http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/easondobbs/posts/193411297350957?notif_t=share_reply
@Barbara, sorry couldn't last more than 38 seconds with that video. High-schoolers could make a more informative and probably less bias presentation than what the video was shaping up to be.
There are just too many examples of forced mandates at certain levels to say it is a plain and simple case of you can't do it, that's why so far there is a split on the issue, even in the courts. 2-2.
We'll just have to see what happens at the Supreme Court to clear that issue up.
Would have preferred a different bill myself but the absence of bi-partisanship doomed it to be distasteful to nearly everyone. Imagine what a good bill we might have gotten if 'repeal and replace', which is a compromise of the Repubs original position, had been their attitude in the beginning. We could have skipped the whole total-opposition<>total-repeal<>repeal-and-replace drama.
OK, I tried again and this time I made it to the 2:39 mark of the first video before I had to stop it. To say that video is not biased is ridiculous. As pointed out above the use of the term Obamacare is partisan if not outright derogatory. In that first 2:39 more dialogue is spent on remarks like: "Why would the best and brightest liberals...", I will unless liberals tell me...", "liberals are never wrong..." by the female [liberal] who appears to have the intellect of a parrot, uh puppet in the video. [I don’t think the advocate once addressed himself as ‘conservative’, so maybe that makes it impartial?]
An oversimplification of the state right’s issue isn't the only consideration here and it in itself is what we fought a civil war over so the ideal that states right’s is an all powerful trump card doesn't always hold true.
As for the second video thank you for simplifying it for me but that video doesn't address all the issues. Mr. Pearce doesn't address the "necessary and proper" clause of [at the end of] Article I Section 8 nor does he address “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”. passed in 1798 [by the founding fathers] and signed by Pres. John Adams [a founding father].
I am not a lawyer and I, like most people, would have preferred a 'better' bill and it is not my desire to spend time defending the bill that did pass, but after watching 40 years of nothing I’ll take almost anything as a step forward at this point. I can respect that you don't like it and want it repealed and you may be right, it might not pass constitutional scrutiny.
Does anyone think that a court-ordered repeal is going to facilitate a better replacement bill?
I'll keep my fingers crossed that it survives the court decision because if the court overturns it the right-wing will take that as a mandate to negotiate from a hard-line position if at all. If it survives the court test then maybe they will be forced to compromise through their repeal and replace strategy. Who knows.
“Mark Hall, Professor of Law at Wake Forest University, specializing in health care law and policy, was quoted as saying: "Under the Due Process Clause, no Supreme Court decision since 1935 has struck down any state or federal legislation for infringing economic liberties, and any such action would be radically inconsistent with current constitutional doctrine." Regarding the attempts to override the health-care bill with state laws, Hall stated, "It doesn't make sense. The federal Constitution couldn't be any clearer that federal law is supreme," and characterized the state actions as "a kind of civil disobedience, a declaration that we're not going to follow the law of the land."
Lavoie, Denise (March 22, 2010). "Opponents take last stand against health care bill". San Francisco Chronicle. Associated Press.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/25/2067964/give-me-liberty-or-give-me-mandatory.html
OK, I’ve tried to get away from this conversation because it has wandered to and fro to the point of being off-point. But let me try to exit it one more time as I have come to the conclusion that we are not going to agree and since we are arguing different points we probably won’t even agree to disagree.
In my first post I made three points; I found the video bias, I believe that the constitutional argument is not cut and dry, and that while I would have preferred a better bill I am thankful for any bill.
- I found the video bias:
Any time a video or paper or politician [of any persuasion] starts trying to explain their point of view by labeling me or the proponents of the opposing view as mindless followers, uninformed, too partisan to think logically, or just to dumb to understand the issue then the odds are if its a conversation then that conversation is going to take an ugly turn. If it is a video, paper, post or speech then I am not going to waste my time on it. If I wanted to be spoon fed selected facts I would turn on FOXNews or ‘some’ of the talking heads at MSNBC. In a nutshell that is where that video went so in my mind it was bias. - That the constitutional argument is not cut and dry:
Plain and simple that is what I meant. The first video presented a one sided argument as did the second video. Mr. Pearce put forth his argument, the points that support his arguments and that's fine, but to suggest that is all there is to the debate is ludicrous. Strong central governments vs. state rights, just like other issue of gun control and separation of church and state have been argued for the last 200+ years. The courts and the supreme courts have ruled on all three like a pendulum. I expressed my preference but only suggested that it could go either way and if it goes against my wishes I still may not agree with it.
Your third reference, the so called ‘liberal view [?]’ comparing the gun law ‘gimmick’ proves nothing. If that’s a valid argument then the car insurance requirements would be more valid because it has a more direct relationship to commerce. It an apples and oranges and bananas fiasco. To make it work, or to disprove it, we would both have to get into a game of parsing words and spinning the argument.
The third reference also included a quote from the Virginia Attorney General that “Never before in our history has the federal government ordered Americans to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce,” I’m sorry but that too is a debatable point, the reference I made to the “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”. passed in 1798 [by the founding fathers] is one example.
Again, my point, its not so cut and dry. - I would have preferred a better bill I am thankful for any bill: I will Restate my explanation from my second post:
“Does anyone think that a court-ordered repeal is going to facilitate a better replacement bill?
I'll keep my fingers crossed that it survives the court decision, because if the court overturns it, the right-wing will take that as a mandate to negotiate from a hard-line position, if at all. If it survives the court test then maybe they will be forced to compromise through their repeal and replace strategy. Who knows?”Health care INSURANCE reform has been discussed for decades. When Bill Clinton advocated for it in the 90s the Republicans attacked it ferociously. Vicious attacks on Hillary [who handled it], scare tactics and the derogatory reference of ‘Hilarycare’ [remember Harry and Louise? the next best thing to ‘death panels’]. [Hilarycare/Obamacare]. When the attempt eventually failed hadn’t the Republicans put forth their own proposal [quickly withdrawn?] that resembled the final 2009 version passed? This time around some Republicans [Grassy for one] were backing the ‘mandates’ until the rhetoric got very divisive and they had to fall in lock step with the party.
I would have been happy with several alternatives to the plan that passed [universal, single payer, expansion of Medicare, etc.] but I’ll take what we got. Medical cost for the middle class, uninsured medical cost for the poor, lack of pre-natal options for young women are just a few of the expenses that are destroying families and taxing the economy. My dissatisfaction with the final bill is directed at Obama, the weak-kneed Democrats and the obstructionist Republicans. I would love to see the bill tweaked and improved and would even accept the removal of the mandate, but only if an alternative way of paying for it was substituted.
I don’t however want to see it brought about by the courts or a total repeal. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard republicans carryon about how court interference just mucks thing up and as I stated in my second post [quote above] I think that would also be the result here.
You seem to have pegged me as a liberal. You throw out the criticism of Pelosi as if that supports the legal issues of the mandate or as if I give a hoot for her, but that’s OK. I’ve always considered myself a ‘bleeding heart moderate’ just left of center, but living in a red state [Indiana] that's considered the same as a left-wing socialist. Over the last thirty years my stance has been as an independent and while I have refined my positions somewhat and have actually moved more towards the middle than the left, in this day and age anyone who isn’t a staunch conservative, with bonifides, is considered a liberal. Apparently even by a “non-liberal independent”
But like I said that’s OK, I’ve found that over the last two years the rhetoric from the right has become so toxic that for the first time in my live I voted a straight party ticket in this last election. So I may be returning, or being shoved, back to the left while breathing a sigh of relief.
UPDATE:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/anti-hcr-gun-mandate-stunt-meets-george-washington.php
No comments:
Post a Comment