Image via Wikipedia

What is the health care end game? Matthew Continetti thinks he knows the answer to that question:

Now, one chamber of Congress has voted for repeal, more than half the states are challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual health insurance mandate, and the law remains unpopular. Health care spending and premiums continue to rise, and the president’s claim that the law allows you to keep your health plan has been proven false. Can somebody remind us why the law’s supporters continue to think they have the winning hand?

The truth is that if Republicans in the 112th Congress spent the next two years doing nothing but debating the health care law, beginning to dismantle it, and offering alternatives, they would have real momentum heading into the 2012 election.

This is the golden goose tea party conservatives would like stowed in their sack of goodies.  In fact, if this scenario did play out, I cannot imagine them being any happier.

Here’s the problem:  two years of fastidious debate focused solely on health care and its immediate repeal would do nothing to: A) offer any attempts at remedying our economic conditions, and: B) dispel the idea conservatives are not concerned with the ballooning deficit.  Taking into account repealing PPACA would immediately increase the deficit, the latter point is even more cogent.

If Continetti has his way, his party would remain out of touch with the majority of Americans, who did not sweep the GOP into office because of health care–but the conditions of unemployment and slow employment.  This would not be a path conducive to keeping power.

I am a proponent of the health care bill.  Any attempt to insure more Americans by expanding access, is an important and necessary action.  Is it perfect?  By no means, and that is why it would be more prudent to work proactively to fix pieces of the law that are weakest–and re-examine employer-based insurance and the obscene incentives insurance companies reap.

Health care should always be a discussion worth having–especially considering the huge segment of our economy affected by it.  Having the wrong conversation is a waste of time.  Do we really need two more years like we experienced leading up to the midterms?

H/T: Daily Dish

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Via Cesca:

Take the deficit. Perhaps the two most consequential policies in the proposal are the full extension of the Bush tax cuts and the full repeal of the health-care law. The first would increase the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years, and many trillions of dollars more after that. The second would increase the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years, and many trillions of dollars more after that. Nothing in the document comes close to paying for these two proposals, and the authors know it: The document never says that the policy proposals it offers will ultimately reduce the deficit.

Republicans aren’t re-inventing the wheel here.  In fact, they’re using one of those bent wheels from that 1950′s jalopy.  You know, the one you keep driving in hopes it improves its performance.  Wake me when one of them has the stones to come up with something new.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The president shows fire!  He’s going to need more of this in the coming weeks:

And I know — I know that there are folks right here in this audience, folks right here in Milwaukee and all across America, who are going through these kinds of struggles. Eight million Americans lost their jobs in this recession. And even though we’ve had eight straight months of private sector job growth, the new jobs haven’t been coming fast enough. Now, here’s the honest truth, the plain truth. There’s no silver bullet. There’s no quick fix to these problems. I knew when I was running for office, and I certainly knew by the time I was sworn in, I knew it would take time to reverse the damage of a decade worth of policies that saw too few people being able to climb into the middle class, too many people falling behind. (Applause.)

We all knew this. We all knew that it would take more time than any of us want to dig ourselves out of this hole created by this economic crisis. But on this Labor Day, there are two things I want you to know. Number one: I am going to keep fighting every single day, every single hour, every single minute, to turn this economy around and put people back to work and renew the American Dream, not just for your family, not just for all our families, but for future generations. That I can guarantee you. (Applause.)

Number two — I believe this with every fiber of my being: America cannot have a strong, growing economy without a strong, growing middle class, and the chance for everybody, no matter how humble their beginnings, to join that middle class — (applause) — a middle class built on the idea that if you work hard, if you live up to your responsibilities, then you can get ahead; that you can enjoy some basic guarantees in life. A good job that pays a good wage. Health care that will be there when you get sick. (Applause.) A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. (Applause.) An education that will give your children a better life than we had. (Applause.) These are simple ideas. These are American ideas. These are union ideas. That’s what we’re fighting for.

Here is the video footage from the speech.

