One More Aftershock from Tuesday’s Elections…

Thanks, Kate. Did you email Sebelius a question or did you (or will you) interview her outright for dead-tree or future swamppost, sitdown style, the works? I’d like more thoughts from her (and you) about the upcoming legal drama. Or perhaps do a video for the TIME video page? After all, since Jay and Joe are already on tv / online as media starlets, you, Katy, and Adam need to get your faces out there too, literally.

If it is a constitutional question who cares how many states “sign on” to the suit?
.
Either it is or isn’t constitutional.

Agreed, the only way this really matters is if Governers are breaking the law by not implementing parts of ACA/HCR.

Anyone figure how much $ our governments (fed & state) stand to waste fighting/defending the law for years?

You can count on it. The folly of Obamacare will be an anchor around the democrats neck for the next two years and could well lead to Obama’s defeat in 2012. We are hearing from our seniors every day and they are NOT happy (with darn good reason, too) The AMA is now warning that 60% of doctors are threatening to limit or stop seeing new Medicare patients, so yes, they have EVERY reason to be unhappy. Democrat lawmakers loved this bill so much, they failed to include themselves in its coverage….now, I wonder, just why would they do that? Could it be they know something they did not bother to share with the public? Obamacare is a fraud, pure and simple.

Earl, this law is constitutional. The commerce clause clearly supports Congress’s power to write healthcare legislation and even require payment and coverage. The lawsuits are likely baseless and most will be resolved in 6 months. As far as the AMA warning that 60% of doctors are threatening to limit or stop seeing Medicare….that number has actually gone down. You see, while many doctors are unhappy about receiving less pay from the Government….they are far fewer than those who were worried about the system going bankrupt and receiving no money at all. The healthcare bill is/was necessary. A full repeal would/will result in an explosion in health insurance premiums as insurance companies have to back out all of the premiums they stand to take in from the young and relatively healthy. Nice try though, but your information is simply not accurate.

I think earl that the GOP is trying put a millstone around it’s own neck.

It is a constitutional question, and therefore if only one claim of injury is put forth that should be enough. Unfortunately, the Court is becoming more and more of a social diva, clamoring and preening for popularity and likeability.

I beg to differ, bryan. Obamacare will be the gift that keeps giving for the GOP. It is bad now and it is only going to get worse. People are getting their premiums .0and are shocked by what they are seeing. Keeping your children on your policy has been a real eye opener to some people and small business owners are expressing downright disgust at this new tax. As for the number of physicians threatening to drop Medicare, the percentage is going up, not down as you speculate. Medicare revenue, to many physicians, is more trouble than it is worth and with reimbursement dropping, why subject yourself to the hassle? As for Obamacare’s constitutionality….that remains to be seen. The law is highly subjective here.

Would it be wasteful if you thought the law was unconstitutional? Is the substantial mountain of constitutional challenges that created such understandings of the Constitution as a right to privacy or Miranda rights mere waste?

It’s morally wrong to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. It’s wrong to expect small business to absorb the outrageous insurance costs also.

– Balkingpoints / www

The commerce clause clearly supports Congress’s power to write healthcare legislation and even require payment and coverage.
.
Brian, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to regulate inter-state industries, such as the health-insurance industry. This would impose regulations on the consumers/providers within that industry. It does not, however, in my opinion, give Congress the authority to mandate individuals to enter into that industry. Certainly, there must be some practical difference between passing legislation regulating people’s willing involvement in commerce and passing legislation requiring people to unwillingly involve themselves in commerce. This nuance is emphasized by the fact that insurance companies are private entities and health-insurance is a private industry, so any arguments about providing for the general welfare are constitutionally moot given that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution applies to taxation, not private consumerism.
.
Now, if you would like to argue on more practical grounds, arguing that this bill makes sense, or that it is necessary, by all means, there are valid points to be made. But, arguing that the personal mandate is in any way sanctioned under Congress’ powers to regulate an industry is wholly unfounded.

Not necessarily, allthings, the percentage of Americans disliking this legislation keeps ticking higher and higher. This will become increasingly more true as each layer of Obamacare gets peeled back. Our seniors, in particular, are going to be raising a ruckus, because they will start feeling the adversary effects sooner than anyone else.

