of course not, but i am entitled to interpret the existing facts as i see them. one accepted fact is that legislation has been initiated to force state AG's to sue the US over the new health care law. another fact is that most of that legislation has not yet been passed. whether we call it "pending," or some other label, it seems to me more a publicity stunt by some zealous legislators (see: kucinich's impeachment articles against cheney) than something of any real import.

if said legislation passes in more than half of the states, then i'll acknowledge that it's something meaningful. if it passes in all of them... well, i'll wager two thousand quatloos that it doesn't. otherwise, i stand by my interpretation.

otherwise, there are already provisions in the bill allowing states to choose a different method of insuring the uninsured, as long as they meet the same goals.

Of course, my standard caveat on Polls is relevant.. :D

Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters favor their state suing the federal government to fight the requirement in the new national health care plan that every American must obtain health insurance.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 58% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor such lawsuits. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats are opposed. This suggests that filing a suit would be popular in Republican leaning and toss-up states but not in strong Democratic states. Of course, as with all things in the world of politics, these realities could shift over time as both parties try to spin the recently-passed legislation.

As I said, Obama has achieved bi-partisanship..

The hatred against CrapCare is truly bi-partisan...

Michale.....

It would be a "better" metric for the Democratic Party and your argument.

But you are not entitled to your own facts..

And the FACT is that over 3/4ths of the States in the Union have pending legislation to formally bar certain provisions of CrapCare from affecting their state's citizens.

That alone should tell you how well CrapCare is being received at the State Level...

Michale.....

what the as yet un-passed legislation says is there are ballsy conservatives in state legislatures, who are easily able to propose legislation with or without the majority of their state or its legislative body necessarily supporting it. anyone can propose legislation, whereupon it becomes "pending." a better metric to use would be the number of states in which such legislation actually passes and the attorneys general who actually sue.

secondly, it says that the individuals involved are trying to score political points, since they're grandstanding on a moot issue.

as to your assertion that 3/4ths of the states WANT to opt out - this may or may not be true, but the facts you're using as evidence simply do not apply. essentially, you're holding out a handful of seeds and asking how we feel about the apples that might grow from the tree after the seeds are planted.

Well, I got her number. How do you like them apples?
-good will hunting

You miss my point..

I don't mean to argue whether states CAN opt out of CrapCare or not..

It's obvious that they can, one way or another..

MY point is, what does it say about CrapCare when over 75% of the States in the country WANT to opt out of CrapCare??

What does THAT tell you??

Michale.....

I want to know what it says to ya'all that 3/4ths of the states in these United States of America have legislation "pending" that will nullify CrapCare??

What does that SAY to ya'all???

That those 3/4ths of the states are WRONG and ya'all are right??

Jeeeze... and they call ME arrogant... :D

Michale.....

i looked up your question, and it turns out to be moot. an opt-out is in the law, which states may use at their discretion, and some already are. states simply must come up with an alternate source of funding to make up the difference and insure their uninsured, so they're not being paid for by everybody else in all the other states. this is what happens when talking points get repeated over and over before they're fully researched.

Wyden Amendment, C#8 "A State may be granted a waiver if the state applies to the Secretary to provide heath care coverage that is at least as comprehensive as required under the Chairman’s Mark."

i already mentioned other laws that make requirements of states beyond the scope of the constitution - specifically "no child left behind," and the "defense of marriage act." others exist, but those are the most recent that come to mind. "pending" was the word used by john miller, the reporter to whom you've attributed support of the health-care bill. kucinich's bill to impeach cheney was also "pending," until it wasn't. all a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

perception is everything in the election, yes that's correct. but as evidenced in my above comments, perception and the facts of newly enacted legislation are rarely if ever the same, not even by accident. something can seem good in eight months that will seem terrible in eight years, and vice-versa.

I love it when you use big words.... :D

But that debate is actually winding its way through the courts right now, so we'll likely get a Supreme Court decision on it in a few years.

Our US Constitution at work..

Don'tcha love it?? :D

Secondly, just out of sheer curiousity: do you think a military draft is constitutional?

Damn, that's why I like it here... Ya'all ask the TOUGH questions... :D

If I wanted "easy" I would hang out with Taylor Marsh... :D (ooooo, I am gonna burn for that one.. :D)

But, back to your question...

It IS a tough issue..

Speaking as an American soldier and veteran, not as a lawyer, I would have to adopt the Israeli perspective on this particular issue, insofar as the state protects you and yours, so you must do your part to protect the state and others..

