Healthcare bill up for vote today

[atg]

Yes, just wanted to clarify as I'm aware that there are many here not fully familiar with the nuances of how the US government works (or doesn't, as the case may be)

Ah ok. No worries.

[Simon_Jester]

What I keep hearing about is the requirements to buy insurance regardless of your ability to afford it.

So when challenged on how it is actually unconstitutional, you don't have a shred of evidence other than something you "heard".

I don't think he's arguing for the position.

That's what I've been reading as well - a number of conservative state attorney generals are going to try targeting the bill based on their belief that a federal mandate forcing someone to buy something in the private market is unconstitutional. Normally, I'd believe it would just get knocked down (there are few limits on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce as determined over the years), but with a conservative-leaning court, who knows?

Yup. The first challengers are already limbering up.

Virginia may sue over federal health bill
March 22, 2010 - 11:04am

Hank Silverberg, wtop.com

RICHMOND, Va. - Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says he plans to sue the federal government, alleging that Congress has overreached its authority with its passage of federal health reform.

Cuccinelli said in a statement Monday that his office plans to file its complaint in U.S. District Court as soon as President Obama signs the measure into law.

Meanwhile, Governor Bob McDonnell will put his signature on a bill Wednesday that makes it illegal to penalize anyone who chooses not to participate in the federal health plan.

Delegate Bob Marshall, who wrote the bill, says the lawsuit could be triggered when the federal government goes after someone in Virginia for choosing not to be covered.

"It gives the state of Virginia standing to defend me or anybody else who doesn't want to buy the Obama insurance," Marshall said. "The law requires us to set up a health exchange and that is going to be bitterly fought in this state."

Marshall says a legal challenge could come even faster if the state is asked to administer the federal plan, which includes sanctions for people who don't get coverage.

Virginia is not alone in its opposition. More than two dozen other states may do the same.

(Copyright 2010 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)

[Patrick Degan]

Gov. McDonnell really needs to have a talk with John C. Calhoun about how successful this whole nullification of federal laws business is likely to be.

[Lagmonster]

Gov. McDonnell really needs to have a talk with John C. Calhoun about how successful this whole nullification of federal laws business is likely to be.

Seriously, and given my limited knowledge of politics, how often do political opponents put up challenges like this expecting to win? Is there any chance that they entirely expect to be challenged and lose, but are doing it anyway to make a public point?

[FSTargetDrone]

Now on CNN: one of the Republicans shouted "baby killer" at Representative Stupak.

And he identifies himself:

"Baby killer" shouter steps forward, highlights internal GOP dilemma

14 mins ago

Last night, as the clock approached midnight and the long House debate on health care reform was finally winding down, Rep. Bart Stupak stepped to the microphone on the floor of the chamber to deliver his remarks. As the famously anti-abortion congressman was denouncing a measure to kill the deal he'd struck earlier in the day for President Obama to issue an executive order reiterating that no federal funds would pay for abortions, a voice suddenly shouted "Baby killer!" from the GOP side of the House floor.

Today, after a flurry of media questions about the identity of the shouter, GOP Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer stepped forward as the offending shouter—though he stipulated he actually shouted, "It's a baby killer," in reference to the unamended health care bill, and has since apologized to Stupak for any suggestion that he personally was responsible for the killing of babies.

Neugebauer's confession will help speed the episode's exit from the news cycle—particularly once President Obama signs the health care bill into law and Congress moves on to fresh controversies. But the "Baby killer!" furor highlights a far more serious, long-term political dilemma for the Republicans: how to appear to be a respectable party capable of governing while also providing political shelter for the highly motivated, though vocally disruptive, protest wing of the party associated with the Tea Party movement. While many commentators are forecasting trouble ahead for Democrats identified with the health care bill, the GOP faces some major issues of its own.

Just look at the past weekend: Thousands of Tea Party protesters descended on Washington in an attempt to "kill the bill." It was an impressive turnout for a quickly organized protest—but coverage of the event soon was dominated by reports that some demonstrators had hurled racial and homophobic epithets at Democratic lawmakers as they entered the Capitol.

Nor were the passionate displays limited to the protestors outside. Even after admonishing members of his caucus to "behave like grown-ups" during the epic health care floor debate, Majority Leader John Boehner let loose with a cry of "Hell no!" in his own fiery floor speech denouncing the Democrats' handling of the legislative process.

Also noteworthy: Kentucky Congressman Geoff Davis unveiled a flag on the Capitol balcony featuring the "Don't Tread on Me" slogan famously used by past revolutionary militia groups.

