They finally editorialize: “AG Rob McKenna has a case to challenge the health-care law’s individual mandate.”
Need I say more?
UPDATE:
(And we promise not to spend any the money raised buying advertising from the Seattle Times.)
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Let me guess … they cut-and-pasted it from an EFF press release?
Maybe Frank Blethen wants to cement his rag’s reputation as a Republican Party house organ, as no one takes it seriously as a newspaper anymore.
OMFG.
Rachel Maddow suggested last night that this is all a political fund-raising stunt; that the people involved see that a lawsuit can’t succeed, but they think they can use this to galvanize donors nationally. Seems the most convincing theory I’ve heard so far.
How many times have I said that.
PS: When you cancel consider the following:
A) Tell them WHY you are cancelling
B) Tell them you demand a prorated refund — NOW.
C) You can always renew your subscription later, but send the message.
Trust me if a 1,000 or so people cancelled it would send shock waves from the circulation dept to the board room.
You know, I’m sure I’ll get flamed, but I agree with the editorial. Let me just ask this: if it were a republican president that made a law requiring people to buy a product from a disgraced industry (and spare me the nuanced distinctions between a ‘fine’ and a ‘tax,’ the clear intent of this federal law is to require people to buy insurance from private corporations), would you be so vocally dismissive of legal challenges to it? I don’t think so. I sure wouldn’t. And I’ll stand up my progressive credentials next to anyone, tyvm.
Wouldn’t that tend to depend entirely upon the product and the purpose of the requirement?
Let’s not forget here, that this mandate is precisely what the GOP was asking for back in ’94. Perhaps it’s true that at that time they hoped it might help kill reform. But they didn’t pull the idea out of thin air. It is a necessary first step if you want to reform the system, while leaving the system in private hands. So if you were talking about a federal bike helmet law for kids, or smoke detector law, well then I’m pretty damn sure that a lawsuit to invalidate such a law would be vocally dismissed.
Would it better soothe AG McKenna’s newly discovered libertardian instincts if we simply nationalized health insurance (or bike helmets, or smoke detectors) and gave it all away to everyone (after raising their taxes)?
Either way it’s moot. Because the simple fact is that the Constitution does not forbid either option. And if AG McKenna thinks that it should then maybe he should resign and start his nationwide campaign to amend it.
Assuming the situation were reversed (a Democratic AG going after a law passed by a Republican Congress) I’m sure the Seattle Times would point it out for a political stunt no matter what the merits of the suit.
Sadly the Seattle Times version of “moderate” sounds a lot like fake Ted Van Dyk’s.
Today, in Pullman, he conceded that the public option single player, while he might have policy objections, would likely be Consitutional because would be the government and would be a tax.
Richard Pope for AG!
I feel so left out. I haven’t given the Times any money since the stadium debacle last century. I won’t even take the frickin free ones they sporadically hand out downtown.
I used to temp at Nordstrom corporate mid-’90s, and heard they hated the Times and wouldn’t buy ads there. Wonder if that’s still true, in which case getting Macy’s to drop them would be quite a blow to their bottom line.
My example was of a disgraced industry, (one that actually does include death panels), not some feel good industry like a bike helment company. What if the companies in question were foreign owned, would you accept the federal government telling you that you had to buy their product? Oh wait, that is what NAFTA did… The fact that this is a republican idea should tell you all you need to know about its merits, and ultimate consequences (i.e. people get screwed, corporations get rich). Oh wait, that is the democratic platform now, my bad. Given the track record of private health insurance, I’m not sure this is an system we want to leave in private hands. Remember, this is about health care, not the newest consumer widget that is all the rage. People’s lives are literally at stake, and I do not trust for-profit corporations to decide whether I get health care or not.
I just re-subscribed!!
Ryan Blethen has balls writing these Editorials right in the heart(???) of Leftist Pinheaded KLOWNville.
Too Damn Funny.
BTW…you have Goldy to thank for this.
He was chastising the Times for not taking a position.
Now Goldy received the position….DOGGY-STYLE!
@12,
do you really, honestly hope to argue that a Constitutional question should hinge on such subtleties as the popularity of an interested party?
