Gentlemen and women start your lawyers.
Let the court challenges begin.
In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin outlines the territory. Here’s how the article opens:
Opponents of the health-care overhaul awaiting President Barack Obama’s signature said Monday they would quickly file legal challenges, potentially giving the U.S. Supreme Court a fresh opportunity to reopen questions about the limits of federal power.
The focus of the legal attacks will be an argument that Congress has no right under the Constitution to mandate that individuals buy health insurance, or to require states to establish and oversee insurance exchanges through which individuals and businesses would buy health coverage, according to opponents of the measure.
“This bill fundamentally changes the constitutional architecture under which we’ve been operating,” said David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer hired by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum to challenge the law. Mr. McCollum is a leader of a coalition of Republican attorneys general who have said they will sue to block provisions of the bill.
The challenges, if they reach the Supreme Court, could result in a new test of the meaning of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which 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.”
This was, however, already tried in the 1930s when the Social Security Act was passed. So how do the challengers expect the 10th Amendment precedents to vanish now?
Read the rest here.
UPDATE: Commenter Mavis Beacon flagged this excellent rundown of the legal issues by Zachary Roth over at TPM.
AND WHILE WE’RE ON THE TOPIC OF COURT CHALLENGES…..
In what Constitutional attorney, Ted Olson, describes as something of a Hail Mary pass (or words to that affect), Prop 8 loving, gay marriage-hating types are now challenging the whole idea of a trial to look at the constitutionality of Proposition 8.
Adam Liptak writes about the Issue in Tuesday’s NY Times. Here are a couple of clips:
Opponents of same-sex marriage have long said the issue does not belong in the courts. Lately they have gone a step further.
They say Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, made a serious mistake by calling for a trial in a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage rather than deciding the case based on paper submissions.
[SNIP]
Theodore B. Olson, who was solicitor general for President George W. Bush and now represents the plaintiffs challenging the ban, said he had a theory about the new objections.“They’ve got to complain about something,” Mr. Olson said. “They think they’re going to lose.”
Here’s Olson on Monday’s Talk of the Nation.
It’s quite a thoughtful interview with Olson.
Closing arguments are expected soon.
HEALTH CARE REFORM, YES, BUT NOT FOR ROBERT HOLLISTER
In Tuesday’s LA Times, a man named Robert Hollister tells about his fight with cancer. Although his cancer had metastasized he remained optimistic becase he was getting the best care, and the best innovative treatments—because he had good insurance.
Then he was laid off after 20 years. And his COBRA has just about run out.
Unfortunately, there are a alot of Robert Hollisters out there.
The “day after” opposition to this bill is desperate and, not to put too fine a point on it, very much in the crazy column.
I swear to God I was channel surfing yesterday and saw Glenn Beck running footage of Pearl Harbor being bombed, pointing to the screen and yelling “This is where we are today with this health care bill.” The beauty of this is that the more GOPers bend to that strategy – which I predict they will – they are committing the political suicide that they’ve been predicting for Democrats.
Beck may be crazy, but he matters to the diminishing hard-Right GOP base which they’ve increasingly decided to play to.
Not-insane-conservative David Frum’s column nails it – “Republican Waterloo.” They can’t repeal all of the popular stuff that’s actually in the bill. But I hope to God they try. Even Mitt Romney is arguing against a bill that models his own strategy for health care reform, calling for “Repeal !” So is the bitter old loser, McCain. Palin will be out in front on this, trying to drive up her payoff when she signs the next TV contract. This should become the national platform for the GOP in November – at least if my wish comes true. It might even give Dems a chance to dodge the cyclical mid-term bullet and guarantees no possiblity of a “wipeout” by GOPers. Good times for Democrats. (Woody and SureFire are welcome to argue the politics of this with David Frum. I don’t have time to help “conservatives” who have turned into whirling dervishes try to get back to planet Earth for oxygen.)
Nagourney outlines the situation in today’s Times:
David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization, said Republicans had tried to defeat the bill to undermine Mr. Obama politically, but in the process had given up a chance of influencing a huge bill. Mr. Frum said his party’s stance sowed doubts with the public about its ideas and leadership credentials, and ultimately failed in a way that expanded Mr. Obama’s power.