The alliance between conservative lawmakers and movement activists was sealed in the wake of Rep. Joe Wilson's now-famous "You lie!" shout during an address by President Obama to both chambers of Congress. The incident earned some tut-tutting from party and congressional leaders, but Wilson saw his fundraising numbers skyrocket with Tea Party donations after his outburst on the floor. Additionally, Wilson's Senate colleague from South Carolina, Jim DeMint—who authored a book denouncing "America's slide into socialism"—also sought to amp up activist support with the challenge to make health care into the Obama administration's Waterloo, an assertion the left is having some fun with on his Facebook page today.

But one prominent conservative commentator—former Bush speechwriter David Frum—argues that last night's vote was an enormous political reversal for Republicans. Saying that the Republicans went for "all the marbles" by unanimously opposing the bill and refusing to compromise in any way—fueling activist fury at the same time—he writes:

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

Frum's assessment actually echoes a warning call that conservative writer William Kristol advanced in a famous memo preaching hard opposition to President Clinton's 1993 health care reform bill. Kristol then cautioned that party leaders couldn't afford to let any version of the measure pass, lest the provisions of the bill create powerful new political alliances for the Democrats, as had happened after the passage of Social Security and Medicare in prior battles over federal entitlements. (It should be noted that this morning Kristol appears to be backing away from his past prediction of GOP doom and gloom if the Democrats successfully passed health care reform.)

Kristol's strategy of going all-in on opposing health care proved a political winner then: GOP opposition—combined with internal Democratic political tensions—defeated Clinton's bill and set the stage for the 1994 Republican Revolution. In losing the vote this time out via a strategy of strict opposition, Frum argues that the GOP has left itself little in the way of legislative achievement to run on in future campaigns, an assessment at least one other conservative commentator agrees with. Liberal pundits, meanwhile, are offering tongue-in-cheek accolades to the "unsung hero of comprehensive reform": Republican leaders who refused to work to make the bill more moderate, thus unifying the fractious Democrats.

In many ways, the dilemma faced by modern Republicans is similar to the one Democrats faced in the '60s and '70s with the Vietnam-era anti-war movement. While the confrontation-minded (and media-friendly) activists garnered headlines and caused widespread disruption, the Democrats succumbed to damaging leadership divisions on the war—and in the process, allowed Republicans to tag them with sinister hippie and New Left leanings ever since. The challenge for Republicans going forward is to avoid the same undertow from their activist base—to establish majorities in Washington and not let the unsavory aspects of the fringe haunt them for decades to come.

In the short term, though, the GOP doesn't seem to be in much of a mood for introspection—at least not to judge by the remarks of the party's 2008 standard bearer, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who had previously made a mark as a compromise-minded lawmaker. "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview with The Hill. "[The Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

– Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.

[Darth Yan]

Seeing as some of the things most wrong with the health care system will be fixed in year one, I'm pretty damn optimistic. and to all the republic fuckers. SUCK ON IT BITCHES

[JME2]

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview with The Hill. "[The Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Oh, go fuck yourself McCain. I'm so sick of this prick.

[Lonestar]

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview with The Hill. "[The Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

I'm guessing he hasn't really grasped what the real lesson the Dems might have learned from "how they did it".

[Darksider]

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview with The Hill. "[The Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Oh, go fuck yourself McCain. I'm so sick of this prick.

As opposed to the great amount of cooperation and bi-partisanship they got beforehand?

WTF is up with the conservotards and not understanding compromise. I remember watching some shitty-ass re-run of bill O'riley, and he mentioned that in order to gain bi-partisan support for health reform, Obama should just throw in tort reform as a favor to the repubs. What the hell? Apparently to these douchetards "compromise" starts with the other side immediately making concessions.

[Patrick Degan]

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview with The Hill. "[The Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

I'm guessing he hasn't really grasped what the real lesson the Dems might have learned from "how they did it".

Actually, he hasn't yet grasped the lesson of 2008.

[Broomstick]

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview with The Hill. "[The Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

I'm guessing he hasn't really grasped what the real lesson the Dems might have learned from "how they did it".

Obviously, since the Dems just demonstrated they don't need the Repubs to pass legislative this is not going to keep me up nights.

Clearly, the Repubs have not figured out that they are, in many ways, now redundant and superfluous. At least until the next election.

[JME2]

WTF is up with the conservotards and not understanding compromise. I remember watching some shitty-ass re-run of bill O'riley, and he mentioned that in order to gain bi-partisan support for health reform, Obama should just throw in tort reform as a favor to the repubs. What the hell? Apparently to these douchetards "compromise" starts with the other side immediately making concessions.

They just spent the last 8 years in control of all 3 branches. They're fanatics and sore losers who believe their way is the only way.

[Surlethe]

Gov. McDonnell really needs to have a talk with John C. Calhoun about how successful this whole nullification of federal laws business is likely to be.

