Archive for Friday, January 1, 2010

Six asked to challenge health reform

January 1, 2010


Four Republican legislative leaders on Thursday said they want Attorney General Steve Six, a Democrat, to challenge his party’s proposed health care reform.

The GOP legislators — Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, of Independence, who is running for attorney general; Senate Vice President John Vratil of Leawood; House Majority Leader Ray Merrick of Stilwell; and House Speaker Pro Tem Arlen Siegfried of Olathe — say the Democratic health care reform proposals include unconstitutional provisions.

“With luck and a little persuasion, perhaps a majority in Congress will come to its senses and conclude that our nation’s health care can be reformed without disregarding the Constitution,” the four legislators wrote in a letter to Six. “But if they don’t, then it will be up to you and to us to protect the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and to preserve the liberties of the Kansans we represent.”

They cited what is being called either the “Cornhusker Kickback” or the “Nebraska Compromise,” and a requirement that every person have health insurance coverage.

The Nebraska-related provision unfairly makes taxpayers in other states pay for Medicaid expansion in Nebraska, they said. Republicans say the provision was included in the Senate health reform bill to obtain the crucial vote of U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. Nelson has defended the provision, saying other states could have access to such federal funds, but many critics say that is not the case. And the proposed mandate that everyone have coverage is an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government, Republicans argue.

Democrats in Congress have defended their reforms as ways to rein in health care costs, expand coverage to tens of millions of people who don’t have it, and enhance protections of insurance policyholders. They hope to merge differences in House and Senate health care bills to give President Barack Obama legislation to sign into law.

Six’s office said he is currently conducting a legal analysis of the health care reform measures. “If it is determined that issues exist, we will take appropriate action,” Six’s spokeswoman Ashley Anstaett said.

But the four Kansas Republican leaders said Six should act now and join 13 Republican state attorneys general who have raised constitutional objections to the provisions.


Horace 8 years, 5 months ago

Conspicuously absent from the teabaggers braying on about the unconstitutionally of HCR is any identification of which provision of the Constitution is being violated or any caselaw supporting such a proposition.

To those who would blindly cite the the 10A, please review A1S8, US v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936), Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976), Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), and McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819) for some indication of the meaning of phrases like "general welfare", "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper". Or, if you are one of the teabaggers who believes that the "founders' intent" is the determining factor of national power review Federalist Paper 35.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

Nothing can be challenged because nothing has been changed as yet. It's all talk.

Not only that these republicans are from the party of NO and are doing this primarily to bring attention to their campaigns.

This Kansas party of NO like the DC party of NO have done little to promote substantial economic growth for Kansas or the USA consequently no new long term employment. 31 years of Reaganomics/Wreckanomics have wrecked our economic system yet these republocans have adopted the GW Bush philosophy of "Stay The Course" .

Instead they devote the party to Grover Norquist and his failed economic policy and theory tax cuts,tax cuts and tax cuts which do not produce new sound economic growth thus no new long term employment.

Sam Brownback has yet to be part of a solution and is largely responsible for the CLUB for Growth. The Club for Growth is a deceptive name. The so called Club for Growth is one more subscriber to the failed Grover Norquist philosophy.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

Whether it is Kansas republicans or DC republicans in reality there is no difference in actions or philosophy.

So I suggest this political year always keep the following economic scandals in mind:

The republican party are masters at putting millions upon millions upon millions of people out of work. All they do with a remarkable degree of consistency is wreck the economy,initiate huge movements of shipping jobs abroad aka the Reagan-Bush Global Economy and try to wreck social security and medicare.

Is there a definite pattern? Absolutely!

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Home Loan Scandal

  2. The Bush/Cheney Home Loan Scandal

  3. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the bail out money?

  4. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion and wreck the economy)

  5. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts

  6. The "tea parties" BTW are part of the wreckanomics program funded by the Koch Brothers... well known oil billionaires. These thinkers back a tax payers bill of rights which is another scheme to reward the upper 1% which is designed to wreck local and state governments.

All of the above displays reckless economic behavior that which drains the cookie jars. Now the only way to get them revenues back is to take them back.

What Reagan,Bush and Bush republicans plan for 2010. Start the typical repub character assassination campaign which in essence is a massive cover-up scheme for the financial disasters that illustrate how the repub NOT financial giants of our time have screwed up USA economics for the past 30 years.