“The political imperative crowded out the policy imperative,†Mr. Frum said. “And the Republicans have now lost both.â€
“Politically, I get the ‘let’s trip up the other side, make them fail’ strategy,†he said. “But what’s more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? It was a go-for-all-the-marbles approach. Unless they produced an absolute failure for Mr. Obama, there wasn’t going to be any political benefit.â€
Republicans also face the question of what happens if the health care bill does not create the cataclysm that they warned of during the many months of debate. Closing out the floor debate on Sunday night, the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, warned that the legislation would be “the last straw for the American people.†Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, proclaimed several hours earlier, “Freedom dies a little bit today.â€
Yet there are elements of the bill, particularly in regulating insurers, that could well prove broadly popular, and it could be years before anyone knows whether the legislation will have big effects on health care quality and the nation’s fiscal condition. Indeed, most Americans with insurance are unlikely to see any immediate change in their coverage, and several Republicans warned that the party could pay a price for that.
“When our core group discover that this thing is not as catastrophic as advertised, they are going to be less energized than they are right now,†Mr. Frum said.
He warned that the energy Republicans were finding now among base voters would fade.
The head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, offered a similar argument. “When this bill goes into effect, and none of the things Republicans warned about begin to happen — none of the death panels, none of the government takeover, none of the socialism — Republicans will have no credibility,†Mr. Menendez said.
You can’t be shouting about “death panels”, “government takeover” and “socialism” one day and shift to “well, I don’t agree with the CBO score and the bill might cost more” the next if you want to be taken seriously by the American people. We’re not that stupid, despite the fringe groups in funny hats.
Pollster Stanley Greenberg in todays NYT:
Democrats… if one averages polling by the Associated Press; CNN; and NBC/Wall Street Journal — now hold a 9-point average advantage on the question of which party would do a better job with health care.
In addition, Republicans may have crossed a line with voters, particularly independents. In our Democracy Corps poll, we found that favorability ratings among independents for incumbent Republican members of Congress had dropped by 11 points in the last month, to just 42 percent. The Republican vote among independents in the Congressional ballot dropped by 12 points.
What a desparate attempt, using the 10th amendment (States Rights), to destroy the HCB. These proto fascists have a double foam going and I think the reason is becoming very obvious. I listened to a bunch of these screeching, whining, right wing banshees, on the radio last night and they all ended up with the same conclusion, “Obama is a black man, and therefore is arrogant and a crook, and is beholding to AL Sharpton and Africa, and the Muslims, and the Commies, and the Illuminati’s, and on and on.
It seems it’s all about pissed off white people, tea baggers, the religious right, and chambers of commerce, still incensed about the President of the United States being a black man.
These nut jobs are probably not even concerned so much about the new Federal Health Care Bill, it’s just that Barack Obama (and Nancy Pelosi,and Hillary,they seem to be pissed that women have such power too), showed such dilligence, courage, and toughness, and was successful even in the face of all the white man rage directed at him from the right wing. I couldn’t even believe Newt Gingrich’s statement that HCR was the worst thing for the country since the 1960’s Civil Rights legislation was inacted, well on second thought maybe I can.
If these right wing States Rights advocates don’t want Health Reform in Alabama or South Carolina or Idaho or Texas, then I wish they could somehow refuse any Federal Benefits. It would be something to see when all these Foghorn’s constituents are cut off from not only Health Care Benefits but Food Stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and any other Federally mandated programs and benefits.
Of course our current Supreme Court wackadoodles like Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, will probably vote to shoot down HCR on the basis of a violation of the Tenth Ammendment, I wouldn’t be surprised, it would be par for the course for those reactionaries.
First – Many Democrats will be turned out of office BECAUSE the economy will continue to dive and the employment picture will get worse.
Second – Most of the Republicans agree with:
1) getting rid or pre-existing condition in insurance.
2) stopping insurance companies from dropping sick people
3) allowing kids to stay on their parents insurance plans
4) Closing the donut hole in Medicare.