Seriously, and given my limited knowledge of politics, how often do political opponents put up challenges like this expecting to win? Is there any chance that they entirely expect to be challenged and lose, but are doing it anyway to make a public point?

Possibly. In purely legal terms, anyway, the case is actually interesting: the 10th amendment says that all rights not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the states. As I understand it, the federal government will argue something like this: since health care and health insurance are cross-state businesses, they are entitled by the interstate commerce clause to regulate the health insurance industry, which includes forcing people to buy insurance. The states (not just VA, but also several others - I believe IN is among them) will probably argue something like this: not enough people buy insurance across state lines for the federals to claim jurisdiction within the states' territories, or the federal government is not entitled to regulate people who are not currently purchasing interstate health care, or something like that.

In many ways, the US federal system and its legal precedents are a legacy of its past: the US has gradually been moving from a coalition of states united only loosely by a relatively weak central government to a top-down system in which the states are entirely subordinate to the federal government. It is cases like this that move legal precedent forward.

On a slightly related note, I bet Canada's health care act would actually pass a US 10th amendment test more easily than the current US one.

[Broomstick]

The irony would be if a legal challenge reached the Federal Supreme Court and the end result was a SCotUS mandate for single payer...

...of course, that's an incredible long-shot fantasy,

[Sute]

Possibly. In purely legal terms, anyway, the case is actually interesting: the 10th amendment says that all rights not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the states. As I understand it, the federal government will argue something like this: since health care and health insurance are cross-state businesses, they are entitled by the interstate commerce clause to regulate the health insurance industry, which includes forcing people to buy insurance. The states (not just VA, but also several others - I believe IN is among them) will probably argue something like this: not enough people buy insurance across state lines for the federals to claim jurisdiction within the states' territories, or the federal government is not entitled to regulate people who are not currently purchasing interstate health care, or something like that.

If the states try to claim that the volume of insurance purchased across state lines is insufficient to justify federal regulation, they'll be arguing against precedent. NLRB v. Fainblatt found that Congress has the authority to regulate any amount of economic activity crossing state lines, and Hodel v. Indiana supported it. I don't know enough about the other argument to say anything about it.

[Lonestar]

One of the local Delegates to the state assembly here in Virginia has set up a website for his consitutuents who are opposed to Cuccinelli's HCR suit. You leave your phone number on the website, and an automated system calls your number than connects you to the AG's office so you can tell him what exactly you think of his use of Virginia taxpayer's dollars.

Of course, this is a NORTHERN Virginia delegate, not someone from Mississippi North, that is doing this.

[montypython]

I'll only celebrate when there's true Universal Health Care coverage and the Insurance Lobby sinks like the Titanic.

[Knife]

In many ways, the US federal system and its legal precedents are a legacy of its past: the US has gradually been moving from a coalition of states united only loosely by a relatively weak central government to a top-down system in which the states are entirely subordinate to the federal government. It is cases like this that move legal precedent forward.

Uhm, really never was. Hamilton worked his ass off to get a strong Fed from the beginning, and even the States Rights champion, Jefferson, gave up the ghost in his second term. This fantasy of States first, Fed second; was totally crushed after the Civil War. Funny how the south keeps coming back with the same crap argument.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Anyone got any good ways of shooting down these arguments I hear against the WHO rating of US healthcare?

Linky 1
Linky 2
Linky 3

[Dominus Atheos]

Huffpost...I cannot take their editorializing seriously. And that is most of what was posted here.

Not exactly. Not at all actually, none of the footnotes link there.

Pardon me. I mistook the borders, and I over-estimated you. Hamsher and her fools at FDL? Sorry, she blew all credibility when she got on the boat with Norquist, the Tea Party, other such fools. Either she's an easily led fool manipulated by others, or she's ultimately just a glory-seeker, and being the 'progressive' to 'reach across the isle' to those who issue such proclamations as 'We Came Unarmed - This Time' was a means to that end.

The bill passed so the rest of the debate is moot, but I would like to know what in the hell you're going on about here. I have an idea of what you're referring to but I want to hear it from you so you can't move the goalposts later.

[Darth Wong]

Anyone got any good ways of shooting down these arguments I hear against the WHO rating of US healthcare?

Linky 1
Linky 2
Linky 3

It seems to me that they're all just griping about the fact that things like economic class equity are weighted into the scoring. CATO in particular argues that 3 of 5 factors (distribution, responsiveness distribution, and financial fairness) should all be completely eliminated from the rankings. In short, their argument is that we should ignore the millions of uninsured and underinsured people when ranking the performance of the health care system. To call this "dishonest" would be an understatement.