New jobs and industry have never been on their repub minds. New jobs and industry is the ONLY way the USA can regain enough economic strength to be recognized as an economic superpower once again.

Think about it. In the past 30 years the repub party has been in involved two major home loan scandals that effectively took the USA economy down the tubes. One is too damn many but twice represents repub economic policy. Wreckanomics is a failed economic policy. In fact wreckanomics is beginning to smell like well planned crimes.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

Merill do you think anyone takes your posts seriously?

Here is the real issue folks and you can ignore it at your own peril, but it has direct impact on State Finances and federal mandates of existing and proposed regulations, and the fact that the Government has been lying about the economic "recovery" which is not happening.

If you are a Kansas Politician you had better start looking out fot the "Kansas Citizen" and strat jettisioning thae national Corruptocrat Party lines on both sides of the isle. Otherwise your citizenry will pay the price.

"Because while the DOL indicates there are about 9.5 million total unemployed, for the correlation to return to its near 1.0 trendline the number of unemployed on benefits has to be 14 million."

How much? Well as much as we pay a month in Federal Employee Salaries:

"To put the $14.7 billion number in perspective, in December the Federal Government paid a total of $14 billion ($700 million less) in Federal Salaries! "

And it is worse:

"And some more perspective: in calendar 2009 the government has paid $140 billion in Unemployment Insurance Benefits."

There is more bad news from:

You know all those rosey GDP and Unemployment numbers that we have been getting?? They have been revised down. Here is the quote:

"DECEMBER 31, 2009, 12:41 P.M. ET UPDATE:

Revisions (from one day earlier) Show Chicago PMI At 58.7 In December CHICAGO

(Dow Jones)--The Institute for Supply Management-Chicago on Thursday released recalculations of the seasonal factors for the components of its headline business barometer. The new data, also known as the PMI, show Chicago business activity was weaker in December than had been reported Wednesday.

For December, the largest downward recalculation was in the employment index. The reading is now 47.6 compared with the 51.2 reported Wednesday."

So in a 24 hour period (over the New Years Day Holiday) they revised everything down. Just for some focus, they stated that a CPI of 78 is good, and we are now 20 points below that, and the index for jobs at 70 and we are at 47.6.

This is bad. Remember that Unemployment is paid in the majority from the state and it has been extedded to 99 weeks. Additionaly the Medicaid roles wil be increased as well, and not apportioned equally.

Kansas in in Deep economic do-do.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

BTW it means actually 25 million are without a job, and not 10 million the BLS stats vastly underestimate the Unemployment rate.

Why the newspapers and newsmedia and the Lamestream National Media is not picking up on this is a mystery to me.

I guess they are either too much in bed with the current policies, or are just too stupid to be able to understand this economic stuff.

MyName 8 years, 5 months ago

Great, four Republican candidates for his job are already trying to tell him how to do his job before they have even figured out which one of them will win their primary. And how can you raise a constitutional issue about something that hasn't even passed. Unless it was blatantly obvious, in which case, why didn't they show us all where?

I just hope these legislators realize that doing the job we elected you for >> campaigning for a new job. Figure out the budget and stop worrying about what the AG is doing about a bill that still has a long way to go before it is a law.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

The documented economic disasters of the repub party are of the repub partys own making. It is okay to be reminded of such criminal looking activities. It is the party who adopts Grover Norquist.

Then there is Pres Nixon's Watergate, Iran Contra and lying about Iraq and WMD's. These are repub party decisions.

Brownback does not bring in refreshing new thinking nor solutions. He is a life time moocher of payroll tax dollars supporting someone who claims to dislike big government. Keeping incumbents around does not make things better.

Individually there are bums on both sides of the aisle. However since Watergate the repub party has developed a criminal smell element that never goes away just repeats itself administration after administration after administration.

Maybe this is where the problem lies:

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

"What we really need to do is what some more enlightened countries have done, Ban stupid political parties, in this case the party of NO, AKA the Republican party."

So you really think the Democratic Party is any better than the Republican party?

Are you that ignorant? That much of a koolaid drinker???

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

Yeah you "Bleu Teamers/Red Teamers' And a duumb as the day is long, thinking that it is "the other party's fault"!