And by the way, my health care providers are not disgraced. They are quite wonderful, in my opinion. And it seems that is an opinion shared by most Americans. Your argument seems to rely upon the uniquely peculiar arrangement we have in this country for paying for the popular products and services that they provide. And if that system is what troubles you, then you should simply be honest about it and go about advocating single payer. Either way, it does nothing to rescue the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of Rob McKenna.
By the way, I’m pretty sure Rob’s not advocating single payer either. In fact I know it. ‘Cause he says so.
Goldy the teabagger, if you want people to cancel their subscription to the Seattle Times, that means you want people to stop reading the Seattle Times.
But you need to tell the readers of your blog if you’re going to stop reading the Seattle Times.
We’re waiting.
We all know that the Times has plenty of spare cash lying around to pay for skyrocketing health benefit packages….
Actually, come to think about it, maybe The Blethen Family Newsletter welcomes unaffordable health care premiums…just another excuse they can use to cancel paying any benefits at all to their employees.
Congrats to Baby Blethen and Rob McKenna. Puddy the psycho racist freak is now your readership demographic and your political base. Just the kind of creep you want on your team.
@15 I didn;t say he advocated it, note “policy objections”, he conceded that single payer was probably Consitutional.
Georgia’s Attorney General actually looked into the legal question…unlike the GOP airheads at the Blethen Family Newsletter….
Based upon my understanding of the current Act, I am unaware of any constitutional infirmities and do not think it would be prudent, legally or fiscally, to pursue such litigation. I must therefore respectfully decline your request.
While I understand that the new law is the subject of ongoing debate here in Georgia and around the nation, I do not believe that Georgia has a viable legal claim against the United States. Considering our state’s current severe budgetary crisis, with vital services like education and law enforcement being cut deeply, I cannot justify a decision to initiate expensive and time-consuming litigation that I believe has no legal merit.
http://blogs.ajc.com/political.....um=twitter
Imagine that. An Attorney General who is looking at the legal and fiscal impacts…as opposed to political gain and selling newspapers to critters like Putty.
@11 Now I remember where I’ve heard your name! Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans!
@18 Actually, that was Mr. Klynical, the Kreepy though Komical KLOWN, who wrote that dumbfuck comment.
This sums it up well:
http://www.wannascribble.com/2.....d-end.html
Funny. One would have thought the fair and balanced ST editorial board would have favored AG McKenna setting health-care reform lawsuits aside.
The longer the fight goes on, the more it feels that the timing is all wrong. The economy is wounded. Employers are hurting.
You know he’s right when you hear statements that something has to be done, for political reasons. This issue is too important for that. It should wait for a unified proposal and an economy on the mend.
No? LOL!
Goldy, we are still waiting. You want others to stop reading the Seattle Times. Are you?
I wonder when goldy will finally get over the fact that the ST round-filed his resume…..
No reversing OUR BENEFITS political action committee.
I see, the slops finally hit the trough and the pigs are rooting.
Too bad there’s no money to pay for it.
the patriot act, the telecom immunity act, torture and kidnapping funding, on and on but the ag never represents on challenging those constitutional abuses. fuck this political grandstanding (and i don’t even like the health insurance reform act). mckenna is pathetic.
####10 Where is POPE? I haven’t heard any-thing from him in a long time.
re 5: Do you really really think that Republicans are opposed to forcing people to buy stuff from private businesses?
Grow up.
Republicans simultaneously decry the public option and the tax for people who refuse to buy insurance.
If you buy a house, you get a tax deduction. If you buy health insurance , you get a tax deduction.
Same thing.
14
The reference was to the health insurance industry, not health providers.
If you get sick and rack up 100s of thousands of dollars in medical bills, are you going to pay for it directly or are you going to rely on pooled resources to help pay for it? Those pooled resources, otherwise known as insurance pools, include private insurance and governmment programs. Like Medicare. Medicaid. Even, (gasp) the public option. Either way you are contributing to a pool to pay for medical expenses, with premiums and/or taxes. The private, for profit health insurance industry has proven itself to be immoral and rapacious. I think it is bad policy, for people and for the economy, to rely on that private, for-profit industry to manage the resource pool for health care. Because Obama wants you to pay through the nose to private insurance companies, progressives all of a sudden think this is ok. I think that is misguided and not particularly bright.
