Jon Stewart on the State of the Health Care Controversy

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

The NRA and Health Care

Anderson Cooper

 

The Affordable Care Act - Obama Did That

The conservative and Republican Obama haters derisively call it Obamacare.

Of Muskets and Health Care

I found this surfing the web, from Slate. I think it's a better take on the Militia-Health Care comparison, but it does take the debate far too literally. If the analogy is being made, it is more that the effects of each are the same:

Of Muskets and Health Care

An antique musket.

Did the Militia Act of 1792 set a precedent for Obama's health insurance mandate?

By Jeremy Singer-Vine|Posted Thursday, Dec. 16, 2010, at 4:57 PM ET

A federal judge in Virginia has declared unconstitutional the health care provision requiring many Americans to purchase insurance. On Monday, Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that while Congress may regulate interstate commerce, it cannot force citizens to buy goods (like health insurance) on the private market. Some of the law's defenders have argued that Congress did just that when it passed the Militia Act of 1792, which compelled all "able-bodied" white men of certain ages to have a battle-ready musket or rifle. But that law hails from an era in which the United States were still young and our politicians wore white wigs. How good of a defense, really, is the Militia Act for the insurance mandate?

It's pretty flimsy. The constitutionality of the insurance mandate relies on the so-called Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Militia Act (actually two bills passed within a week of one another in May 1792), on the other hand, depends on the Militia Clause, which authorizes the government to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia." Because the two mandates have such different foundations, the constitutionality of one is essentially independent of the other.

Separate clauses aside, the Militia Act of 1792 would still be poor precedent for the insurance mandate, because Congress never enforced, or even meant to enforce, the law at the federal level. Lost in the health-care inflected discussion of the bill is its initial purpose: To standardize state militias and to authorize the president to call them into action. The government expected each state to achieve standardization through locally issued regulations, and to handle the gun-toting provision independently. As it happens, the state-level requirements and penalties were onerous, especially for poorer men. The standard-issue musket, which was too heavy and high-caliber to be useful off the battlefield (say, for hunting), cost about $13—several weeks' wages for the average Joe, who earned less than a dollar a day. Men who did not comply were fined as much as $12 (the penalty in New York), and those who didn't pay the fine could be imprisoned for debt.

Not long after the Militia Act passed, it came under increasing criticism for being (on the one hand) unfair and (on the other) too weak. Wealthy men could afford to pay the fines, avoiding both militia duty and prison, but poor and working-class men could not. The bill had also been watered down as it crept through Congress; it didn't create any standards for militia organization, tactics, or training, as its original proponents had wanted. The resulting aggregation of state militias was fairly ineffective. Though federally commanded state militias helped George Washington quell the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, their poor performance in the War of 1812 convinced many politicians that the government needed to rethink its military strategy. Starting in 1840, with Massachusetts, states began repealing their compulsory militias or simply letting those militias decay, favoring volunteer organizations instead.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks Barry Friedman of New York University, Richard H. Kohn of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Kevin Sweeney of Amherst College .

Richard Nixon a liberal?

What is the US becoming? Somehow the topic of US health care came up at dinner last night. It seems that Richard Nixon proposed a comprehensive health care plan in 1974!:

Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.
--Richard Nixon

I found it worrying when I watched a documentary and saw some of the programs Nixon brought about, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which would now be decried as socialist!

What is going on with United States Politics?

A Case Against Motorcycle Helmets

Reason.com published a wonderful article.

After describing the controversy, namely that some say motorcycle injuries only hurt the rider and others say we all end up paying for the care of these injured guys, the author mentions a few fascinating benefits to the no-helmet-law idea.

At the risk of sounding macabre, let me note that a 50-year-old biker who dies in a wreck saves us money, since he won't be around to collect Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in his old age. A 20-year-old fatality may yield a harvest of excellent organs for patients awaiting transplants.

What's your opinion? Is this a case of the government being too invasive? Should motorcycle riders make up their own minds and we'll let the pros and cons balance themselves out?

