That Pesky Viral Interwebbing Thing: Hell No You Can’t

That about sums it up.

Insanely funny!

Very funny, but did you need two links to Boehner’s speech in order to provide balance? Got to be two for one?

Too bad the video is in black and white. Boner actually went from orange alert to red alert. It was scary.

Out of context, but illustrative of the larger point being made in the video.

Good link, Michael.

Actually John is really only sayin’ “hell no you can’t” to the Tanning Salon tax in the bill. He is going to be hit hard by this one as is a bit pissed about it.

ACASTOS,

You are 1/2 correct this video is INSANE!

It embodies the reason that BHO was elected in the first place and why his agenda is being approved and placed into law.

During my first and only viewing, I recall that almost all of the people in the video are young…BHO’s obvious target…

I am going to go out on a limb here and make a huge assumption, I have 5 children and 4 daughter-in-laws and I do not think ANY of them have read and understand the Declaration on Independence or the Constitution of the United States.

That said, my assumption is that MANY if not MOST of the young people share the lack of understanding of the essential liberties established in those documents.

Corrupting the Constitution, perverting the legislative process, bankrupting future generations and forcing a soft tyranny on the citizens of the United States is ill-advised, illegal, and contrary to the founding principles of this nation.

President Obama, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid have done just that with their unconstitutional Healthcare Reform Bill.

As far as you are concerned ACASTOS, while you celabrate and sing “Yes we can” take a minute to reflect of the SUBSTANCE of what has been done as opposed to the “feel good” of this well intentioned but horribly crafted legislation.

Brilliant! The only one singing off-key was Boner.

It’s true that Boner was taken out of context. The actual context was that he was claiming that the bill provides taxpayer funding for abortions (which is a bald faced lie) and that it was written in secret (which is ridiculous).

Come October or so I want to see the campaign commercial that intersperses the Boner’s speech with Jack Nicholson’s “you can’t handle the truth speech”, since they are both trying to cover up criminality imho and whatnot.

Lieutenant Kaffee: Did you order the “code red?”
Jessep: I did the job I was –
Lieutenant Kaffee: — Did you order the “code red?!”
Jessep: You’re god damn right I did!!!

Justmy02cents-

You really might have a complaint if all the people in the video were young or if the youth vote was the underlying reason Obama got elected, neither are true.

Next you might also have a complaint if I thought for one moment while Bush et all were trampling all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you open your mouth and complained once. You might have a complaint if you complained even a little when Bush took a budget surplus and turned it into into 1.2 trillion dollars worth of debt.

So unless you stood up and shouted before, doing so now seems to be hypocritical.

Oh internet. How I love your series of tubes.

When I saw this earlier this morning I thought what an absolute perfect summation of the differing poltiical ideologies.

Perfect.

Hey – “hell no you can’t” fits on a bumper sticker, not too many syllables for the intellectually impaired. – Think it will become their 2012 election mantra? It certainly fits todays republicans ideological philosophy, why not.

This is rich. Teabaggers accusing others of ignorance. We don’t have to “go out on a limb” to evaluate the ignorance of the average Teabagger. For months on end, the Teabaggers have displayed staggering degrees of ignorance.
.
Their ignorance runs the gamut. They are ignorant of the definitions of common political terms (e.g. socialism, Marxism, fascism, communism, Maoist, etc.).
.
They are ignorant of modern political history. That Republicans from the Heritage Foundation to Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, and Bob Dole have proposed health care reforms substantially equal to or greater than what just passed. The idea for the individual mandate — the most controversial part of the bill — originated at the Heritage Foundation and was supported by Republicans right up until they decided to oppose HCR under any circumstances.
.
And they are ignorant of the actual provisions of the legislation. From the Teabag leaders like Palin, who fabricated “death panels” out of whole cloth and her wingnutty paranoia to the rank-and-file Teabaggers who can’t tell you a single thing that they specifically oppose other than Fox News told them it was a “government takeover.”
.
I join with with this TPM diary in inviting the Republican Party to make a full retreat from crazyville.

What a sad, sad example of distorting the facts. John Boehner was 100% justified in voicing his indignation at how this deeply flawed bill was FORCED on the American people. Reform would have been a good thing, but NOT in the manner it was construed. Lies and deceit should never be the foundation of ANY legislation and this piece of work, smells to high heaven. Gloat all you want, liberals. Mr. Boehner effectively represents a very LARGE segment of our population and we will voice our displeasure at the ballot box, come November.

BTW, Boehner’s just pissed because there’s going to be a tanning salon excise tax and he won’t qualify for any subsidies.
.
The tax is expected to cost Boehner $50k/year.

Here is another right-wingnut thought…read it and tell me you disagree.

“Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don’t have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan! It’s a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let’s all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term ‘free market.’ Nearly every problem with health care in this country — apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors’ waiting rooms — would be solved by my plan. In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance. We can’t have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. … The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company’s home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates…. The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies. Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice. Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms ‘Harry Reid’ and ‘Viagra’ in the same sentence. I promise that won’t happen again.) Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market. Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things such as major illness, accidents and disease. … This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into … a form of insurance! My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare — and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired. … In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats’ plan. Feel free to steal it, Republicans!” –columnist Ann Coulter

1.2 Trillion Deficit, not Debt. Debt was far greater….

Very nice Michael. I am sure this will become the number 1 viral youtube video across the internet. I am sure it will also become the anthem for the far left liberal extremists as evidenced above.
.
Yes, the Democrats have the Hollywood elitists, the recording artists like Goo Goo Dolls or whoever it was at the beginning of the video.
.
But, do you have the people? Do you have the money? Do you have the truth on your side? I’m putting my money on the Republicans, the Tea Party folks.
.
I guess when you witness on the TV as over 50,000 protesters decend upon Washington in less than 2 days from the call to join in on the protest would scare the living beejeezus out of the liberals. I am sure that this is why we saw the kabuki theater of Nancy Pelosi walking arm in arm with the likes of John Lewis to present the image of Democrat solidarity. I am sure that the young voters who voted for Obama like robots are now gazing at this video, eyes glassed over from their last hit on the bong are singing, “Yes we can”.

