Comments on: Early Morning Swim: Bernie Sanders Discusses Health Care Bill with Keith Olbermann

By: NationalInsecurity

NationalInsecurity — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:29:16 +0000

“Good Manners” in France.

The Dutch tradition would say, “It’s what decent people would do.” Or so I’ve been told.

We don’t seem to have ths in the US anymore, but I have memories of a time perhaps half a century ago…

By: beowulf

beowulf — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:27:23 +0000

Mandate as a taking, that would be hilarious. No one has a right to get reimbursed for the valid taxes they are obligated to pay, however the 5th Amendment “Takings Clause” requires any government agency (local, state or federal) that take private property for a public purposes must pay the owner “just value” for the property taken. If a court ever held that the individual mandate to pay premiums is a Taking, that’d mean the government would be required to reimburse citizens the cost of the mandated premiums.

Of course they don’t want to call it a tax (which avoids the takings issue) because the only form of constitutional direct taxation– that is, one directed at a person and not an event or transaction– is the income tax (and that’s only because of the 16th Amendment). Mandating everyone buy insurance and setting the amount owed by family size, age, tobacco use and not by, oh I don’t know, INCOME is going to look sketchy to the courts.

By: DrDave

DrDave — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:07:32 +0000

They overreached. They should have just passed the basic protections, preexisting conditions, and so on. Then passed medicare extension as a separate bill, then passed whatever else.

By: ouroborous

ouroborous — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:26:12 +0000

Mostly I’m interested in this debate because HCR is something I’m very passionate about.

But a little part of me has to wonder, is 2009 the year when “kick the hippy” stops being fun for the Democratic party?

If so, that would be the best Christmas gift ever.

By: robertrock

robertrock — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:32:23 +0000

Reconciliation is the only answer at this point. Do what it right, not what it politically correct. But I don’t believe anyone has the sack for that.

By: myxzptlk

myxzptlk — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:05:05 +0000

Like others here, I’m fed up with the politicians and media who are characterizing progressive opposition to the neutered Senate bill as “naive”, sour grapes about reneged campaign promises, or whatever the liberal stereotype du jour is. There are very practical reasons to oppose this bill, to whit:

While I agree that the neutered Senate bill contains some modest gains that could help people, it also contains an individual mandate that is not only a massive give-away to big insurance (which is bad enough), but worse, will saddle middle-class families with insurance premiums that they can’t afford to pay – during an economic depression, no less.

If the bill included meaningful cost containment and anti-trust provisions – even a loss ratio provision, dare we hope – then the individual mandate might be tolerable (and yes, I understand the reason for the individual mandate), even without a public option. But the fact that the current bill contains no serious cost containment measures means that the individual mandate will maximize both pain for families who can’t afford it and profits for companies that are already obscenely profitable.

Ladling more debt on American families will only lead to more bankruptcies, medical emergencies, and deaths, while abetting the very scoundrels who are causing the problem.

Right now, our only hope is to pressure Congress to fix the cost containment issue in committee. If they don’t, then my calculation (which might be wrong) is that we’re more likely to get what we want by shaming the industry goons and their minions who gutted the original bill, and trying again, then we are by passing the bill and hoping that Congress will get around to fixing it later.

By: medicinecat

medicinecat — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:42:08 +0000

Having spent time in France I can say you are correct about it being a “we society”. My observation has been that the French are not this way because of some hippie style benevolence (unlike me, an aging hippie and unflagging advocate of kindness and benevolence), but instead see an advanced social safety net as the grown-up thing to do and SIMPLY GOOD MANNERS.

By: selise

selise — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:13:20 +0000

when i do it, sure. but i don’t know if it will be much help to you. i’m definitely a novice/hobbiest, and just try to figure out enough to do what i want to get done.

By: Bluetoe2

Bluetoe2 — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:42:51 +0000

The French also have universal child care. The French also have family leave for the birth of a child or the caring of an ill relative, with full pay. The French have achieved the maturity of being a “we” society. The U.S. being in a state of infantilism is nothing more than a “me” society.

By: merkwurdiglieber

merkwurdiglieber — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:40:23 +0000

Essentially this bill is the second TARP bill masked as health care
reform. Just imagine the deals already cut in anticipation of the new
revenue stream and you can see the business logic the court would respond
to.