But what they will fight is the Federal Government requiring a person to buy a product or go to jail, which clearly seems unconstitutional.
Imagine if the Government required every person in the USA to buy and read – Ann Coulter’s or Glenn Becks latest book or go to jail. Some namby-pamby progressives might protest and say this was unconstitutional even though it would broaden their perspective.
It would have been better to pass Alan Grayson’s (buy into Medicare) bill which simply allows everyone to buy into Medicare and then provide vouchers for the poor (just like school choice).
Pokey, requiring everybody in the USA to buy a specific book would be wrong, but probably not unconstitutional. Sometimes I think conservatives believe the constitutions reads, “Yeah, whatever Newt says.”
More seriously, what I hear from Pokey and surefire is that there was plenty of room for compromise with the Democrat’s bill – they don’t phrase it that way, but if you look at the specific complaints it seems so. Unfortunately for them, their Republican leaders made a political decision to eschew compromise. That was the position that, as far as I can tell, every conservative on this site supported. But you lost. You gambled and you lost. Obama and the Democrats were not weakened and you didn’t get the kind of policy compromise that was well within reach. Tough noogies.
Reg, I don’t think it’s in the bag, but I would be very surprised if the court overturned health care reform. It would overturn a shit ton of precedent, appear incredibly partisan, and generally draw an inordinate amount of political attention to the court. Scalia and Thomas might try, but I think Roberts is way too shrewd.
Pokey (and what’s with the new, odd name spelling???)
You don’t go to jail, you just get fined, as with car insurance.
But, yes, pity about Grayson’s bill. That’s what so many of us wanted and needed.
Unfortunately the conservatives would have really flipped out around that one—if more flipping out was possible.
Votes didn’t kill homosexual marriage in California. Let’s try courts!
Well, on mandates to buy insurance, it’s one thing to buy insurance for the privilege of driving a car (an example that Obama uses). It’s another thing to mandate insurance just because you were born! I don’t recognize the authority of the U.S. government to do that and never will.
Very interseting observation by Reg that Naral Supporter is a narccicist.
48 Comments
Naral Supporter 33% Reg 31%
11 Comments
Reg 36% No one else even close
55 Comments
Reg 34% No one else even close
It would appear that as soon as someone else attempts to dominate the discourse with passionate opinions that others disagree with or interpret as angry Reg opines that they are sick and narccicistic.
The numbers tell us Reg does it on a continual basis.
Oh those numbers. The things they reveal. There for everyone to see.
Those were the numbers from the last three topics Celeste posted on, excluding this current one due to it not being finished yet.
Talking Points Memo put together an excellent overview of the varied legal perspectives on the matter: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/could_scotus_be_the_death_panel_for_health-care_reform.php?ref=fpblg
Woody – you are forced to buy into the insurance system that pays for the health care system – either through a (modest) fine or coverage that the government helps you buy if it goes above a set % of income, for the privilege of not being turned away – by law – if you need emergency care and have failed to cover your own needs responsibly. Folks in poverty are eligible for Medicaid or subsidies. This is a form of taxation – at the end poiint where someone is fined for not participating in the health insurance pools – to support a vital public service that EVERYBODY can use if they really need it, just like the fire department.
The hysterics over this simple bit of social solidarity – that makes as much sense and is as defensible as taxation for highways, police departments, fire departments and the rest of it – is absurd and, at bottom, simply childish. People who oppose this are not conservatives, they are right-wing ideologues trying to promote the reactionary and radical ideology that any social solidarity or taxation is illegitimate. Their point of reference – whether they’re literate enough to know it or not – is the ideology, not of conservative icons Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but to the crank assertions of pop novelist, supreme narcissist and self-styled atheist-materialist “philosopher” Ayn Rand. These arguments are a bad, intellectually primitive joke, just like Rand’s novels except without the sex.
What??? There are no sex scenes in the Republican court challenges? Where’s the fun in that???
