. But in a matter of weeks, he stressed, he could sign into law legislation that would lead to 31 million new people being insured, including the woman who wrote him.

This is what I, for one, have always thought was the point of healthcare reform. It is an attempt by the liberals progressives at a full-scale government takeover of the healthcare system.

Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill. Kucinich fought for an amendment that would allow states to adopt single-payer systems without getting sued by insurance companies. Obama told Kucinich that Sanders's measure was similar but doesn't kick in for several years. "He definitely wrote it down," said one member of Kucinich, suggesting that he'd look into it.

Again, this is not surprising. Sanders is the only member of the Socialist party serving in the House, it makes sense for him to promote single-payer. Kucinich is a socialist, but doesn't have the guts to run as one.

This disclosure of motive by the President is exactly the reason that the reform bill should be opposed. It is incrementalism starting with a huge increment.

Canadian healthcare: Update

Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, went to Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami to have a valve replaced in his heart. The reason for having this done in the U.S. rather than using Canada's vaunted public health system was because a less invasive procedure was available.

Now we all know, because we have been told ad nauseum, that the Canadian system is wonderful because it is free, and just as good as the U.S. healthcare. Here is a clear case of the U.S. system being better. If you were an American citizen you could avail yourself of this procedure and have it paid for by your health plan; insurance, HMO, PPO, Medicare. But as a Canadian, you have to leave the country and pay out of pocket to get a less invasive, lower risk operation.

I am just so thankful that my betters in the Democratic Party are going to fix this flaw in our system, and make it so much more like the Canadian system. My question is; where will Canadian premiers go for surgery when the American healthcare system has been ruined by socialism?

R.I.P. John Murtha

Congressman Murtha died of complications of surgery. He was one of the most powerful members of the House.

Murtha had a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (gall bladder removal) performed at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, this is the same hospital that takes care of the President. According to CNN, doctors "hit his intestine." This procedure is performed 10's of thousands of times per year, in virtually every hospital in the country. One of the outcomes of any surgery can be death, but with this procedure that is unlikely. If this had happened to John Doe in General Medical Hospital, Anytown, USA, a lawyer would already be preparing the lawsuit.

In my opinion this is a medical error, and is inexcusable. But as the discussion continues over health care reform, this matter should be considered, and be part of the discussion. Errors do happen. Doctors are human, and therefore imperfect. What should be done in the instance that the physician's error causes the death of a 77 year old man? Should it just be handled by the John Edwards' of the world, suing for as much as they can get, or should there be another avenue of redress?

Hubris

Why do the Democrats in charge, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, insist on inflicting a healthcare bill on us. Popular support is abysmal. According to Rasmussen polling released today (Jan 18) 18% strongly favor, while 44% strongly disapprove of the proposed plan.

Last I checked this was a representative democracy. Meaning the elected represent their constituents.

Inflicting this law upon America at this time looks like political suicide for the Democratic Party. Sure Pelosi will be re-elected, but Reid looks like a lock to lose to anyone not named Reid in Nevada.

I'm confused. I just don't get it. What is the point of this?

On the precipice

"From the discussions we had, it's clear we are on the precipice of achievement that's eluded Congresses, presidents for generations -- an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American," Obama said.

According to Merriam-Webster online:

1 : a very steep or overhanging place
2 : a hazardous situation; broadly : brink

It seems that if the President viewed reform in a positive light he would have used a more positive term, like verge. Precipice to me certainly carries a connotation of peril.

The cost of health care refrom

Why do we keep hearing about special interests when the Senate is willing to spend $100 million to buy one vote?

Oh to know so much that we can make everyone happy

The notion that a small group of politicians can know enough to design something so complex and so personal is astounding.

John Stossel

That is to the point. It is wonderful that 219 Democrats and 1 Republican think they have the ability to CREATE a health care system. The audacity is breath taking. A bill of 1990 pages is incredible in its size. On the other hand that is not nearly enough to create a health care system. The regulations for the inpatient portion of Medicare run to more pages than the Internal Revenue Code, that is just the inpatient side. Believe me the outpatient regs are for more complex. But with a vote, and a great amount of hubris, Pelosi and her minions will give us all nirvana in health. Never mind that if you like what you have you will be greatly displeased in the next five years over what you have been "given" by the federal government.

Goddamn nanny state, do gooders. May they all be subjected to their own rules. (Which of course they will not be, because they are privileged by being Congressmen.)

Pelosicare

It's no secret that I think the idea of government directed universal health care is a bad idea, but Pelosi's bill is scary as hell. If you don't buy insurance you are fined (or jailed,) if you don't have a plan that includes all coverage Pelosi thinks you should have you are fined (or jailed.) This is not republican democracy, this is the Marxist socialist crap that I was certain would come with the advent of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate. Fortunately, it looks like the rank and file is awakening to the horror that is the Pelosi bill, or at least they are afraid they will be unelected if they support it. Oh, and a tax for not obtaining coverage is no different than a fine.

Why should a healthy young person be forced to pay a large amount of money for health insurance. It makes perfect economic sense to buy a low cost policy, or opt out until you reach an age where you might actually consume some health care.

I do so despise large government. It offends my libertarian sensibilities.

Can we afford it?

$1,200,000,000,000 is a lot of money. This is the cost of the current House bill for, (I don't even know what we're calling this now,) Healthcare reform. It doesn't really matter where you fall on the issue of should we do this or should we not, the price tag would indicate we cannot afford it.

Our economy is in the tank, deficits are growing into the stratosphere as far as we can see and the biggest policy issue we can debate is how to raise the deficit another $1.2 trillion.

Please stop even talking about this until someone explains how it is to be paid for.

I feel better now

I have been afraid that the Democrats would get their act together and actually inflict "healthcare reform" on us. I can't imagine anything worse than the federal government taking over our system, and destroying innovation in our country. But I feel better now because health care is now in Sen. Reid's hands. It is hard to conceive of anyone who is less capable of achieving legislative success then the dour Senator from Nevada.

Wow!

Camile Paglia gets it right. Go read!

She is spot on in her analysis.

The Democrats have lost

People are trying to speak. There is shouting and rude behavior on both sides. But violence comes from weakness. When you have to bring in thugs in order to silence the opposition you have lost.

This August is reminiscent of the summer of 1968, and that was ugly.