Can you find a context in which Boehner’s speech makes any sense? HELL NO YOU CAN’T.

It’s sad that justmy02cents has such a low opinion of his/her children and daughters-in-law. If they haven’t read or don’t know the contents of the seminal documents of our country, perhaps their parents didn’t educate them very well?
.
I know lots of young people who know the Constitution and Declaration of Independence pretty well. Further, if they were to attend some rally and make signs to hold, their spelling would be much better than many of the Tea Partiers. So your assumptions about ignorance are probably misplaced.
.
02cents, instead of taking the “I know better and everyone else doesn’t” attitude, perhaps you should stop swallowing wholesale the Glenn Beck chatter. Because my guess is that if you were actually forced to defend your views, beyond code words like “tyranny” and “liberties”, you would be woefully ignorant of what is constitutional or not. Just saying.

Once again John Boehner proved he didn’t know what he was talking about.

2 pesos – I read it and I disagree. Also, in the future, you can save the Ann Coulter quotes for sites like redstate.This plan would do nothing to help the uninsured and would do very little to control costs.

I’ll give you the bumper sticker, but I liked Joe Sudbay’s history-inspired suggestion for the Republican motto: “The only thing we have is fear itself.”

Great video.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

I don’t think he was taken out of context at all, because the man continually lies about the American people and what they want. This video is a perfect tribute to TRUTH! I for one DO want the healthcare bill. So, he does not speak for me.
.
He also lies about the transparency of the bill. Just because he and his peers were too lazy to read and work on it does not make it non-transparent.
.
This man clearly shows that his pocketbook has taken a big hit because he has failed his insurance buddies who are no longer in control of the situation. And I for one do NOT GIVE A DAMN about them, just like they showed the same contempt and indifference for us by letting us die and suffer for so long!

The “likes” of John Lewis? I guarantee you John Lewis is twice the person you are. He has no need to prove himself to anyone.

Truth? My guess is that you really cannot handle the truth . . .

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php

Aww…poor freedumblog seems to be stuck on stage 2 when it comes to the health care reform bill that he will end up benefitting from…
.
1. Denial: “This bill is bad for America! Socialism! SOC-CIAL-ISM!”
.
2. Anger: “N**ger! F**got!” (spits on people, throws bricks) “We’re gonna storm the Capitol!”
.
3. Bargaining: “Repeal and Replace! Unconstitutional!” (suggests dumb amendments, law suits)
.
4. Depression: “This wasn’t supposed to be our Waterloo…”
.
5. Acceptance: (Teabaggers move on to the next thing they are told to be outraged about)

I’m sure somebody put together a Jeremiah Wright video with “God…America” on it

The anger that comes from Boehner is stunning, especially when juxtaposed against the positive music and message of Obama. I know the context, I’ve followed the debate, but this is just chilling stuff.

2 pesos:
.
The problem is that Republicans are unwilling to enter the debate in good faith, thus they get ignored.
.
Republicans fling around accusations of fascism, socialism, and communism despite the fact that anyone who passed high school social studies should be capable of explaining why those terms do not apply to the HCR legislation (or, in the case of “socialism,” does not apply any more than it applies to Medicare, Medicaid, air traffic controllers, or the federal highway system.)
.
Coulter writes: “Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things such as major illness, accidents and disease.”
.
This is a classic, idiotic Republican argument. Liberals are hypochondriacs that are running up the cost of health care because they are demanding that insurance cover “aromatherapy” and other alternative treatments? Either this is a joke (proving my point that Republicans are incapable of discussing the issue in good faith) or Ann Coulter is profoundly stupid.
.
The biggest failure of the Democrats’ bill is that it insufficiently addresses costs. An intelligent Republican Party — that was neither beholden to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries nor blinkered by ideological stereotypes — could suggest serious ways to reduce costs. Instead, Coulter suggests that rising premiums are driven by (a) malpractice liability, (b) insurance regulation, and (c ) the cost of incense.
.
The GOP is a self-discrediting embarrassment, incapable of contributing constructively to policy debates.

The United States has the most free market oriented Health Care system in the industrialized world. The United States has the most expensive health care system in the industrialized world by a factor of 2. The United States does not have the best health care system by most measures. The United States Health Care system is considered a joke by the vast majority of the industrialized world. The #1 cause of bankruptcy until recently (when housing took over) was due to Health Care costs.
.
Not to mention, the housing system was given considerable free market reign and some idiot came up with the idea of sub-prime mortgages to get more people into said free market system. We all know how that turned out. The Free Market isn’t the absolute answer for everything – no more than Government run is the absolute answer for everything.
.
In the case of Health Care, the supply and demand curve is incredibly abnormal – education is quite similar though a bit less so. Why? Because the demand curve is often affected by the reality that decisions aren’t just life and death but YOUR life or death (or that of a loved one). Since most people know nothing and, really, can’t learn enough to know enough about the business, they are completely dependent upon doctors to provide honest advice of what is needed, and the skewed demand curve will make them willing to shell out for just about anything. A good capitalist will exploit this desperation, artificially increasing the demand for a particular service (and, notably, allows them to set whatever price they want rather than the cheapest price for lowest overhead).
.
The only check on them? Shockingly, the insurance companies. The hospital and the insurance company can bicker on end to get various claims processed because the insurance company is trying to get the hospital to lower the price while the hospital is trying to increase the price. This makes two middle men: the hospital administrators and the insurance company administrators – inflating costs again. If you’ve been following, that’s 4 different ways the cost got inflated
.
Health Care costs are insanely inflated and continue to increase at insane rates. Bankruptcies increase every year due to health care costs, Medicare and Medicaid continue to get closer to bankruptcy, and the number of uninsured continue to spike.
.
The question should not be “Free Market vs Government Run” (I note that nowhere in the Constitution does it forbid the latter). The question should be “How much should be guaranteed to every citizen of the United States?” If the answer is that the only thing that should be guaranteed to an American is that he can get emergency medical treatment, than the current system is doing a fine job. If everyone should be guaranteed the ability to fight cancer, fight infectious diseases, fight long term and/or debilitating illnesses, and/or be able to avail themselves of America’s best medical capabilities, then the American medical system must be improved. Be wary what your decision is, however, for a Free Market system cannot guarantee anything to everyone, only something to those that can afford it, and when it comes to medical treatment, most of the items on that list are not affordable to hard working, middle or working class Americans.

