Wednesday, October 05, 2011

What's up doc? The Supreme Court

It is time to revive the battle for the public option, which a majority of the American people support whether the White House, the Republicans, the right or the lobbyists like it or not. --Brent Budowsky for The Hill.
So Obama's asked the highest court in the land to review his signature health care reform legislation. Although pundits far and wide believe the court will take the case during this term, it's anybody's guess how its decision will play out.

Iffin' the individual mandate is shot down as unconstitutional, I predict the public option rising from the ashes, with a single payer system looming in the shadows. Might even happen if the mandate is upheld.

Oh damn me all to hell for being a political junkie, but I am what I am.

* * *

37 comments:

Bill said...

I guess it's ok to call it Obamacare since it is his "signature health care reform legislation". He/we should put the entire thing on hold until the court weighs in. That would save the country $1.3Trillion!

Speaking of money. Why will half a jobs bill, the President's current campaing scheme, create more jobs than the first, twice as big, jobs bill (then called stimulus), which created zero?

Judy said...

Read this morning that in some parts of the country, temporary staffing manufacturing jobs are in abundance...can't find enough people to fill them...just need to look I guess...

VideoDude said...

Hell, the Teapublicans won't even pass a half plan. They are so afraid of giving the President anything that might work.

Harry Finch said...

In Vermont, we're planning on our own single-payer plan by 2014.

Anonymous said...

That Bill sure knows his talking points. That don't make 'em true.

www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/ -

RJ

Joe said...

Harry Reid has refused to let the President's jobs bill come up. Republicans have no control on bringing up votes in the Senate.if we are going to make sure comments are accurate we should look at both sides, eh RJ?

Joe said...

'“I agree with the president, I think he’s entitled to a vote on his jobs bill,” the Republican leader said on the Senate floor as he tried to force an immediate vote on the American Jobs Act by attaching it to unrelated legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused.'

From the LA Times, not exactly a conservative source

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-pn-mcconell-reid-jobs-20111004,0,4996783.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews+%28L.A.+Times+-+Top+News%29

Nin Andrews said...

Oh man, I tried to leave a comment and it vanished. So if I comment twice, well, what the f.
But there was a great article in the New Yorker in September (I think) on Clarence Thomas. About this and other things. A must-read, esp. if you want to be creeped out.

Anonymous said...

Joe-the 'unrelated legislation' referred to in the story is a highly contentious currency proposal that has many countries including the Chinese hopping mad. It's not the kind of legislation you attach an unrelated proposal to in good faith.
Mr. McConnell is trapped by his own words when he stated for the record and quite proudly that his number one priority was not jobs or the economy but defeating the president. Ever since,Mr Obama's election but especially since the mid-terms, the Republicans have behaved not as a loyal opposition but as an insurrectioary party determined to thwart the administration at any opportunity, even going so far as to filibuster non-controversial department-level appointees-the case of Dr. Peter diamond is a case in point. Dr Diamond, a Nobel laureate in economics, was deemed unqualified for the Federal Reserve Board by that Great Statesman And Diplomat Senator Jeffrey Sessions of Alabama. Dr. Diamond's Nobel was for study of monetary policy, which is the Federal Reserves main purpose-to adjust the money supply to minimize inflation and maximize employment.
MR

Anonymous said...

@Nin-I haven't gotten around to the New Yorker piece yet-did they mention that Mr Justice Thomas' wife was working for the Bush transition team in December 2000 when Mr Justice Thomas cast the deciding vote in Bush v Gore, essentially awarding the Presidency to Mr Bush in contradiction of the laws of the State of Florida? It seems that the righties are only down with states' rights when it involves the states' ability to pollute, pay people starvation wages, deny medical care or use human beings as farm machinery.
MR

Anonymous said...

@ Harry Finch,
Your governor (name escapes me) has been on the Maddow show several times. he is an impressive man with vision, but more impressive to me is that there is still a state in the country wherein executive and legislators of both parties can work together for the good of their citizens...
Mike R...
wv-'dosyche'..."If is 'dosyche' I do scratch"

Erin O'Brien said...

Regarding the health care law, Olney had a great show with all sorts of opinions on the fate of HCR.

Joe, your link also calls the McConnell move "political theater," which both sides are guilty of. Obama's Jobs Bill is political theater. He knows it has no chance of implementation, but Obama's playing populist now, and that's going to be a real bitch for Romney in the general election.

"They want to keep taxes low for the wealthy and take away your Social Security!"

God knows Obama has disappointed me plenty, but I do believe the right has been obstructionist in the extreme since Obama took office. The tactic has Obama cornered and I predict his gloves will come off.

Speaking of bipartisanship, imagine how this country would look right now if McConnell and Pelosi and Reid and Boehner had stood shoulder to shoulder next to Obama after a long and intense HCR negotiation and said they ALL supported the legislation.

