Questions for the Speaker

I am still patiently awaiting Madam Speaker Pelosi's response to a reporter's question, "Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to force Americans to buy anything?" Her response at the time was, "Are you serious?" Yes, Madam Speaker, we are serious. We want answers and we want them now.

The answer is the Taxing and Spending Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause. The relevant Supreme Court rulings are too numerous to recount.

In fact, the legislation doesn't "force" individuals to buy insurance. It would tax those that don't in order to cover the costs they impose on others by not having insurance and in doing so provides an incentive to buy insurance. There are gazillions of examples of federal taxes that work just this way: raising revenue and regulating behavior.

Moreover, it's not so unusual for government to require individuals and business to purchase something. States require drivers to buy insurance; the feds have the same authority. Likewise for motorcycle helmit laws. Fed pollution laws require coal-burning utilities to buy emission reduction technology. Federal auto safety regulation effectively require consumers to buy seat belts and airbags by requiring manufacturers (who pass the costs on) to include them as standard equipment. The Feds require individuals and business to buy "pensions" and health insurance for workers through mandatory contributions to Social Security and Medicare.

Both House and Senate healthcare bills “encourage” all Americans to buy insurance or pay a fine if they do not; and compliance with this “encouragement” will be monitored by the IRS. If this is not a requirement, I cannot possibly imagine what a requirement would look like. The analogy of states requiring drivers to maintain automobile insurance is a bad comparison since there is no requirement for those who do not drive or own a car. This applies also to your analogy of the EPA requiring emission control equipment on coal burning industrial facilities. There is no requirement to purchase such equipment for those choosing not to build coal burning power plant. It would be perfectly legal in my state of Nevada for me to build a car without a catalytic converter or any other emission control equipment, so long as it passed the annual emissions test. I could also build a car without seat belts, as there is no primary seat belt law in the state. The Commerce Clause does not fit this situation since it gives power to the central government to regulate interstate commerce only. By virtue of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, insurance companies are expressly exempted from interstate commerce regulation. This act left insurance regulation the sole province of the states. I can certainly understand your viewpoints in light of Supreme Court decisions such as Gonzales v. Raich in which the Court twisted the Commerce Clause to fit its purpose of invalidating the will of a majority of California’s voters. Thank you, by the way for a reasonable and reasoned response to my post. You stated facts as you see them without descending to a personal attack simply because you disagree with my opinion. Sadly, this is becoming very rare due to the anonymity of the Internet.

Amen, brother, about civility on the net. Thanks for your compliment.

Now about the Commerce Clause. With a modest beginning in 1824 in Gibbon v Ogden, the Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of the commerce clause and the fed's authority to regulate intrastate commerce, expanding fed authority over intrastate commerce. These cases include Swift v United States (in part) in 1905 and Stafford v Wallace in 1922, both from conservative, states rights-inclined courts.

More recently there are National Labor Relations Board (1937), US v Darby Lumber, Wickard v Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964), Katzenbach v McClung (1964), Daniel v Paul (1969), Hodel v Surface Mining, FERC v Mississippi, Perez US (1971), Gonzales v Raich (2005). There are others I can site but that's enough.

Actually, your citation of the Mccarren Act doesn't fit your argument. It's an act of Congress, not a court case. In the McCarren Act Congress was explicit that it was not exercising its power under the commerce clause, thereby acknowledging that authority and limiting it in this one case.

So your objection to hc reform is that it applies to everyone, while the examples I cite apply to, in some cases, very broad categories but not everyone. What's your basis in the constitution for saying the former is prohibited while the latter are not?

I forgot to mention that I agree with your assertion that the Congress will attempt, and probably successfully so to hang their hat upon the Commerce Clause, for that as you indicated seems to be the catch-all phrase by which the federal government is able to further subvert the meaning and intent of the Tenth Amendment.

Well, recall that Gibbon v Ogden was decide by the Marshall court. Marshall was one of the founders and in position to know constitutional intent.

The primary intent driving the replacement of the article of confederaqtion by the constitution was to create a central govt. with the authority to restrict abuses of the states under the articles. In fact, Madison, who is considered the author of the Constitution and Jefferson's closest political ally and confidant, proposed giving Congress veto authority over any state legislation. While this was narrowly rejected by the convention, it demonstrates just how strong of a national govt the founders intended.

If the intention of the founders was for the Commerce Clause to give the federal government absolute control over the states (by the means of asserting authority over any activity that is remotely, tangentially related to interstate commerce) why did they bother with the 10th amendment? For that matter, why didn't they just say so? Were they thinking it would be more fun for future courts to figure it out?

Still, I suppose I should consider it a good thing that the foundation for this discussion is the original intent of the framers rather than good public policy, sociology or international norms.

Yet another staw man, txslr. I never said the intent of the Commerce Clause was to give the fed govt "absolute control over the states" through its authority over interate commerce, and in fact I don't believe it does. The 10th amendment's intent, and effect, clearly reinforces the Constitution's original establisment of a role for the states in regulating intrastate commerce, just not an exclusive role.

Again, not a straw man Tex. If the federal government has the authority to require the citizens of the states to purchase whatever the federal government desires that they purchase, and hangs this authority on the Commerce Clause, I am hard pressed to think of anything over which the federal government cannot claim authority. It is telling to me that your interpretation of the Constitution (apparently) limits the jurisdiction of the states to regulating intrastate commerce only to the extent that the federal government doesn't desire to expropriate that authority as well. It seems to me that sovereignty held only conditional on the forebearance of some other entity is not sovereignty at all.

Well, txslr, there's no "if". The fed govt already has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate hc insurance based on the Supreme Court's ruling in US v South-Eastern Underwriters Ass. (1945). And wrong again, you have failed in trying to read my mind instead of reading my words. The 10th Amendment clearly reserves to the states powers that are not enumerated as those assigned to the fed govt and not implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause.

And by the way, under American political theory, sovereignty is held by neither the fed or state govts but by the people.

And by the way, there is nothing in your precious explication of American political theory (?) that suggests my statement above is wrong, if that's what you were getting at. Perhaps reading my words rather than attempting to read my mind...?

Which "statement above" are you refering to?

You are conflating two different ideas. I am fully aware that the federal government has the authority to regulate health care insurance in interstate commerce and have never denied it. Indeed, the fact that the Congress has declined to do so I consider to be a significant problem. My point - clearly stated above - has to do with whether or not that power necessarily grants the federal government the authority to require all citizens to purchase health care insurance when they might not otherwise be inclined to do so. It is not obvious that it does, and your response begs that question.

As evidence of the problems this creates I point out that an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that grants the federal government that much power leaves very little to the states or the people. (Note that your description of the 10th amendment leaves out an important part - the people.) That brings me around to my original question, artfully dodged up until now, of why the framers bothered to write the 10th Amendment if virtually all power was to be vested in the federal government through the artifice of the Commerce Clause?

My apologies. I didn't connect the dots.