29
I’m sure the republicans are fine with forcing people to buy stuff from private business. I have no illusion about that. But my question is, why do you support forcing people to buy stuff from private business?
@29: Colonel, Sir!!!!!!!!!!! I am forced to pay taxes…forced! forced! forced! Those filthy IRS agents and my scheming employer who witholds MY Effing MONEY conspire to make sure this is the case.
And I witness the spending of MY MONEY on wasteful wars and Blackwater or whatever the fuck they call themselves these days.
And I don’t get a peeny of tax deduction for that. Not one cent. Those scum.
I am outraged.
@33 in re 29: And I tell you this…!!! This! I am not particularly bright…but if I’m in a low tax bracket and have no insurance, it is a jim dandy law that lets me shift the cost of insurance to some other fucker!! Ya hoo! Just like the employed with their health plans benefits that are GASP! GASP! urkg, yechha! not considered effing INCOME. HOW’D THEY GET away with THAT?
So yA! I buy a policy and get a tax credit of 110% of the cost, and idjuts like yuou tell me that is a BAD DEAL!!!!!!!!! hOLY ?fuck. Can I sell you some bridges? You must me a collector!!!!!!!
Ryan Blethen is an idiot.
Remarkable. Not even a nuanced piece about the healthcare legislation. Just pure wingnut nonsense. I have my Seattle Times quarterly bill on my desk. I have subscribed forever, at least 20 years. I’m done. That paper is just a Blethen family rag, and the Blethen family appears to have become a bunch of wingnuts. At the office, we will have to cancel, too. We’ll get the New York Times there. I hate to miss local Mariners coverage, but I can’t give another dime to Nazis.
Leaving aside the constitutional aspect of this (it’s constitutional unless many decades of precedents going back to drugs and Anslinger are overturned) and legal fine points (tax vice fine), it does suck to have to buy private insurance.
I don’t think very many of us with any leftish leanings disagree with that (even though we’re arguing about it anyway).
This all boils down to how much you want to pay to have someone write a check to a provider. And even the cons admit that the public option / single payer makes sense. Why pay unnecessary overhead and profit to write a check?
So what to do?
Offer medicare buy-in as the public option!
Just let it be an option so there really is choice and competition, phase it in, whatever.
It is simply a matter of budgeting and definitely deficit reduction which makes it doable via reconciliation (only 51 Senate votes): every younger person added to medicare makes its shitty risk pool less expensive and we get the minimum cost of writing a check (about 3% vice 30% or more).
And there’s legislation already dropped (Grayson).
It’s wonderful the current bill passed. It’s historic.
However, it’s definitely not perfect. A mandate without a public option is a major flaw. We should be looking for the best opportunities to press this (likely after the midterms and potentially next year’s reconciliation).
Supermajorities from all over are in favor of expanding Medicare. So doing a medicare / public option is just great politics, even if in the near term we just force a bunch of votes to clarify things.
The thing that none of the AG’s in the suit are bothering to mention is that any state in the union can back out of the Federal mandate. All they have to do is offer something comparable or better insurance wise. This makes the basis of their case a moot point and means they will lose.
Zotz,
You are correct, of course. We just can’t go there quite yet. Baby steps. That is what is happening, and that is why all of Wingnuttia is claiming Armageddon. Even the wingnuts know that this country is going to single-payer. That’s why they are getting a little testy.
re 32: Are you too fucking stupid to understand that you are NOT forced to buy insurance — but you are forced to fund an emergency cache of money so that if you get sick or fall off the fucking roof. WE don’t have to pay for your sorry asses visit to the fucking emergency room.
Why do YOU want to force US to pay for your shortsightedness?
@ 32 et al.,
I encourage you to continue to question and debate our private payment system. And no, I for one do not support it. But let me assure you, since you seem to be having some difficulty grasping this, that Rob McKenna and the Seattle Times Editorial Board do indeed vehemently support the preservation of the private health care payment system in America.