Now, you would have a hard time translating this into support for CrapCare... Especially since, as we have already seen, CrapCare is flawed and doesn't even begin to do the things that it says it does.

Let me put it another way...

If we had a "V" or "INDEPENDENCE DAY" type scenario where our very survival was at stake, I don't think you would find an American man, woman or child who would not step up and be counted if there was a "draft"...

But, you can hardly equate CrapCare with such a scenario. CrapCare does NOTHING for the American citizen, but rather feeds the political and corporate beast...

Why would ANYONE support such legislation???

Michale.....

Two things, mostly tangential. First, the "full faith and credit" clause (14th Amend?) is being broken by all the states which do not allow a gay couple married in another state to be treated as if they are married everywhere. In other words, it is the states which do not allow gay marriage who are violating the Constitution. And the feds (DOMA) are backing them up. But that debate is actually winding its way through the courts right now, so we'll likely get a Supreme Court decision on it in a few years.

Secondly, just out of sheer curiousity: do you think a military draft is constitutional?

-CW

Could you provide citations in the form of laws that support your contentions..

In the matter of gay marriages, it's my understanding that several states honor gay marriages in spite of the Federal government...

So, that would seem to disprove your contention...

Regardless, none of your examples support the idea that the Federal government can FORCE a citizen to purchase something, at their own expense, that they would otherwise choose NOT to purchase..

Can you provide any support for the claim that the Federal government has this power??

And regardless of THAT, the simple fact that the states CHOOSE to *allow* the Federal government to take certain liberties is not indicative that the states will allow the Federal government to take ALL the liberties it (the Federal government) chooses to take..

The simple fact that there is legislation "pending" (your word) in over 3/4ths of the states against CrapCare simply shows this...

Again, the question is begged...

What part of "NO" does the Democratic Party not understand???

Michale.....

Yer kidding, right??

Public perception is the ONLY thing that matters here..

If the GOP is successful in convincing the public that CrapCare is evil incarnate (which is not a real stretch from the facts) then that will become the 'reality' that you tout so much...

And that, in turn, will lead to a massacre of the Democratic Party in the upcoming mid-term elections..

You heard it here, first..

Michale....

NOTHING in the US Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE citizens to buy something they choose not to...

there are quite a few things the constitution does not strictly allow that the federal government does anyhow. mandating that states are not to recognize gay marriages held in other states, mandating that schools enact standardized testing throughout the middle grades, the list of extra-constitutional precedents is extensive, so in that respect this bill will be in very good company.

That's one [propaganda removed] supporter's opinion...

that may or may not be true of the article's author. unless you've researched john miller's writings that extensively, i don't think that conclusion is necessarily warranted. the reporter wrote what he thought to be the case, presumably based on his own research on constitutional scholars. the author may or may not support the legislation, but i think you made an argumentum ad something-or-other without any reason other than the author wrote a fact or two that conflict with your viewpoint.

If 38 states out of 50 had "pending" legislation that Bush should have been impeached, wouldn't ya'all be crowing about that til the cows come home??

that would be in an alternate universe where democrats have the balls to do something like that, knowing that it probably won't amount to any tangible results. republicans on the other hand have never been lacking in the cojones department. however, back in this universe, the current precedent will stand, and (as per my initial point) the public perception will have nothing to do with whether the new law is good, bad or otherwise. welcome to reality; it's not exactly what any of us think it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/welcome-to-the-real-world_b_510004.html

Even IF such a mandate WASN'T un-constitutional (which it is), do the math..

You have a young single person in good health..

On the one hand, they can pay about $20K a year for CrapCare...

On the OTHER hand, they can pay $750 a year as a fine for no CrapCare...

What would ANY reasonable person opt for??

Especially when said person knows that, if they DO get sick or injured, they can sign up for CrapCare then and then and CANNOT be turned down...

So, any normal sane person will simply opt for paying a fine which is tens of thousands of dollars LESS than what CrapCare would cost them..

So, instead of CrapCare raking in 600 BILLION dollars in revenue(20K x 30 million new customers), CrapCare will actually get only 15 million dollars in new revenue...

Hmmmmmmm

Now WHO do you think is gonna make up the difference, which would be... er, carry the 1 add the 2...

Who is going to make up the other 599,985,000,000 dollars???

You... Me... CW... Liz... Moderate... Ink... and every other American citizen...