Yes, it's clear from Court language that if the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to act in an area (such as the regulation of insurance), the Necessary and Proper Clause gives it the authority to require people to buy insurance. That requirement is no different from similar requirements to pay into Social Security and Medicare or pay income tax. (Or do you think those programs are unconstitutional, too?)

And Congress's decision to not exercise this authority in the area of insurance doesn't negate the Court's decision confirming its authority to do so at a later date. At any time Congress can reverse its decision not to regulate by passing legislation (like hc reform) that does regulate the industry.

BTW, the amendment that preserves certain rights to the people is the 9th, not the 10th.

It sems to me that you disagree with the wisdom of passing hc reform (which is of course fine) but you're trying to convert that opposition into a constitutional prohibition on Congress doing so if some future majority of Americans want such legilsation, based on some unsubstantiated constitutional theory (or no theory at all) and without reference to a single decision by the Court supporting your view.

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You left out the last bit, no?

Your argument rests in part on the Commerce Clause, and I accept that Congress has the authority (which it has until now not seen fit to exercise) to regulate health care insurance in interstate trade. Whether the Court will find a requirement to purchase health insurance proper under the Commerece Clause and the Necessary and Proper clause is, for me, more difficult to see. The fact that such a finding would leave very little Constitutional lattitude to the states or freedom to the people (except as might be allowed by the Congress) is at the very least problematic. As has been asked before, why should Congress bother with a Cash for Clunkers program when they can simply demand that everyone buy a GM car or pay a fine (er..."tax"). Housing a problem? Just require everyone to buy a house! Maybe requiring every citizen to buy a subscription to the NY Times or pay a $10,000 tax penalty would be a good way to get the Times out of its financial distress. Where is the limit, and does anyone believe that this is what the framers had in mind?

This, it seems to me, is exactly the type of thing the anti-federalists feared and the federalists insisted would never happen. And yet, here we are.

Yes, but reference to "the people" here is to make clear there is no conflict between the 9th and 10th amendments. It does so by making explicit that the 10th amendment does not infringe on the rights of the people because of powers conferred on the federal government or retained by the states. Madison (the author of the 9th) makes it clear at the constitutional convention that the 9th amendment was included in the Bill or Rights to head off any future arguments that the restrictions on federal power specified in Bill of Rights did not imply that other rights were denied to the people due to the fact that they were not enumerated there. The legal principle of interpretation that Madison anticipates here is expessio unius est exclusio alterius.

Your second paragraph is a reasonable one. But since you acknowlege that Congress has authority under the constitution to regulate insurance, your argument against doing so rests on the wisdom of the policy, or lack thereof. On that question I can heartily agree to disagree. Where I can't do so is on the question of whether fed regulation of insurance is constitutional or not. I think many opponents of federal action in one sphere or another try to boot strap their opposition into a constitutional question by citing an unsubstantiated constitutional objection or for the purpose of defeating pending legislation they oppose (legitimately on policy grounds) and to permanently deny (outside a constitutional amendment) a future majority of the people, acting through Congress, from passing such legislation.

I'm not aware of the federalist statements you reference. Recall that Madison, who is considered the father of the constitution and author of the 10 Amend., was also one of two primary authors of the Federalist Papers. Yes, the anti-federalists would object but they lost the argument and the constitution was ratified by the states.

Sorry for the dealy in responding. I was at my office all afternoon. Your message brings up some thought provoking that will require me to do some thinking. I shall respond when I've had time to digest all your information, Tex.

Thanks,

Great. I look forward to it.

Actually, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, as affirmed by Federal Trade Commission v. National Casualty Co. 357 U.S. 560 (1958) is the basis for my argument that the insurance industry is expressly exempt from federal regulation. The federal government cannot regulate insurance companies without first repealing this act and allowing insurance carriers the latitude to sell policies in multiple states without individual state approval.
The Constitutional basis for my argument that your cited examples are permitted as applying to those seeking to engage in a certain activity [e. g. building a coal fired power plant], while requiring every U. S. citizen to purchase health insurance are prohibited lie in the newly-minted Fourth Amendment right to privacy as expressed in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade in 1973. In my unschooled opinion the legislation probably violates the all but forgotten Tenth Amendment as well. Apparently, eight [I think] states have either passed or introduced in their legislatures sovereignty resolutions serving notice on the federal government that they will interpose themselves between the law created by this legislation and their citizens and nullify the law within their states. I hate to see it come to this because the next step after nullification is secession and a Constitutional crisis, the magnitude of which we have not seen since 1860.
Again, thanks.

I say McCarren makes my case not yours because the exemption from fed regulation was enacted by Congress because, without it, the Commerce Clause would allow, at a later date, fed preemption of state regulation. This is an explicit recognition of the power given to the fed govt under the Commerce Clause. Why would McCarren's exemption be necessary otherwise?

In McCarran Congress chose not to exercise its authority under the Commerce Clause; it did not rescind that authority. In fact it doesn't have the power to rescind that authority. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Neither Griswold or Roe v Wade are relevant to this discussion. Neither deals with conflicts between fed and state authority to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause (this was a Ninth Amendment case not a Tenth Amendment--which deals with state/fed authority--case). Moreover, if these cases had fallen under the Commerce clause, both would probably have been decided the other way. As the Court stated in these decisions, the right to privacy established is an implied right (emanating from the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights). Implied rights tend to take a back seat before powers that are explicitly enumerated in the constitution. (Interesting that you cite a case where the majority opinion was written by William O. Douglas, one of the most liberal justices to sit on the Court in the 20th century.)

Re: nullification, advocate say the doctrine originates from Madison's and Jefferson's Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798-1800) and were cited by advocates as the basis for South Carolina's attempt to nullify fed tariff laws in 1830. However, in Madison's 1830 letter to his friend Edward Everett, Madison denied that his and Jefferson's Resolutions supported the South Carolina doctrine of nullifaction.

In any case Andrew Jackson stepped in and with bi-partisan support in Congress passed legislation that threatened the use of miliitary force in SC if they didn't abandon their nullification efforts. This threat, along with changes iin fed tariff law, backed the Carolians down. But as Jackson predicted at the time, the southern nullification advocates returned in defense of slavery which of course 30 years later led to the civil war.

As in 1830-1860 today's nullifiers threaten (implcitly now, explicitly then) the unity of the country by trying to impose their reading of the constitution's allocation of authority between the fed and state govts. on the rest of the country because of our disagreement on constitutional questions. Judicial review, along with the constiutional amendment alternative, was designed by the founders as the means for resolving these issues peaceably. Nullification is extra-constitutional and as Lincoln, Jackson and myriad other opponents of nullification have said, it is a violation of the nation's fundamental law and is anti-democratic.

Also re: McCarran, the exemption provided by McCarran came as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision in US v South-Easten Underwriters Assn (1944) that the fed govt has the authority to regulate insurance companies under the Commerce Clause. All that's required to remove this exemption is an act of Congress. Then under the South-Eastern decision, the Commerce Clause prevails. The hc bills in the House and Senate would remove this exemption for hc insurance.

