"We're your government health care provider, and we're here to help."
In an unsigned piece entitled "Consumer protections lost in health care debate,"
an Associated Press journalist states that the consumer protection aspects of the ObamaCare plan have not been emphasized enough by the Administration.
What this AP author is ignoring is that consumer protection is currently administered in an adversarial or checks-and-balances system. The government has agencies named "Department of Consumer Affairs" or something similar, that are separate from the private insurance companies they oversee. The insurance companies have a certain amount of fear or trepidation in facing a government agency that can fine them and give them some very bad publicity.
But what happens when the government is on both sides, i.e., the medical services provider and the department of consumer protection? Exactly what outside authority do they fear? Does the government agency fear bad publicity in the press? To a much lesser extent than a private insurer who can either lose customers to competitors and large sums to a government fine and investigation.
Perhaps it is time to recall, for both readers young and old, when the federal government only allowed one telephone company, AT&T, to provide phone service, in the years prior to the 1968 Carterphone court decision. You could not legally install your own phone with advanced features that AT&T didn't offer. If you had problems, AT&T would only service phones that had features they incorporated. In fact, the Carterphone case was based on a phone service for people who were hearing impaired and led the way to the eventual breakup of AT&T.
In the 1960s, the television program Laugh-In featured comedienne Lily Tomlin portraying a snide AT&T phone operator. Knowing her monopoly position, she often replied to an imaginary caller having phone problems by saying, "(snort, snort, chortle, chortle) What to we care? We're the phone company." Here on YouTube is Ernestine calling a customer to demand payment for calls he didn't make, noting that she has his bank balance, IRS tax returns, and threatening to send a "large burly serviceman" to the customer's home to rip out the phone and possibly cause the loss of use of one eye. Kind of like the SEIU members at the Tea Party rallies in Tampa and St. Louis. Tomlin was doing satire, showing what an organization with no checks on its powers may do. But a single-payer health system has had real loss of use of various body parts, according to reports from Canada, Great Britain, and continental Europe.
In 1994, at The Superhighway Summit in Los Angeles, no less than then-Vice President Al Gore appeared on stage with Lily Tomlin reprising her Ernestine the Operator role, but in a somewhat toned down form, now that her character no longer worked for an all-powerful government monopoly. Back then, even Gore, on that stage, talked about some of the shortcomings of a Single Ringer phone monopoly pre-1980:
And there were actually phones like these [PICKS UP STANDARD BLACK AT&T PHONE], straight from the White House. They're still there. We have made some progress. They're only in the press room now.
But these phones just didn't meet our needs. So now we use modern phones. And on trips I use a cellular phone like this one, which some of you have probably used. [PICKS UP CELLULAR PHONE. AS HE DOES, IT RINGS.] Has that ever happened to you when you . . . Excuse me. Hello? [WE HEAR LILY TOMLIN, AS ERNESTINE THE OPERATOR, ON THE PHONE.]
TOMLIN: A gracious hello. Have I reached . . . Hello? Have I reached the party to whom I am speaking?
GORE: I'm not sure. This is the Vice President.
TOMLIN: The Vice President?
GORE: Al Gore.
TOMLIN: Al Gore? Al Gore? Little Albert? Oh my goodness. This is Ernestine the Operator. My wires must have got crossed. I was trying to reach the VP of AT&T. That's a little company I work for sometimes.
GORE: Well, he may be here somewhere. But perhaps I can help you. [TOMLIN WALKS ON STAGE.]
Little Albert, indeed. Gore could joke about both real and imagined AT&T past monopoly excesses then, but he and his fellow liberals are trying to morph Ernestine into Nurse Ratched and an assembly line auto worker and a government clean air factory inspector – all with Ernestine's original snideness and sense of omnipotence.
So, Associated Press, ponder this. Was Ernestine concerned about consumer protection complaints? Why should she have been? She worked for an organization that feared no private competition and no courts (until 1980s fallout from the Carterphone decision). How exactly would consumer protection be enhanced when the provider is part of the same organization that runs the courts?
Recently, in the Chrysler bankruptcy, the court ended the Lemon Law protection previously offered to customers. What makes the AP think that disregard of consumer protection that happened at Chrysler will not be repeated in a single-payer health system administering, say . . . heart pacemakers?