What a couple of idiots!

jumpin_catfish 8 years, 5 months ago

Every person who voted for this so called health care reform need to be removed from office the next time they are up for re-election.

manbearpig 8 years, 5 months ago


Your post, while feigning an in-depth understanding of constitutional law, misunderstands the entire point. The onus is on the federal government to justify its actions. The entire premise of the Constitution (as illustrated by the 10th Amendment) is that it creates a government of limited powers. See Article 1 section 8 for a list of the powers. Precisely which power does an individual mandate fall into? It's not the general welfare power because that is not a power, it is a justification for the tax and spend power - "The Congress shall have power . . . [t]o lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States." The individual mandate is not a tax. It is a mandate, that if violated, is punished with a fine.

As for the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, you made the best argument against your case - there is no precedent. There is absolutely no precedent for Congress to pass a law requiring every individual to buy a product from a private company simply because that person is alive. The federal government is going to have to convince the court to expand its jurisprudence on these two clauses to give Congress a substantial new power. Given that the Court has recently (prior to O'Connor's resignation) shown some regret in how loosely it has interpreted the Commerce Clause in recent years (see U.S. v. Lopez), I doubt it's going to expand it any further.

Also, I always think it a good idea when one party or ideology advocates for a new federal power that they consider how that power might be used when the other party takes control. If the individual mandate is somehow rammed through the courts (which I highly doubt) what's to stop Republicans from making you buy an SUV? Or inorganic products? How about a gun?

Finally, please do understand that the Necessary and Proper Clause is not a grant of power in itself. It only allows Congress to enact laws that are necessary and proper "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers [those of Art. 1 Sec. 8]."

So to sum up what I have just written, where in the Constitution is Congress given the power to pass such a law?

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

Don't forget about the "Equal Protection" clause as well. The "deals" cut with Louisiana, Florida, and Nebraska to give them benefits while witholding thoses same benefits from other states, yet requiring those states to be taxed is clearly unconstitutional for equality across all taxpayers intersecting with the 10 amendment on states rights..

So there are at least 13 states that are taking action, and California and New York (and other high population states) are going to sue. So this is a violation on the Tenth Amendment and the fourteenth amendment.

Commerce clause:

"Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure."

That means that the American Citizen should be able to purchase Insurance "across state lines".

Funny how those feigning the constitutional arguments are leaving out the most obvious.

texburgh 8 years, 5 months ago

Yet more proof that Republicans could care less about the average working American - those of us who struggle to pay premiums and copays and deductibles if we are lucky enough to have access to health insurance and those of us who are just uninsured because some for profit corporate pen pusher denied coverage for some pre-existing condition or dropped us or jacked up our premiums to astronomic levels because someone in our family had the audacity to contract cancer or have a stroke. Republicans are only interested in preserving corporate control and corporate profits. And Kansas Republicans are bought and owned by the Koch brothers and their front organizations Americans for Prosperity and the Kansas Policy Institute. Elect more Republicans and kiss your own health insurance - if you are lucky enough to have it - goodbye.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

You really think that tex?

You don't even know why they are asking the AG to lookinto this do you? You just recite the "Talking Points" from the "Blue Team". Pathetic. IF it is beyond your comprehension, then please stop commenting.

here is the rub:

"Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday."

Yes, it is about the Ben Nelson deal, and the Mary Landreu deal, and the Bill Nelson Deal in Florida. ALl those states get prefrential treatment.

You silly koolaid drinker, that is what this article is about, and shows that you have no concept of what you are talking about.

What this means to Kansas (if you read anything in the bill) that those at 133% of Poverty Line under the Senate Bill, and 150% of the Poverty line in the House bill will be rolled into the Medicaid system. Which means that 50% of those funds will come not from the Federal Funding, but has to come from the State General Fund. If you do the math of prevailing wage in Kansas about 75% of the people that are uninsured will be below that line and rolled into Medicaid.

Kansas is broke now, and will have to come up with more money to insure those uninsured at 50%. If you think that there are 275,000 uninsureds (DailyKos Numbers) in Kansas then 75% would be 206,250 and at about 10,000 a year for an individual and then multiply times .5 for the Kansas share is $1,031,250,000. Yes, One Billion dollars a year that Kansas will have to come up with.

That is how they (Democrats Baucus, Reid, Pelosi) got the damn thing to be "deficit nuetral".

My questions is can any "journalists" actually do math anymore, or any investigative journalism???

