First thoughts from David Gregory as he breaks down the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold President Obama’s health-care reform law and what impact it will have politically.
UPDATE: Read more of David's reporting on the health care debate on First Read.
Leave a Comment:
I was watching MSNBC coverage for nearly an hour (I like seeing things that almost no one else does) and heard one talking head after another exult in how Mitt Romney is "on record as having been in favor of an individual mandate" without mentioning the concluding words "by a state, not the federal government." MSNBC is notorious for reporting things out of context. Then David Gregory came on and injected a bit of actual journalism by providing that context. Kudos on that!
The state-not-federal thing is a total cop-out. We all need healthcare, not just one state. You cannot make a logical argument in Romney's favor.
A logical explanation to the state vs. federal discussion can clearly be found in the Constitution and the papers that explain the founding of our country and the principles that have made it great............might be some reading you might want to pursue.
Yes, like it makes any difference at the end of the day if was the a state or a federal mandate. Its semantics. The Republicans have their head so far up their a$$ that they will NEVER see sunlight.
States have the general police power (using the word "police" in its legal, not colloquial sense), while the federal government has only enumerated powers under the Constitution. Whether it makes any difference whether it was a state or a federal mandate depends on whether you think the Constitution is "just semantics" or is important and should be followed. Apparently, you don't. But the Supreme Court does, and they found that the individual mandate is a de facto tax, despite the assurances of the Democrats who promised it was not, and therefore it is authorized under Congress' "tax and spend" power.
"With regards to the mandate, the individual responsibility program which I proposed, I was very pleased to see that the compromise from the two houses includes the personal responsibility principle, that is essential for bringing health care costs down for everyone, and for getting everybody the health insurance they deserve and need. So I was very pleased with that development." Mitt Romney Why would support of individual responsibility be ok at a state level but not federal?
As I recall, he says he thought it made sense for Massachusetts, but should be decided on a state-by-state basis. I have no opinion as to whether he was right about whether it made sense for Massachusetts, as I'm not a resident of that state, so mine would not be an informed opinion on that issue.
P.S. - Once an obligation is mandated by law it can no longer be truthfully called a matter of "personal responsibility" because it is now a legal requirement.
well Sir.? ~ personal responsibility seems to be seen as an "option" while a mandate is something else.
As a cynic friend offered a "toast" to socialism" at the bar this evening, I countered with a toast ~ "To big too fail". ~
Socialism seem to be okay when we are pulling the top 2 % chestnuts out of the fire but when it comes to average income Americans . you can forget it.
Because the state is the entity that has the legal right to impose such a mandate, not the Feds, which is why Roberts switched it to tax rather than a mandate. Congress can tax, it can't mandate.
More importantly, he also backed it at the federal level:
In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to usean individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.
On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.
But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”
Well, if that's true, I suppose we could conclude that Mitt Romney may be (surprise!) a politician who is not afraid to change his position in order to get elected.
Despite the knee-jerk responses to my post, I was not making an argument in favor of Mitt Romney; I was speaking out in favor of good journalism and being accurate when providing news analysis, rather than being a partisan hack by deceptively providing facts out of context in order to spin them to favor one side or another. David Gregory is a journalist. The other talking heads on that program are not; they are partisan pundits.
I just love how sooo many of our congress men and women were against this BILL but they are okay with us as taxpayers paying for their FREE healthcare and other NONSENSE PERKS ON TOP OF THEIR SALARIES!!!
It is amazing to me how sooo many of our congress men& women were against the healthcare bill for healthcare for all american (that is not free by the way) but they are totally ok with "we" the taxpayers affording them to have free healthcare on top of their salaries. i contribute to my healthcare and pay a copay in the real world, my company does not give me free healthcare and pay my salary!
As I understand Justice Roberts, Congress cannot expand its power under the Commerce Clause to compel those who do not have health insurance to purchase it. He pointedly reaffirms Congress does not have the power to compel someone to eat broccoli or join (and attend?) an exercise club. Congress does have the Taxing Power to tax those who could but choose not to purchase health insurance. How does this taxing power for failure to purchase health insurance differ from taxing for failure to eat broccoli should Congress determine it was in the national interest for everyone to do so? Presumably Congress could not compel this action but could under this ruling tax failure to eat one's fair share.
I don't comprehend the mental gymnastics necessary to understand a clear distinction in Government regulating what may be 'by stander or non-participator' behavior (a debatible issue regarding consumers of health care) between compelling compliance or taxing non-compliance.
I believe the Constitution impowers even demands "Health, Education and Welfare" for all U.S. Citizens, especially when states would deny these rights. Seems to me this would be covered by the Commerce Clause. As to those who can afford healthcare by refuse to be covered, let them pay a tax rather than have others pay for their position.
Obama and Mitt stole the Health Care Plan and not one reporter bothered to give the credit to the man who first gave the plan in his speech on TV:
In his 1974 State of the Union address, President Richard M. Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance.[19] On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.
President Nixon had a lawyer name Rehnquist research a health care plan fashioned after the Amendment used in the Social Security Act. That lawyer became Chief Justice and his clerk was John Roberts. Obama and Mitt stole Richard Nixon's health care plan and both should be giving Nixon the credit. Clinton tried to take it but Speaker Newt Gingrich said it would be passed under a Republican President. Mitt Romney successfully used it and announced he would make it Law once he got to be President. If any of the analysis had bothered to read all this would have been easier to understand. The Health Care Plan is not a Democrat idea it was announced in 1974. No wonder the people can't trust the Media as it was just 38 years ago not that long ago.
i believe now those democrats who have turned their back on president obama will 'try' to begin the tasks of saving face. i hope that the president will not come to any of their fundraising events and i hope the true american voters vote all those traitors out of office...peace
The real "traitors", (to their Country!) are the 238 Congressmen & 41 Senators; signers of the "Norquist Pledge"; grinding the Country's lawmaking into Gridlock; ALL under the guise of "Tax Reform". For TRUE Tax Reform: just "AX THE TAX CODE"; with its $1.1 Trillion in "breaks"; Plus allowing 45% to pay NOTHING?? Why is this "Pledge" never mentiond?? These "signers" don't deserve our VOTE, Remember??
Out of all the stupid and ignorant ruling ot the SCOTUS. It looks like they finally got one right. Now with enough money,my family can finally get some health coverage. No where as good or free as our fine elected officials for the rest of their lives.Scumbag freeloaders.
i think the gop cut up the healthcare so much that it might not work.i pay about 130.00 per week in health care!if i could get the same with this new healthcare through the government i would pay it!i call it helping america get back on its feet!how about a pay cut for the house and senate!
Ridiculous!!!!!!!!! Ms. pelosi says victory for american people, then how come 68 percent of polled american people said they didnt like it and felt cheated? Just another politician liars take on what they want people to belive.
As I said on another post: when they started medicare they all said the same things they are saying about the health care bill. I was dead set against medicare and I just knew it would be the end of America. It has been woven into the fabric of America and most of us can not imagine being without it. I know this is not perfect but why not give it a chance to work? As a senior citizen I can say the early provisions have helped my family.
Just making sure this gets through to the TOP AS#Ho*@ at "Meet The Press". You CAN "Kiss My Ass" . . . . at least as far as today's episode played out . . . . .my suggestion is that you move the show to FOX . . . . POST your lies where idiots (FOX viewers) will believe them. We don't (and won't) buy into this kind of s&%t on NBC. How disappointing after all these years.