I have to admit:  I prefer this Obama to the gentile, bridge-builder– aching to please and always leaving unpleased.  I think this version of the president realizes it’s time to scorch the earth.  Only in American politics can one party excoriate a president for his failings and low approval numbers with the public–when their numbers are even lower–and be on the upswing.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here’s change in action.  The first phase of the Affordable Care Act is now being implemented, and it may affect you or someone you know.  Please take the time to watch this video, and visit HealthCare.Gov for an extensive overview of the new law.  It’s good to know some things are getting done in Washington.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A recent study performed by the Pew Institute, details how the press covered health care reform– the most divisive issue of the last year–and the defining achievement of the Obama administration to date.  Above is a graph detailing the prevailing story lines, and how the media covered them.  Before the health care debate exploded into a fiery, contentous lava pool, it was no more than a blip on the press’s radar screen.  Less than one percent of all media coverage was alotted to health care in the two years preceding Barack Obama’s election.

Yet judging by the graph, much of the focus was on more ancillary issues, such as defining and shaping the “message war” for both parties. The debate was less centered on actual mechanisms of  health care such as the insurance industry, coverages, or premiums.  Below are some points summarized in the study:

Health care coverage was the No. 1 story in the mainstream press from June 2009 through March 2010. There were numerous ebbs and flows to the health care coverage. But in the 10-month period studied, the topic registered at 14% of the news hole, edging out economic coverage (12%) and the conflict in Afghanistan (6%).

The health care debate was tailor-made for ideological talk shows. No media sector devoted as much time to health care as the political and polarizing talk show hosts. Accounting for 31% of the airtime from June 2009 through March 2010, the subject was more than twice as big in the talk show sector as it was in the overall media (14%).

Liberal talk show hosts devoted more airtime to health care than conservative hosts. Left-leaning talk hosts, who broadly supported health care legislation, spent 44% of their time talking about health care issues during the time studied. The right-tilting hosts, who vigorously opposed it, devoted 26% of their time to the subject.

Opponents of health care legislation won the message war. A Nexis search of key terms in the health care debate finds that opponents’ terms appeared almost twice as often (about 18,000 times) as supporters’ top terms (about 11,000). In short, the opponents’ attacks on government-run health care resonated more widely than the supporters’ attacks on the insurance industry.

The debate centered more on politics than the workings of the health care system. Fully 41% of health care coverage focused on the tactics and strategy of the debate while various reform proposals filled another 23%. But only 9% of the coverage focused on a core issue — how our health care system currently functions, what works and what doesn’t.

I added the emphasis to illustrate that the media purposely played up the wild town halls, and the pejorative death panel crap, to reel in more and more confused voters.  Voters who just wanted a simple explanation as to how this plan would or would not help them.  Instead they were treated to a full year of bellicose, partisan drum beating.  Good business for the media elite, but bad business for the public.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Limbaugh weighs in:

You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, “Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.” I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied. This volcano in Iceland has grounded more airplanes — airspace has more affected — than even after 9/11 because of this plume, because of this ash cloud over Northern and Western Europe. At the Paris airport they’re telling people to head to the train station to catch trains out of France, and when people get to the train station they’re telling people, “There aren’t any seats until at least April 22nd,” basically a week from now. It’s got everybody in a shutdown. Earth has opened up. I don’t know whether it’s a rebirth or Armageddon. Hopefully it’s a rebirth, God speaking.

I’m frightened as to what punishment God has in store for us for Rush Limbaugh.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here’s an update to my earlier post about health care legislation– and the upcoming lawsuit being pursued by several state attorney generals.  Watch Georgia attorney general Thurbert Baker give his reasons for not joining the suit below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Sonny Perdue is the republican governor of the state of Georgia.  Perdue is at the tail end of his second and final term in the statehouse.  His administration is presiding over a fiscal crisis–one with steep prolonged budget cuts– that are destined to cripple the state’s services and economy for the foreseeable future.  But Perdue is now distracted by his newest crusade: Repealing health care reform.  He, along with 13 other governors, have joined together to pursue legal action toward the federal government regarding the implementation of the new health care legislation.

Thurbert Baker is Georgia’s Attorney General.  He’s a democrat, who objects to Perdue’s course of action regarding the health care lawsuit.  Baker is refusing to initiate the lawsuit.

There’s nothing new about governors and attorney generals clashing over a particular issue or law.  In fact, it’s rather common.  Both positions are popularly elected, so one has no autonomy over the other.  In fact, 43 states popularly elect their attorney general– which can set in motion many a conflict on many issues.

