One Last Detail

The spirited tone adopted by Rahm Emmanuel never left Washington:

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f--- the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

Howard Fineman had some fun describing the House Democratic caucus:

"You know, we had a fairly liberal use of the F-word inside those closed doors..."

No Blue Dog Usage? 

A Democrat also made a point that troubled me:

One member I talked to said if this is the way he's going to negotiate with the Republicans, what's he going to do with the Iranians, you know?

Yup - I can almost hear Barack coming back from Tehran and explaining his latest giveaway with "It's like negotiating with hostage-takers".

 

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

The gov't. did indeed argue that it's a tax. One of the two judges, I think it was Vinson, absolutely shredded that argument in his opinion.

[Clarice]

Yes, I remember that now. Thanks, DoT.

[Why don't Independents agree?]

Maguire;

It's time to get off the crapper and take a stand.

RON PAUL VIGOROUSLY DEFENDS WIKILEAKS

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Ron-Paul-Vigorously-Defends-WikiLeaks-2734/

[RichatUF]

Ah, indeed he did. Link has a link to the opinion for anyone interested.

Judge Vinson wrote convincingly on all three issues, finding that the enforcement mechanism is a “penalty” rather than a tax; that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to “penalties;” and if the “penalty” is a “tax,” it is likely an unconstitutional un-apportioned direct tax.

[Clarice]

I'm quite optimistic that the health care act which destroyed this president and his party will never be enforced--either directly by the judiciary or by a combination of judicial and state and congressional action .

[cathyf]

Yeah, but if "not enforced" means that the courts refuse to enforce the insurance contracts, then health insurance is dead. The fundamental contractual obligation that insurance companies have to their customers, the premium payers, is to pay the health care bills of only the people who paid premiums before they got sick. Congress passed a law abrogating the base clause of every insurance contract; if the courts respect that, then all the contracts are done. Just like when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, every contract of sale for every slave was abrogated in the parts of the Confederacy under Union control.

That's the goal of this whole thing. To destroy the ability of companies to offer insurance as a product, so that people who get sick and can't pay will turn to the government to pay for it with tax money. Then the government will control it all. They will be the single-payer, paying for everything with tax money.

[Clarice]

No--I think the health insurance part will be kicked out by the courts along with the individual mandate. The part where the states revolt is in the expenditures and bureaucracies they are charged to set up.They won't do it. Some have already signalled that. And Congress comes in on refusing to fund anything left over.

[Danube of Thought]

I love reading what cathyf and Clarice have to say about this healthcare business.

I don't think I have a good idea as to the ultimate outcome--no one really can--but I think it will always be remembered as something comparable to Wilson 's League of Nations: it will never become law, but its carcass will pollute the entire issue for a century.