Who Wants To Repeal HCR?

Jan 24th, 2011

Pretty much nobody. In fact, support for full repeal has collapsed altogether. I don't expect the Republicans to care very much about the "will of the people" now. Only 8% want repeal of HCR altogether. Figures from the latest NYTimes/CBS poll:

The Impact Of HCR Repeal

Jan 19th, 2011

Do you wonder what would really happen if they repealed last year's Health Care Reform Act? The link will take you to a map that allows the user to see the impact in each congressional district. It is strongly recommended that everyone take the time to do the research for themselves.

How would repeal affect you?

HCR Repeal? Not so fast...

Jan 14th, 2011

There are some interesting opinions in a new Marist poll. See what happens when Frank Luntz isn't crafting the questions? 

Greg Sargent reports in WaPo:

"Earlier this month, some on the right got very excited by a Gallup poll finding that a plurality, 46 percent, want the health law repealed, versus only 40 percent who want to keep it in place. That poll, however, only presented two options: Repeal, or let the law stand as is.

Today brings a new Marist poll that takes a more fine grained look at public attitudes towards repeal, and its results are quite different. No one should be under any illusions: The health law is unpopular. But the picture is complicated. Marist:

Which one of the following comes closest to your opinion about what Congress should do with the 2010 health care law:

Let it stand: 14

Change it so it does more: 35

Change it so it does less: 13

Repeal it completely: 30"

I would like to repeat my humble request that the Republicans use their vast intellectual resources to actually propose an alternative before symbolically passing a two paragraph note which won't see the Senate, much less survive a veto.

That's IT!?!

Jan 5th, 2011

We've been hearing about it, arguing about it, waiting for it and grappling with it for months. The "it" I refer to is the promise by Republicans that the 112th Congress would make their first order of business a bill to repeal "Obamacare."  Here it is in full. Hold onto your hats...

From Politics USA:
"A BILL

To repeal the job-killing health care law and health carerelated (sic)
provisions in the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act’’.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAWAND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN
THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

(a) JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW.—Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111–148, such Act is re7
pealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

(b) HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.—Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted."

My questions for the 112th Congressional Republican leadership are as follows:

That's it? That's all you could come up with? Are you insane? Or are you just that lazy? It doesn't even look like it was written by adults. It looks like the kind work a stoned high school student would turn in after he had waited to start until the night before it was due. You had roughly 9 months to draft this and you released 2 paragraphs with typos? Did you guys put in the phrase "JOB-KILLING" four times in a sad attempt to increase word count?

Grade = F

Henry E. Hudson - Radical Activist Judge

Dec. 14th, 2010

by F. Grey Parker

My goodness. Such hullabaloo over Judge Henry E. Hudson's decision striking down the so-called "personal mandate" provision of the new health care law. Let's ignore, for the moment, his obvious and actionable conflict of interest in even presiding over the case as evidenced here, here, here, here and here. Let's also ignore the fact the the provision is a regressive tax and forces no one to "buy" anything.

Let us instead look at his reasoning yesterday and his history.

Hudson's decision contended that the element of the law in question overstepped the powers granted to the federal government under the interstate commerce clause. This is particularly interesting to anyone looking into his career of political activity under the bar. I direct your attention to this choice highlight.

"While judge Hudson was Commonwealth's Attorney, United States Attorney General Edwin Meese appointed him as Chairman of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. The Commission subsequently produced a document frequently referred to as "The Meese Report." The Commission report made several recommendations designed to restrict the distribution of pornography, arguing that congress only requires proof that the distribution of the obscene material "affects" interstate commerce in order to regulate it." emphasis mine

I would like to hear his explanation of this now. He either will defend the position that the distribution of pornography "affects" interstate commerce and our national healthcare industry does not, or he will admit that he was willing do anything for a moralistic and ideological crusade in spite of the constitution. 

You can't have it both ways, Henry. You can't have it both ways.