So it should come as no surprise that in Georgia, the democratic attorney general Thurbert Baker is clashing with the republican governor over the implementation of the newly signed health care reform bill.  Baker is refusing to move a  lawsuit forward against the federal government because he believes it’s an inappropriate allocation of resources.  Baker confirmed his thoughts in a letter to Governor Perdue:

“I do not believe that Georgia has a viable legal claim against the United States….I cannot justify a decision to initiate expensive and time-consuming litigation that I believe has no legal merit. In short, this litigation is likely to fail and will consume significant amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned money in the process… I am unaware of any constitutional infirmities and do not think it would be prudent, legally or fiscally, to pursue such litigation. I must therefore respectfully decline your request.”

It should be noted that Baker is a gubernatorial candidate, and his stance– while seemingly principled– may be part political posturing.  It should also be noted that Perdue, who’s in the waning stages of his term, has now decided to sue the federal government himself– hiring a “special attorney general“  to prosecute the case. Perdue- along with other conservatives in the Georgia legislature– have also initiated articles of impeachment against Baker.  Is Perdue posturing as well, or simply holding the republican line on health care?  Is there a difference anymore?

Putting empty political posturing aside, let’s examine how and if a lawsuit would work for the state.  The contention on the part of Governor Perdue regarding this suit is that the government– specifically congress, has never passed a law requiring Americans to purchase a product before– thus making the federal mandate to purchase insurance unconstitutional.  Let’s take this point first. It can be argued that under the 10th amendment, states are protected from being forced to follow federal laws not in the constitution.  So in essence, a federal mandate to buy health insurance would be considered unconstitutional–and therefore not legally binding.  Some constitutional scholars don’t believe that the 10th amendment adequately addresses the unconstitutionality of the legislation.  Robert Langran, a Supreme Court and constitutional law expert, thinks that while the case has merit, it would ultimately fail:

“It might be politically incorrect but not legally incorrect,” says Mr. Langran. “The Supreme Court has held for over a century that the federal government does have the police power to look out for the welfare of their citizens (and it has held since Reconstruction that we are federal citizens and state citizens).”

Langran believes that so long as a first amendment right is not being violated, then usage of the 10th amendment would not hold up.  There are other legal precedents that may cause health care to stand.  During the New Deal, the courts greatly expanded the powers of congress to regulate commerce, so a challenge to the new law such as Governor Perdue’s may ultimately fail.

So is it good politics to challenge such a law, or is it good policy?  The political divide is widening in the state of Georgia, much like the rest of the country.  Governor Perdue believes he is taking a principled stance, and that the suit will prevail.  Baker believes the end results of a challenge to the law would fail, and squander resources in the process.  Who’s on the right path?  Precedent and history say that it is Baker, but those indicators are definitely not absolute. In today’s heated political  environment, one can never underestimate passion and blinding partisanship.  Perdue and Baker seem to fall right in line with divided climate.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Great read.  Laird puts it very clearly:

You know, I don’t recall asking for some black commander in chief to embrace protections that would prohibit insurance companies from dropping my coverage on a whim and operating as if my continued existence on earth were nothing more than a strategic liability. Plus, if I go along with this progressive health-benefits scheme, he’ll probably hold it over my head every time I receive vital care with the aid of the government to which I already pay taxes.

He is very determined to stand on his own two feet.

<<<< Read more Like Hell I’m Gonna Let Some Black President Pay For My Dialysis>>>>

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here are some of America’s finest thinkers, protesting the only way they know how:

Congressman Bart Stupak, (D-MI)

Watch CBS News Videos Online

–Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) received a rambling, threatening email from a woman who said she was “so filled with rage that she warned the congressman to ‘watch his back’ and called for a bomber to blow up his Scottsdale office.”

–GOP congresswoman Jean Schmidt received a threatening voicemail for her opposition to health care reform.  The caller wishes Schmidt “had broken her back,” and calls the republican party “racists.”

–Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) received a “sniper” threat on her voicemail in regard to her health care vote.

–Congressman Mark Schauer (D-MI) received a threatening voicemail with the caller saying “I hope you die a slow death at a very young age”

Rep. Tom Perriello’s Brother’s Home Vandalized

A very dumb tea party member named Nigel Coleman (who’s BLACK!) released what he thought was Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello’s address on the internet with the suggestion that anti-health care voters go there to “express their thanks,” for Perriello’s ‘yes’ vote. Turns out he had the wrong address and sent some crazies to Perriello’s brother’s home where they severed his gas line and left a threatening letter in his mailbox.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.