The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[innerSpaceman]

As usual, Keith says it better than I ever could.

Obama = Giant Fail.


Who should be the Democrat nominee for president in 2012?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

As usual, Keith says it better than I ever could.

Obama = Giant Fail.


Who should be the Democrat nominee for president in 2012?

Jerry Brown!

[JWBear]

Alan Grayson!

[Alex]

If you want the Democrat to win? Obama. Not that he's doing great, but at this stage I think another Democrat loses.

Though not completely, but to a large degree because if there is a true primary battle the new person and Obama will completely rip each other to shreds. If Obama survives but has trouble he will be seriously weakened. And the other person will have to go way left of Obama to pull it off and like it or not way left of Obama does not get a majority of votes in this country.

Sure, the same thing will be happening on the Republican side but if there's a primary challenge to Obama nobody will care.

[innerSpaceman]

Bwahaha, 50 Reasons Obama is a sellout.

[sleepyjeff]

A federal judge declared a key provision of the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two other federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

Hudson rejected the government's argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.

"Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions," Hudson wrote. "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation" and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/...rhaul_virginia


I got to wonder how Obamacare will work without this provision?

[Ghoulish Delight]

As much as I'd like it to be otherwise, I tend to agree with the ruling, which is why I was never particularly in favor of the version of national health care that was passed. You're right sleepy, the math simply doesn't work out of not everyone is participating, but I do find it a stretch to justify forced participation, in the form of requiring a private purchase (as opposed to simply providing coverage to everyone in a truly socialized system), hard to justify under the constitution.

A lot of people point to auto insurance as an analog, however that fails as an analogy on a handful of points. Firstly is the fact that the auto insurance requirement is about protecting the interest of others', you are under no obligation to purchase insurance that covers yourself. Secondly, you are not required to purchase insurance unless you voluntarily choose to drive. And third, probably most importantly, that requirement is on the state level, not the federal level. Different rules apply.

So while, as an overall policy matter, I'd prefer to see national health care move forward, until I see a convincing constitutional argument for this form of it, I can't fault the court if it decides against it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, what about a slight change of tactic.

Instead of saying, "You must buy insurance or you have to pay a penalty," what about, "We are changing tax law so that everyone owes X amount more in taxes [where X=the amount of the penalty], but you receive a tax credit if you have purchased insurance." That seems more within the government's power, yes? Of course, even if it ends up being functionally identical, the odds of Congress passing something that includes the words "raise taxes" are nil, so I guess it's a moot point.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Hmm, what about a slight change of tactic.

Instead of saying, "You must buy insurance or you have to pay a penalty," what about, "We are changing tax law so that everyone owes X amount more in taxes [where X=the amount of the penalty], but you receive a tax credit if you have purchased insurance." That seems more within the government's power, yes? Of course, even if it ends up being functionally identical, the odds of Congress passing something that includes the words "raise taxes" are nil, so I guess it's a moot point.

I think that would be more constitutional....but yeah, "raise taxes" isn't exactly a big seller these days so you're right about it probably being a moot point.

[Moonliner]

Hell I'd be happy if they would just open the process up so that I could buy insurance from anyone I want and not just vendors approved in my state.