I wonder if the anonymous author of this AP piece is under 30 and has no experience in fighting either a private insurer or a government agency for medical care for either themselves or their family. Perhaps I am wrong about the author's age, but their belief in a utopian, benevolent government health care plan makes their mental age appear less than 30 for sure. Since they, like the Congresspeople who refuse to show up at town hall meetings, desire to be undercover, we cannot examine their personal situtation. The website of the Associated Press, however, has a job description for a New England Bureau Chief and a New York based financial reporter.
Neither one of these job descriptions detail any medical or dental benefits as part of the highlights of the potential new hire's employment. So the anonymous author of this article – and any future hires – may have an upper management that is perhaps preparing them to meet "Ernestine the Operator" at the ObamaCare clinic.
"You need an ambulance? Chortle, chortle. Al Gore told us that ambulances pollute the atmosphere, so we had to cut back. We'll send one next Monday. When did Mr. Gore say that? It was during his fifteen-city jet tour to save the earth last year. You'll sue? What do we care? We're the Single Payer Company."
An author’s name has been added to the AP article since I first saw it. He is RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR. Ricardo, good luck talking to Ernestine on the phone
If you haven’t downloaded a copy of the “Organizational Chart of the House Democrats’ Health Plan ( http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf ), do so. It is an absolute must have and very relevant to this article’s premise. In fact, I am sure Ernestine can be found somewhere within its labrythine contortions. Good look getting that approval for your life-saving operation.
Before we even get to the arguement over benefits, coverage for illegals, cost, or access; I have two questions I wish someone could answer for me since I cannot seem to get either my Congressman nor either of my two Senators to answer them for me
First; why are we in such a hurry to pass legislation that doesn’t’ take effect until after the next Presidential Election? If every piece of proposed House lagislation says it will not become law until 2013 why are we in such a hurry to do something, anything immediately?
Second; not one Congressman or Senator, when pressed, will answer this direct question with a yes or no; “If you pass a national health care program. Will you agree to discontinue your present coverage and enroll in exactly the same plan that you’ve designed for the rest of us?”
I attempted to download the Organizational Chart of the House Democrats’ Health Plan PDF file and was told it was corrupted and not downloadable.
As for milbrat’s remark, I recall people saying on either the radio or some website that the President spent months in recently picking out a dog, you think he would take as much time in designing a health care plan. No, the reason for the hurry is that the administration wants to make everyone dependent on the government and force private insurers out of business as soon as possible. They want to create a captive market – in the literal sense of the term.
It is ironic that my Democrat insurance man was a trained nuclear engineer who couldn’t find work after the Three Mile Island problem. Now “his” party is trying to screw him out of an insurance career many years later.
Millbrat,
Both excellent questions, but the answers are fairly obvious (I am guessing you meant these rhetorically).
First, they are in a hurry to pass them before opposition can build enough to stop it, but will delay implementation until after the next presidential election in order to remain in power. They know this is an unpopular change they are making, but these are ideologues in power, convinced of their rightness, and determined to make this stick regardless the unpopularity, and frustrated by earlier attempts we stopped. Regardless, they want to stay in power as long as possible because this is just round-one of the overall agenda, and are making the most of their opportunity. It is less important their program is delayed a couple of years than that it is officially on the books, the machinery is created, and will be virtually impossible to remove without bloodshed or a major Constitutional crisis.
Second, legislators long accustomed to power don’t see any discrepancy between things they say and things they do. They think of power as their right by dint of merit, and that we should be grateful for all they’ve done for us. They see themselves as a special breed and vital to running the country; and their needs, therefore, proportionately greater. Given all they’ve done for us, a ‘slightly better cut’ is (so they reason) their just reward; and forcing them to answer for it is incredibly unfair of us. Hey, power corrupts … and all that.
Jack,
That’s odd the link didn’t work for you. I just tried it again and had no problem. I came across it first at Heritage.org, but the quality was poor. Try these alternate links (Dems can’t block ‘em all, can they?) :
http://docs.house.gov/gopleader/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf
http://feedyouradhd.blogspot.com/2009/07/organizational-chart-of-house-democrats.html
http://www.cchconline.org/
If those don’t work, then the problem must be with your browser. Good luck.
Bob,
Yes, the questions were rhetorical. However; I believe your last paragraph provides both answers.
First, I do not consider that ‘they’ are the least bit worried about keeping their positions. I’ve always been of the opinion that it is more a case of passing this quickly, then hectoring a majority of their constituents to “Vote for me, because my opponent will undo what I’ve done.”