Great legislation ya got there... :^/

But, am I upset?? Hell no... I don't have to pay health care for my kids and grandkids anymore.. Cuz ya'all will cover it for me. :D

Whatta bunch of great pals... :D

Michale....

You think I am upset?? :D

Hardly. Like I said, it will be swell to have ya'all pay for my kids and grandkids health care...

the article you cited acknowledges that the lawsuits and legislation are "largely symbolic."

That's one CrapCare supporter's opinion..

One must look at the facts.

And the fact is, there is NOTHING in the US Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE citizens to buy something they choose not to..

Prove me wrong..

furthermore, all "legislation pending" means is that those states would consider a law directing the state AG to sue the federal government (still only 13 attempts confirmed), not that the legislation (much less the lawsuit) would succeed.

The simple fact that such legislation is even being CONSIDERED, let alone "pending" should be a wake up call.

If 38 states out of 50 had "pending" legislation that Bush should have been impeached, wouldn't ya'all be crowing about that til the cows come home??

Sure ya would..

The simple fact that more than 75% of the states are even CONSIDERING opt'ing out of the payment requirements for CrapCare should be a huge hint..

The American people do NOT want CrapCare...

Of course, time will tell who is right and who is wrong...

I have the facts on my side, however..

Michale.....

i realize you're upset, but your arguments don't hold water legally - any more than do the president's emotional appeals. the article you cited acknowledges that the lawsuits and legislation are "largely symbolic."

furthermore, all "legislation pending" means is that those states would consider a law directing the state AG to sue the federal government (still only 13 attempts confirmed), not that the legislation (much less the lawsuit) would succeed.

all it actually proves is that there are some republicans in those state legislatures, as there are in all states' legislatures. The federal government already requires state taxpayers to follow directives regarding other reserved powers, such as education or *cough-cough* marriage, so there isn't much of a leg to stand on, either constitutionally or by precedent.

this is not to say that the Roberts court won't set a new precedent, but health insurance is a sort of interstate commerce. otherwise i wouldn't be able to buy medicine in new jersey on my florida prescription plan, as i did earlier this month. none of this makes the legislation any better, but a constitutionality argument is essentially tilting at windmills.

perceptions of a popular groundswell against the new law do not bear out in public polling either. the voters who are dead-set against it are the same 30-35% i mentioned earlier, just louder and angrier.

There are 38 States with pending legislation to stop CrapCare...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states

That puts it over the top as far as approving a Constitutional Amendment.

In other words, if stopping CrapCare was to be put to the states as a Constitutional Amendment, it would pass..

Food for thought, no??

Michale.....

"If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that ... go right ahead."

Notice that?? The White House is arguing emotionally.

THAT is the gist of the White House's response.

"Forget the Law, let's play on the emotions.."

It's even MORE moronic because there is a loophole in CrapCare that will allow Insurance Companies to refuse to cover children based on pre-existing conditions..

Yea, CrapCare is definitely worth it, eh?? :^/
{/sarcasm}

Michale......

http://www.wnd.com/images/statesonmandatoryreform.jpg

As far as the new law being fact, the ONLY fact that is relevant is that the new law is unconstitutional on several different fronts, not the least of which is the Commerce Clause.

NO WHERE in the US Constitution does it give the Federal Government the authority to FORCE citizens to buy something.

NO WHERE...

Anything not EXPLICITLY laid out in the US Constitution as the purview of the Federal Government is automatically rendered unto the States.

Ergo, CrapCare is unconstitutional..

Michale.....

Doesn't that tell you ANYTHING??

Hell, with that many states, we would almost have enough for a Constitutional Amendment!!

What part of NO does the Democratic Party not understand??

And, when you have 3/4ths of the states opting out of the most onerous sections of CrapCare (IE the ones that costs the taxpayers money) how do you think CrapCare is going to be paid for?

That's right, the 1/4th of the states that remain in CrapCare will fund it 100% for all 50 states...

How long do you think CrapCare can be sustained under those conditions??