"In fact, the legislation doesn't "force" individuals to buy insurance. It would tax those that don't in order to cover the costs they impose on others by not having insurance and in doing so provides an incentive to buy insurance."

Explain to me how you think there is no gun involved in your equation.

How is this requirement any different from thousands of other regulatory requirements, taxes, and fees that require some action or compliance by individuals or businesses, reinforced by fines, penalties or other economic incentives to comply. Are these all "guns" to the head? No, these behavior-affecting requirements and incentives are common in every democratic society in the world. One can choose to comply or run the risks of not complying. People choose not to comply every day. It's a common thing.

In this case if they chose not to buy insurance, they'll face a tax designed to encourage compliance and to raise revenue to cover the costs uninsured people impose on the rest of us who buy insurance.

"Are these all "guns" to the head?"

Obviously, yes.

I'm curious, do you think anything the federal government is doing is unconstitutional?

Then you've clearly not had a gun to your head.

Even granting you some slack for your excessive metaphor, you're simply refusing to acknowledge the difference between "control" and "influence".

I suspect that, by the time we're through parsing "control" and "influence", the former will be devoid of meaning. As in, "I'm trying to influence your longevity by pumping 100,000 volts through your skull".

Nope. That's clearly control. Death is caused, entirely, by the application of a lethal does of electricity. This comparison is yet another straw man employed to avoid the legitimacy of a point of view you oppose.

Nice job of dodging the question! Try rereading my post and responding to it. You asserted a strong and meaningful (in the context of this discussion) difference between influence and control. I voiced my suspicision that this distinction is practically meaningless. You have responded by blowing smoke in order to "avoid the legitimacy of a point of view you oppose".

In spite of you uninformed conclusion, I have had a literal physical gun to my head complete with hostile intent. I don't see what relevance that has.

I have no desire to split semantic hairs with you. You think your so-called "influence" with the very real threat of force backing it up is not control?? The fact that some resist or defy the control does not change the nature of it. Let me know what you think when your assets are seized or you end up in prison for not going along with the actions you're being "influenced" to follow.

Wow. Sounds like you haven't been paying your income taxes

Sadly, I've been paying all too much income tax. I was not projecting a personal experience in the second paragraph.

Well, that's a good thing (I mean not projecting a personal experience. Not that you're paying too much taxes.)

Yes. Direct fed support for religious institutions, e.g. faith based initiatives, are a violation of the Establishment Clause of First Amendment; FBI invasions of privacy by spying on American citizens (recent Justice Dept IG report) violate the Fourth Amendment, all trials of American citizens that are not public violate the Sixth Amendment. These immediately come to mind.

What's your list?

My list is much longer (unfortunately I don't have time to itemize). It includes the few things you mention plus blatant mis-readings of the enumerated powers along with many other direct violations of most of the bill of rights (especially the 9th and 10th ammendments).

Put simply, the majority of federal government action is unconstitutional.

Not very persuasive, anotherdave. This post just amounts to an opinion with no reasoning and no evidence.

By the way, under the doctrine of judicial review established by the Marshall court, what is constitutional is what the court determines to be consitutional, until the court changes its reasoning.

Of course it's my opinion (just as everything you state is your opinion) - isn't that obvious? Just as I find you (at least so far) to be completely unconvincing, I have no illusions of persuading you of anything - that seems like a futile exercise even if I cared and had enough time to try.

I have a (perhaps) unusual take on constitutional issues, at least partly because I have a low opinion of the Supreme Court. Many justices (past and present) either struggle with the clear and simple language of the constitution or simply pursue their own agenda and ignore it.

My opinion is based on what the constitution actually says, not what they have decided. Yes, I understand the legal nature of the court but I also understand they have often been completely wrong with their rulings. Even though they give government legal cover for unconstitutional activity, those rulings are still wrong. I take the perspective that government activity not within the limits imposed by the text of the constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional.

Yes, these are my opinion, but in previous posts I have provided significant citations of Supreme Court decisions that support my opinion and demonstrate that they are not just my opinion but are legal precedent established by majority opinion of the Court. You have provided no citations and have relied only on statements of opinion without support. And after asking me to give you examples of fed action I consider to be unconstitutional and, in turn, I ask you to do the same, you provide only vague references to misreading of the enumerated powers and unspecified violations of the 9th and 10th amendments without a single specific example.

You say that you rely on "what the constitution actually says, not what they [the Court] have decided." You claim that a lay person's (I assume you are not a constitutional scholar; in fact, your claim about the simplicity of reading the constitution denies the need or possibility for such scholarship) reading of the "clear and simple language" (your words) of the constitution is all that is required to decide constitutional questions.

Very interesting. So you're throwing out more than 200 years of constitutional law, practiced by thousands of conservative, liberal, libertarian judges and lawyers, many of them brilliant, who have all recognized that, in our system of government, the Supreme Court has the final say on constitutional questions. Ccertainly not some single individual (say, you). That requires and extraordinary level of arrogance, 'notherdave.

What an odd response.

Do you think none of the language in the constitution is clear and simple? Do you think the Supreme Court has never been wrong?

I have no idea why you think so, but I'm not throwing anything out or being arrogant - I'm just describing my opinion and the basis for it. You seem to have expanded my comments into much more than they were. I had asked you a simple question to get a feel for where you’re coming from. Your response was a short list that included no “significant citations of Supreme Court decisions” and was presumably not comprehensive. You asked for my list (a perfectly reasonable question). Since I don't have much time (like I said) I didn't get specific. I thought what I said would give you a reasonable sense of where I’m coming from – evidently I was wrong.

As I said, I understand the legal nature of the court. I do not claim any authority since I have none wrt constitutional decisions (something so obvious I didn’t think I needed to spell it out). Basically, if I think the Supreme Court is wrong the fact that they have the final say does not change my opinion. How is that arrogant? Just one recent example: IMO the court was totally wrong on Kelo v New London. I can recognize reality and still think they're wrong.

Do I think none of the language of the meaning of constitutional language is "clear and simple". No, I do think the meaning of some provisions is clear and straightforward.

But here we're talking about the interaction between the language of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and, no, I think that 200 years of jurisprudience related to the two clauses demonstrate the complexity of the issues involved. I'm saying that your strong opinions about the constitutionality of fed action in this area, based on your claim that the the implications of these two clauses are "clear and simple" despite the fact that you have "none wrt consitutional decisions" (sorry, I have to guess what this means), are unwarranted and probably reflect an ideology that ignores the legitimacy of 200 years of informed and complex debate of these issues.

Of course I think the Court can be wrong. But that doesn't mean I think those decisions are unconstitutional. Under the 200 year precedent of judicial review, the Court's decisions are ipso facto constitutional. What I think is that those decisions should be overturned, as occasdionally happens, by future Courts.