02cents — I don’t have the time to go point-by-point through Coulter’s astoundingly wrongheaded “plan” — which I see as more of a rhetorical gesture than a sincere political proposal — but here are some things to chew on:
.
Allowing unrestrained economic activity across state lines doesn’t work when an industry has to be significantly regulated. Almost every major corporation has Delaware as its “home” state (i.e., state of incorporation) because Delaware’s laws of corporate governance are the most lax in the country; you have to have corporate governance, so why not make it as easy for yourself as possible; Incorporate in Delaware. For a while every major credit card issuer in the country was chartered in South Dakota, because South Dakota had the laxest regulation and placed no limit, or a very high one, on interest rates. Only if you are naive enough to think that health insurers don’t have to be regulated would you think that selling across state lines is a good idea. You’d wake up every morning and find that every health insurer in the country is located in the same state as all the rest. (Real competition is different. It never mattered that most of our automobile industry was in Detroit — except to Detroit, of course.)
.
But health insurers do have to be regulated, because there not even a semblance of a free market in health care and the underlying insurance. When you’re coughing up blood and waiting for the ambulance to take you to the emergency room, you don’t have much time to spare to find out which is the cheapest ambulance and emergency room, and even if you could you still wouldn’t know where you would be likely to get the best treatment. A free market assumes that customers can intelligently weigh alternatives. So what do you do when your doctor says you need an MRI? Get a second opinion (at additional cost)? Argue with the doctor? Consult teh Google? Not to mention that you may have to beg your insurer to cover it.
.
We know what happens in a free health care market. Costs for treatments of identical conditions vary insanely from place to place. Price-fixing (insurers are not covered by anti-trust laws). Eager acceptance of premium payments as long as you’re healthy … followed by cancellation if you’re dumb enough to get really sick. Who’s going to protect you against this? The free market? Ann Coulter??
.
As a dedicated advocate of Medicare-for-all single-payer insurance, I find the bill that just passed dispiriting, and the changes made in reconciliation won’t affect that. But it’s a hell of a lot less dispiriting than what we’ve been living through these past few years. Just yesterday — literally — I called my primary physician to schedule my quarterly checkup and was told that his office no longer accepts my insurance. So now I have the choice of switching primary doctors or paying my current one about five times as much per visit. That’s hardly a calamity, but it is one consequence of a “free market.” I could use a lot less of that sort of freedom.
.
The Republicans are lying about Obamacare, and every comprehensive proposal they have come up with would make things worse, not better. They do have some good ideas, and Obama wisely made sure that the new law included some of those, but “plans” like Coulter’s are a recipe for disaster. I don’t have to threaten to move to Canada, because they’ll never become law. But the notion that people can pretend to be serious about enacting stuff like that is — here’s that word again — dispiriting. And a lot more dispiriting than anything Obama and the Dems have done.

Earl,
Give yourself a treat.
My conservative uncle who likes UTube found Sweatin’ With the Socialists.
…
It is at least as unfair if not far more so.
…
What did I do?
I watched and groaned?
Why?
Hey, this is America and making fun of your political opposition is a part of it.
…
I am not going to link to it.
It was very irritating.
…
Take this video for what it is: Liberal Comedy at the expense of the Conservatives.
…
Conservatives, I recommend all of you watch that and then come back and try to say that UTube or anything on the internet does not have your people doing exactly the same to us.

Boehner can be so cavalier about health care for others since he will always have it as a member of Congress – even after he retires. Since he is such a heavy smoker, I’m sure he is grateful for that. For the rest of the country – too bad.

Good points, forgottenlord.
.
I would merely point out government regulation is not antithetical to capitalism. Often government regulation improves “free markets” by making markets more competitive.
.
Theoretically, the most economically efficient markets are Perfect Markets, which feature:
1. Infinite Buyers and Sellers
2. No Barriers to Entry or Exit
3. Zero Transaction Costs
4. Perfect information of Market Participants
.
The reality is that these conditions never exist completely. Usually market participants do not want them to exist, because even if a market is less economically efficient it will be more profitable to those who can leverage the inefficiencies (i.e. large corporations).
.
Although many Republicans may blather about government letting the “free market” work, the reality is that government regulation is often necessary for the free market to be efficient. A perfect example is a securities market. Without massive government regulation, securities markets would be tiny fractions of what they are now, if they existed at all, as market participants would be forced to verify the credibility of each counter-party prior to executing a transaction.

justmynonsense,
First, I can bet you that nine out of ten progressive posters here know the constitution better than you do.
…
Second, when it comes to fair things going out to the public, I have one name for you: Ann Coulter.
…
She called both John Edwards and Bill Clinton gay.
…
It is safe to say that neither one are.
…
When individual democrats put out videos like this, it is clear to us that this is commedy.
…
Where the fk is Ann Coulter’s laugh track?
…

square1,
It is so refreshing to see somebody use real economics.
…
Just as every other term the Republicans have garbled into an incoherent wall of sound, the concept of a “free market” being a hypothetical thought experiment instead of a daily fact is forgotten.
…
Long story short: in addition to the concept of externalities, this perfect world of the free market does not exist and, therefore, we are often in need of some government intervention.
…
Since imperfect markets are very good, we are not and never have been in need of Marxist Socialism as it has never been proposed in the US by anybody who won an elected office.
…
Definition: An externality is an effect of a purchase or use decision by one set of parties on others who did not have a choice and whose interests were not taken into account.