Statistician – I didn’t assert that NARAL was a narcissist based on the number of comments but on the promotion of a failed strategy promoting a single issue obsessively at the expense of successfully extending social insurance to millions of people. Just like Dennis Kucinich’s narcissism when he was threatening to sink the bill because it wasn’t single payer and Bart Stupak’s narcissism when he was threatening to kill the bill because he, falsely, thought it wasn’t within the Hyde amendment strictures.
Read their comments and read mine, to the point that NARAL started calling me a bigot or some such. I stand by mine. NARAL had nothing of substance except hurt feelings that the agenda on the table wasn’t identical to his/hers. This included false charges against our host that were, frankly, beyond the pale.
So, with all due respect, shove it up your ass.
We don’t know what goes on under those robes…
oops – that was for Celeste at #15.
Statistician – with this note to you I am at 9 of the 19 posts on this thread, because I want to move from “Narcissist” to “Megalomaniac” status on your charts. That would be very cool.
reg says
This included false charges against our host that were, frankly, beyond the pale.
So, with all due respect, shove it up your ass.
Now you are flat out lying. Is this because you are angry with me? Do you just make things up as you go? SHOW US where I accused Celeste of anything, much less anything that is “beyond the pale”. But again, here you are being rude, using vulgar language toward someone you disagree with and showing your immaturity.
NARAL” “Celeste…I’m surprised you would support resticting the rights of poor women.”
Because you can’t read in context or understand a contingent argument, you are reduced to making false charges and, in my case, name-calling.
This puts me at 11 of 22 – Bingo!
Sorry Reg. Doesn’t cut it. I’m stating a fact. Not accusing Celeste of anything.
Poor women don’t have the right to have an abortion paid for by the government. THAT’S A FACT….NOT AN ACCUSATION.
And because it’s a FACT….It is certainly NOT beyond the pale.
I guess we can put this to bed if you will answer one question Reg.
Do you believe a woman’s right to choose is a civil rights issue?
It IS a FACT that the bill restricts the right of a woman who cannot pay for an abortion to have one paid for by the government. Celeste supports the bill.
THOSE ARE FACTS.
Now, tell us again who couldn’t read the context of things.
For the record, I am happy for the millions of uninsured Americans who will now be getting healthcare coverage. The bill had good things in it.
Where we part ways is that I believe a woman’s right to choose is a civil rights issue. ESPECIALLY when the rich women have access to medical procedures that poor women don’t. Isn’t that what the HCB is all about? Providing insurance to people who cannot afford it? I have heard politician after politician state that healthcare is a civil rights issue.
I believe they are correct. I also believe that a woman’s right to choose what takes place within HER OWN BODY is a civil rights issue.
I am NOT willing to compromise on civil rights issues. That is where we differ.
Hey, NARAL Supporter,
For the record, although you disagreed with me vehemently, I never felt you directed anything at me personally, which I genuinely appreciate.
You did accuse others of unpleasant things rather liberally though. It would be good if we could disagree over these difficult and important issues without name-calling. (But you are far from the first to indulge here.)
You need to study logic. Since the bill added no restrictions that didn’t already exist AND I have seen no evidence that Celeste supports the Hyde amendment, supporting this bill is not the same as supporting the Hyde amendment. The bill is neutral in that it adds or subtracts nothing from the existing statutes. So your charge that because she supports this bill, Celeste “supports restricting the rights of poor women” is false and tendentious, at best. As for a woman’s right to choose, the Supreme Court has declared it a constitutional right to privacy issue. I would like to see it further codified legislatively and the Hyde amendment struck down by Congress, but we’re a long way from that. Your histrionics and ugly charges don’t help.
Celeste – you may not take it personally, but NARAL went out of his/her way to mischaracterize your support of the bill as “support for restricting the rights of poor women.” That’s not a reasonable contention nor a useful form of framing the argument. You were being accused of something that you clearly do not support. Tht you didn’t take it personally as a foul ball in the debate suggests you are a nicer person with a more even temper than I am, but I believe I’m right in my characterization of that claim and NARAL was wrong.
Jail Time
The IRS is hiring 16,000 enforcers who will be given the authority to fine taxpayers thousands of dollars, and jail them if the individual does not purchase health care insurance.