Denying that these issues are complex and saying they can be resolved by lay men by reference to the clear and simple language of the constitution seems to be a denial of the legitimacy (i.e., "throwing out") of this body of court decisions and legal arguments among some damn smart people. Then claiming that fed authority based on those decisions and aruments are unconstitutional without apparent knowledge of them does strike me as pretty arrogant.

Another peculiar response! A small portion responds to what I said. The rest either goes off on a tangent or puts words in my mouth that were never spoken or implied.

I have neither the patience nor the time to continue such a silly discourse, so I’ll bid you adieu.

Personally, I'm glad that we have the likes of Ms. Pelosi to tell me and others what we "would like". I certainly am incapable of doing so for myself.

Tex - while you do make good points - having taken the time to wade through most all the pages of BOTH versions of this travesty (the upside to being retired with time on my hands) - exactly what is it that this bill would "reform"? or provide? Certainly not to "provide care for the 35 or 45 million people who don't have medical care .. never quite sure about that number as it depends who is trying to make a point. Especially since BOTH proposed measures seem to have over looked some 25 million Americans.
If one is hell bent on having the government, in their infinite wisdom, what to reform the system - making it more economical, and more inclusive - couldn't this be more effectively achieved by changing the "rules" to do this? Instead what is being proposed is benefit the bureaucracy and cost US trillions ...
Need we remind ourselves that our current UNFUNDED Liabilities (which reflect our efficient and wise government forays into "helping" its citizens now exceeds 107 TRILLION dollars?

"Exactly what is it this bill would 'reform'? or provide?"

Irrespective whether the number of newly insured would be 15 million, 25 million or 35 million, many millions of uninsured would be "provided" health care coverage. That's a significant reform.

Also, the prohibition of denying coverage based on prior conditions, limitations on insurers' ability to terminate coverage when an insured gets a serious illness, new requirements on businesses to provide coverage (among many others), are all significant reforms whether you agree with them or not.

I don't know what "rules" you're talking about, but no, that won't do it. If you're talking about government rules, most of the reforms act where government has not yet acted. To the extent that government rules are the problem, those rules are based in law, and changes in law are required to change the rules.

If you're talking about private sector "rules", they're imbedded in a system of the economic interests of the insurers so they have strong incentives not to change their rules. Even if reform of the rules were in the long-term interest of the all the insurers and a company wanted to change the rules, they couldn't do it and make it stick unless all insurers follow suit: competitive pressure will prevent any of them from doing so. It only takes one (or a few) holdouts to have this effect (an example of "the tragedy of the commons").

Yes, we have trillions in unfunded liabilities but it's not all because government "helping its citizens". You have the Reagan tax cuts, Bush W's tax cuts, and Bush's unfunded wars in Afghan and Iraq, as well as Social Security and Medicare to thank for that. But based on the non-partisan CBO's analysis, costs of the Obama proposal is fully offset by savings, tax increases and new premiums, so your objection doesn't apply.

Irrespective whether the number of newly insured would be 15 million, 25 million or 35 million, many millions of uninsured would be "provided" health care coverage. That's a significant reform.

I see you aren't politically calloused.

The significance of the reform is the forced participation of millions who have chosen not to purchase insurance to pay into the system in order to help forestall the fiscal pressure induced by the coming collapse of medicare.

The "public" is deep in debt and the resources simply won't be available for government to provide expected services to an aging population.

The plan is for the young and healthy to take a hit in their standard of living to make up for fiscal wreck of current medical entitlement programs.

That's what it's about.

"Why does Congress have to act at all?" - I would submit that is NOT about healthcare, it is all about control.
It is about advancing the "progressive agenda" - An agenda that has been making slow progress in this country (like the dripping of a facet) that first gain momentum in the early 20th century.
More broadly than healthcare or Phaux Environmentalism, it is a movement away from what was once inalienable rights, to "rights bestowed" by a self-proclaimed ruling elite. An Oligarchy. An Oligarchy that has been nearly 100 years in the making.

Since you object to the progressive agenda, I assume you mean a liberal "oligarchy" over the past 100 years.

But conservative Rep opponents of the welfare state have occupied the White House for 20 of the last 29 years and Congress for 14 of the last 17 years. As for the rest of the last century, Rs held the presidency for 31 of 70 years. 51 to 49, Rs to Ds; that's a pretty even split, Dale.

Republicans are rhetorical conservatives, but function quite ably as pseudo progressives, hence their support of social security, Medicare, and "well-managed" welfare programs.

An Excellent letter - in one paragraph - one question you pose the most fundamental point.

"Why does Congress have to act at all?" - I would submit that is NOT about healthcare, it is all about control.
It is about advancing the "progressive agenda" - An agenda that has been making slow progress in this country (like the dripping of a facet) that first gain momentum in the early 20th century.
More broadly than healthcare or Phaux Environmentalism, it is a movement away from what was once inalienable rights, to "rights bestowed" by a self-proclaimed ruling elite. An Oligarchy. An Oligarchy that has been nearly 100 years in the making.

The credit card health care in Massachusetts is like the advertisement about what to do to pay your debts payed by the government. call and pay 1/3rd or 1/8th of the money you owe the rest of the people will pay the rest. And that is why the state of Massachusetts is broke almost bankrupt. Miss Polosis intentions is how much money they can gather without all the stupid people noticing and stick it in her pocket. Who knows how much money she has already stolen from the people. And this is Polosi's last chance.

I wouldn't suppose that Pelosi is sticking the money in her own pocket. She merely endeavors to direct resources in a way that satisfies the perceptions of her base support.

The key trick in politics is to give the perception of benefiting supporters while the reality is that the costs of this political direction must exceed the perceived benefits.

Because the state governments can't print money?

Jeeze. I'm tempted not to waste my time throwing a comment into such a gale of group-thing. But since the answer to Don's question is so straightforward, here goes.

1. The health care industry is spending $500 million dollars to defeat or, if they can't beat it, to bend health care reform to suit their purposes, and they're having a great deal of success in doing so. Now, if they can have that kind of influence in Congress, what chance do you think reformers have at the state level. Answer: 1 (Mass.) in 50. If you've spent any time dealing with state legislatures (as I have), you know they are even more "responsive" to corporate lobbying and campaign contributions than Congress is. If you want a theory supporting that claim, look at the Federalist Paper No. 10. Hobbes and Hume address it, too.

2. Because of "bugger thy neighbor" approaches of governments in some states. Some states will avoid enacting health care reform in order to obtain a business cost advantage over states that do, thereby taking business from those states (like they now do with corporate tax rates). This creates a big incentive to not enact hc reform at the state level.

3. If you want to do a comparative look at government hc policies, why do you ignore the fact that democracies in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, and Chile (among many others) have single-payer or mixed public/private systems that provide near-universal coverage and most of them have better health care outcomes at lower cost than the U.S. Moreover, the popular support for these programs are untouchable in these countries.