This is why I think that passing such legislation is a priority. It’s never a matter of substance; it’s always a matter of title. All three versions of the legislation currently active in the House specifically exclude any description of benefits coverage. All three versions contain language that creates a board to discern the benefits covered AFTER the legislation becomes law. This is intentional as it provides the ‘pro choicers’ a fig leaf of cover. “I didn’t know that was going to happen. It wasn’t in there when I voted (wink, wink).”
Second; I have little confidence that the American People will actually hold any specific representative accountable during the upcoming 2010 election cycle. Invariably, once the election cycle begins, most voters decide that all congressmen are crooks; with the exception of their own particular congressman. Such an attitude reasonably explains the high retention rate amongst the House.
If anything; it would seem our next opportunity for defeating this legislation lies in the Senate. Since the defection of Arlen Specter and the Minnesota Supreme Court decision to send Al Franken to the Senate; I’ve been eagerly awaiting the next major legislative battle in the Upper House.
My theory is that now that democrats enjoy a filibuster proof majority there, that each Senator would be more inclined to view each piece of legislation as an opportunity for earning additional ‘plunder’ for his/her state. I fully expect the “What’s in it for me” attitude to take center stage. I can easily envision each Senator arm twisting Harry Reid for a larger piece of the pie in return for his support; in the end, creating such an expensive and unwieldy piece of legislation that no one can support it.
I truly believe that the Majority Leader knows this also; which is why he’s seriously considering the ‘reconciliation method’ as a scheme for moving this legislation forward. The overall cost of the bill would be a lot cheaper if you only have to purchase 10 ‘earmarked’ votes for passage instead of 20.
Once the basic package is enshrined as law, the progressives may alter its scope at will. The end result of this legislation will obviously be the most minute control of each section of our lives.
At one time I would have favored reasoned debate over this issue, because with time, I think we’d have won the day: But that doesn’t seem to be one of the choices any longer. I’m starting to believe that our best hope for defeating this measure will actually come after passage.
I would expect some conservative legal organization to mount an immediate challenge as to the constitutionality of the legislation: First; under Article 1 Section 8; and if that is unsuccessful, a challenge under the Tenth Amendment.
Utlimately, I don’t expect Health Care to become law on the first pass. I cannot imagine that a 1,000 page piece of such intrusive legislation cobbled together this quickly, could possibly pass constitutional muster.
milbrat,
I’m not so sure that this legislation has been quickly cobbled together. Leftist interest groups have been working on this for decades as a part of their vision for socialist utopia.
I’d be willing to bet that this has been on someone’s hard drive for quite some time. Probably some staffer for Pelosi or Barney Frank, someone who used to work for Acorn or Media Matters maybe.
Going further, these people know exactly what’s in this bill. They know exactly what they want to achieve, and they have been waiting for a time such as this, and they will do whatever it takes to get it done. These people are ruthless.
I suspect this is the main reason that Conservatives are constantly caught flat-footed. They are unbound by the restrictions of civilized people. They have everything planned out, every response to criticism is orchestrated and focus grouped, and every speech is carefully phrased. This has been so for years.
We work within the rules, we actually address peoples’ arguments and systematically refute them. The opposition cares little about the rules until we overstep them.
The only difference today is that they no longer have a monopoly on the media. They get challenged now, and they don’t like it. They slip up and it gets sent around the world within minutes. They are starting to be held accountable, and it is driving them crazy.
The people they used to depend on to remain silent and blissfully unaware are rising up with cogent arguments and factual responses. We conservatives are now the fighters of the status quo, and we are getting organized. This is unnerving to leftists. They are used to having their way, because they are smarter than us, they know what’s best, and we are ignorant, religious, racists.
It is interesting that conservatives are the new liberals. We are fighting against the man, we are battling the entrenched powerbrokers. We are standing against the hypocrites. We are the radicals bringing about change. Change we can believe in.
Millbrat,
If they weren’t at least a little afraid of loosing their cushy jobs, they wouldn’t work so darn hard at deniability. I agree they aren’t exactly quacking in their boots, but they do worry enough of their own supporters could wise up to them if they advance the radical-agenda too far. They want the agenda, they heartily agree with it, and they want their names associated with it; they just don’t want us blowing their cover.
I have to disagree the time to defeat this is after passage. Look how well that worked getting Social Security, Affirmative-Action and Medicare-Medicaid reversed; and the same argument was made about using the courts to bring those down after passage. Moreover, a determination making Obamacare un-Constitutional would have to declare those other monoliths to incompetence, plus every bit of unlegislated regulation from the last 100 years, un-Constitutional on the same basis (just ain’t gonna happen!).