It is not too hard to figure out.

Here is the best part though:

"The twenty somethings that voted for the DNC and Obama are the ones that will have to pay for it for the rest of their lives".

SOrry to let you know, but it is time the politicians started paying attention to "Citizens" instead of Parties" and Lobbyists" or some are going to be hurt very badly.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

Oh, yeah, and Nebraska doesn't have to make that payment at 50%, the feds pick up their portion. Same for Louisiana, and Florida. Except that Florida gets to keep Medicare Advantage Program, and it will sunset everywhere else.

That is what the lawusits are about.

Liberty275 8 years, 5 months ago

Why challenge it? Embrace it and make the idealistic young and healthy democrats feed the insurance corporations their cash. A few years of subsidizing insurance for old people will turn them into libertarians that will vote republican.

As for supporting the nebraska bribe and the lousiana purchase, yeah, challenge those and lets see if we can get a refund.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

Ben Nelson groveling then backtracking.

"The telephone survey of 500 Nebraskans, conducted Monday, suggested Republican Gov. Dave Heineman would defeat Nelson in a potential 2012 Senate race by a 61-30 margin.

The poll showed Nelson with a 55 percent unfavorable rating and 64 percent disapproval for Democratic health care reform legislation."

igby 8 years, 5 months ago

Politics aside!

The land of the free is no more!

Life used to be a human right. Too live was a human right.

Now! Under this bill, to live is a privilege and not a right.

Why? Because if you don't comply with the forced insurance requirement then you are fined. They're treating this insurance requirement just like a driving license which is also, a privilege and not a right. Driving is not a right and living is not a right under this bill.

This is the basis of the challenge!

Horace 8 years, 5 months ago


Actually the burden is on those challenging the constitutionality.

It is well established that acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional. See US v. National Dairy Prods., 372 U.S. 29 (1963). When a court is asked to invalidate a "statutory provision that has been approved by both Houses of the Congress and signed by the President, particularly an Act of Congress that confronts a deeply vexing national problem, it should only do so for the most compelling constitutional reasons." Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989)

As for the Commerce Clause analysis, here's how I was taught to do it in law school.

Place HCR into one of the 3 Lopez categories: 1) Instrumentalities of interstate commerce 2) Channels of interstate commerce 3) Other intrastate activity

I think HCR clearly falls into Category 2. Thus, Congress may regulate activity in this second category, without any need for judicial inquiry into whether the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce..

For the sake of argument we'll assume HCR falls into Category 3 "Other" - the area where Congress has the least power.

According to Lopez, Congress may regulate other instrastate activity if it substantially affects interstate commerce and is not within the exception to that test Lopez recognizes.

The Lopez factors are:

1) whether the regulated intrastate activity is commercial or noncommercial. Lower courts have treated this factor as necessary to the application of the Lopez exception. On this view, the exception does not apply when the regulated activity is commercial. HCR is clearly commercial.

2) Whether the statute contains a jurisdictional element requiring a link with interstate commerce. I'm sure HCR has one.

3) Whether the link with interstate commerce is "attenuated." - No. It's direct.

4) Whether Congress is regulated in a domain traditionally belonging to the States. This one would be the strongest factor against Congressional power.

5) Whether Congress has made findings regarding a link to interstate commerce. It has.

Furthermore, don't forget about Gonzales v. Raich. In Raich the Court held that Congress may regulate noncommercial intrastate activity that would otherwise be within the Lopez exception if such regulation is “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.”

To recap:

The mandate is part of a reform of the healthcare industry. This is clearly regulation of economic and commercial activity. Thus, under Lopez Congress has nearly limitless power to regulate healthcare and make such regulations as it sees fit.

Furthermore, even if was considered intrastate activity, health care has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and therefore Congress would still have power to regulate and mandate.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 5 months ago

"But the four Kansas Republican leaders said Six should act now and join 13 Republican state attorneys general who have raised constitutional objections to the provisions."

They're wrong (no surprise). No AG has yet to raise any constitutional objection that would pass court muster. I suspect they will not be able to, period. Besides, mandated insurance coverage in many forms is fact on the state level for many aspects.

Healthcare_Moocher says...

"You see, those who provide employment do care about their employees, especially the employees that are worth having."

