dagblog - Comments for "Politics, the Kennedy Court and Health Care"

I agree with this momoe. In

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:19:46 +0000

In reply to If hospitals are mandated to

I agree with this momoe. In particular I think you are correct about the backlash against Republicans if the court oversteps once again. But I don't think the conservatives on the court give shit about anything except making America a libertarian/right wing country. It's depressing.

I would hope that at least one of those guys would step out of their KochStupor and step up for Americans, be the Earl Warren we need, but I can't see it with these guys at all. I don't see a conservative who will be willing to step out of the ideological bubble and think about the country and the people who make up the country.

AA, thanks for that, very

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:06:09 +0000

In reply to I rarely check TPMCafe

AA, thanks for that, very very interesting piece. Thanks for the link.

Ditto on the thanks for the

artappraiser — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 06:32:31 +0000

In reply to Wendell Potter (former top

Ditto on the thanks for the link!

I rarely check TPMCafe

artappraiser — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 06:31:50 +0000

In reply to Politics, the Kennedy Court and Health Care

I rarely check TPMCafe anymore but I just thought to do so right now and found:

Reed Hundt explaining to his old classmate Sam Alito that "It's not that complicated"

It is so true however. Of

NCD — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 04:14:39 +0000

In reply to Wow, interesting NCD. Kind of

It is so true however. Of course, corporations #1 mission is to make profits, what else could one expect from them, doing what's best for the nation? Fat chance of that.

After reading Wendell's take, I am almost hoping the law goes down. If Potter is right, the opportunity to game the 'regulation' $ystem, and buy off agencies and politicians, with everyone having to sign up for private insurance is huge.

Wow, interesting NCD. Kind of

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 03:07:03 +0000

In reply to Wendell Potter (former top

Wow, interesting NCD. Kind of depressing though isn't it.

Thanks Bruce, and I agree

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 03:05:24 +0000

In reply to Tmac, You are correct that

Thanks Bruce, and I agree with everything you wrote. It does matter who sits in the oval office, it matters greatly. Like you, I wish more people would realize this when they don't vote, and when they say it doesn't matter.

And it appears Justice Sotomayer asked some of the most pointed questions during the hearings, unlike Scalia who is obsessed with whether or not the government can force you to eat broccoli. Ugh...

Wendell Potter (former top

NCD — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:22:10 +0000

In reply to Politics, the Kennedy Court and Health Care

Wendell Potter (former top CIGNA executive):

“They (big insurance) don’t want the bill - quite honestly - to be overturned or repealed. They want the bill to go forward with the individual mandate intact. But what they want to do is to get people to vote out the Democrats who voted for the bill so that they’ll have more friends in Congress to strip out the consumer protections.”

He also predicts the implosion of our health care 'system', similar to the Wall Street mortgage swindle, drain the system of as much cash as you can, then let it collapse and let government pick up the pieces:

Potter says for-profit health insurers are killing health health care and their unsustainable system will implode within a few years. That’s the view he got from the CIGNA corporate ladder.

Tmac, You are correct that

Bruce Levine — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:59:00 +0000

In reply to Politics, the Kennedy Court and Health Care

Tmac,

You are correct that the odds would favor a 5-4 split finding at least that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. If that is what happens it confirms the absolute folly of the notion that it matters not who sits in the Oval Office in 2013 and going forward. I know it's fun for some to claim that Judge Sotomayor, for example, is just another corporate stooge, but that kind of bald charge is easy to make and nothing more.

The fact is that Judge Sotomayor is going to vote for the constitutionality of the HCA. And that is not just significant with respect to the critical issue of health care reform. More significantly, this case could turn the notion of federal social welfare program into a relic of bygone days. This is a battle over the meaning of interstate commerce, the constitutional underpinning of the New Deal and myriad federal social programs since the 1930s. The battle over the meaning of interstate commerce is a battle that progressive Americans finally won on the eve of WWII. Seventy years later, the same battle is being waged again.

It sure as heck does matter who sits on the Supreme Court. And, accordingly, it matters who is nominating those who sit on that Court.

I'm not arguing it is or

Aunt Sam — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:14:14 +0000

In reply to At the beginning of the year

I'm not arguing it is or isn't the bill. I don't know what their decisions will be, so I can't intelligently debate any rationales/reasons they cite for any ruling.

But, there is a problem with the legislative body when majority admits they never read the whole bill before voting - It's not only this bill, but my understanding the majority of major legislative actions that this applies to - Like I stated, they all just need to KISS.