I do agree with you about the ‘title’ aspect, however. This is just the shell, with details to be filled in later. Ever since Congress began delegating regulation powers to bureaucrats, that has been the norm and why you won’t find in the text of the bill how it will work in actual practice. We’re just supposed to ‘trust’ that our government would never do anything to harm or pauperize us (unless it’s those nasty Republicans in charge) and just leave the details to them for later.
I still favor reason over ‘playing-the-system’. Our only real chance of defeating this is before it passes. To do that, we have to energize voters (including moderate liberals and independents against it, and we can only do that through appeals to reason. Voter resistance to this is building, and that is only because voices like ours have been getting the word out that Obamacare is a diseased porker.
Mountain Man,
I’m sure that you’re correct. I would imagine that liberals have had all these pieces of ‘dream’ legislation written up a long time ago in anticipation of one day having the majorities to drag the country so far leftward that we’ll never find our way back.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to discover that these bills have existed for so long and have made the rounds of all the democratic Congressmen and Senators for such a long time that it’s the major reason they don’t even bother to read them prior to the vote.
One can easily imagine Nancy Pelosi issuing a twitter that says “Double X, shallow cross, 53 alert!” and everyone knows that the 300 page amendment for cap & trade will show up any minute.
Just because they’ve had this done for years doesn’t mean they’ve not over-reached. One thing about liberals: It doesn’t even occur to them that there is another side to an argument. They are so convinced of the righteousness of their own position that it doesn’t dawn on them that a reasonable person might have a different viewpoint. This is what leads me to believe that somewhere in this 1,000 page ‘wet dream’ of population control that they call “Health Care Reform” there is a portion that is unconstitutional.
I’ve already challenged some liberals during health care discussions at cocktail parties over this. Their response is a smug expression and the comment; “What an idiot! Don’t you know this goes straight to the phrase ‘The right to life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness’?” I just shake my head and walk away while they laugh loudly amongst themselves. No use debating with people that don’t even know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But this response, which I’ve received more times than I can count, leads me to believe that most of their elected officials are not much more discerning. I truly have faith that all three bills before the Congress have unconstitutional provisions within them.
Bob,
I question your statement regarding incumbent democrats’ fears that their own supporters may wise up and throw them under the bus if they push the ‘radical-agenda’ too far. I made a post/comment on an essay here entitled “Why is it so hard communicating with liberals” that postulated that @ 30% of EACH political persuasion were hard-core, unswayable, dyed-in-the-wool, zealots. Given that circumstance, it seems a reach to believe that their own base would turn on them.
Electoral turnouts, particularly during mid-term elections are usually light. I would imagine that a much more sensible scenario would be that such activity as we’ve seen lately would motivate a sector of the electorate to turn out that had not bothered in previous elections. Increased turnout may just drive an incumbent from office.
I understand your theory regarding Affirmative Action and Medicare would have to be scrutinized in the same light as health care. However both affirmative action and Medicare affect much smaller, ‘minority’, segments of society. Granted, once all the baby boomers retire they may outnumber all other demographic groups, but as of now they don’t. Anyway, as I stated, these affect minority segments of the population. Universal health care, just by its title, affects everyone. Medicare is granted to maybe 40 million elderly, affirmative action applies to an even smaller number. But I believe SCOTUS will require a ‘higher standard’ of a program that is slated to cover all 308 million Americans.
You are absolutely correct as to the details being filled in later. The actual contents of the legislation matters none. Once the bill is enshrined in law, expect progressives to constantly strive to ‘improve’ the legislation. Although I did state that I believed our best option for defeating this is constitutional challenge, it’s not the only one. My reasoning regarding the declining percentages of success for reasoned debate is the ‘war room’ tactics being employed by the opposition. All debate is ‘marginalized’ and dissenters are branded with the vilest terms describable.
Democrats are now fighting a ‘holding’ action until the August recess is over. They are either taking a page out of the President’s playbook and ‘stacking’ the town hall ahead of time, or cancelling them all together. They don’t want feedback, they want acquiescence. Democrats read polling data better than republicans do. They need cover. Either in the form of agreeable sound bites to provide to the MSM, or RINOs to vote with them in September.
As I believe I mentioned previously; democrats have the numbers in the House to pass this without a single republican vote, and I believe they must be forced to do so. I also happen to believe that the same must happen in the Senate; whether ‘reconciliation’ is employed or not. If they’re dumb enough to do this, then the republican battle cry in 2010 and 2012 is “Give us the majority position so we can ‘abort’ this piece of horrible legislation before it is enacted in 2013!”