So not to put too fine a point on it but:
What the fuck are you blathering on about?
Do you approve of AG McKenna’s lawsuit and the Seattle Times’ support of it because you oppose the private health insurance industry????
From exactly what height did your mother drop you on your head?
McKenna’s pointless political stunt will not move the country one step closer to single payer. Far from it. In the fantasy Bizarro world in which the Tenthers dwell Congress would be forbidden to pass single payer. But of course, they’re crazy. Always have been. Ever since the first tin-hat conservative objected to federal maritime regulations based on enumerated powers, mouth breathers have been clutching the Bill of Rights and shouting about “State Sovereignty”. And now our AG and the Seattle Times are joining them.
Please keep up the good fight. But this ain’t it.
Goldy, we are still waiting for your answer. You want others to cancel their subscriptions to the Seattle Times and not read it anymore. You are going to do the same, right? You’re not going to read it anymore, right?
@42,
If Goldy wanted everyone to not read the Times, why do you suppose he would post links to their content on his website?
Teh Stoopid is strong with this one.
@43
So Goldy wants people to cancel their subscription to the Seattle Times and switch to reading it online?
41
I do not see how the current ‘reform’ will lead to single payer, or to anything other than more of the same. But worse, because now the health insurance industry has been given more power. Rates will still go up, and up and up, people will still get denied coverage (either because they cannot afford the deductibles or because of dirty tricks by the insurance companies), and to add salt to the wound, now we are forced to pay the same venal, corrupt corporations a tithe/tax of 9% to 10% of our income. The American people gave Obama and the democrats a mandate and the votes to really reform health care. Instead, corporatist Obama sold us out. This ‘reform’ gives politicians an excuse for the next 10 to 15 years not to work to provide universal, affordable health care to Americans. I can hear them now.. ‘let’s see how this works before we try to ‘improve’ it…’ If the republicans want to blow up this ‘reform’ for policital reasons, that’s fine by me.
@45,
and all this endorses the Seattle Times’ support of AG McKenna’s decision how?
Look, I get that you prefer single payer.
So do I. So what? We didn’t get it this time around. Again I ask, do you think that a federal court decision restricting Congress’ authority to regulate state insurance markets is likely to further the cause? Or more likely, that a long drawn out politically contentious but legally pointless court battle over state sovereignty will lay the groundwork for single payer?
I’m sorry to be pedantic. But you just aren’t making any sense here. There’s just no way that supporting this political farce of a lawsuit does anything to fix the flaws in this statute. And your persistent objections in an unrelated topic makes you sound like a concern troll.
@44,
Troll,
meet concern troll.
46
I can assure you I am not a concern troll. I am consistent in my belief that this law is bad precedence for mulitiple reasons, not just for health care but because I think it is bad for democracy in general. To me, this law represents a huge transfer of power and wealth from the public sector to the private sector. If I am going to be forced to pay a tax, then I want representation with that tax. This law cuts out representation, you know, those sometimes obnoxious elected officials. Instead, now we’re being told by the IRS to send our checks straight to the corporations, thank you very much. I’d be willing to pay an additional 9% to 10% of my income if it went to the government to provide access to health care, but I don’t want to be forced to give that money to monopolistic, rapacious for-profit corporations without any say in how it will be spent. Simple as that. And just to clarify, I am not a teabagger. My complaint is based on this bill being bad policy, and not because I don’t like the president, for some ultra-partisan or racist reason.
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I do not see the connection between the feds ability to regulate interstate commerce and a new federal requirement that citizens must buy a product or service from a private corporation. This law was written very specifically so that the feds would not have the capacity/mechanisms to enforce new federal laws governing insurance practices. That was Obama’s and the dem’s choice, probably because of one of their deals with the insurance industry. So I’m not sure what you are talking about.
If you actually read the editorial, you’ll see that it is pretty reasonable. Let’s get this sorted out by the courts. I think it is a big enough question that it should be addressed by the courts. Either way, I still think the mandate is bad for a whole hosts of reasons, not least of which because it is an immoral foundation on which to base access to health care.