Classic example of a negative externality: pollution, generated by some productive enterprise, and affecting others who had no choice and were probably not taken nto account.

Example of a positive externality: Purchase a car of a certain model increases demand and thus availability for mechanics who know that kind of car, which improves the situation for others owning that model.
…
http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/externality.htm
…
It just seems like so many Republicans – at least many who post on the Swamp, are sure that they know everything and write about things like they are fifth grade dropouts.
…
Justmynonsense is a classic example.
I bet he doesn’t know the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution.

No frivolous posts, please. You’re clogging the tubes.
-
This isn’t some sort of dump truck, people.

LOL

Square1, you forgot:
-
5. All market participants acting rationally.
-
Of course, even if you had all five, it’s unclear that a healthcare market would be optimal. Then as now, consumers would have two choices. Purchase what a private company is willing to give you for the price they demand, or die when you get sick. As long as opting out of a market is a choice almost nobody is willing to make, business holds all the leverage. Even infinite sellers and zero entry barriers don’t change that, because any new entrant can hold consumers over the same barrel. As opposed to, say, car manufacturers, where if they charge too much, eventually people will just ride bikes and buses.
-
Ann Coulter has a point though, government should allow monopolies, because they’re good for everybody. When Carnegie was making super millions in the steel business, all that wealth trickled right down to his employees. Right?
-
In the 19th Century, before anybody came up with trickle-down, advocates for big business used to argue that while, yes, wages would almost certainly go down without unionisation or government intervention in markets, the prices of everything else (rents, food) would certainly go down as well, since cheaper labor means cheaper products, so everybody wins! Of course, that didn’t happen either (when prices are a function of supply and demand, production costs only set the floor for prices), and of course, they didn’t really think so back then, any more than today’s Republicans really want to see wealth trickle down.

I fail to see how Boehner was taken out of context here. I don’t think it’s an accident that he phrased his tagline there as a direct response and contradiction to the President’s campaign slogan. “Yes we can” was directly tied to Obama’s legislative goals. At some point, he almost certainly said something along the lines of, “Can we reform the health care system? Yes we can!” To which Boehner directly replies, “Hell no you can’t.”
-
Sometimes things are unfair. This doesn’t appear to be one of those times. Sometimes, people inadvertently walk into situations where they’re almost certain to be laughed at. That’s what I’d call this.

Newfreedombra,
Have you ever proofread your own entries?
“But, do you have the people? Do you have the money?”
…
Answer 1:
“…Democrats have the Hollywood elitists, the recording artists…”
Among many other sources, we do have the money.
…
Answer 2:
“I am sure this will become the number 1 viral youtube video across the internet.”
That takes a huge number of our people and we, as you just said, have them.
…
“Do you have the truth on your side?”
Rather than explain that myself, I’ll just wait for you to explain to us why we do since you, above, explained that we do have the money and we do have the people.
…
What do you have?
“I’m putting my money on the Republicans, the Tea Party folks…. over 50,000 protesters”
In a country of three hundred million, that is an awful place to put your money.
…
Have you considered putting your money into commercial real estate?

nibblybits,

I have never watched or listened to a Glen Beck program

I have never attended a Tea Party rally or meeting…

how sadly you have misjudged me….

unfortunately (for you) I HAVE read both of the founding documents in their entirety and much to your surprise I actually understood what I read…how brilliant the founders were in the relentless determination to LIMIT the federal government to explicitely enumerated powers and their equal determination to grant to the states unenumerated powers.

It seems that the President Obama does not understand or respect these very narrow authorities granted by the Constitution of the United States. Certainly Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid evidence no knowledge or respect of them.

finally, my children and their spouses are all extremely well-educated and each has a free will to formulate their own thoughts, positions, and passions….

I, to the contrary, possess a mere BS degree.

Somehow I have managed in this confusing environment of political bipolarity, greed, corruption and general lack of honor and conscience.

I have not resorted to denigrating you or your family, especially with statements that you cannot possibly substantiate.

I encourage you to elevate yourself above your political dogma and zeal and ask yourself these questions.

Where is there any reference to a “right” to healthcare insurance in the Constitution of the United States?

Where is there any enumerated authority for the federal government to REQUIRE me to purchase a consumer product?..i.e. Health Insurance

Where is there any language enabling the Internal Revenue Service to FORCE me to purchase health insurance and fine me if I do not?

I’ll wait patiently for your SPECIFIC answers…thank you

square1,

1. It scares me that you cannot discern the humor of the aromatherapy statement….its a joke son….

2. Ms. Coulter did not identify herself with the GOP, that is YOUR assumption.

3. I really cannot find any reference to any “ism” in her comments…please help me here

4. the now-signed bill does NOT address health care costs or health insurance costs at all….

5. tort reform, state to state portability, and a-la-carte selection of coverages would significantly reduce health insurance costs…

6. Ms. Coulter is not a bumpkin just off the potato farm, she clerked at the supreme court, and is a respected constitutional lawyer…. AND most of all she delivers her thoughts with a rapier wit.

BTW her brother is Allen Combs of Hannity and Combs…how would you like to be at their Thanksgiving table?

Justmynonsense,
I know where Ann Cultour is from.
I grew up less than five miles from her in one of the most Republican dominated areas of the Northeast corridor.
…
It’s about a forty minute trip from New York City.
…
For the first time in more than forty years, due to the insanity of Republicans lately, that area is represented by a Democrat.
…
Cultour is far too right wing for that area, George Bush Sr.’s area.
…
Tell me, nonsense, was it supposed to be funny when she accused John Edwards and, earlier, Bill Clinton of being gay?
…
I do not know, but, I guess it was because Edwards well groomed that mad her call him gay, but, for Clinton, she had an amazing explanation: since Bill Clinton had sex with, supposedly, so many women (only a couple are documented, but nobody ever investigate the allegations about Bush Sr.’s mistress – Bush Sr may have scored more as a married man than Clinton) Coltour reasoned that he must prefer men.
…
Were Republicans laughing?
Was this a joke?
Is she, secretly, a comic?
…
Do explain.
…
As far as I can tell, she is a bitter woman from New Canaan who has a face that could scare a horse and spent the rest of her life spouting venom.