Millbrat,
You said Republican politicians can sweep back into power with a battle cry of “Give us the majority position so we can ‘abort’ this piece of horrible legislation before it is enacted in 2013!”
But, will they? Oh, I am sure that or something like it will be their battle-cry, but sincerely doubt they’ll follow through on such a promise. Maybe if we had a Reagan or Ron Paul to go with the package, but not otherwise. Everything I have seen of Republicans (and this includes the Contract With America Congress) suggests they won’t or will simply reign in the excess without actually dealing the monster a proper execution. This still leaves it on the books for later liberals to revitalize at will, rather like an inflatable/deflatable Frankenstein. After a few rounds of which, Republicans simply move onto something else; leaving the monstrosity as enshrined and untouchable as those other wee beasties. No doubt they’ll even whine the battle to remove it inflicts more damage than it does good.
As for the Democrat base, I wasn’t suggesting it is their base that might oust them, but, rather, their marginal supporters (aka, so-called moderate-liberals and independents) who will desert them. I think we’re arguing almost the same thing here. It is always the marginals who decide, regardless of party. Their base would vote for Attila-the-Hun as long as he sports a union button and speaks the lingo.
You pointed out Affirmative Action and Medicare as affecting small minorities (yeah, but significant voter-blocks), but neglected to include Social Security which impacts most of us despite it does little for us. Look how hard it was even to repair that monstrosity (never mind killing it off or reigning it in). If SS is untouchable despite few of us consider it more than a supplement, how much more sancrosanc do you suppose Obamacare will be when our very survival hangs by it and most Americans are convinced through long dependence on its necessity. That, by the way, is the situation in Britain and most socialized-medicine countries where majorities continue to insist it should be overhauled but won’t stand for killing it.
What’s that old expression? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
Bob,
I cannot really answer as to what newly minted conservative congressmen may do. One would hope that they would carry the lesson of the demise of their recently defeated predecessor to heart. My personal opinion is that we as the electorate need to cast more informed ballots. I’m not going to go into a long rumination on citizen/legislators as opposed to career politicians, but I sincerely believe that the longer a person spends inside the beltway, the more insulated from the reality of living under the force of government regulation he becomes.
I’m not certain we’re ‘arguing’ anything. However; having said that, I feel I’m on solid ground when I say that moderate liberals and independents aren’t separate entities from liberals. If there is any separation, it is only three degrees or so. They may make themselves ‘feel’ more discerning or deliberative by attaching a different moniker to themselves; but it is still all about how they ‘feel’. Making judgments in accordance with one’s emotions cannot be anything other than ‘liberal’. All it does is provide them cover when everything unravels.
Case-in-point: My father-in-law proudly calls himself an ‘independent’. During our traditional Sunday family dinners, that vein in the right side of his head gets to throbbing and swelling each and every time the family begins a political discussion. During the election, his statement was that he wanted a different direction for the country. I warned him repeatedly about Barack Obama’s prior personal and professional relationships, his prior statements, and his agenda. His response was not to address these issues, but to state that McCain was nothing but the ‘same old Washington insider type’. This is how he deflected criticism of the democratic candidate, not by research, but by pigeonholing a definition of the candidate he viscerally opposed. Sound familiar? Independents and moderates are nothing but closet liberals. They probably fall closer to ‘ideal’ liberal from the standpoint they will tolerate even a certain amount of dissenting opinion. But they are still making decisions according to ‘feelings’ as opposed to actual core belief.
My father-in-law’s supposed independence now functions as his ‘fig leaf of cover’ that he offers as excuse for his wasted ballot. “Well, I never would have imagined that President Obama would have (enacted, spent, forced, or declared; pick one) the types of things he has!” When you remind him of all the warnings you issued, his face flushes, and that vein starts throbbing once again. The moderates may wake up, smell the coffee, and abandon Obama in 2012; but this abandonment needs to be an abandonment of the agenda, and needs to happen in 2010.
I understand your point regarding Social Security. I had no idea it had been ‘fixed’. Be that as it may; it is still a program that doesn’t really affect anyone prior to retirement; whereas universal health care is a ‘cradle-to-grave’ entitlement which will fundamentally alter forever the relationship between the state and the citizen. Politicians have always tinkered around the edges of Social Security. There is no ‘edge’ to universal health care!