The second source is even more of a joke. They claim that murder rates and traffic accidents easily account for the low life expectancy in the US, but they provide no numbers to support this assertion. Then they repeat CATO's basic premise, but with much less obfuscating bullshit surround it so that it's more blatant:

The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

Yes, the problem is obvious. These people think that a health care system which provides gold-plated care to the rich and no care to the poor is better than a health care system which provides care to everyone, because the gold-plated part is, well, gold-plated. This reveals a fundamental mindset problem: people like the CATO institute believe that health care is a consumer product rather than a form of social safety net. So in their minds, a good system provides top-notch care to those who can afford it, and the rest can eat cake. They honestly don't see that health care should be considered a kind of social safety net. In their minds, it's a luxury item, like a big-screen TV or a new SUV.

[K. A. Pital]

Heh. I'd note:

The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem

Where is the statistical correlation, anyhow? What is the number of accidents and how does it impact the ALE? Too bad that people can fall for such simplistic bullshit without a factor analysis presented.

And now, the laughable:

Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO rankings, by purporting to taking the public's preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others (and then praises or blames the health system for them)

The pleasure of having sex does not reduce your life unless it's unprotected sex which gives you a high STD risk; ergo, a failing of the health care system (in the "preventive care" and "sanitary culture" spheres). The "pleasure" of smoking is ridiculous. By the same reasoning the "pleasure" of heroin in a land of addicts shouldn't impact the country's rating in health. That's bullshit. Eating is healthy, unless you eat junk foods. It's not a problem of healthcare par se, but it's a problem of bad food quality. Playing sports actually improves your health.

Unhealthy habits of a population sure should give you a bad rank. It's a problem of public healthcare, because the system of preventive care is also centered around creating a culture of health in the populace.

The WHO's approach is quite a complex analysis:

WHO researchers looked at, according to the group itself, "overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."

Overall level of pop health is a result of the performance of social institutions in the past, health inequalities are bad, and large financial burden on people is also bad. So I'm not sure what the hell are these funny tobacco apologists ranting about.

[Prannon]

Yes, the problem is obvious. These people think that a health care system which provides gold-plated care to the rich and no care to the poor is better than a health care system which provides care to everyone, because the gold-plated part is, well, gold-plated. This reveals a fundamental mindset problem: people like the CATO institute believe that health care is a consumer product rather than a form of social safety net. So in their minds, a good system provides top-notch care to those who can afford it, and the rest can eat cake. They honestly don't see that health care should be considered a kind of social safety net. In their minds, it's a luxury item, like a big-screen TV or a new SUV.

This comment puts a rather extreme, but telling, analogy in my head. I've been reading Under the Loving Care of the Father Leader lately, and it has been going into some detail on the inequity of living conditions in North Korea, specifically in regards to the Kim family (Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il) and their closest followers.

The Kim family lives in decadent affluence, having grown tubby from plentiful food, driving around in nice imported cars, living in giant mansions with thousands of servants at every mansion waiting to attend their every whim. If the Kims aren't at some mansion, the servants there are in training to attend their every whim for when they do show up. They get the finest health care, access to modern global culture - Jong-il has a vast movie collection with thousands of films - and the devotion of their entire society.

If we judge North Korea by the standards that the CATO Institute judges US health care, then we would be incorrect to include the lower classes' living standards in our judgement, since at least some part of North Korean society is able to achieve a very comfortable standard of living. Of course, I bet that the CATO Institute would be very liberal in poking holes in my argument, just as Mike poked holes in theirs.

[Mayabird]

The second source is even more of a joke. They claim that murder rates and traffic accidents easily account for the low life expectancy in the US, but they provide no numbers to support this assertion. Then they repeat CATO's basic premise, but with much less obfuscating bullshit surround it so that it's more blatant:

Before scottlowther left in a huff, he'd been posting CATO's numbers about the life expectancy and people were tearing it and the methodology apart because the statistics were...questionable at best. No standard deviations, no way of seeing the numbers had gotten a banker-style massage to get the figures they wanted, and so on. The people who were actually in that debate could say more.

[Surlethe]

Yes, the problem is obvious. These people think that a health care system which provides gold-plated care to the rich and no care to the poor is better than a health care system which provides care to everyone, because the gold-plated part is, well, gold-plated.

They could argue that on average the health care might be better. Of course, that reminds me of the analogy - stand with one foot in a bucket of ice and one foot in a bucket of boiling water; on average, you're enjoying a nice bath!

This reveals a fundamental mindset problem: people like the CATO institute believe that health care is a consumer product rather than a form of social safety net. So in their minds, a good system provides top-notch care to those who can afford it, and the rest can eat cake. They honestly don't see that health care should be considered a kind of social safety net. In their minds, it's a luxury item, like a big-screen TV or a new SUV.

You're looking at it from the perspective of someone who believes in a distinction between luxury items, and necessary items. These people don't think in terms of what's necessary and what's not; to them, everything is a consumer product.