$. If you're right, what gives with Medicare? If hc reform is so clearly unpopular in the U.S., why are the Republicans using some modest cost-cutting proposals in the Dem's bill to scare seniors into opposing the bill. Because Americans like hc reform, even single-payers systems. Just try to take away Medicare from seniors and veterans' health care programs from veterans.

5. Finnaly, you haven't thought through what a state-based system would look like. Perhaps one of the worst possible outcomes for the hc industry (and business in general) would be a hodge-podge of 50 state systems with different funding structures, payment mechanisms, eligibility requirements, benefits, regulatory requirements, etc., etc. What a nightmare.

Fact is, Don, you're just opposed to hc reform. Now try making a coherent argument instead of just talking group-think to your peanut gallary.

Your answer is not convincing and your group-think accusation is aimed at the wrong target here. To your points:

1) Its unfortunate that governments have enough power to be worth such lobbying to corporations. More government power is not the solution to that problem. I’d rather solve the real problem than pile on more bad ideas.

2) Your questionable assessment of motives notwithstanding, the outcome you describe sounds like a feature not a bug.

3) The data I’ve seen do not support the claim that those nations have better health care outcomes. (Better health outcomes is NOT the same as better health care outcomes.)

$) You’ve identified a real problem though you don’t appear to see it. Medicare has created a “special interest” dependent class that is intent on keeping the money flowing. Creating an even larger dependent class is a really, really bad idea.

5) I want to live in a state without a state run health care system; I actively oppose any effort to impose one in my state. I sincerely hope we never come close to having government run systems in a large percentage of states.

- - -

The system we have is not ideal by any means, but the vast majority of problems result from government intervention. More of the same is the exact opposite of what we need to improve things.

In spite of the common misconception, many of America’s uninsured are so by choice - only a very small percentage of the population cannot afford medical insurance. All of those people have access to health care. Any person can go to any emergency room and get treatment. You and I may agree that their choice is foolish, but it is their choice to make.

I agree that’s not the optimal situation, but the issue is clearly not access to health care. Neither is it insurance, in spite of all the talk about coverage. The real issue is cost and quality (especially at the bottom of the scale). Top-down government imposed systems do not improve either, let alone both.

Tex:

All your points are valid IF one accepts that providing health care is a proper function of government. I oppose government meddling in health care on principle. I admit it: I'm an "every-man-for-himself" kind of guy.

I appreciate your straightforwardness, Dan. But do you really? You oppose health benefits for veterans? Safety and effectiveness regulation of prescription drugs?

Typical socialist disingenuous way of trying to twist the debate.

Dan opposes government mandated socialized healthcare for the USA and Tex immediately morphs that into the question, "You oppose health benefits for veterans", so as to make Dan appear like a heartless man wanting to deny those veterans.

Tex, tsk tsk, veterans earn their healthcare through service in situations others avoid like the plague, and their healthcare is not a gift, it is earned through sometimes long years of service at low pay because a sizable chunk of their pay is shunted off to pay for that future benefit. Yes those veterans pay for their healthcare in their present and in their future by investing a part of their compensation.

What you want to do can in no way be compared to the benefits a veteran has earned and invested in.

No, what you want to do is extend those, and better benefits, to even those who simply exist and have never made an effort to do one damn thing, much less perform some sort of useful function that would benefit others.

That is what Don, Dan, myself, and others here object to, and Don does a good job articulating it; you just don't want to see it or hear it because like the typical socialist you have that concrete mind, all mixed up and permanently set.

"Socialist", heh. Is it really necessary to disparage those you disagree with, vidyohs? I'm not a socialist and one doesn't have to be a socialist to support hc reform.

Did you notice that Don responded that he does in fact object to health care for veterans? So you think he's "heartless". I don't and I didn't imply that he is. He's just taken a principled stand. I respect his consistency. I just disagree.

I agree with your statement that veterans have earned their health care benefits. But that doesn't make the provision of those benefits any less of a "government meddling in health care" (Don's words).

And, no, I don't favor extending benefits to "those who simply exist" and "have never made an effort to do one damn thing, much less perform some sort of useful function that would benefit others". I favor extending benefits to those who have worked all their lives and paid taxes and find themselves uninsured because they've been laid off, or their employer doesn't offer insurance, or they're disqualified for prior conditions, or their insurance provider cut them off when they developed a serious illness, or they're stay-at-home mothers, or their children, or their veterans who don't qualify for veterans benefits. In other words, the vast majority of those who would qualify under the proposal.

Yes I do have a "concrete mind". I use that to inform my political philosophy by taking note of concrete evidence offered by the real world.

Not Don, Dan as in, danphillips.

You're not a socialist you just support socialist programs.....also disingenuous.

Now tell me you are a social liberal and fiscal conservative, I need a good laugh this afternoon.

How you now morph veterans benefits into a "government meddling in healthcare" is beyond me.

You guys sure like to pin the "socialist" label on folks who disagree with you. Makes it easier to avoid thinking, I suppose.

You all seem not to know the meaning of the word. Let me help you.

Socialists advocate state control of capital and ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, state control of pricing, and central planning of the economy. I don't advocate that, in fact I'm opposed to it, and none of that is part of the hc reform proposal. You're either confusing socialism with the welfare state or you're applying the label for rhetorical/political effect.

"Government meddling in healthcare" are danphilips words, not mine, vidyohs. I'd say that the veterans hc system is a government intervention in the economy. Indeed, it is one of the most intrusive interventions possible since it involves direct state ownership of the entire system (from employment of the docs and hospitals to control of prices and services and centralized payment of services); in other words, socialism. Its for a good purpose, and I support it, but it's still socialism.

By the way, Social Security and Medicare are decidely not socialist. The docs and hospitals are private and chosen by patients, capital is allocated by the private sector not controlled by the state, and prices are set by the market not controlled by the state (reimbursement rates are, but that's not the same as prices).

Okay, had a domestic issue to settle. I left the veterans issue for this separate comment for a reason.

Oh I know you said you support the veterans receiving the benefits, but you just can't seem to grasp the core idea of where you are wrong about it.

So some of us don't like to think, eh? So we just loosely apply the socialist label to things and people we don't like. In the comment I just made above, you got my response to that one, but let's look at the VA system.

Not socialist, as it is not open to the general public. Folks don't just walk in and get treatment because they are alive and made it to the entrance. Those who benefit, as I said above, earn it and paid for it in cash and in service. Is it subsidized, yes, but that subsidization comes as the obligation of the contract the government made to the people who became vets.

Is the VA system abused? I know it is here in Houston. But that is not the fault of the veterans, it is the fault of the socialist mindset that says give to as many people as possible especially if it isn't their money that is being given.

Now as to earning, am I justified in saying that?

Please watch this little video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ7968BbMnU&feat... and when you have, tell me what you think about earning veterans benefits. And, please, no trite toss off comments, look at it and tell me what you "think" about veterans earning benefits. Not receiving socialist handouts, but getting what they earned. I want to see you go beyond the obvious.

I am off to bed, hope to see your reply in the early morning, I want to see you display better quality thinking than you have so far with your duplicitous and disingenuous replies.