Please leave a comment.

Detroit Woman Shoots Self to Get Medical Treatment

The Detroit News reports on a determined gun owner's answer to not getting hospital treatment.

Shooting oneself probably isn't the best way to force doctors to treat an earlier injury.

So muses a Niles woman whose lack of health insurance prevented her from receiving treatment for a painful sprained shoulder.

Kathy Myers, 41, who shot herself in the shoulder Thursday, is now waiting to see if prosecutors will file charges against her.

This fascinating story touches on so much. She loved guns, was a recovering alcoholic who was thinking about taking a drink after 7 years, she had gotten rid of her 357 Magnum.

"I like guns," she said. "But I had to get rid of it. I have a bit of a temper."

What's your opinion? Is this a new twist on the old observation that "the gun is the answer?" Do you think a person like this should own guns?

Please leave a comment.

The U.K. Massacre

Bloomberg has the report (not the mayor, the news outlet).

RuffRidr really hurt my feelings with this comment.

Also, would love to hear your views on the mass shooting in England.

Interesting that the story has been almost completely ignored on this blog.

I scour the internet continually, but honestly hadn't picked up on this till I saw these two mentions on my own blog comments. To suggest that I pick and choose, is just ridiculous, I'm outraged .

Here's the story:

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- One of the worst mass killings in British history may have been triggered by a row over a family will, the Daily Telegraph reported, without saying where it obtained the information.

Taxi driver Derrick Bird went on the rampage armed with a sniper rifle and a shotgun through the northeast county of Cumbria, killing 12 people and wounding 25 before turning the gun on himself; his twin brother David and a local solicitor, Kevin Commons, who may have advised the family over the will of Bird’s ailing mother, the newspaper said.

Bird had initially armed himself with two guns on the night before Wednesday’s killings, but was disarmed by a friend; he sought medical help at a local hospital for his mental state but was turned away, the Telegraph reported.

I know, I know. This proves that both gun control and universal health care don't work worth a damn.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Doubly Divisive

FishyJay sent us another good one.

UPI.com reported on the story.

U.S. state attorneys general challenging the new healthcare law will use a 1995 Supreme Court decision in a gun case as a central argument, experts say.

In a lawsuit challenging the law's mandate that everyone must have health insurance, the 13 state attorneys general, including Gregg Abbot of Texas, cite the court's ruling in a Texas gun possession case in their arguments, The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.

A Texas high school student was convicted for bringing a gun onto campus in 1992, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 1995, saying Congress exceeded its constitutional regulatory authority when it approved the 1990 law banning firearms in a school zone, the newspaper said.

The Constitution's commerce clause limits the regulatory powers of Congress to matters involving interstate commerce. In the Texas case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1990 gun law was unconstitutional because it had nothing to do with commerce between states.

The attorneys general argue healthcare does not meet the legal definition of interstate commerce, so the congressional mandate that all Americans must purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

"In the past 15 years the Supreme Court has scaled back Congress when they've tried to inject themselves into purely state matters," Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said.

Those critical of the lawsuit say the U.S. healthcare system is national in its scale, and rises above state lines.

That's a pretty funny story, in that sad way the sore losers have of not giving up. FishyJay's title is exactly right, this is divisive. For me though, the final line of the article says it all. We've been calling this thing NATIONAL Health Care reform because it "rises above state lines."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Ted Nugent on Health Care

Ted's a good talker, but where was he during the Bush years?

Glenn Beck on the Health Vote

News Hounds ran an article with a video of Glenn explaining his take on the historic vote.

Glenn Beck was surprisingly unvitriolic yesterday (3/22/10) in the wake of the passage of the Democrats’ health care plan. Oh, sure he called Michael Moore a “big fat cottage cheese butt” and attacked civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis for having the nerve to “compare” himself to a civil rights activist - and failed to mention that racial epithets had been hurled at him and others by tea party protesters. But, overall, Beck was thankful. Really. Why? Because the Democrats had finally outed themselves as the kind of radicals Beck had always said they were. So the heck with the country going to hell in a handbasket, as Beck sees the health care legislation. He had been vindicated!