Michale.....

the gop were against it 10% because they disagreed with it, 90% because it was something the president wanted to accomplish; they're on record as being opposed to the president accomplishing anything, good or bad. conservative voters (30%) will certainly see it your way, which will energize the republican base. everyone else, however, will be a little more patient in their judgment. and six months from now (about five weeks before mid-term elections), five possible benefits of the legislation will start to kick in:

-Employer Subsidies
-Increased Dependent Coverage
-No Lifetime Maximum
-No Exclusions for Children
-Temporary High-Risk Pool

the jury's still out on any potential impact of those provisions, but if even one of them are perceived as moderately successful by the 70% who are not hard-core righties, that might rain on the republican recuperation this november.

i'm not bashing bush, just using his legislative successes as a basis for comparison. by the time the majority of the public had figured out how badly his agenda crippled our country, he was already two years past re-election. what this teaches us is that people's perceptions of a policy's effectiveness tend not to find a stable home within a few years of its passage, much less a few months.

And, sadly, we will see exactly how ineffective the Democrats' [legislation] is going to be.. We will see exactly how damaging it's going to be.

no. sadly, i don't think most people will, even if it is as bad as you think it is.

And, despite the fervent hopes of the DemocratIC leadership and many readers on here, the voters WILL remember when they go to the polls...

they will remember it, but they might remember it more favorably than you think. you believe this legislation will really be disastrous, while i think it will be ever-so-slightly better than the current status quo. however, it is highly unlikely that either of us will be proven right or wrong to the majority of the public before november. the majority of the public's perception may at that time be more positive than either of our opinions.

the DEMOCRATIC members of congress have very little to be proud of, but very little is better than nothing at all,

Agreed...

which is exactly what the Republicans have to be proud of,

I disagree.. The GOP is on record as being against a very bad piece of crap... er.. legislation.

Who do you think the voters are going to reward in November??

The morons who actually voted for something that was very very bad for this country??

Or the goofballs who opposed the piece of crap that was very very bad for this country?

The answer is self-evident..

the bush administration proved beyond all doubt that passing bad policy is more politically favorable than failing to pass any policy.

Isn't it time to put away the BASH BUSH mantra?? It's old and it's tired and does nothing to enhance the credibility of Democrats..

sadly, it's much worse for an election to be seen as ineffective than to be seen as effective and wrong.

And, sadly, we will see exactly how ineffective the Democrat's CrapCare is going to be.. We will see exactly how damaging it's going to be.

And, despite the fervent hopes of the Democrat leadership and many readers on here, the voters WILL remember when they go to the polls..

Michale.....

even presupposing that you're right about the bill being terrible rather than just flawed - and i'm not presupposing that without hard data on its actual effects - that might not hurt the DEMOCRATIC congress-critters politically. the bush administration proved beyond all doubt that passing bad policy is more politically favorable than failing to pass any policy. sadly, it's much worse for an election to be seen as ineffective than to be seen as effective and wrong.

Ya'all must be SOOOO proud of the Democrat Congress, no??

Michale.....

Let's get all the people in this picture....

http://mfccfl.us/temp/smilingdems.jpg

....back together on 3 Nov 2010 and see if they are still smiling..

Isn't that just a grand idea?? :D

Michale.....

Obama DID indeed create a bi-partisan atmosphere in this country.

Both Democrats and Republicans hate CrapCare and the Democratic Congress for passing it..

Obama and the Democratic Party saying, "Well, we accomplished SOMETHING" is like Benedict Arnold saying, "Well, I accomplished SOMETHING."

Who cares, if the accomplishment is so nefarious and destructive...

Michale.....

Michale...

for the dems a bittersweet victory, because the legislation is very flawed and they know it, even as they glowingly espouse its few positives. they wanted to accomplish something, anything at all, and that's exactly what they got.

for the republicans, it was all the sound and fury and false indignation they could muster, though i think they were smiling through their teeth. they wanted to keep the toxic status quo for their own political gain, and accomplished the next best thing.

on a side note, i was asking myself, if the republicans are no longer the party of "no" then what ARE they the party of? john boner said it multiple times. the republicans are now the party of "hell no."

It's all I can do not to stand up and yell, "YOU LIE" when someone says how great CrapCare is...

And now we have reports that the Reconciliation bill will die in the Senate...

So, CrapCare sans fixes, will be the law of the land...

Good job, Democratic Party...

You own CrapCare..

Gods help you in November, because the voters won't...

Even worse than the harm CrapCare is gonna cause this country, I am out ANOTHER 2K in quatloos...

"Galt, rustle me up some more quatloos.. It's going to be a long summer!" :D

Michale.....

Sounds like Obama and the Democrats with their adherence to CrapCare, even though the American Public and many in the Democratic Party, are totally against it. :D

Michale.....