Assuring me you aren’t a concern troll strangely enough doesn’t overcome the glaring irrelevance of your politically based objections to this new statute in relation to McKenna’s lawsuit.
But I’ll breifly allow some latitude.
You can’t seek medical treatment in this country without directly involving yourself in a commercial system that crosses state boundaries.
As a freeloading parasite, you might prefer not to carry insurance. But when you inevitably do get sick or injured your inability to pay puts the entire system at risk. Past tolerance of that risk does not lessen it. Nor is any parasitic freeloader entitled to that tolerance by dint of “tradition”. Congress has a duty, and a Constitutional authority to protect that important commercial interstate system from the threats imposed by large numbers of parasitic freeloaders. There is no otherwise enumerated restriction on Congressional authority to limit how Congress may choose to limit that risk. There is no 28th Amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law requiring angry, parasitic ‘Baggers to pay for something they’d prefer to get for free”. So once the relationship to interstate commerce is established, Congress can pass laws making private parties buy all kinds of stuff.
There is nothing unusual about this. It is the basic legal rationale behind almost every facet of federal commercial regulation. And yes, many of those already existing regulations compel private parties to purchase goods and services from the private sector in order to avoid penalties including fines.
48
Reeeealy?
Shall we try that on for size?
From the Times:
I suppose that must sound pretty reasonable to you.
But is it rational? Me, I’m funny. I tend to associate the reasonable with the rational. So exactly how rational is it to assume that the uninsured remain outside “the stream of commerce”?
Wanna see a list of things that’ll “force” you “into the stream of commerce” really fast? Breast cancer.
A brain tumor. Especially an operable one.
Parkinsons.
A spine severing car accident.
A kid with Cystic Fibrosis.
H1N1.
Pregnancy.
You get the gist.
So how “reasonable” is it for the Times’ editorial board to suggest that teabagging constitutional scholars without insurance remain outside “the stream of commerce”?
This sort of argument is nothing short of an appeal on behalf of fucking freeloaders dressed up in a bunch of laughable populist bullshit.
Nothing reasonable about it.
49
I think your use of the term ‘parasitic’ is very applicable to the rapacious, private, for-profit, health insurance industry. Hopefully you weren’t referring to me, because that would be impolite and inaccurate.
Please provide an example of the federal government compeling individual citizens to purchase goods or services from private corporations. Maybe there are comparable examples, but I am not aware of them.
Also, I think you have set up a false equivelency – you seem to imply that anything other than congress requiring individuals to purchase insurance from private, for-profit insurance companies would mean that congress is not fullfilling its obligation to protect an “…interstate system from the threats imposed by large numbers of parasitic freeloaders.” There are multiple approaches to protecting interstate commerce in this case, as you have framed it, but Obama and congress landed on this one approach. I would like to see if their solution is actually legal, quite honestly. My understanding, again I am not a constitutional scholar, is that the commerce clause is constantly being tested on how far it may reach. At some point it will cross ‘the line.’ I would like to think this law crosses that line, for a lot of reasons (which I won’t repeat). But this is why we have a legal system – to sort these questions out, filled with people who do have that expertise
I don’t know what the AG’s motivations are. I didn’t vote for him, nor do I anticipate I ever will vote for him. But I do know my motivations, and these are that I want to see if this law is legal. In this case, I appreciate the AG representing my interests.
@51,
Okeydokey.
Let’s say I operate a really big barge on the Mississippi hauling oil and petro-chemical products up and down the river. I have to carry bonds and liability insurance as specified in the CFRs. And I have to buy those products on the open market from private corporations.
Now, to address the rest of your comments.
Really, I don’t care.
Honestly. I’m growing tired of the repetitive nature of this. Simply continuing to try to change the subject does not somehow magically provide substantive support for AG McKenna’s decision or the Times editorial. Yes indeed. Congress could have pursued other means. They could have bought a duck and named it Charlie. So what? That doesn’t wipe away Article 1. Congress has this authority as specifically described in the Constitution and as repeatedly supported by nearly two hundred years of court precedent. Sure the commerce clause is tested. The most recent case before the Supremes involved…
…wait for it…
… federal mandates that conflicted with state citizen’s initiatives concerning health care. And guess what? Even though the Court stipulated that the specific activities involved did not in any way cross state lines, or directly impact upon any events, persons, or other activities that crossed state lines, they still held that the mere potential threat of crossing a state boundary was enough to justify commerce clause interest by the feds. Complaining about it doesn’t change it. It just makes you a whiner. Wanna change it? Propose an amendment. At least that would be more honest than what McKenna is doing.