Justmynonsense,,
Sean Hannity is a college dropout and a former construction worker.
…
Ask him how to fix your bathroom and he’ll be the right source of information.
…
Combs is the token liberal.
I agree with him reasonably often but he has a face for radio and a voice for silent movies.
Fox then put him next to pretty boy Sean to make sure that Fox could get women to watch and make sure that they didn’t fall for the liberal.

02cents: Any objective reader will note that I did not disparage your family (or you) whatsoever; only pointed out that you seemed to denigrate your own in your post.
.
As to your specific questions, I believe your reading of the Constitution is too literal, as it is true that the phrase “health insurance” is indeed not written there. However in the very first line, it does say a little something about “promot(ing) the general welfare.”
.
Over the years, Congress has legislated and the courts have interpreted, and under Amendment 16 and Sections 7&8 (the Commerce Clause embedded within) give Congress the right to raise revenue to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the US.” Is there a better way to provide for the ‘general welfare’ of our people than to make sure people have access to affordable health care? IMO no. Your answer obviously differs.

Should clarify Section 7&8 under Article 1.

How can I forget the greatest of them all:
Ann Coultor said that the New Jersey widdows of 9/11 victims wanted there husbands to die.
…
Now, how can not trust this woman as an economist and source of reliable and unbiased information.
…
I think she rejected by too many men in her life and just hates everybody.

Justmynonsense,
Obama is a constitutional lawyer.
The constitution is what he did for a living and what he did as a law professor.
…
I only make fun of your chosen screen name.
…
I said that most people here know more about the constitution than you, not more than your wife and children.
…
I have no idea who you nor your wife and children are and have no need to know much less a desire to insult them.
…
If your graduate school educated children disagree with you about the constitution, it seems reasonably probable that you, and not they, do not understand the constitution.
…
We took on the English tradition of common law.
In that, once a precedent is set, it operates as the accepted reading of the constitution unless the Supreme court agrees to hear a case and decides to reverse previous precedents.
…
Since medicare has been before the Supreme court many times before and this has many similarities, it seems most likely to legal scholars that there will be no issue with this matter.
…
Fox “news” is not where I would learn about the Supreme court.
…
If you think any of us are mean, just imagine how it would be if you were on the other end of Fox News’ attack.
…
Even for media venom, Ann Coultor attacking the “Jersey Girls” was, basically, unprecedented.

nibblybits,

I appreciate the tone of your last post…it is really what I expected in a supposed free exchange of thoughts….Thanks

re: general welfare …I believe that it is a leap to consider the General Welfare of the US synonomous with the General Welfare of the PEOPLE of the US…

the federal government is charged with the responsibility of providing a common defense of the country in it’s entireity on this we agree….

It is NOT charged with providing for the General Welfare of each person (citizen) in the US… only to create an environment where there are no barriers to an individual achhieving his/her general welfare.

the design of the federal government is clearly and explicitedly limited in scope….naturally differences between the several states must be adjudicated by the federal goveral government.
property rights, free speech, the right to be free from fear or opression by the government, and yes the right to keep and bear arms are guaranteed to the individual. Healthcare is NOT, Health Insurance is NOT.

Some could argue that forcing me to purchase medical insurance is a form of opression by the government…can I be forced to buy a blue Ford?, can I be forced to by brocolli?, can I be forced to have central heat and indoor plumbing? can I be forced to go to the gym? can I be restricted from buying a Big Mac? (no yet at least)…

I understand the desire that all who want insurance and cannot have it for some reason (cost current health) should be able to purchase it at a reasonable price. But, this does not translate into FORCING me to have it.

The coup d’grace is providing enforcenment visa the IRS…

How in the world (as in Brave New) is that OK with you?

I think the ultimate Ann Coulter quote is this:
.
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?”
.
Why? Well, first, anyone that dreams of giving up their own right to vote so that the people they want will stay in power clearly care more about everything happening their way rather than Democracy (as enshrined in the Constitution) happens. Second, in the first paragraph, she takes a swipe at single moms (nevermind that single moms make up one of the poorest voting blocs in the country) and then in the second paragraph talks about how Democrats pander to soccer moms – a group comprised almost entirely of working/middle class, normally married, women. Or perhaps we should focus on the fact that, considering women make up half of the country, it would be just as fair a question to wonder why Republicans can’t seem to get the votes of women as it would be to wonder why Democrats can’t seem to get the votes of men (mind you, the Democrats on Swamp are mostly men). Or perhaps we should focus on the question of whether it’s really voting stupidly to vote for the party that keeps putting your priorities first…..like Health Care and Tuition and Day Care? And that’s before I can even begin challenging her personal policy positions.

As quoted from West Wing:
.
“In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia delegation had to say by way of opposition; ‘If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.’”

just,
The federal government requires auto makers to put seat belts in your car.
Richard Nixon was the president at that time.
..
Towns and cities do require heat and plumbing in houses.
….
State managed organizations such as the Department of social services like other in other states require that you buy food, clothing and provide shelter for your minor children.
(The fact that you and all even vaguely responsible parents would not consider starving your children is besides the point. It is requiring you to purchase a private sector good.)
…
The Federal government makes narcotics as they define them illegal, but, a Big Mac is not defined as inherently dangerous, could not be by any known reasoning and, therefore, will not be made illegal.
…
There is very little new about this legislation in constitutional terms.
…
if you are not, as I am, self employed, your employer, not you, must by the insurance or face the fine.
…
Osha has jurisdiction over all workplace conditions even placing limitations on the working conditions of the owner. Osha was created by Richard Nixon.
…
What is newest as far as I can tell is the over-the-top objections against it despite how little changes it creates.