Also, your insistence that the bill also overturn Hyde would have been a poison pill legislatively and the bill would have died a very early death. THAT is significant, while Celeste’s (and my) support of the bill despite it’s conforming to the existing Hyde formula (along with every other piece of health-related legislation in recent years) obviously has no consequences as regards existing federal-funding-for-abortion law, but DOES give poor women, among others, more options and more assistance in getting general medical coverage for themselves, their children and their entire families. You are the one who is actually taking the position to deny more rights to poor women by taking a stand that would have scuttle this non-abortion-related health reform bill.
Reg, yes, I quite understand. NARAL conflated the two issues. And thank you for coming to my defense.
“The IRS is hiring 16,000 enforcers….”
Cool! A jobs program!
Celeste,
I appreciate that you did not take our disagreements or my language as a personal attack on you. It certainly was not meant to be. I believe you understood the context of what I was saying. Some on the other hand have to immediately take an adversarial position when somebody disagrees with their opinion. As far as saying unpleasant things rather liberally, you are correct. I was wrong. I should not sink to that level of immaturity. As far as not being the first here to engage in that, perhaps my incorrect thinking was that I should fight fire with fire. That is what causes the world to be a violent place.
When you fight fire with fire, it’s both person’s hands that get burned.
Question for NARAL – if Medicaid didn’t exist and were being proposed for the first time, with Hyde in place as law, and it were clear that politically Hyde couldn’t be overturned via passage of Medicaid, would you oppose a program to provide extensive medical coverage for poor people, even though it couldn’t include funding abortions as part of the bill ? Because that’s your “logic” here, inescapably. If the answer is “Yes, I would oppose”, you really need to have a chat with yourself about how much you care about the rights of poor women.
Maybe it is statements like this that cause the level of decorum to deteriorate so quickly.
So, with all due respect, shove it up your ass.
Reg, I notice you refuse to answer the question I asked you while in turn asking me to answer a question of yours. Is that the way you treat people? Totally disregarding their questions while expecting yours to be answered by them?
Reg,
Maybe you misunderstood my question I asked of you prior to you asking me a question. So I’ll ask it again prior to answering yours.
Do you believe a woman’s right to choose what takes place WITHIN HER OWN BODY is a civil rights issue?
I stated that it’s been deemed a constitutional rights issue by the courts. I guess it could be termed a civil rights issue, if you are wedded to that language, but I wouldn’t use it. Some folks consider gun ownership a civil rights issue. Others consider medical marijuana a civil rights issue. Historically I associate civil rights with the civil right movement and don’t really go for stretching the rubric. I consider, as does the Supreme Court constitutionally, more of a personal rights issue. It’s not really a “civil” issue and shouldn’t be, by my understanding of civil rights.
Again, I don’t understand why this distinction is important except as semantics. I believe abortion is a personal decision and believe in a right to the woman making that decision in consultation with medical professionals in any decent society. Whether that’s “civil” as I understand it is questionable. I think by it’s very nature it’s outside of the “civil” sphere, unlike voting rights, racial or other discrimination in employment or attending schools. Once the government gets into providing health care for classes of people, the question of equitable funding and restrictions within public health systems does get into the terrain of civil rights, so you’ve probably got a point at that end of the discussion – but abortion per se is a personal right, not a civil right IMHO.
Also, I actually knew that pregnancy took place within a woman’s own body before you sprang the CAPS.
Healtchcare = Civil Rights.
It IS a civil rights issue.
The rich have always had access to healthcare.
The poor cannot afford it.
A bill is introduced to allow access to millions of poor Americans who can’t afford insurance to be covered by the federal government. OUTSTANDING…IT IS ABOUT TIME. In 2014 a poor man will have access to the same medical procedures as the rich. EVERYONE will have access to healthcare.
However (and maybe you’re so upset because this is taking a little of the glow off your buzz)
Rich women have always had access to abortion.
There are poor women who cannot afford it.
THAT REMAINS THE SAME.