Small businesses are and should be excited about being able to afford to provide those jobs at a much lower cost to the business and being able to attract better talent with the health care costs being a less significant hurdle in the equation. If you don't realize that now, you will when it kicks in and will probably be pretty happy about it.

But don't elect yourself God because you provide jobs.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

"As for the Commerce Clause analysis, here's how I was taught to do it in law school."

Good that you learned that in"Law School" but the reality is that a Federal or SOCTUS case is a little bit different than some academics liberal bias.


Funny how the only case you cite is one with "it should only do so for the most compelling constitutional reasons" yet the case does not state what those "Compelling COnstitutional Reasons" are. War? Budgets?

I think you are long on opinion and short on legal case history are intellectually "reaching" There is nothing to "Force people" to buy insurance and nmo law has ever been passed to compel people to do so.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "Thus, under Lopez Congress has nearly limitless power to regulate healthcare and make such regulations as it sees fit."

That';s quite a stretch ther "counselor". I doubt that it would even be close.

"""""""""""""""""""""""" "Furthermore, even if was considered intrastate activity, health care has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and therefore Congress would still have power to regulate and mandate*."

Regulate yes, but they have never done a good job at regulating anything, just look at the economic mess we have owith "regulations" that are not enforced.

They cannot "mandate", and only an overzealous first year lawyer would make the outlandish statment you made as in fact settled law ending the argument.

The little thing like the special deals with states cannot stand. No way. Arguing all you want on flimzy poorly applied case law garnered from the HuffPO or DailyKOs is not going to win the argument.

It just makes you look stupid.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

"They're wrong (no surprise). "

Glad you straightened that out for us you half wit! Just because you believe a certian issue or POV does not mean it is correct. This is a constitutional nightmare, no matter how you idiots think that just because Harry Ried bribed the hell out of 3 Senators and barely passed this POS bill that 67% of the Population does not support, does not make it a good law. It is not a good law and even Democrats know this, and they are losing in polls and are getting their arses chewed on by their constituents.


"No AG has yet to raise any constitutional objection that would pass court muster."

How do you know you ding dong, it has not gone to court yet. They are in the first stage telling these idiots in DC not to pass the damn thing. If they do, there will be challanges, NO matter what a punk with a computer in Lawrence thinks.

"""""""""""""""""""" "Small businesses are and should be excited about being able to afford to provide those jobs at a much lower cost to the business and being able to attract better talent with the health care costs being a less significant hurdle in the equation."

No it will not, it will increase the operating costs of businesses, Ther are 15 different studies out that show that the Small Businesses will hire fewer people and ratchet down their production to stay under the limits.


Not much that you are correct on and you are living in a fantasy world. Stop drinking the koolaid.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

"But don't elect yourself God because you provide jobs."

Don't elect yourself God either just because you are afraid of risk.

That is a two way argument there honey!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 5 months ago

Put down the drink, ASBESTOS. You don't even know me.

Attack the messenger much?

notajayhawk 8 years, 5 months ago

texburgh (Anonymous) says…

"Yet more proof that Republicans could care less about the average working American ... yada yada yada ..."

Yet more proof that the kool-aid drinking Democrats haven't read and have no real interest in finding out for themselves what Obama/Reid/Pelosi are doing to them.

If the legislation goes into effect as it stood as of the last available inspection (lord only knows what they voted on, since they don't seem to be quite as 'transparent' as promised), that proverbial 'working American' will see his healthcare costs skyrocket in such a way as to make the status quo look like the 'good old days.' Rather than doing anything to contain costs (let alone reduce them), the provisions of the Senate bill create a dynamic where insurance companies are penalized for holding down healthcare payments and rewarded for inflating them.

In other words, they sold you some snake oil, and you're here trying to defend the reasons you bought it.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 5 months ago

ASBESTOS says...

"How do you know you ding dong, it has not gone to court yet."

Ummm, by the lack of a substantive challenge in any of their positions. Care to read them for us and point out one - any one? Saying you plan to challenge does not make a successful challenge.

Since you are keen on hurling epithets, what do you know, $^(#@^$!!! For all we know, you* are the punk with a PC and 'Net access.

bearded_gnome 8 years, 5 months ago

two posters have major misconceptions about the bill comingout of the Senate: it will not lower premiums and will raise many. furthermore, it will taxmany more. so, as to "jacking up premiums" the latest Senate bill, and the house bill, will do that. Yes, a special tax on health insurance, making it more expensive.

furthermore, independent analysts also indicate that the Obamacare approach will not lower health care costs in our country.