What do you think? Is this the beginning of the end, as Beck says? Is this the end of the Democratic party as we know it because the progressives have taken over?

Please leave a comment.

Rep. Anthony Weiner

Thanks to Litbrit over at Cogitamus.

How I wish we had forty more Democrats like Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson.

The Gun Safety Issue in Health Care

Media Matters reports on the latest hysteria to come from the Gun Owners of America (GOA).

On January 7, 2010, the far-right Gun Owners of America sent an email to supporters claiming the Senate health care reform bill would trample Americans' second amendment rights. In reality, the bill specifically bans the collection and use of firearm-related data that would adversely affect the rights of gun owners.

Part of the GOA message reads like this:

Senators are now insisting that the current Senate health bill protects the rights of gun owners, even though this version would still allow the BATFE and FBI to troll through the ObamaCare database for gun owners who would be disqualified because of their medical information.

As an aside, has everyone lost their minds over the word "troll?" Why is this word being misused so often? Are the writers of the word so bereft of a healthy vocabulary that they can't help themselves? And, I can't help but noticing which side of the political divide tends to do this most.

What's your opinion? Is everything objectionable "trolling" now?

About the gun safety issue in the health care debate, wasn't that taken care of? Why are these people still beating a dead horse?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Gun Owners on Health Care

Talking Points Memo ran a fascinating story about the hyper-vigilance on the part of gun owners when reviewing the Health Care Bill. (via Phuck Politics and Laci)

You might not necessarily think that health care reform would end up in the crosshairs of the gun lobby. But you'd be wrong. Gun Owners of America have been raging against the Senate health care bill for all sorts of imagined threats to the Second Amendment, and now the White House has taken notice.

What exactly are their concerns? Well, for instance, "Special 'wellness and prevention' programs (inserted by Section 1001 of the bill as part of a new Section 2717 in the Public Health Services Act) would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles -- and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius from decreeing that 'no guns' is somehow healthier."

The White House says: "Section 2717 section creates guidelines for insurers to report on initiatives that improve quality of care and health outcomes, and it specifically lists what types of programs would be involved - such as smoking cessation, physical fitness, nutrition, heart disease prevention. There is no mention of guns, and there is no language that could result in higher premiums for gun owners or lower premiums for people who do not own guns."

I call that hyper-vigilance bordering on paranoia. Or could there be another explanation? Is it possible that the folks who are jumping on this bandwagon are happy to have any excuse to oppose President Obama? Doesn't it often seem that the conservative Obama bashers are a little bit too pleased to express their negative opinions?

What's your opinion? Is the concept of "healthier lifestyle" going to eventually include the question of gun ownership, in your opinion? Or is this just another excuse to oppose something they're already opposed to?

Please leave a comment.

Heatlh Reform and Gun Rights

Reuters reports on the possibility that the latest version of the Health Reform Bill might contain some provisions concerning guns and gun rights.

"The Obama administration and its supporters are using every trick in the book to undermine the gun rights of law-abiding American citizens," John M. Snyder charged here today. "Speaker Pelosi's Halloween government health care bill announcement only underscores this reality." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdI_vBURwcM)

Shotgun News recently named Snyder the senior rights activist in Washington. A former NRA editor, he is a director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Manager of Telum Associates, LL.C.

"The current attempt to take over the American health care system by ramming government controls through Congress among other things is a back door attempt to get after Americans' guns," said Snyder. "Obama is trying to do an end run around the Second Amendment under the health care rubric. His National Institutes of Health already is positing an adverse relationship between firearms and health.

Isn't it funny that we were just talking about this? Fishy Jay was suggesting that liberals were showing their hypocrisy in not protesting the tacking of the homosexuality bill onto the military spending one. What about this guy, though? Where was John Snyder when they tacked the "guns in national parks" bill onto the credit card legislation?