For God’s sake, stop calling it Obamacare, earl! I hate this piece of legislation for the government largess it enables and the unconstitutional impositions on the populace. Its symptomatic of the ailment of the statist mentality. But, calling this piece of garbled, big-brotherly legislation ‘Obamacare’ is just more of the childish, personalization consistent with the image you have branded conservatism with. Politics and government should be about ideas, not about people.

Thank you E_A_H for calling earl out on this. If this legislation is not what is needed to reform healthcare to minimize its impact upon the budget then what solutions do you have, as a conservative, to the dilemma that we face with limiting healthcare costs. I ask this with the intention of learning your view of what needs to be done to solve this problem.

Sorry exiled, but this is the moniker this piece of legislation is most commonly referred to. I did not coin the term, it was the media and some democratic lawmakers that started this process. Go to our website, physicians all across this country have adopted this same manner of speech. It has only become unpopular when the inadequacy of this legislation became known….otherwise, they loved it.

My concern is not about budgets or costs. It’s not about what is cost-effective nor practical. It’s not even about what is fair from a taxpayer’s perspective. These issues are peripheral, and to be frank, irrelevant in comparison to the only real issue that matters here: humanity. My solution, the only moral solution, in my opinion, is for our government to implement a system of universal health-care. For non-elective procedures and treatments necessary to maintain stable health, there should be no financial obligation from the patient. UHC, fully covered by progressive taxation (the only time you will hear me support such a scheme), is consistent with society’s obligation to provide for the least among us, it provides social justice.

It’s pedantic. And it’s not even fitting, given that President Obama never really advocated for this plan. This was a bill hammered out in the confines of Congressional corridors. Whether or not it has become common usage is irrelevant, the term itself still smacks of condescending triviality. Can we not discuss the roles of government in society, the soundness of policy and legislation, and the solutions to this nation’s massive problems without constantly indicting our President and inviting more partisan stalemates? I have no interest in Democratic or Republican platforms, no interest in individuals beholden to these dystopia-crazed movements. Ideas, Earl, ideas. Where are they?

Obama DID advocate this plan, exiled and even praised the lawmakers for pushing through legislation that would “change our history”. Did he even know what was in it? If he is as smart as many would like us to believe, he would have (should have) been appalled…his approval was for victory at any cost and no other reason. I am not a lawyer, exiled, I am a physician, but the lawyers at our university have been dissecting this legislation for months now and they tell us it is poorly written, full of loopholes and virtually, unmanageable. Contrary to what many progressives feel, the vast majority of physicians are FOR health care reform, but our attempts to be heard were largely ignored. Tort reform? we were told to forget it. Releasing the stranglehold of insurance companies? Instead they form a partnership with them and with big PhARma, too, so forget about competitive drug pricing. This legislation is a disaster waiting to happen, exiled. It could have been so much better, but partisanship got in the way of good sense. I am hopeful this election mandates cooperation between the parties and as a consequence, something good will result and we will SEE social justice. This legislation will require a major overhaul, just tweaking it, will not get it done.

You are right, it should not be about budgets or costs. I agree with your answer but I do not think it will fly in todays environment. UHC is needed but how do we get there. Repeal and replace or modify ACA to become UHC. Would that even be possible given its structure?

@ Exiled:
.
“For God’s sake, stop calling it Obamacare…”
.
As the only person here who hates both parties I’ll say this Exiled: Maybe people will stop calling it “Obamacare” when the more liberal people stop referring to Iraq and Afghanistan as “Bush’s War(s)” (more on the Afghanistan thing here because there’s a decent argument to be made about Iraq, it wrong but it’s still there).
.
Did anyone call Korea “Truman’s War”, or WWII “FDR’s War”? No.
.
Personally I don’t think there’s an argument to be made that the health insurance/health care industries “attacked America”. It’s been well documented why these costs rise and “Obamacare” did nothing to address those issues and those reasons have nothing to do with crazy people flying into buildings, bombing our ships or attacking a foreign nation under “our” protection.

“For God’s sake, stop calling it Obamacare, earl!”