Hey, I get that you would love to veer into a broad debate about libertarian notions of laisez faire government and limits to federal authority. But for the last time that isn’t the point here. Neither you, nor McKenna, nor the Seattle Times, nor Luke Esser, nor John Boehner have as yet articulated a legal argument on point directed at the Constitution, citing specific case law, that supports a decision by McKenna to sue the federal government over a federal statute that in no way conflicts with existing Washington State law.
By joining this suit, McKenna does nothing to further your stated motivation “to see if this law is legal”. He’s simply poking his finger in the eye of the Governor, the legislature, the state’s Congressional delegation, and the people who elected them. In a very partisan way. In his public statements, he isn’t shedding any light on the law for the benefit of our state citizens. We might regard that as evidence that his motivations are sincere. But instead he merely repeats time worn populist rhetoric designed to stir up resentments.
Well sure, if you choose to haul toxic materials in a waterway then I fully expect the government to regulate your behaviour, and applaud requiring barge owners to carry insurance. But this law is different, in that it is a blanket requirement on Americans who are within a certain economic bracket and below a certain age to purchase a product from a private corporation. I’m not saying that it is for sure anti-constitutional, I’m just saying it should be decided by the courts, not by you or by me. To leave it unsettled I think would be a mistake because there is already enough resentment, as you pointed out, against the law, from the right and yes, even from the left (check out FireDogLake if you don’t believe me). I think there are constitutional questions that need to be addressed. Your example is pretty thin, what case are you actually referencing? If I had to wager, I’d predict that the supreme court will find it constitutional, if for no other reason because it further consolidates corporate power over society. But I do think it needs to be decided. That I think the bill makes for terrible health care policy is really besides the point.
I’m not trying to veer into arguments about laissez-faire and libertarian anything. I would have liked the law to have set up federal mechanisms to enforce the new regulations on private insurance company behaviour. Does that make me a libertarian? If I worry about the dissolution of the power of representative government to address problems we face as a society, does that make me a proponent of laissez-faire government?
Again, whatever the AG’s motivations are for challenging the bill, it doesn’t matter. As Goldy is fond of saying, elections have consequences. The AG was elected. Go ahead, try to impeach him. I don’t support you or that effort though.
@53,
Wow.
Just wow.
So now I suppose you’re going to enlighten me about just how exactly my brother and sister-in-law could have “chosen” to have a perfectly healthy child, instead of a great kid who very sadly will suffer her entire short life from Duchenne muscular dystrophy and in all likely pre-decease both of her parents.
I just give up. I’ve never found it very profitable to seek to disabuse libertarians of their delusions. I suppose it must be some kind of cognitive deficiency. So take it on faith, if nothing else. There really are some events, some circumstances, and some outcomes of known probability that we simply cannot choose. Our health care system is one of the ways we deal with those outcomes. Supporting and encouraging large numbers of free riders on that system is putting it at very serious risk of collapse.
But yeah, you’re probably right. We obviously can’t trust democracy any more. We should just blanket challenge every single contentious federal statute that sparks partisan rancor “just to be safe”.
That’s seems very “reasonable” too.
P.S.
I’d face the same, albeit lesser requirements if I was hauling water on the Mississippi. The basis of the authority to regulate is not related to the toxicity of cargo. But rather the general risk to interstate commerce presented by the activity. Going without insurance puts interstate commerce at risk.
P.P.S.
If you think this lawsuit is going to settle anything you haven’t been paying attention to the GOP for the last eighteen years.
@54
No doubt, I mean Roe v. Wade was decided what, 37 years ago? They’ve been waving that bloody shirt ever since then.
Hopefully someday nobody will give a damn what a Supreme Court nominee thinks about abortion.