Universal health care is holistic in regards to life. The state now decides who lives, how they live, and how long they live. The formula is constantly ‘refined’ in order that the state my extract maximum benefit from each granted life. Existence in the State, for the State, and of the State! The elitists trying to shove this down the throat of the American People are calculating a benefit for the state, and shrouding it under the disguise of a benefit for the people.
Let’s review another federal program in order to highlight this issue. The federal government provides money to the states for public education. In return, the federal control forced on the school districts is ubiquitous. The money the feds provide for that amount of control only averages about 7% of any district’s total expenditure. If 7% buys that much control over public education; how much control do you believe the federal government will want over each and every aspect of each and every citizen’s life in return for government paying for health care? Mark my word; if allowed to happen, universal health care will become a mixture of “Logan’s Run” and “Soilent Green”.
Milbrat,
You are only making my case for me. If UHC will be an even bigger part of our lives than Social Security, how long before most people consider it indispensible? Already, the sheeple think SS indispensible, despite they see none of it until they retire. Public education is even more untouchable, even to speak of reining it in, despite it (in league with the socialist-workers) relegate parents to caretaker roles. Only during a very short transitional phase (measured in months) will the few remaining skeptics have much an impact on this impression. This is another reason for Obama to delay implementation until after the 2013 election because it will create a honeymoon atmosphere in which the program will be seen as benign (at worst neutral). Liberals will be able to laugh off their critics as having stirred up needless fears (See, the health system is just fine and we can thank Obama who saved it). If there is no cost or pain in the initial period, no one will make the mental-connection later between cause and effect when the program actually kicks in.
As to pinning your hopes on an ‘informed electorate’, don’t. This is probably about as informed as it gets. Your remark assumes we haven’t been getting the word out effectively, and you are probably right. The old-media, government, and academia still control most of the venues of disinformation, and as long as that remains true our persuasiveness is overmatched. They do hear our arguments, and some even listen attentively, and nod heads eagerly indicating agreement. Most then do nothing, but a few call their Congressmen and attend Tea Parties. Yet, mostly, that only last about as long as the next news cycle, with Katie Couric beatifically intoning all is well in the hands of the anointed one. We see thinking people stirred now because they realize, as I do, now is the time to stop this before it becomes law. It will be much harder stirring most of these same people to action once it has become law as they realize the amount of work that will take compared to just stopping it. Also, right now, this has a time line to it they can commit to. Afterwards, there won’t be any deadline to meet and fixing it can be put off. A sense of defeat will prevail, and you will not move them as now. Some of us will continue fighting it, just as we have always fought it; but now is the time to stop it while we have the people’s attention, not later when they can only be stirred piecemeal. This is the moment, so Caper Diem!
Bob,
I realize that you believe that now is the best opportunity to defeat UHC. I’m not telling you not to try. It’s just that my ‘reading’ of the situation differs from yours. I’m, not in the least, convinced that House democrats care one whit for your or anyone else’s opinion.
We had this level of engagement over Immigration Reform in 2007. In due course, we failed to keep that level of commitment, and peripheral issues clouded the general election in 2008. Ideally; all Congressmen and Senators on the side of that immigration bill should have paid with their jobs next cycle. Why didn’t they?
Witnessing the rhetoric and its steady elevation over this issue, one message seems clear; “We (Congress) have decided that we are not interested in public opinion that fails to match the decision we’ve already made. We will marginalize anyone not completely on board.”
Believe me when I say that I fully support the levels of engagement on this issue by the American public. My personal opinion is that we’d be further ahead of the game by exploring how we may ensure that this level doesn’t wane before 2010. What matters is this; this bill must be defeated and that all these representatives must pay with their jobs in November; and our goal should be to ensure that result.
Bob,
Just to carry my original debate point, I did some research over the weekend.
In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925), the court ruled: “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the of states is beyond the power the federal government.”
And, in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 1935), the United States Supreme Court said, “These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.”
In U.S. v. Anthony, 15 Supp. 553, 555, (S.D. Ca., 1936) and U.S. v. Evers, 453 F. Supp. 1141, 1150 (M.D. Ala., 1978), the court ruled: “…The direct control of medical practice has been left to the states.”
Millbrat,
I wasn’t arguing against the invalidity or illegality of Obamacare, I’m just saying the time to stop it is before it goes on the books. This is a question of getting the voters fired up and sustaining it long enough to reverse a done deal, not one of validity. The federal courts you cite were ruling against state laws or against their own interference in minor matters of someone else’s making. Moreover, these citations all belong to the pre-FDR court culture. Today’s courts will gladly abet a federal monopoly.