I’m sorry, I forgot to make a point.
.
The idea that in 1787, the founders would find every right that should be enshrined in the Constitution and/or provided to the populace and, more importantly, that this would mean the founders intended to provide only those rights is ludicrous. After all, freedom from Slavery wasn’t enshrined in the Constitution by the founders, but it would be considered abhorrent today that it not be available. The right to vote wasn’t universal – initially, only Male, White Land Owners could vote. Now, it’s universal for anyone over 18. The right to drive nor the right of the government to license you to drive wasn’t even possible to enumerate in the Constitution. Primary Education, an absolute foundation for any modern society, wasn’t enumerated in the Constitution (even today), and yet every child is required to be educated.
.
Saying that just because the founders never declared it a right and thus it isn’t a right is as ridiculous as citing Leviticus as the reason to be opposed to homosexuality: to quote a passage that stands so close to passages allowing for the selling of daughters to future husbands, stoning people for various crimes, permitting slavery, burning garments with multiple threads and prohibiting planting crops next to one another. The values have changed – they SHOULD have changed. Arguments must be made upon the merits of those decisions, not upon the weight of some decree hundreds of years ago. Give us a real argument.

Worker’s compensation insurance!
That was the first time that the government required an employer to buy private insurance with their own money as well as to require the self employed to buy insurance.
…
The first laws were state laws going back to 1855!
…
So, it is a one hundred and fifty five year precedent that governments can require people to buy insurance!
…
So, the debates over the constitutionality of making people buy private insurance were cleared up before Abraham Lincoln was president.
….

Patrick,

My biggest issue is the expansion of power by the FEDERAL government beyond the US Constitution….not the states.

good research on the workers comp ins, but you make my point…that is state mandate…

federal mandated seat belt use is an expansion of the federal government…please sight an example of a flying unbelted body hurting someone else or damaging something…besides itself…

The laws requiring you to use a seat belt are city and state laws.
The fact that automakers are required to put them in is Federal.
…
Nobody is required to use health care.
Business owners are required to offer it.
…
Hence, the status quo is that corporations which choose to offer you pay too low for you to pay for your own health care (common for college dropouts who do not work for Fox News) and to tell you that you can not go to a doctor.
…
This is a liberation from being told you can not go to a doctor due to economic circumstances.
…
As far as I am concerned, the Republican motto should be “We don’t want the government to tell you what to do! We want profit seeking multi-millionaire CEOs to tell you what to do!”
…
Sure, most businesses are only about ten or fifteen people, but, in many cases, still, in unskilled jobs especially, the owner earns three to five times as much as the highest paid employee.
…
Medicine in 1789 was, literally, a doctor or a barber who would take a blade and cut you to drip out “bad blood”. Since bacteria was not a valid concept, these were often dirty blades and caused more infections than they cured.
…
So, unlike freedom of speech literally the ability to have a speech on public property while not obstructing pedestrian or vehicle traffic or to have discussions on private property where the owner is your host, this is not cut and dry.
….
The FCC does not allow people to speak the same way as they do in private. Since it crosses state lines,starting in 1925 regulations were put in. It was a limitation due to it being a different medium.
…
Since a person with a contagious illness crosses state lines, then an uninsured person commuting or traveling across state lines makes it a federal, not a state issue.
…
Logistically, using the free rider problem, you can see why states will never do much for things like health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem.
…
If one state had the luxurious French health care system and the one next to it had nothing and low taxes, then all of the businesses would go to the second state and all of the sick people would go to the one with French style health care until they are healthy and run away before they are healthy and paying taxes.
…
So, in addition to the constitution permitting it, if you say for many of these things “Not the Federal Government” your, in reality (even if you do not intend to) “No state or local government, either” will provide affordable health care.
…

Justmy02Cents -

You are clearly ignorant. There has been nothing wrong with the legislative process for passing this Health Care Bill.

Furthermore to intimate that it is unconstitutional is really ridiculous, given that Congress has the authority to tax, and to regulate Commerce.

The whole freaking Health Insurance industry is considered commerce.

And if your concern is around MANDATING purchasing goods/services by Congress, then I have this wonderful piece of precedence for your tiny brain to absorb.

This was set by our first President, George Washington, in the Militia Act of 1792 (in effect until 1903) required essentially every male of military age to own a musket or rifle and ammunition.”

This was somewhat controversial, because what to do about poor people who could not afford to purchase an rifle??? One such documented argument was as follows”

“Mr. Burke … This, he said, was called the land of liberty … and yet we are going to make a respectable class of citizens pay for aright to a free exercise of their religious principles…”

The stupidity of those who claim to be in support of liberty and the constitution always amazes me, because they typically know NOTHING about the constitution. And they certainly don’t support the concept of freedom, otherwise why would they be so willing to deny the rights of others to choose freely?

Moreover, you don’t get the point, that you are exactly the type of population the founding fathers feared – ignorant, and instilled with fear, unable to make the right decisions.

Which is why they wisely set up the government, so that we would have representative democracy, and to have an electoral college to select our President. Because they didn’t want the general stupidity of the masses to make dumb decisions for their times.

You are such a liar, everything you have said indicates you are a faithful of Fox News and Glenn Beck, why don’t you just come out of your little closet and admit that you are a TeaBagger???