There was a time when our government worked that way.

Aw hell, since I'm up to my armpits anyway, here's a delish little footnote on special elections as referendums. Good christ, will I ever shut up?

Kirk said...

A single-payer plan would be the best way to go.

Bill said...

Jobs. I guess the hundreds/thousands protesting on wall street and other places, don't have them. The protests remind me of Berkeley in the 60's. There are some differences though. There doesn't seem to be a lot of pot. They haven't started calling the cops, pigs. And, I have a feeling that crabs wouldn't be the biggest concern related to std's.

Kirk said...

Hot off the wire:

"After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order."

--Sarah Palin

Anonymous said...

Sorry E 'O I have to disagree with this statement somewhat.
"God knows Obama has disappointed me plenty, but I do believe the right has been obstructionist in the extreme since Obama took office. The tactic has Obama cornered and I predict his gloves will come off."

Obama came into office with majorities in both houses of the legislature and the goodwill of most of the world who were sick of the ham fisted tactics of the Bush admin. If he were going to "take the gloves off" that would have been the time. What he's given us is essentially the 3rd term of GWB. Particularly in regard to the continued erosion of civil liberties and the support of the large financial institutions. I'd love to see him primaried but it won't happen.

Speaking of Godly events I must give a shout out to my homeboy the late, great Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth who passed away in Birmingham today. Now there was a man with courage. R.I.P. Rev.

RJ

Anonymous said...

RJ-I agree with your post to a certain extent, but it must be noted that the President held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a brief period of time.
People have a great misconception that the United States Senate is a democratic institution. In fact due to the rules of the Senate that allow a minority to essentially hold a veto power over anything going forward, it is anything but democratic. After the way Mr McConnell conducted himself when the Kennedy seat was lost in Massachusetts I was bitterly disappointed that Mr Reid, when he had the power on the first day of the new congress in January, didn't take the opportunity to change the rules.
That the contemporary (can't call 'em modern) Republican party is anti-democratic is beyond doubt. One has only to look at the states in which the Republicans have one party rule and follow the new voter eligibility laws they've passed. In the guise of stamping out statistically insignificant instances of so-called voter fraud, they have passed new requirements that are blatant voter suppression efforts targeting key Democrat constituencies-the elderly, the poor, students, and minorities.
More later. i'm getting my citations together to blow up Bill's first comment on the Affordable Care Act and the jobs numbers of the Recovery Act.
What he is referring to are blatant lies repeated by Ms Bachman, Governor Perry and others which are never refuted by the so-called 'liberal' mainstream media.
MR

Erin O'Brien said...

True all dat, RJ. Stunning how the left can steal defeat from the jaws of victory again and again. One thing you have to applaud the righties for: the bastids sure do get in line and stay in line.

yeah, yeah.

A nutzoid bet me $100 that Palin would take the WH in 2013. How much any of you want to bet he's going to squelch?

Anonymous said...

"Welsh"?
MR

Anonymous said...

Can you IMAGINE how furious the attention whore Palin is right now?
"Why couldn't that c*cksucker Jobs last one more freakin' day!!! Today was MIIIIIIINE...I don't give a f*ck about those goddamn phones-I can't figure out how to use it anyway!!! TODD posts all my friggin tweets...."
MR

Anonymous said...

^Jobs final marketing coup. Good work Steve. R.I.P.

RJ

Erin O'Brien said...

Mike, it is "welsh" and I am a dumbass. Good christ awmighty.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

Actually, I think the term is "welch." As in Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade from "Scent of a Woman," in which he tells his young charge, Charles this:

"I welched. I'm a welcher, didn't I tell you?"

Al
TRAG

P.S. Not a political commentary.

Anonymous said...

The Tango scene in "Scent of a Woman" is one of the great moments in cinematic history.

I would french kiss Bill O'Reilly for 15 minutes with Gabrielle Anwar.

(Not a political commentary but a rather lascivious one. To be expected from a leftist I suppose.)

RJ

Anonymous said...

@ Al-the dictionary I consulted shows that both spellings are accurate and interchangeable in this context. It also reflected no known origin, although I wonder if it isn't a mild ethnic slur along the lines of 'indian giver' or 'dutch uncle'.
MR

Hal said...

RJ @ 7:16, I agree with much of what you said, but if he is primaried, prepare for President Romney/Perry. I agree that the gloves should have come off during the first two years, but the point of view you expressed was held by many Democrats and liberals who stayed home last year, which resulted in the the teabaggers winning 63 seats.

Progressives can change the direction of the country more effectively by participating, rather than weakening the one party who can help us.

Anonymous said...