Wow! I am blinded by your duplicitous brilliance.

Confusing socialism with the welfare state......oh lord how could I do that now? Taking from Peter to give to Paul is not socialism....no its....its....its....oh shit what is it.....oh it is socialism.

Single payer universal government mandated is not socialism, oh no, not at all. No state ownership or state control there.....oooooooh no.

"Socialists advocate state control of capital and ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, state control of pricing, and central planning of the economy."

Well now seems to me that government mandated universal single payer healthcare falls under that "distribution of goods and services" doesn't it?

Government meddling in healthcare" are danphilips words, not mine, vidyohs."

Oh yeah but you are the one that used the veterans programs in response, so don't dish off my rebuttal on danphillips. Doesn't fly.

Social Security is not a socialist program? How does that work? People never do one useful thing, never earn any money in their entire life yet are supported purely with money taken from productive people, and that is not a socialist program?

Medicare is not a socialist program? People are provided subsidized healthcare using other people's money and that is not socialist?

Prices are not controlled by the state (but reimbursement rates are, but that's not the same as prices) Ha ha ha ha...oh gasp....ha ha wheeze ha ha!

Let's see, you treat me and present a bill to medicare for $50 because that is your price. Medicare says we will reimburse you $35, and you either take it, walk away from it, or try and get it out of someone who couldn't pay your price in the first place. And, you think the market is setting the price? What a joke.

And, you have the audacity to claim others can't think!

OK, vidyohs. You've got some screws loose. As loose as your logic. I'm done with you.

Good, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Just understand how stupid this: "You guys sure like to pin the "socialist" label on folks who disagree with you. Makes it easier to avoid thinking, I suppose." really was.

I didn't pin the socialist label on you, you walked in with a sandwich board hanging from your shoulders that had the announcement plainly printed for all to see. All I had to do was read the words and ask myself, Hmmmm, where have I seen or heard those words before and from whom?

That is the reason I love you guys on the loony left, you broadcast your identity every time you touch a keyboard or open your mouths and you can't comprehend that the rest of us receive you exactly as you broadcast. Makes you so easy to spot.

"don't lets the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

Speaking of asses...

You guys sure like to pin the "socialist" label on folks who disagree with you.

We do have a somewhat different, but more fundamental definition of "socialism"; political control of resources.

Thanks, Sam. Finally a civil response.

Of course you're free to define "socialism" any way you want, but the term is not so narrowly defined among most economists, and defining it so narrowly (by excluding state ownership and state control of prices and capital) makes it much easier to apply the term to those you all disagree with.

Nevertheless, this hc legislation does not represent state "control" of resources. It DOES represent a mix of state and private influence over resources but that's not "control" any more than stop lights, speed limits, emissions regulation, requirements that drivers have insurance and the like represent state control over driving.

Legislation always implies political control of resources, either directly or indirectly. That's what legislation is for. The state gained control of resources to build roads and passed legislation to affect the behavior of drivers. Enforcement requires further political control of resources.

The term "socialist" has become useful for the those who espouse similar policies under different labels can be quickly attacked with a label they once wore until it became anathema to the general public.

The technical definition of the term is not very useful anymore, because you only have to omit this or that parameter to make it inapplicable to those who still advocate political control of resources.

No, legislation does not imply "control" of resources. Some does exercise control but most legislation exerts influence that affects the allocation of resources (for many different purposes) while other factors (like the market) also influence allocation of resources. Ocean currents affect the weather, not control it. States enact laws that require driver license and insurance, mandate emmission controls and seat belt, establish speed limits, install traffic lights, etc. While these law have significant influence on driver behavior, they do not "control" either the driver or their cars unless, of course, you change the definition of "control", as you have "socialist", to suit your own purposes.

Well, one visitor here suggested that there is no such thing as actual control, merely some degree of affect.

For the purpose of this discussion, you may use "affect" in place of control, since most of what government does is to "affect" behavior through promise of reward and threat of punishment.

This is what I mean by political control of resources, affect distribution of resources by rewards and punishments. Indirect control.

Better yet perhaps is to refer to the political direction of resource allocation.

Health care reform is a hopelessly vague term, but the bills passed by the house and senate are clearly socialist. Do you support either bill? What kind of hc reform do you support?

I do not see how the government honoring a contract to veterans is "meddling in health care" Would you clarify?

Yes.

Then indeed, you're consistent. But you're undermining economic effeciency and violating Steve's EGR in the name of principle.

Oops, by "Steve's EGR I was referring to Steve Landsburg's Economist's Golden Rule from The Big Questions.

2. Because of "bugger thy neighbor" approaches of governments in some states. Some states will avoid enacting health care reform in order to obtain a business cost advantage over states that do, thereby taking business from those states (like they now do with corporate tax rates). This creates a big incentive to not enact hc reform at the state level.

A telling point.

IAC, if sufficient numbers of voters want their state government to provide them with health care "reform", then their politicians will be willing to enact it.

It seems that such policies can't attract sufficient voter interest unless politicians lie about the true costs and benefits.

Sam, there are plenty of lies on the other side of this debate. Death panels, it's contribution to the deficit (the non-partisan CBO says it's paid for), the scare stories aimed at Medicare recipients, among others.

Death panels, hmm, they won't call them that, but I have a friend whose aged mother was injured and hospital personnel were talking about how she's "lived her life" and they can't do a whole lot for here.

The reality is that budgeting problems will place many older folk at the back of increasingly longer queues.

There really is no way around resource constraints. Decisions will be made about the allocation of resources. People won't get the care they once expected.

Of course "death panels" is scare talk and thrown out for emotional manipulation.

The CBO says what? What's paid for? The deficit?
What about the debt?

I sorry to hear about your mother, Sam. But I note that you're facing this situation, as I did with my mother, BEFORE hc reform is passed.

Re: the CBO, it says the House and Senate hc reform bills are paid for.

How can they be paid for if they haven't even been passed, and before the true costs are known?
Cost projections by political agencies of proposed policy implementations are notoriously short of the later realities.

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion. link

CBO is not a political agency. It's non-partisan. Both Rs and Ds depend on it for cost estimates of their bills and it has credibility in both parties.

CBO did not exist in 1966 and the Ways and Means Committe that moved the bill was not an impartial source of analysis as CBO is. Nevertheless, the Reason article you cite doesn't make the point you want to make because their cost estimate of $107 billion in 1990 (even if that's is correct) ignores the fact that Medicare was greatly expanded between 1966 and 1990 accounting for most of the cost difference they cite. Therefore, it doesn't bear on the question of whether or by how much the W&M projections in 1966 were off the mark..

CBO is not a political agency.

Among the government agencies, the CBO may be the most objective, but even the CBO cannot predict future changes that may be made to programs, as the Medicare citation suggests.

CBO budget analyses may be said to be fairly objective, they are nonetheless, speculative as they are necessarily bases on the current state of affairs and proposals in their current state and unable to account for any expansion, modifications, etc. that lie ahead.