Just,
I have only been goofing around in the swamp here for less than two months.
I must have run across twenty people all saying what you are saying.
…
I do have reason to believe that the source you trust most is Fox “News”.
…
It is an extremely conservative, pro-business, anti-worker, pro-religion, anti-secular, pro-war place compared to everything out there – including people you meet in person and non-commercial blogs – you have to see it as an agenda, not a news source.
…
When she came near the concept of the widows of 9/11 being happy that their husbands were dead, any reasonable and responsible news organization would have fired Coltour.
…
Over the past fourteen years since Fox opened it’s doors, the rest of the media has, to a lesser extent, seeking huge audience, moved to the right.
…
Rush Limbaugh was a loud mouth only for AM radio which just gave up playing “music of your life” (World War II generation music) in the late 1980s and early 1990s since the World War II generation was dying off and/or not shopping enough for advertisers, to being allowed on CBS.
….
Starting with Fox, absurd opinions have become totally acceptable.
….
How are we going to live in a country where what usually is called defamation of character is being called “news”?
….
Sometimes it seems like on this blog that all of you are coming out of a factory all saying the same talking points.
…
I’m nobody famous. I am nobody special. I am a commercial real estate agent in New York. I read sources like the New York Times and, sometimes, the Wall Street Journal and see a totally different world than you do.
…
Why?
Fox “news”.
…
After people with your distorted views coming from Fox come on calling us all Communists, Fascist (which makes no sense since Fascists – and Nazis were Fascists – based their ideology on “racial purity” and Obama is, if you noticed, half black) Anti-Christian, Anti-American, Anti-Family, against the constitution, it sometimes, is more fun to call you people dumb.

Uh, 02cents, you are very confused. Ann Coulter is in no way, sister or otherwise, related to Alan Colmes. However, Colmes is married to the sister of a different conservative blond commentator Monica Crowley, a regular on the McLaughlin Group.
.
Just pointing out that details and accuracy don’t seem to mean much to you.

And she never clerked for the Supreme Court, neither of the US or even any state, and she’s not a constitutional lawyer. She was a former corporate lawyer.
.
02cents, why do you make up facts wholesale, when fact-checking these little things is so simple? I’m starting to feel sorry for your very poor grasp of reality.

Actually, 02cents, “provid(ing) for the general welfare” is a direct quote and your interpretation is your interpretation, not the Supreme Court’s nor the accepted precedent of the land. Congress’s further powers in that regard are enumerated under Article 1, Sections 7&8, so I’m at a loss to explain why to conveniently ignore these very obvious sections of a document you claim to know. Both health care and health care insurance is covered under the Commerce Clause of those sections.
.
As many have pointed out, the individual mandate is actually a Republican idea, so if you have a beef about that, your complaint is directed at the wrong party. Nevertheless, there are lots of things you are forced to “buy” such as Social Security “Insurance” (the official title) and passports and driver’s licenses.
.
It’s hard to explain these things to a person who “feels” oppressed even though rationally and factually, you are not (at least not by this bill). Are you complaining because you don’t have insurance and don’t want it? Or is this all theoretical because you either have it through an employer or through Medicare? If you already have insurance, why do you feel oppressed? If you don’t, why aren’t you glad that you will now be able to afford peace of mind? I honestly am at a loss as to what you’re upset about.

02cents: If this is a states’ rights issue for you, aren’t you aware that states can opt out of the individual mandate? It’s right there in the bill.

nibblybits,

my mistake…I really did have the wrong blond…

I still think Ann’s comment was hilarious and had some veracity.

Her other statements not-withstanding….which I did not endorse.

the point is that the US Constitution is less than 5000 words compares to this bill that is greater than 2000 pages…seems like a lot of not so plain language that is intended to leave a lot of wiggle room to shoehorn in the agenda that had to be left out to gain passage.

Patrick,

you seem quite the gentleman and well versed and read too. perhaps you need to let go of the Fox fixation.
I have NEVER watched a FOX news broadcast in its entirety and admit to watch it and CSPAN for election coverage….there I have confessed……

I have health insurance, we both work for small businesses and I fear the onerous nature of this legislation for the small business community.

One of the MAJOR selling points was to cover ALL Americans and it fall woefully short of doing that.

One of the MAJOR selling points was to contain healthcare costs and health insurance costs and I cannot see any likelyhood of taht happening.

One of the MAJOR points was that EMPLOYERS would have to “do the right thing” is patently false because forcing the employer to PAY for health insurance will go directly to the bottom line of the enterprise in some way…either lower salary, higher prices for the good or service produced, lower quality of the good or service produced….passing the cost elsewhere is plain and simple NIMBY someone has to PAY.

Installing a multilevel federal administrative structure ADDS costs to the process and increases the FEDERAL PAYROLL and other Operating costs…..so that means that $1.00 going into it comes back a LESS THAN $1.00 in benefit….how is that beneficial.

Should we even address the PRIVACY issue of being forced to allow personal information to be acessed by multiple federal agencies far beyond what exists today.

Enforcement by the IRS is absolutely repugnent and onerous….how can you support that….how much of your personal liberty are you willing to give up.

Finally (I think … although there may be more) this is a classic example of “the end justifies the means” and we all know that that approach does NOT serve anyones needs.

Complaining about the rich business owners and the disparity of salary between staff and risk takers is BOGUS.

You have as much opportunity as anyone else to formulate an idea, develop a plan, and start take your own risks….succeed or fail and try again….Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard started in a garage, Sergey Brin immigrated here from USSR when he was 6 years old….you could be them….so stop complaining and make something of yourself. Class Envy ( I admit a WABC radio term) is crap…

I feel that my personal liberty is being taken away and that I will eventually be forced to nurture at the Federal teat….and that makes me sick.

I am a free thinker and would find it soul satisfying to listen to erudite dialog between any opposing parties i.e. Louis Farrakhan and Mr. Duke of the KKK, Eli Weisel (sp) and the Guiding light of the Islamic Republic.

hearing their views would help inform me and help me create my own opinion.

p.s.
statchick,
You are rude and offensive…if you have anything constructive to contribute at least be civilized and demure. Your comments do not contribute to the healthy discussions that Patrick and Nibbly are having.

Nibbly/Patrick,

I meant to write that I also listened to Air America until it crashed for lack of listeners and still listen to WABC and NPR while I am travelling.

I have CNN, the WSJ online and have FOXnews on my Google home page.

Just cannot bring myself to read the NYT really too over the top with agenda, distortions, and unfair reporting for me.

The basis for Free Press is to cultivate an informed electorate…but is comes with a responsibility to provide honest and unbiased information to that electorate….ALL of the news outlets both electronic and print fail at this responsibility.