I will accept checks written on the Third Bank of Triskelion for my 2,000 quatloos, just to let you know.

It ain't over till the bald guy's collar flashes.. :D

Have you read the latest CBO disclosure? The "Doctor Fix" that the Dems plan on doing in a few months will make CrapCare increase the deficit..

Ergo, it won't be eligible for Reconciliation.

Ergo, no Senate side-car bill.

Therefore the House Democrats will be voting on the Senate bill in it's entirety, as is and it will remain the law of the land.

I wonder how many Dems will change their YES votes to NO based on that?? :D

I want all my quatloos in small coins... :D

Ink,

First rule of strategy: reinforce succes and not failure.

Something Democrats have never learned because they never really had an real success to reinforce... :D

Michale.....

But other legislation needs to pour through the breach fast and jobs bills are a perfect example. A quick series of small wins will let the Obama administration move on other ambitions before the election -- cap & trade, financial reform, etc.

First rule of strategy: reinforce succes and not failure.

What gratuitous cheap shot would that be? Did you write something about Biden, again?

I guess you should be the first to know that I no longer see disparaging remarks about Joe Biden. In fact, from this point onward, I’m not aware of any remarks in the blogosphere that have anything to do with Joe Biden.

And, that goes for the light-hearted poking of fun that used to be amusing. Unfortunately, for every single example of good-natured humour on this score, there are millions of remarks steeped in ignorance and delivered with extreme malicious intent. Frankly, it has all ceased to meet my all-encompassing definition of fun, from now on.

I don’t even hear it when Biden directs a little self-deprecating humor at himself, anymore. Get the picture?

Wanted to apologize in advance for my gratuitous cheap shot at Biden, there.

:-)

-CW

I will accept checks written on the Third Bank of Triskelion for my 2,000 quatloos, just to let you know.

:-)

Heh.

-CW

It is the same kind of anger that underpins the tea party set on the other end of the political spectrum and that progressives harbour for Secretary Geithner, for example.

Of course, I could go on because there is seemingly no end to this kind of anger that is so firmly rooted in extreme ignorance and the unshakable adherence to the mantra, 'I want what I want when I want it'.

It has all become too pathetic to watch anymore. And, certainly, too disconcerting to wonder about what will be the consequences when this gigantic tidal wave of so-called populism comes crashing down on the very groundswell of anger that produced it and, particularly, on the forces that were all too content to incite it.

First and foremost, it is NOT constitutional..

Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution says:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: "

and

"But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

There it is in black and white... Now, of course, you can agree with previous Republicans who said that the US Constitution is just a damn piece of paper..

But I wouldn't advise that...

So, point one is that Demon Pass is unconstitutional. Period.

Point #2..

"Well THEY have done it so nyaa nyaa nyaa..."

This is true. Demon Pass has been used before by both Republicans and Democrats..

However, in all but TWO instances, it was done strictly as an administrative tool at the BEGINNING of the legislative journey. Sans the two examples (one in 1922 and one in 2008) it was NEVER immediately sent to the President for signature.

In EVERY case that Demon Pass was used, it was on legislation that enjoyed complete bi-partisan support..

In other words, both Dems and GOP agreed to break the rules for the greater good.

Demon Pass has NEVER been used to thwart the will of the people or to impose the majority will over the minority.

NEVER...

Here is why Demon Pass simply cannot work..

The US Senate cannot vote on the Reconciliation Bill unless the legislation it is reconciling has been signed into law first.

And, constitutionally speaking, President Obama cannot sign the Health Care bill into law unless it has had an Up Or Down vote in both houses of Congress..

Now, of course, Biden can overrule the Senate Parliamentarian, but I don't think even Biden is THAT stoopid.

Now, IF Biden is THAT stoopid and IF President Obama tries an end run around the American People and the US Constitution, not only will the mid-term be a slaughter house for Democrats....

"The sport ends... The massacre begins. Rihannsu has begun killing Rihannsu."
-Field Primus T'Cael

..... but the GOP will force amendments of the Reconciliation bill that the Democrats will be FORCED to accept..

This will result in the Reconciliation bill being sent back and forth between the House and the Senate for a long time to come. Thereby guaranteeing that CrapCare will be the central theme in the mid-term elections, insuring even greater GOP upsets....

What part of MASSACHUSETTS do the Democrats not understand???

What part of 4 out of 5 Americans do NOT want CrapCare do the Democrats not understand??

Michale.....