What Asbestos has written about the cramming of medicaid patients is 100% true, it isn't quite 50%, but it is very close, of their cost is carried by the states under Medicaid.
His $1-billion is a reasonable figure.

hey Asbestos et al, you guys have missed the scam in the Senate bill for VT: Sanders was purchased with $10-Billion (with a B) for "free health clinics. so if this bill passed and the kansas state expenses go through the roof, rural hospitals close for lack of doctors and lower reimbursements (true indeed), little liberal Vermont will have ten billions of dollars for free clinics! again, unlike any other state.
so if you're a kansan and you see someone from LA, FL, VT, or NE, just take out your wallet and hand him or her your bills, ones, tens, hundreds...same thing.

also, a little jerkwater town in MT all the residents get "automatic medicaid eligibility" in the Senate bill.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 5 months ago

NAJ says... "that proverbial 'working American' will see his healthcare costs skyrocket in such a way as to make the status quo look like the 'good old days.'"

You know, you spewed this crap on a similar thread a few days ago, but you still couldn't do much more than throw out a few links and still not explain why your numbers don't work. Exactly how would x million more subscribers buying into a system cause the costs per sub to increase if everything else stays at equilibrium? If it does not stay at equilibrium, please explain. Otherwise, you make no sense.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

"a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

Put down the drink, asbestos. You don't even know me.

Attack the messenger much?"

Yeah and I have seen your posts so don't play the hurt poster that never does any persnoal attacking.

What you say is so stupid, it is beyond the pale.

Are you angry because you beat women?

That is not substaciated either, and is an example of your and your ilk and ho you "debate.

Don't bring a toenail clipper to a tank battle, and it you do, don't complain about the out come.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 5 months ago

ASBESTOS says... "Don't bring a toenail clipper to a tank battle, and it you do, don't complain about the out come."

I think I can do just fine against you, bub. You might need more than a tank.

worker_bee 8 years, 5 months ago

whenever i see headlines with "Six" i think i've fallen into the world of battlestar galactica. i don't know if cylons care about health care, seeing as how they can download into new bodies whenever they die.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

"Exactly how would x million more subscribers buying into a system cause the costs per sub to increase if everything else stays at equilibrium?"

Are you kidding??? There are "X million" more people times the "costs", and that is not what is at "equllbrium" You have to be kidding with a post like that? Are you for real?

""""""""""""""""""""""" "You know, you spewed this crap on a similar thread a few days ago, but you still couldn't do much more than throw out a few links and still not explain why your numbers don't work."

That's the point, and YOU cannot get numbers to "work" either because nobody knows what is in the damn bill.

Additionally with legislation of this magnitude there is supposed to be an Economic Impact Analysis. Guess what was not done behind "closed doors"? That is right and the CBO states that their numbers will probably higher, given the limited amount of infomation that POS Harry Reid provided them.

So please stop posting, you do not know what you are talking about.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 5 months ago

ASBESTOS says... "Are you for real?"

Do you understand econ in any way shape or form?

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

You idiots need to read two articles from a non-partisian website on just how well the "Government works. Namely on Unemployment numbers and the fraud that is Freddie and Fannie with their new $400 billion bailout.

Then just put in healthcare in this level of corruption and incompetence.

Just read them.

Then get a better picture. It is vital that you read these links for you to prepare for this next year economically.

Ignore at your own peril.

Some of the finest indepth reporting on our government corruption in finances and some of the best reporting in years!!!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 5 months ago

'There are “X million” more people times the “costs”'

Which we are already paying for. Care to explain that little fact?

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

Yes I understand econ very well see what you make of these numbers before the Crap and Trade Legislation and the Health Care Bribe.

Let's just throw in that Iraq war, OK?

$ 680,000,000,000 Iraq $2,100,000,000,000 Health Care $1,400,000,000,000 Treasury (Loans From China) $1,500,000,000,000 Bank Bailouts $ 890,000,000,000 ARRA (Stimulus) $ 300,000,000,000 Worker Unemployment (Stimulus II) $ 575,000,000,000 Defense Appro. (Afgahn. and Iraq)

$56,000,000,000,000 UNfunded Liabilities (SS, Medicare/etc.)