@Hal-thanks for pointing out, by using the phrase "the one party who can help us", that there is indeed a qualitative difference between the Democrat party and the contemporary (can't call 'em modern) Republican party. This distinction seems beyond the mainstream media's ability to grasp and/or articulate, and their adoption of an effective editorial policy of equivalence is an injustice and harmful to the national debate.
Example, paraphrasing from a wire report earlier in the week: "Republicans maintain their steadfast refusal to contemplate tax hikes, while a newly combative President Obama refuses to consider cuts to Medicare or Social Security UNLESS revenues are increased".(emphasis mine). So, the Republicans will not compromise under any circumstances, while the President lays out a position clearly open to compromise...and the article presents the two sides as equally intransigent.
MR
wv-'equarig'-wv follows the rule of a 'u' always following a 'q'.

Anonymous said...

Hal and MR I appreciate your perspective it just seems that's the course progressives have to take election after election and I ain't gettin' any younger.
I suspect E O' is right and that Romney is the presumptive nominee unless the far right chooses to resurrect the Confederacy with Perry. A little fire in the belly for Progessive causes-public education, true National Healthcare, closing Gitmo, restoring habeas corpus, eliminating warrantless wiretaps ending War, etc.-will probably go a long way to shoring up the base. But, again, then what?

RJ

Hal said...

RJ, this is the system we've got, as flawed (deeply IMO) as it is. And to me the choice is simple:

A) Understanding that in order to change the way things means having to accept the way things are, and the way things are is that corporations dominate both parties. The only question is the degree to how much, and that the long term measures that can change this are ultimately out of Obama's or even Congress's hand (start with either reversing Citizen's United, or a simple constitutional amendment that says "corporations are not people, and money is not speech"). Within that framework, support Obama and the Democratic Party and work very hard to make sure they do as much as they possibly can within the constraints of the system we have now.

B) Get pissed off, throw up your hands, stay home, and watch Mitt Romney or even Rick Perry get elected, along with a lot more teabaggers who take over the Senate, and increase the GOP majority in theHouse. Then imagine what happens next. You'll have Scott Walker + John Kasich + Rick Scott + Rick Perry + Michele Bachmann + Sarah Palin x 10.

As imperfect as Obama's been, I choose A by a mile.

Bill said...

Not sure if I've already posted this:

I guess it's ok to call it Obamacare since it is his "signature health care reform legislation". He/we should put the entire thing on hold until the court weighs in. That would save the country $1.3Trillion!

Speaking of money. Why will half a jobs bill, the President's current campaing scheme, create more jobs than the first, twice as big, jobs bill (then called stimulus), which created zero?

Harry Finch said...

Bill - I know this is silly of me, but would you please cite your source for the zero number of jobs created by the President?

Bill said...

Harry: No. But jobs saved/or created is not the same as jobs created. Notice that when anyone in the administration talks about the success of the stimulus, it is always, "saved or created". That means saved and you can't identify those.

Harry Finch said...

Bill - You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. No need for either one of us to trouble ourselves with actual facts.

Anonymous said...

Bill-I haven't looked up citations about your claims, as I mentioned I would above, because it occurred to me that during a previous discussion I suggested a few alternative places you might look into to further inform your perspectives. It seems you weren't interested.
1) The last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 the economy was shedding jobs at the rate of 800,000 per month. By the second quarter of 2009 the economy was once again adding jobs. These are facts.
2) You again repeat a Bachman-esque claim that the Affordable Care Act will cost $1.3t dollars. Did Fox News give you any time frame for this figure? To put it in perspective, the GDP of the United States is approximately $1.4t. So, absent a time frame,that figure is quite meaningless.
Your attempt to create a distinction between jobs created and saved is an attempt to ignore the catastrophic state of the economy in the spring of 2009. As I noted above, when the economy was shedding employment at the rate it was, a job saved IS a job created.
In addition, a large chunk of the Recovery Act funds that went to the states were used, not to create new jobs, but to plug budget holes. (Got Rick Perry, anyone? $45B in Texas alone...but he was AGAINST the stimulus).
MR

Anonymous said...

Bill- NO DATA ALL THE TIME.

Go look at the economic boom being created by The Heart of Whiteystan (Formally known as Alabama) by the new Immigration "Reform" (Read: Juan Crow)Law that has gone into effect. Legal Hispanic workers fleeing in droves. Leaving crops unpicked, construction unfinished, classrooms empty. Them teapartiers know a thing or two about economics. Not.

RJ

Erin O'Brien said...

Just to throw it in there: my number one disappointment with Obama is the ongoing wars in the Middle East.

Yes, I'll still support him next November and will continue to vote for the most plausible candidates on the left as I can exactly for the reasons Hal cites.

Maybe I'm part of the problem.

Bubble, bubble bubbles. Everything's a bubble.

I should have Mike on the payroll for his research around here.

RJ: Alabama immigration law: GRRRR.

And Harry, I love it when you italicize.

Bill said...

They should allow them to stay IN city hall and provide them with medical care. making it comfortable to protest