2014. Nobody has ANYTHING until 2014. Was there that much of a need to rush this through and cow-tow to likes of Stupak and leave a certain portion of a civil rights issue that relegates 50% of the population to second class citizens where a CIVIL RIGHT is concerned?
Or could we have waited and put more political pressure on the right to lifers as the mid-term election neared? Stupak started caving as soon as he saw an out politically. How far would he have gone if the POTUS hadn’t been so concerned in getting this done so quickly? The POTUS rushed to get through. In doing so he had to compromise on a civil rights issue.
If you are truly a believer in civil rights, this has to give you pause. So before you start preaching to me Reg, suggesting that I “have a chat with myself about how much I really care about poor women”, maybe you should realize that I wasn’t the one jumping for joy and celebrating like the battle was won and over when the bill passed. While you were celebrating, I was the one deeply disapointed that poor women’s civil right’s were ignored.
And you were the one telling me I was crazy.
To answer your question in very short..in case you didn’t realize that I did so above, NO, I wouldn’t have compromised at this time. I don’t believe it was neccessary.
You said yourself the Repubics are signing their death knells, or whatever terminology you used. You posted the poll from the NYT showing that the public wanted the HCB. Do you have no faith in those polls? The POTUS rushed this thing through when there was absolutely no need to do so if in fact you believe that it is what the American people want.
KEY NUMBER…..2014
We had time. Why the rush? Time to include poor women who choose to have an abortion.
Reg,
Do you believe that healthcare is a civil right?
Good lord.
“Nobody has ANYTHING until 2014.”
Again, not true.
Reg,
I believe you answered my above question with your previous statement. Sorry to be redundant.
“the question of equitable funding and restrictions within public health systems does get into the terrain of civil rights, so you’ve probably got a point at that end of the discussion”
Thank you. My point EXACTLY.
“– but abortion per se is a personal right, not a civil right IMHO.”
Now IMHO you’re mincing words and playing semantics.
An abortion is a medical procedure.
Libertarians will tell you that if it’s not a life or death necessity it shouldn’t be paid for.
You’re saying it’s a “personal right”.
Getting a cleft palate fixed isn’t a life or death necessity. It could be termed a “personal right”.
Getting treatment for severe acne isn’t a life or death necessity. It could be termed a “personal right”.
And herein lies the problem when you choose to believe that healthcare is a civil right……..but abortion is a “personal right”
If healthcare is not a civil right, we should not expect the government to pay for it.
But it is, so we do. You can’t be for the bill without believing that healthcare is a civil right. Well, not logically anyway. It is my “personal right” to own a Ferrari, but I shouldn’t expect the government to provide it.
I don’t think health care is a “civil right.” I don’t consider having a fire department a civil right. I don’t consider electricity a “civil right.” I consider these essential social services in any reasonably well-organized society. There are a number of plans to make sure everyone comes under the umbrella of these services, some of them are simple government insurance, some are a mix of private-public insurance pools (even in France, where it’s not actually goverment but non-profits within a framework set by law.) My opinion is that this discussion is going from vitriolic and obfuscatory to silly.
Anybody ever seen this chart comparing the Republican 1993 health plan and the Senate bill that just passed into law? It’s incredible. I guess those 90’s Republicans were just radical socialists!
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx
NARALer, can I recommend you read this article and keep in mind that Planned Parenthood clearly thought the bill was worth signing: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/the-pro-choice-crowd-fights-back/
Your view, that Democrats could have passed a bill that was more friendly to abortion rights had they just waited, seems to me a very bad misreading of the political situation.
Since you don’t consider healthcare a civil right, I guess our discussion is over. The tone of our discussion may be silly to you, not me. Keep this in mind Reg. Your opinion that healthcare is not a civil right is the same opinion as the Repubics and Libertarians.
Their whole philosophy goes along these lines.
Healthcare is not a civil right.
Because it’s not a civil right covered by the constitution, it’s unconstitutional to raise some people’s taxes to pay for it while others don’t have to pay anything for the benefit received.
They believe it is wealth redistribution thru taxation.