In any case, Medicare was expanded and its cost blossomed well
beyond predictions and is now a fiscal impending disaster.

The history of government programs is one of costs exceeding predictions. The history of government is constant expansion in size and scope.

Not my mother, a friend's mother, and she's using Medicare.

Fortunately, my friend has been available to care for his mother.

Sam, you've missed the point of #1 above regarding the influence of lobbies and campaign contributions. They overwhelm voter support for health care reform or tend to repress it. Public support for Medicare was above 50% for years before it was enacted by Congress and only then as a result of the flukey 1964 election that swept in a tide of Dems and overcame corproate opposition to "socialized medicine". Within a few years of enactment, public support was so strong that Medicare became untouchable.

Let' see, "policies [that] can't attract sufficient voter interest unless politicians lie about the true costs and benefits." Have we changed the subject to the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts?

Have we changed the subject to the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts?

It's possible that I can make a stronger case against US militarism than even you. How about we change to that subject when Mr. Change and Hope makes any substantive alteration to US international military strategy.

On your first point, you make another telling point on the flaws of democracy. The people, via political power, labor under the illusion that they can have anything they want without consideration of the long tern effects of the boon they deliver to themselves.

A big flaw in democratic collectivism is that voters can conscript the resources yet to be created by their children and grandchildren.

Yes, democracy has given us trans-temporal slavery.

How wonderful.

While US global domination and the current "peacekeeping" actions may be the straw to break the camel's back, it is entitlements created by new deal thinking that will sink our ship. Medicare chief among the burdens that are going to crush economic growth.

I'm not making an argument regarding US militarism. You are. I supported US efforts to drive the Soviets out of Afghan, US/NATO action in the Balkans. the Afghan war, the surge in Iraq, sending more troops to Afghan, drone strikes in the border region of Pakistan and Yemen. You may object to all those actions, but you have me pegged wrong.

And by the way, I support reforms to Social Security and Medicare to make them self-sustaining. I bet you want to deep six both programs not reform them. Am I mistaken, Sam?

I support reforms to Social Security and Medicare to make them self-sustaining.

Laudable generalities indeed.
What would "self-sustaining" mean for these programs?

I think SS and Medicare should be recognized as welfare programs and let out anybody who wants out of them. As a start.

I don't think, as they are constituted, that they can be made "self-sustaining".

It's interesting that you push "corporate" opposition to this latest health care bill as if it somehow doesn't have literally hundreds of provisions that will benefit the corporate connections of Democrats and Republicans responsible for this bill alike. It's with these kinds of poorly reasoned assertions that listening to the Left's dogma is as boring as the Right's. I thought all the Dem's were upset with Obama and Emannuel's provisions for "Big Pharma"? Is that easy enough for a supporter to dismiss by evoking the "importance of something rather than nothing"? It seems so...hypocritical...to throw around accusations at others when this looms over one's head.

Thanks for responding, magilson.

It's not hypocracy at all to object to corporate opposition to reform. In fact, the provisions that benefit corporations you cite make my point about the ability of corporations to "to bend reform to suit their purposes." Their lobbying and campaign contributions, combined with the Senate's supermajority requirement and Republicans' lock-step opposition to any reform (a smart, successful political strategy to weaken Obama and the Dems) left no choice (other than the simple majority option of budget reconciliation) but for the D leadership to cut deals with the corporate interest necessary to move the bill. Thats's precisely what happen with the Big Pharm provisions you object to. (By the way, not "all Dems were upset" with these provisions. Some were. I don't care for them or many of the other compromises with interest groups required to move the bill. But politics is the art of the possible.)

By the way I don't subscribe to the "Left's dogma". I'm a pramatic moderate.

Sorry, but yes it is. If you've no problem with corporations protecting their interest by convincing legislators to include their pet-provisions then it is nothing short of hypocritical to be upset when their best interest include no bill at all. One could easily justify any such silly legislation by your logic. For instance, the Democrats who opposed the second war in Iraq were simply being obstructionist block-heads when they should have just asked for accomodating provisions in the legislation. Never mind the fact that it's quite possible no legislation may be their best option. Corporations are run by people who are the very same represented "people". Your logic is fundementally flawed.
The idea that somehow absent Republican barricades to this legislation there would have been no corporate provisioning simply ignores the concept of partisan lobbying. The fact of the matter is it would have existed either way.
With the attitude of "the art of the possible" there's simply no base-line justification one must seek. The goal of legislation is simply whatever meets one's fancy at the moment. That's a funamentally childish way to go about dictating the lives of others. But I suppose if you want to segment yourself away from that left dogma by claiming some middle ground that exact philosophy would explain it. "I don't belong because I get to dictate how you think about me" is an interesting personal philosophy! And and interesting one considering the corraling you engaged in when starting this little debate. I'd try to stay a little more open minded next time and I wouldn't have confused your intentions.

Indeed, magilson, you are profoundly confused. I do in fact object to such strong influence of corporate lobbyists over hc reform, and that's clear from #1 in my orginal post and others posts as well.

Also, you're wrong on the facts about Dems and the second gulf war. They did attempt to amendment the war resolution, including the Lee and Spratt amendments in the House and the Byrd (two of them), Levin and Durbin amendments in the Senate. And how can you claim that the Dems were "obstructionists" on the war resolution when 29 Dems in the Senate and 82 in the House voted for it? In both house Dems provided the margin that passed the resolution.

You also have a proclivity for erecting straw men then knocking them down. Nowhere do I say or imply that "there would have been no corporate provisioning" if the Rs had not systematically opposed hc reform. Lock-step R opposition greatly enhanced corporate leverge since the Dem were forced to win every one of their 60 votes, putting every swing member (all of them conservatives) in position to extract concessions for their pet corporate lobbyists. Most of those concessions were ones I (and maybe you) strongly object to.

Let me try and phrase this differently. From what you've written I suspect your issue is with the fact that corporations can modify legislation which . My issue with is that legislation can be written with the kind of reach that can modify my relationship with anyone, corporate or personal. You view progress as consumer empowerment. I view that same progress and government empowerment. I think that's the mindset of most who agree with Hayek's writings. Because I see it as a government power issue I don't follow the logic progressives have that somehow one party is privy to the legislative and the other isn't. It's logically inconsistent. Progressives just keep shoving the word "corporation" in there to confuse the issue.
Does that clarify my position for you?

I'm having trouble figuring our what you mean because of the sentence fragments, drop puntcuation and phrases like "one party is privy to the legislative and the other isn't." Are you saying that progressive believe that corporations should not be allowed to participate in the legislative process.

Your assumption that my "issue is ... that corporations can modify legislation" (this is where the sentence fragment is confusing) is incorrect. My issue, I've I stated elsewhere in these posts, is the excessive influence of corporations.