HOw are you gonna blame all that on Bush???

How can anybody blame that on Obama???

It is the Congressional Criminals.

And the next generation will take an entire 75 years to pay off that debt and the interest. Oh and I forgot that the Congress and the Whitehouse also just covered Freddie and Fannie and raised their limits on their MSB's as well.

Freddie and fannie are also on the hook (actually it is taxpayers and the next generations) for this rate of total liability for each.

Freddie $900,000,000,000 Fannie $900,000,000,000

That's right, “all” mortagages are eventually going to end up in Freddie or Fannie and it will be “socialized”. That is another:

$1,800,000,000,000 to add to the above numbers.

That is how we are in debt at 555% of our Gross Domestic Product.

Meaning everything we produced for the next five and one half years was converted to money and taxed at 100% and paid to the debt we could pay it off.

Our GDP on aerage ranges from $12,000,000,000,000 to $13,000,000,000,000.

You academics, enlightend ones, and “intelligensitas” getting this yet????

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

"Which we are already paying for. Care to explain that little fact?"

HOw can vwe be paying for them and need more money them to "pay for insurance for them"??? IF we are paying for them all now there is no need to pass a reform bill then is there.


pace 8 years, 5 months ago

Poor asbestos, he fails to understand the present system and how much it costs us tax payers, and how much the Health care industry rakes in while leaving working families literally facing death and suffering. We need health care reform to get health care access to people. We need coverage for health care not last ditch visits to the emmergency rooms at top dollar and poor results. We need health care reform and congress is doing it. The republicans want to do nothing but to support the present system. This country is carrying the do nothings on their back.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 5 months ago

Poor Pace does not understand what is in the bill and how little this will do to control costs.

Poosr Pace does not understand the economic realities tha we as a country are broke.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 8 years, 5 months ago

If you understand econ as you say, then you probably already know that an economic trough represents the most favorable opportunity to make changes to cost structure and basis for a major segment of the economy that, when done right, minimizes the downside and maximizes the upside effects. At any other time, such moves usually lack any incentive from the players involved and can send shutters. It is as good a time as any to rearrange the furniture. And, no, trickle down won't do any good, at least not in the near term if at all. The fix by way of tax cuts and tort reform proposed as the GOP solution (and that's about all they have suggested) is nothing more than a band-aid on the status quo, would have practically no effect, and may even serve to prolong the current economic downturn.

BTW, your links to Zero Hedge are interesting, especially for the fact that the fellow that started the blog is a former hedge fund analyst that was banned for insider trading. OTOH, I don't doubt that his skill as a criminal parlays into an understanding of the inner workings of the thievery.

Horace 8 years, 5 months ago


Please read Wickard v. Filburn (1942), or at least the wikipedia entry.

Then read Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

For 60 years the Supreme Court has said that if an activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce then Congress can basically make any laws regarding the activity it sees fit and the courts have no business second guessing Congress and the President.

As a teabagger I'm sure you don't want activist judges second guessing Congress, do you?

bearded_gnome 8 years, 5 months ago

As a teabagger I'm sure you don't want activist judges second guessing Congress, do you?

---how classy: using a sexual vulgarity to refer to someone you oppose. the uncivil left on display.

Asbestos, note they completely ignore the facts that the medicaid cramdown dramatically increases state costs. and this at a time when so many states can't make ends meet now.

they ignore the issue of "equal protection under the law" one of them sorta important principles of constitutional law, ya' know.

I would suggest Asbestos, you deploy a spellcheck. has a good one you can use while posting on here. the licensing agreement is the nuttiest I've ever seen greenie but AlGore couldn't pass it! it is useful while you're posting. help your posts get more notice and traction. keep it up man.

jonas_opines 8 years, 5 months ago

"As a teabagger I'm sure you don't want activist judges second guessing Congress, do you?

–how classy: using a sexual vulgarity to refer to someone you oppose. the uncivil left on display."

You're out of touch, Gnome. That's been thrown around for a bit now in the context of the Tea Party protests.