.
Ack!! “Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya”
.
Now let us see what really happened.
.
Healthcare reform was put into the process by a totally controlled House and Senate by Pelosi and Reid, both DEMOCRATS. Many press reports indicated how deeply involved the White House was in making closed door DEALS in order to secure enough votes to pass this into law.
.
After all the sausage making, with little to NO Republican input, out pops what nearly 58% of all Americans deemed to be bad legislation, but according to Nancy Pelosi “we’ll know what’s in the bill after it is passed”.
.
Bill passes both the House and Senate despite 100% votes against by the Republican minority and cries from the public to go back to the table to come up with a better plan. The bill is sent to the President’s desk.
.
Bill is SIGNED into LAW by Obama. Thus, this new law, ACA is forever known as OBAMACARE. The crown jewel in the Democrat Party platform for over 60+ years has passed. The number ONE policy objective of the current Administration, even over one of the worst economic downturns in our country’s history. A number one policy initiative over job creation with unemployment over 10%.
.
And you want people to think “calling this piece of garbled, big-brotherly legislation ‘Obamacare’ is just more of the childish, personalization consistent with the image you have branded conservatism with.”
.
No, this is what you call our right under the Constitution to voice ourselves to show how a totally worthless law was passed. It is being literally SHOVED down our throats whether we want it or not. And so-called, self-professed conservatives like you want us to simply shut up and be politically correct?
.
Kiss my @ss. It is, it will always be OBAMACARE.

“My solution, the only moral solution, in my opinion, is for our government to implement a system of universal health-care. For non-elective procedures and treatments necessary to maintain stable health, there should be no financial obligation from the patient. UHC, fully covered by progressive taxation (the only time you will hear me support such a scheme), is consistent with society’s obligation to provide for the least among us, it provides social justice.”

.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case. Exiled (formerly Neo) is as conservative as a big fat rat’s @ss.
.
Anyone who promotes any form of socialism would and will cause all those conservatives who have come before us to spin, roll, and twist in their graves.
.
Just call yourself what you are, Neo. A PROGRESSIVE and be done with it. “The only time you will hear me support such a scheme”. Phifft!!
.
Someone not long ago in the recent past who had the discussion and promoted a “neo-Socialist” form of government like China. Isn’t that right Neo?
.
Someone who is in favor of unsecured borders and a liberal immigration policy. Someone who favors the vilification of Israel over Palestinian groups like Hamas.
.
The only thing you could even remotely be considered “conservative” is your anti-Abortion stance, and that is not even a conservative stand. It is a moral issue which you are driven to by your catholic up-bringing. Period.
.
Exiled, doesn’t want to be labeled a RINO, but we can definitely label him a CINO.

The ACA would have been a much better bill if they didn’t begin discussion by taking single payer off the table in order to appease the Republicans and “show they were negotiating in good faith.” That didn’t work out so well.

I’m tired of hearing over and over that there was no working with the Republicans. Doesn’t anyone remember that endless summer with Baucus and Grassley and their group yammering on? Baucus kept conceding and Grassley finally said it didn’t matter what was in it, he wasn’t voting for it anyway.

Why do we think it is fine for people to die from lack of care?

“Why do we think it is fine for people to die from lack of care?”

.
Sensationalism on this issue by liberals like you is par for the course.
.
Could you reference or cite any situations where someone was indeed dead due to “lack of care”.
.
I can cite several instances with both Canadian and British socialized medicine where they have citizens who were left to die.
.
Want to compare?

I should have said lack of care because they don’t have insurance.
.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/05/05/gvsc0505.htm
.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lack-of-insurance-causes-more-than-2009-09-17
.
Many more links. Google death lack of insurance.

Rusty,
I’m having a hard time figuring out how to respond to you. The only two conclusions I can draw of you are that you are, one, delusionally obsessed with antagonizing me because I don’t fit into your warped conception of what passes for a conservative these days, or, two, you’re just stupid. Either way, I’m not sure that my response would be a worthwhile use of my time.
.
On the slight off-chance that you are capable of rational thought, I would stress to you the fact that both American liberalism and American conservatism are inextricably tied to neo-classical liberalism. Both of which are antithetical to socialism.

It shouldn’t be “hard” to respond, Neo. Just tell it like it is. My only objection is how you and your liberal friends on this site want to vilify those of us who are most definitely more conservative than you are, but yet we are tossed out as being nothing more than 1. delusionally obsessed with antagonizing me because I don’t fit into your warped conception of what passes for a conservative these days, or, 2. you’re just stupid.
.
You can represent whatever you think you are on here. My objection is when you attempt to tell someone else how they should think or feel, especially when you want them to be a coddling conservative to the liberals who frequent this site just to remain civil to them so you can keep your self-professed title of “one of the sane and rational conservatives”.
.

