Consider the scoop:RNC colludes with Tea Party leader Mark Williams to put out the word--in a whisper this time, not the guttural cries of ignorant old white folks--that Obamacare MIGHT just work if the exchanges catch on? Therefore, pressure GOP state Attorneys General and support GOP governors to file suit (I guess it's okay for the government to tell its citizens what to do or deny those fruits when the GOP's in charge)...and worse, put pressure on big employers not to join these exchanges. Concomitantly, they will attack and discredit unions who might be pushing the management to hook up with the exchanges, or community groups who are advocating the same.
In other words, this isn't about right and wrong, or examining policy alternatives? No duh. The wingnuts have a good model for a combination of sabotage and terror: Reconstruction. Read A Fool's Errand by Albion Tourgee.
15 comments:
I blame the Free press for wearing a blind eye.
In Europe BBC tries hard to sell TeaBag nonsense as common sense.
I wonder why (it serves them No good, apparently)?
But fools are those who ignores the Fight that protect their interest.
I read parallelism in African literature concerning post colonialism early years.
"This land, i believe belongs to a big family, of which many members have died, some still alive and the majority are unborn."
1912 - Yoruba chief.
From:
Bahassan Adamodjy's Dreamers euphoria.
The end of a civilized America. As if there ever truly was one.
Christ.
They would quietly call it "hedging" which is what the RNC leak you so craftily avoided alluding to. You need stop having coffee with the enemy. (smile) And they aren't "colluding" with TP. They are afraid that "hedging" might incite the only decent thing thing to happen to them to turn against them. It's all tactics, not insidious strategy.
I'm still trying to figure out how those AGs are going to distinguish the health plan from other compulsory programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Medicare and Social Security are public programs funded via taxes, not fines and neither program requires a citizen to purchase something from a private entity.
The Commerce Clause is supposed to allow Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not REQUIRE an individual to engage in commerce. That's never been done before. If I don't want to enter into a contract with another private business, that's my choice.
It doesn't make sense that the founders would take the time to set up a federal government with limited powers, a separation of powers among the three federal elements, explicitly enumerate the Federal powers, point out that there are other rights which are not listed but belong to the states or people and THEN eliminate all of that by giving Congress the power to ignore the above by the Commerce Clause.
I think HCR is a good idea and Republicans are generally full of ****. But process matters. Means matter and I think the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Ever try to keep Social Security and Medicare from being withheld from your pay check? You're buying a medical plan and a retirement plan, and you have no choice in the matter.
Knute Rife wrote, "Ever try to keep Social Security and Medicare from being withheld from your pay check? You're buying a medical plan and a retirement plan, and you have no choice in the matter."
No. As I wrote before
"Medicare and Social Security are public programs funded via taxes, not fines and neither program requires a citizen to purchase something from a private entity."
This is a pretty important distinction. No one -well except for a few unrepentant libertarian anarchists- is questioning the government's right to tax or set up mandatory government programs for the public good.
What I am questioning is the government's right to say that I, Shady Grady, MUST go buy a good from this private business whether I want to or not. That has NEVER been done before.
Imagine, if you will if instead of bailing out GM or Chrysler with public tax monies, the Federal government had just decided to pass a law saying that from henceforth every US citizen HAD to purchase a GM or Chrysler vehicle, even if they did not drive or did not like those vehicles or relied on public transportation. That is what we're talking about here. I don't think that the Federal government SHOULD have or DOES have that right. Corporations would LOVE this. Customers forced to buy their product by government fiat would make them extremely happy.
@Shady_Grady
I think people are already persuaded to buy automobile, even in Europe where public transportation is relatively good.
USA cannot be a social state.
With Europe clueless and capitalist hungry China with much to chew.
I mean while USA is the first economy superpower it will never be a social state.
And i think there is no reason to.
@Shady_Grady
The Supremes have already held there is nothing in the federal constitution prohibiting governments from using takings authority for private benefit. Do you believe the health care statute to be beyond that?
@Knute
If you are referring to the Kelo decision then yes I absolutely think that was wrongly decided.
The same sort of Alice in Wonderland logic that stretched "public use" to private ownership in the Kelo case is what allows people to pretend that someone who is NOT engaging in commerce IS engaging in commerce or that a Congress which is permitted to regulate interstate commerce is allowed to REQUIRE someone to engage in commerce within his own state.
Every single American citizen has not been found subject to eminent domain via a court hearing. So the Health Care individual mandate does not fall under the takings clause and will likely not be argued under that-if indeed the cases are not thrown out for lack of standing, ripeness or pure political fear.
Rather the question is do you think that there are ANY limits on Federal power over citizens?
Really, the question is by what authority does the Federal government presume to tell anyone with whom they should do business or more to the point whether or not they should do business in the first place. If I have decided for whatever reason that I don't wish to purchase insurance, that's my business. Under the law as written American Indians and people with "religious objections" are exempt. Does that sound fair? What about people with deeply held philosophical, political or moral objections? Should I just have to make up a church whose primary tenet is we don't believe in individual mandates? =)
I hate to sound like a broken record but it bears repeating once again that there has never before been a federal law stating that just as a requirement of EXISTING I MUST purchase something from a private business. This is unprecedented.
The fact that the mandate is for what many people would consider a good cause is not as important to me as 1) the principle at stake and 2) at some point in the future when the right wing has hegemony again I don't want THEM to have this sort of power over the public.
If people really want Federal government with unchecked power over the citizenry-the power to make them do and/or buy whatever the government deems appropriate, the power to arrest and hold them without trial, the power to listen in on them or search them without warrants and so on, then I think people should at least have the courtesy to change the Constitution to allow such things, because the power to do such things just isn't in there...
140475Teabonics:
New dialect of the English language.
Pictures of signs seen primarily at Tea Party Protests.
English is not my mother language, and i started learning it just by reading books, literature books and music and Mac/Art magazines.
Mine is Bad but better than most of these Tea-Bag people.
This one is funny, & this, you wonder if these people work or can discern What is good for them.
Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.
Post a Comment