And of course, again, you have absolutely no room to criticize anybody else on the quality of their discourse.

bearded_gnome 8 years, 5 months ago;topic=8829.0

taxpayers treated differently in TN or KS, vs Nebraska, Louisiana, Vermont, Montana. in fact, if you're not in Libby Montana, you're forced to be treated differently by the state of Montana under the senate bill.

bearded_gnome 8 years, 5 months ago

Jonas, I certainly am free to criticize others just as they are free to criticize me, as implied by your last post. thus, you have and exercise the freedom to criticize my posting by implication but seek to deny me the same freedom. left is always trying to squelch speech it opposes. thanks for the demonstration Jonas.
By implication you are criticizing my posting, but say I don't have any place to do the same?

Also, here's a link for you on "Tea Bagger" demonstrating the very offensive sexual vulgarity:

you fail Jonas. but, please keep trying.

bearded_gnome 8 years, 5 months ago

another tea bagger ref, note the list above with sexual derivatives for the term:

Sorry Jonas, this was just too easy.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

More important reasons to start over:

By Marcia Angell, M.D. for Huffington Post –

Here is my program for real reform:

Well, the House health reform bill — known to Republicans as the Government Takeover — finally passed after one of Congress’s longer, less enlightening debates. Two stalwarts of the single-payer movement split their votes; John Conyers voted for it; Dennis Kucinich against. Kucinich was right.

Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the House bill is not a “government takeover.” I wish it were. Instead, it enshrines and subsidizes the “takeover” by the investor-owned insurance industry that occurred after the failure of the Clinton reform effort in 1994. To be sure, the bill has a few good provisions (expansion of Medicaid, for example), but they are marginal.

The House bill would take money out of Medicare, and divert it to the private sector and, to some extent, to Medicaid. The remaining costs of the legislation would be paid for by taxes on the wealthy. But although the bill might pay for itself, it does nothing to solve the problem of runaway inflation in the system as a whole. It’s a shell game in which money is moved from one part of our fragmented system to another.


Healthcare-NOW! Members Oppose Current Version of Congressional Health Bill

Over 125 Healthcare-NOW! members at our 2009 strategy conference voted to oppose the current Congressional version of health insurance reform legislation. While we recognize that many of our allies and supporters may disagree about specific aspects of the pending legislation, we believe that, taken as a whole, it is not worthy of our support. In fact, most of the so-called reforms contained in the bills have already been tried and proven to be a failure at the state level in Massachusetts.

Instead, we should act based on evidence of what works. Medicare, with its lower administrative costs and higher rates of satisfaction, remains the “gold standard” for real healthcare reform.

We anticipated the healthcare debate this year would focus on the true stakeholders: patients and those who care for them. But improved Medicare for All (single-payer) was pushed off the table, by Congress and the private health industry, preventing the American people from learning how access to quality, universal care can be financed without increasing cost to the public.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

National Health Insurance is the only concept that reduces the cost and provides all with equal coverage 24/7 and will never cancel.

All other concepts thus far do increase the cost without a doubt.

This is something to never forget. It is the private medical insurance industry that cancels YOUR medical insurance AFTER taking YOUR MONEY for years.

All other concepts includes changing nothing which repubs support and substantially increases the cost right away meaning 2010. The increase for 2010 looks like $4,000 which brings the cost of those "Cadillac" plans to about $18,310.

All other 2010 plans = under insured with higher co-pays and deductibles which effectively relieves the insurance provider of any responsibility. The middleman insurance provider does not provide health care..... just rakes in the profit that which is YOUR money.

Rex Russell 8 years, 5 months ago

I find Steven Six refreshing. His main focus is his job as AG and not politics. Very rare. The blowhards nipping at his heels have only their own interests at heart, not ours. With that in mind, lets see how this political stew turns out in DC and step back and watch a little longer. Joining that bungling circus can do no good.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

It's time to fire both democrats and republicans and bring in a true moral majority!

For profit medical insurance is unconstitutional!


Because the human body by its very nature requires health acre. Therefore should granted without question!!!

Republicans and democrats allowing medical insurance for profit is obscene and unconstitutional.

WE need to fire both parties and bring in a true moral majority!

Richard Heckler 8 years, 5 months ago

Study Reveals “Revolving Door” Between Capitol Hill Staffers and Healthcare Lobbyists

A new study on healthcare lobbying published in the Chicago Tribune has found that healthcare companies have spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years. At least 166 former congressional aides involved in shaping healthcare legislation have registered to lobby for healthcare companies. This includes at least fourteen former aides to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and at least thirteen former aides to Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, the chair of the Finance Committee.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.