It is not just how something is reported, it is also the selection of WHAT to report that jades ALL of them. Modern journalism is an utter failure. IMO

Wow!
You liked Air America but not the New York Times.
…
I know both and found Air America far, far to the left of the New York TImes.
…
In Economics class one thing I learned was that inflation does not go up dramatically due to minimum wage increases. If the minimum wage doubles, it would cause 5% inflation.
…
So, what am I talking about with the minimum wage when that was not a direct topic?
The lowest fifteen percent of workers do not have employer provided health care.
Although, definitely, the costs will get passed on the same way an increase in the minimum wage would.
Therefore, having employers of low wage workers pay for health insurance would do very little to overall prices, profits and quality of goods and services. Nobody short of PhD in Labor Economics could give you a realistic number about that, so, I have no estimate of how much, but, most likely far, far less than 5%. (Perhaps less than 1%).
…
The bill, by the way, can be downloaded or read online here at the Swamp. I downloaded it. It is 902 pages. I am self employed and kill way, way, way too much time here as it is, so, I only very briefly skimmed the first forty pages.
…
It is far less than 2000 pages is my point.
…
With constitutional law being the hardest specialty for attorneys, I would disagree with anybody who says that they find the constitution an easy document to reasonably interpret despite it’s relatively short length.
The constitution was designed to be the outline in which to build the story of this country, not a finished product.
…
So, you know about Sweet Annie from being online?
She can spew more venom than room full of King Cobras. She is a little bit biased, to say the least.
…
Air America is fine but NYT too liberal… I can’t agree with that, but, basically, who cares?

Pat,

AA, WSJ, WABC, and NYT none are doing the job in exchange for their “freedom of the Press’

HR3200 was >2000 pages, I skimmed all and read much of it….

I disagree of the Consitution being an outline it is the mission statement and defines the process by which changes to it can be made….it clearly defines limitations of the federal government. There have been some needed changes to it, and some overly-broad interpretations of it in the name of progress and modernity.

It is NOT an easy read, I had to read many paragraphs over and over…but in the end it “informed” me and my opinions about America.

I still do not believe that it defines a right to health care or a right health insurance.

The belief does NOT conflict with my belief that a person should have health insurance…of their own choice.

I believe that health insurance costs would be reduced by:

tort reform
interstate portability
a-la-carte policy features
local (as in state) level control.

It seems that you ignore the free-will aspect of Americans in that if a restaurant allows smoking and you personally object to a smokey restaurant you have every opportunity to not patronize that restaurant and then , in time, if enough others feel the same way…..the restaurant will fail of it’s own policies…this obvoiusly requires patience and faith that the market will “speak” to the owners who will then change their policy or fail….however, if enough people patronize the smokey restaurant who the heck is the government to force the restaurant to change it’s policy?

If a driver does not wear a seatbelt and gets injured as a result he has no one to blame but himself and he bears the consequences.

If I eat 20 big Macs fries and Cokes a week and become overweight and sick, it is nobodies fault but my own and I bear the consequences..Why should Mayor Bloomberg try to force me to eat differently? ( which seems to be next on his hit list)

If I do not have health insurance and need medical treatment, I bear the responsibility and cost. (naturally this statement EXCLUDES ER treatment which is an ancilliary cost of doing business for the hospital similar to advertising, postage, and rent to other businesses.)

to sum it all up, this legislation does NOT accomplish it’s stated goals, costs more than is being advertised, will probably be changed to include unpopular features that have NOT been voted on, will create a massive infrastructure to administer it, encroaches on my CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy, and empowers the most heinous federal government agency to enforce it..the IRS.

so please explain what is GOOD and beneficial about it.

In NYC smoking in restaurants and bars is punishable by fine.
I do not object to that.
I smoke two packs a day.
It costs $10 a pack.
…
I need to quit.
…
Why would I end up being a smoker?
Well, with no other vices (I rarely drink) other than coffee (close to totally harmless unless I really gulped down a huge amount – which I don’t) when I was 19 and heard “almost everybody” gets addicted and has a hard time quitting, I did not know that I would be a part of “almost everybody”.
…
At $10 a pack, if I were 19 right now, I would have never gotten beyond a few cigarette a week and never gotten addicted to it.
…
Being online slightly – slightly – decreases the amount I smoke.
…
All media presenting opinions agreeing with and disagreeing with the government are good uses of freedom of speech. If the explanations for these points of view are brought about through clear thinking and logic, then it is all the better use of freedom of speech.
….
I find Fox News a very irresponsible news organization because it does not separate it’s commentators from it’s news. However, I would not say that the government could constitutionally do anything about it and, hypothetically, would protest a great deal if there was such an attempt. (I promise, that is not a part of Obama’s plans – winning over Fox to convince them to be better about his policies is his idealistic goal).
…
Saying that you had read through the constitution many times and, therefore, understand it completely to me (as a non-attorney myself) sounds like saying that you read through a medical encyclopedia and are, therefore, ready to do open heart surgery on friends.
…
What’s good about this bill: the working poor will all have an insurance card in their pockets and choose to either stay ill or get healthy whenever or however they would like. I call that freedom like civil rights was adding to freedom.

Just,
One thing that many libertarians and conservatives often forget it that not everybody agrees with them.
…
Just as liberals (and, in some cases libertarians) had to suffer during the twelve years of Republican control of both houses until 2006 and twenty out of twenty eight years of Republican presidents, this is our turn now that we have the majority.
…
We had to pay for things we disagreed with.
…
We had to make due with less government services when taxes for those who could most easily afford taxes got big cuts.
…
Now that the majority are in favor of government protecting people against abuses of the private sector (including cigarettes not being under FDA regulations and not being yet having it’s taxes diverted to pay for smoking related illnesses) you have to kick back, relax and deal with it and don’t expect many converts after we saw what Republicans (some more like libertarians, others like Theocrats and yet others more like nationalists ignoring world opinion) did to this country.
…
We want it back and intend to keep it unless you win the majority again.