Mavis says:
seems to me a very bad misreading of the political situation
Are you saying that the polls Reg cited and the statements he made regarding the current political climate untrue? Do you think we needed to pass this bill now because the American public doesn’t want it and we’ll lose seats in the House and Senate come the midterms?
reg Says:
I don’t think health care is a “civil right.†I don’t consider having a fire department a civil right. I don’t consider electricity a “civil right.†I consider these essential social services in any reasonably well-organized society
That’s a very slippery slope Reg. Do you ever listen to the conservative hacks? That’s exactly what they say. Seriously Reg, I’m not trying to be confrontational or argumentative. I’m simply asking you to consider your position on whether or not healthcare is a civil right.
Conservatives (I listen to the enemy to see what their tactics are) say exactly the same thing regarding healthcare. Then they back up their position with something like this:
“The people in Beverly Hills pay for their own police department, fire dept., and all the othe other citizens of Beverly Hills thru their taxes. They receive the benefits for the taxes they pay. It is unconstitutional for the citizens of Beverly Hills to be forced to pay for the social services of another municipality while receiving none of the benefits”.
I think you’re playing games. Obviously one can be pro choice w/out thinking it’s a civil right. Your purity test is bad politics and bad ethics.
I don’t think passing health care reform will be a drag at the polls overall but it will be in some districts and obviously (OBVIOUSLY!) many congressional dems were worried about it.
Goodnight, NARALer. I recommend you reconsider your view, but I don’t think I have any more to offer you on this.
They say the federal government has no right to force them to pay for a social service benefit of people outside their city, county or state. Whether it’s a police dept. or healthcare.
They are all big on states rights. They say the people in Texas should be able to decide whether or not they will participate in the HCB. They cite the 10th Amendment. That’s why all these red states are introducing Amendments that state they are not required to participate.
We need federal protection for the HCB. And the only way to do that is to assert that healthcare is a civil right. Without federal protection and oversight, each state will be able to administer the HCB as they see fit. If it’s not deemed a civil right, states will find a way around it.
I’m not playing games Mavis. I listen to them. I know what their philosophies are. To do battle without understanding your opponent’s tactics and philosophy is a very bad political strategy. It’s not fun, but it’s necessary to win.
Goodnight Mavis. Just trying to present my position to you in a civil tone. I appreciate your time and consideration.
Unlike Reg I’ll just be short and to the point. Based on everything pro and con I’ve read…we’re fucked.
The only good thing is that now the Dems will have a lot of explaining to do prior to the mid-terms and Obama, after he tries to push through immigration reform, will be round filed come election time in 2012.
Not sure it’s un-constitutional, unlike Reg I don’t know everything about everything but this is a battle that’s just started.
Naral Supporter, your civil rights arguement is ridiculous and it’s not only Republicans and Libertarians who think that way, it’s in my opinion the vast majority of the Democrats as well. Reg is pretty much soft in the head but he was actually right on this.
I can understand the bitterness expressed by conservatives.
Just a few weeks ago they were dancing with joy and shouting “Health care is dead”.
Now they sit outside in the cold as Obama signs the very law they were so sure was doomed.
They assumed that Obama was wounded and on the ropes and that all it would take would be a easy blow to the chin.
Instead Obama dealt them a last hour knockout win leaving them dazed and bruised and wondering where they had gone wrong.
Everyone loves a winner and Obama will get a boost from the passage of a bill that just a few weeks ago everyone predicted was DOA.
Republicans can only lick their wounds and hope that the momentum will not die.
His boost will come from only Democrats so who cares? He’s still wounded and since his ego is almost as big as Reg’s he’ll come up with more stupidity as time goes on.
“Frazier goes down”!
Sure Fire, if the bill hadn’t have passed, you’d be claiming victory for Republicans, because Obama couldn’t get it passed, couldn’t get Dems united, etc. Now that he passes it you’re still saying he loses because Americans don’t like it? Weak cheese. You’re just finding sunshine wherever you can. Obama started talking about his health care plans the minute he announced his candidacy, and slaughtered his opposition. Now he’s going after wall street with his next bill, right on time for the mid terms.