The other thing I noticed is that Mr. Snyder seems to be saying that the entire Health Care bill is there for the purpose of slipping in some gun restrictions. Isn't that a little egotistical not to mention paranoid? The Health Care Bill is a "back door attempt to get Americans' guns," says he. For a good laugh watch the video. When he talks about the ORB plan, I wondered what the harsh critics of Jackie Kuhls thought. "The American people are watching ORB."

He says this about the bill:

[It] could be used by anti-gun government bureaucrats to deny health insurance coverage to citizens who possess firearms. Under plans currently being considered in Congress, people could be denied health coverage simply because they owned guns. Bureaucrats could determine that gun ownership constitutes a health hazard. This would be a sleazy, dictatorial backdoor attempt to force law-abiding American citizens to give up their guns."

I'd like to know where exactly in the thousand-plus pages of text it says that. He says it "could" do this and bureaucrats "could" determine. It sounds vague and fishy to me. What do you think?

Could this be just another attempt to generate resistance to Obama's plan? That's what it sounds like to me.

Please leave a comment.

Medical Marijuana

Reason.com ran an article today which traced the background of the medical marijuana situation.

In 1973, Robert Randall was going blind from glaucoma when he discovered that smoking marijuana seemed to help his condition. That didn't matter to police when they found the Washington, D.C., resident growing cannabis and arrested him. Preferring to keep his sight, Randall sued the federal government, arguing that he was entitled to smoke pot as a "medical necessity."

It was a far-fetched argument—but it worked. In 1976, a court ruled in Randall's favor. Before long, the federal government found itself in the strange position of supplying marijuana to him and a handful of other patients under a "compassionate use" program.

This week, the Justice Department kept a promise made by candidate Barack Obama when it announced that henceforth, "it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana."

The liberals are all cheering, the conservatives are either lambasting or mocking the President. Only Phuck Politics had this to say.

"...he didn’t change jack shit. He didn’t sign any legislation barring the Justice Department from arresting medical marijuana patients. He didn’t tell Congress to draft legislation barring the Justice Department from arresting medical marijuana patients. And he hasn’t condemned the Justice Department from raiding dispensaries the last time he promised this shit .

So this is just Obama’s go to move when his base is pissed off.

And his base bought it hook, line, and sinker, because they’re praising his name...

Except me. Because I don’t trust this corporate whore.

What's your opinion? Is Phuck Politics on to something here? Is this really a nothing move while the big deals are all up in the air, Health reform and Afghanistan, to name two?

I must admit, after starting out as an unabashed Obama fan one year ago, I am beginning to have my doubts. Several promises have been completely ignored and a number of Bush policies continued. I don't know what to think. What about you?

Please leave a comment.

Rep. Alan Grayson on Helath Care

via Phuck Politics

We're Number 37 by Paul Hipp

A big thanks to Cliff over at One Utah. This video follows nicely on the Alan Grayson situation just the other day. People who oppose efforts to improve the health care in the U.S. should be ashamed of themselves. "Heel-draggin' Neanderthals," indeed.

Those Heel-Draggin' Republicans

Thanks to Phuck Politics for this wonderful video. By the way, some people have complained about comments he's made around here. Just pop over to his site, which is one of the best around, and you'll marvel at the tremendous restraint he's practiced over here. He calls it like he sees it with a sense of humor that I wish I had.

The video made me think of our pro-gun commenters. What Congressman Grayson says about Republicans concerning health reform, I say about the gun enthusiasts concerning gun control. The same tactics are in play, blocking at every step, denying everything, giving in to nothing. Enjoy.

Bill Maher on Obama's Health Care Speech

Thanks to kavemen for a wonderful compliment, I've decided to turn to Bill Maher for more info on the health care story. Actually, what I like about Maher is that he's extremely critical of the President. Some of the others are very funny in their observations about the right, but Bill Maher really says it like it is. What do you think?