And, no, my view is not that progress is equivalent to consumer empowerment. I see progress as much broader than that, including business innovation, technological development, the expansion of civil rights and civil/economic liberty and opportunity and other element we very well might agree on. Government can advance those goals and it can hinder them, and it does both in every democracy in the world today.

I think your (plural) political/economic philosphopy/ideology is at the heart of why you all keep assuming I'm saying things I'm not and putting words in my mouth. You all are listening to your own expectations and projections not to what I'm saying.

I agree, it is a government power issue. If the government weren't in the business of giving away goodies, then no one would be lining up to take them. Say's Law applied to Public Choice.

Progressives do love to rail against corporations ad nausuem. Of course they don't seem to mind it if a union or some "good" group like Greenpeace lobby/bribe Congress. After all, it's for a "good" cause. What is a union, but a group of workers incorporated, right?

Justin, despite Say's Law, your causal arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. The US federal government, and the Constitution that created it, was established (partly) to produce "goodies". These original goodies included the expansion of business opportunities through interstate trade by reducing state-to-state trade restrictions, a common currency to facilitate and expand economic opportunity by simplifying commercial transactions, raise revenue through import duties, protecting creditors from debtors who expanded money supply by the states which allowed banks to issue paper currency under the Articles of Confederation, and the preservation of slavery in the south and expansion in the territories of the west.

(Actually, it predates the founding of the republic. When the Continental Congress began acquiring the war materiale Washington required to fight the British. Many American suppliers became wealthy through these contracts with the govt.)

The distribution of these goodies then created a feedback loop as others sought their own goodies.

In the 19th century, the govt. provided "goodies" to railroad companies by giving them public land and settlers of the west in the same way, giving monopoly franchises to businesses, and protecting business through Congressional and Supreme Court action that prevented states from regulating them through fed preemption while turning around an citing states rights when Congress tried to regulate them. This led, through popular demand, to TR's economic reforms.

The New Deal and Great Society "goodies" you all object to came well after the fed govt had established a long track record of passing out benes to businesses and creditors.

A point made less clear by your dismissal of my point when you further stated that it's the "art of the possible". I read that as a "It is what it is so let's live with it". A group of citizens is no different than a corporation. Both can choose to effect each other regardless of a moral basis. Their effectiveness is meaningless since any infringement is unacceptable. So my confusion began with you and your immediate dismissal of the group think of this site's readers. I think if you were honest you'd realize most here have no interest either as a citizen or as an employee in dictating the choices of the lives of others. And so I still don't understand why you think it's okay for some constituents to have pull and not others. Progress is perspective and nothing more. And as far as straw men goes, well... you started it ;)

Another straw man, maglison. ;)

You all keep putting words in my mouth I haven't said, and don't agree with, but which make it a lot easier to dismiss my arguments and avoid engaging them in an open-minded way.

My objection is to the excessive influence of corporate interests; I did not say they should be prohibited from lobbying. It's a constitutional right--the First Amendment's Right to Petition Clause.

You also misread my "politics is the art of the possible" line. In legislating there are always compromises that are unacceptable and threaten the original intent of the bill. Legislators often weigh potential compromises on this standard. That's why the phrase is "politics is the ART of the possible" not "politics is the possible". Bills commonly go down in defeat because their sponsors are unwilling to make compromises that would ensure passage but represent too high a price to pay.

There was lots of debate among Dems whether the compromises made to move hc reform through the House and Senate were to high a price to pay. Obviously, they concluded that enough of the original vision of the bill remained that they should vote for it..

I like your comment, Sam, but at the risk of appearing petty, just a style point: Acronyms such as "IAC" are obstacles to clarity. At best, they force readers to stop to figure out the meaning; at worst, they are misinterpeted to mean something other than what they're intended to mean.

I don't think I'd have figured out the meaning of "IAC" even with an hour of puzzling over it. It took a trip to AcronymFinder to surmise that -- among the 116 possibilities listed there -- you meant "in any case."

I'm not trying to single you out. It's a source of ongoing frustration for me across the web, especially when I see it done by political allies whose messages I'd rather be conveyed with as much impact as possible.

Excellent point Don!!

From what I have read, the in-state Massachusetts plan is a train wreck waiting to happen due to unintended consequences (cost way higher than projected, fewer business starts due to higher taxes).

It seems that our democracy is very broke when so much of the policy is driven by extremest in the margins (extreme left versus extreme right) when the majority of the country seems to be squarely in the middle.

What can we do to help increase incentives for our politicians to represent the country's wishes as opposed to taking away our tax dollars and using it to buy votes?

Whether or not the Massachusetts plan is a "train wreck" isn't the point -- even if it were the best thing since wet t-shirt contests, it is still a state issue. If other states want to emulate the program, they certainly have that right.

The federal role in this is to remove obstacles to a free, competitive market -- like, say, removing federal prohibitions on group plans and buying across state lines. Then let the states or, better yet, the people work things out.

Pelosi is RIGHT.

Massachusetts should have NO SAY at all in national healthcare.

That means John Kerry lost his vote, and Harry Reid is now TWO votes shy of cloture.

Thanks, Nancy! You are a gift from Heaven!

You are kidding, right? Polosi is a witch and need to go where ever she came from to find her broom and stay there. The woman is out to lunch 24/7!!!

No, I'm not kidding.

In a fit of intellectual honesty, Reid should totally take Kerry's vote away because that's what Pelosi said.

When was the last time a liberal was intellectually honest?

Margaret Sanger.

Openly advocating for positive eugenics... yeah, that's an intellectually honest liberal.

Great point.

Why, don't you see? Pure demagogy and political careerism...

Excellent question. Federalism and state experimentation was great for welfare reform - it should play a bigger role in health reform.

I really like the way the framing is being done. It's very professional and PR driven. Suddenly it's all about health care.

Because of one stand on one issue in the Massachusetts election, the Democratic leadership is repeating this mantra to every media outlet: "We won't let this loss stand in the way of health care legislation."

The election was deeper than this. Voters have been talking to exit pollsters and some stories are leaking out to a wider audience about just how much the public hates the Democratic Party/government and the way legislation is being rammed through, without public debate, without even time to read the pork-laden mess, using what everyone sees as bribes to recalcitrant legislators, creating huge debt.

Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reed truly do not want to acknowledge the backlash, the Tea Party movement, the angry outcry in public meetings, and now the Massachusetts electorate. Instead they are going to reframe the message so that really it's ok to ignore the public and pursue a specific legislative agenda. Apparently 'Progressive' now means 'keep shifting the target.'

Sorry, that should have been Reid. I apologize to all people named Reed that this accused.

An appropriate and terrifying point.

Ms. Pelosi's likely response to you: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008...

It's also the state with the highest premiums in the country. MassCare also denies more medical care than most private insurers.

Too logical. Didn't read.

Don, if you looked her in the face and asked that question, she'd find a way to dodge it.

The answer, of course, is that Congress doesn't have to act. Even if everyone wants healthcare, you're absolutely right. Isn't Massachusetts a prime example of the power states have (or ought to have) to help themselves?