Rusty, you’re are tossed out as a lunatic in my eyes because you constantly try to manipulate my words and tell me how to properly think like a conservative. I don’t give a damn what your views are, but when you label me a neo-socialist because of my views on universal health-care it only demonstrates your complete lack of conservative ideals. You’re not conservative. You’re Republican. That’s fine. But stop confusing the two.

With all due modesty I sort of feel it’s my job here to antagonize Neo.

Don’t listen to him, Rusty, me and PNNTO are best friends, we frolic in the meadows, zen meditate, and sing glorifying songs about our hero, Mao.

Oh dear.

Don’t fight the love, PNNTO.

Oh Neo, toss all you want buddy boy. But, you shall be challenged none-the-less.

Rusty,
Let us put aside your agenda for a moment and try to get reasonable. Would you be willing to explain to me what positions you presumably think that I take that demonstrate either an inclination towards the socialist mentality or an acceptance of the progressive platform? Don’t simply list, please explain how they are connected. Simply citing universal health-care won’t cut it.

Oh I wasn’t Neo, just was bracing.
.
I wish you well on finding common ground, or at least reasonable discourse, with The Physician.

It is understandable that newfreedomblog, having finally mastered a word with four, yes four! syllables, is reluctant to let it go.

If Republicans are serious about reducing government spending there are three policies they must implement immediately. A) eliminate restrictions on travel to Cuba. Cubans have better and cheaper healthcare than Americans and they need the dollars. B) Eliminate all aid to Israel. Only a complete moron thinks that supporting Israel enhances America’s security. C) Reduce defence spending by seventy per cent for a period of at least five years. America is largely alone in thinking that the ability to destroy the planet several times over is a laudable accomplishment, and, as Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown, the threats that America faces cannot be resolved by firepower alone, if at all.

8.2 – earl,

“Sorry exiled, but this is the moniker this piece of legislation is most commonly referred to. I did not coin the term, it was the media and some democratic lawmakers that started this process.”

Which media coined the moniker?

Which Democratic lawmakers coined the term?

6.1 – earl,

“Our seniors, in particular, are going to be raising a ruckus, because they will start feeling the adversary effects sooner than anyone else.”

What “adversary” effects are those? Please answer in detail:

Congrats Paul, you proved me wrong… there was 1 person dumb enough to say something like that. Only they didn’t use any names… so technically I am still correct (according to Futurama that’s the best kind of correct).
.
Seriously though. His rhetoric is the same as Obama… “hate your enemies (other Americans) and love your friends (better Americans).
.
Politicians on both sides make me sick. As do most of the people on here for blindly supporting one side or another.

Unfortunately, the Court is becoming more and more of a social diva, clamoring and preening for popularity and likeability.
.
Amen.

the percentage of Americans disliking this legislation keeps ticking higher and higher.
.
No, it doesn’t.
.
Once again Earl, all you do here is project your own narrow opinion about health care reform — which always seems to boil down to “screw the patients, health care reform will mean fewer shiny research toys for rich doctors and foreign elites who can afford our care!” — but the polling does not support your biased perspective.
.
The Kaiser Family Foundation poll has been the most thorough tracking poll on Americans’ attitudes to health care reform, and it shows support for the ACA increasing over the past year at a slow but steady rate.

I did not coin the term, it was the media and some democratic lawmakers that started this process.
.
Oh, bullsh!t. No Democrat ever called this “Obamacare.”

All I can say is that every politician isn’t worth $hit. You’re all terrible and that’s why America sucks now. Stop worrying about your pockets and worry about the future of your country.

We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs/ for details.

OT, but for every right-winger who relies on Rasmussen, this takedown from Nate Silver is a must read:
.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/when-house-effects-become-bias/
.
Rasmussen was the single least reliable polling outfit of this election cycle. It’s not surprising that Fox News relies on them to advance their bullsh!t narratives, but anyone who’s looking for an accurate take on Americans’ opinions should look to another pollster. Any other pollster.