April 6, 2010

The federal health care program is too big to fail.

Is that legal analysis?

88 comments:

AJ Lynch said...

Too big to fail? So far it is AIG, GM, Banks, Chrysler and now it is Obamacare. How about our big city school districts, the states especially Caleeefooornya? Don't leave them out.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I think Congressperson Hare(D) summed up the consensus among liberals when he said he doesn't care about the Constitution.

Evidently it only counts if you're an Islamic terrorist devoted to our destruction who was captured before he could self detonate.

Quayle said...

"in the aggregate" is a ass - a idiot.

Bob Ellison said...

Yo mama too big to fail!

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Any argument that is going to be advanced before the Supreme Court counts as legal analysis.

And logic doesn't enter into Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court found no rights in Dred Scott v. Sanford.

It's been proven that the Supreme Court doesn't make legal decisions based on the Constitution (see Kelo v. City of New London).

It makes political decisions based on its own political makeup - and then uses legal jargon and carefully selected previous precedent (sometimes) to justify those political decisions.

So yes, that was a legal analysis.

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

"The federal health care program is too big to fail."

So was the Titanic.

Alex said...

I challenge the liberals to go 24 hours w/o a single snark.

wombat said...

is two-bit, too fey

SteveR said...

The way things have worked out is that the question becomes is Barack Obama's legacy too big to be a failure. As far as the legislation goes the answer was yes, and the preservation of the Obama dream was passed on.

Will the courts take the same path, probably yes. The program will never be deemed a failure. It will just end up being a very expensive and less than adequate insurance policy for most Americans. Just like social security is a crappy retirement plan. And of course it will be George Bush's fault.

Stephen Snell said...

Well said, Steve R.

AJ Lynch said...

I wonder if SCOTUS is as divided as we are.

sunsong said...

I am more optimistic that the Supreme Court will throw out the mandate. It just isn't within the powers of Congress to cause us to buy something.

This bill needs major fixing! The dems have had their exclusive shot at it. After November, hopefully, the pubbies will get theirs.

David said...

The only federal "program" too big to fail is the Treasury borrowing to fund deficits.

It can't fail, right?

Hoosier Daddy said...

The way things have worked out is that the question becomes is Barack Obama's legacy too big to be a failure.

That was the $69 question that was posed to Dennis Kucinich to get his vote on HCR. This vote wasn't so much about HCR as it was the defining moment of his presidency. If it failed, he failed.

Bear in mind Kuchinich was initially a no vote because HCR didn't take us to full fledged Brit style NHS! He later admitted it was necessary to vote yes just so he could push the reform further leftward.

I think he will be perfectly happy being a one term president if he can get Cap and Tax and Amnesty for Illegals pushed through. Imagine 20 million former illegals now firmly in the pocket of the Democrats and crippling the nation's economy with soaring energy costs. That's a small price to pay for being a one termer.

tim maguire said...

I'm too big to fail. Gimmee money!

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"It just isn't within the powers of Congress to cause us to buy something."

But if it is, it's going to be fun when we pass a law requiring liberals to buy guns and regulate the regular cleaning of said guns.

Adam said...

The entire fiasco of a health-insurance bill passed in the first place because Obama's ego is too big to fail.

garage mahal said...

Didn't know illegal immigrants could vote! Learn something new everyday here at Althouse.

garage mahal said...

Nevermind, that's after passes amnesty legislation. My bad. It's coming soon though.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Nevermind, that's after passes amnesty legislation. My bad. It's coming soon though.

Yep it sure is. I keep hoping at some point Obama can find time to work on a jobs bill but I won't hold my breath.

AJ Lynch said...

I doubt Obama and the Dems can get 217 votes for an amnesty program that leads to citizenship for illegals. Afterall, most Congress critters won't commit suicide more than once.

Michael said...

The legislation known as ObamaCare is not too big to fail, but the bureaucracy that will be put in place to administer it and the tens of thousands of pages of regulations to guide the bureaucrats will be too big to fail. We could almost live with the law, it is the administration of the law that is going to be the killer.

Michael said...

In the matter of immigration, I would suggest we issue passports and citizenship to every person on the planet. At the same time we should award degrees from the university of the immigrants choice together with their housing voucher. Oh, but there will be one, probably impossible condition: we will have to disband the INS and the Dept. of Education. Those two conditions would be enough to kill the otherwise splendid program.

garage mahal said...

Yep it sure is. I keep hoping at some point Obama can find time to work on a jobs bill but I won't hold my breath.\

Principled fiscal conservative that you are, I thought you would welcome granting amnesty to people already living here, and making them pay for goods and services they receive, instead of living in the shadows paying and contributing little or nothing to society. I know you're not one of those that constantly piss and moan about something, and never offer a solution to it.

AJ Lynch said...

Too big to succeed huh?


wv = deuchem [I'd make a comment but it would be mean and involve someone who is non-famous]

New "Hussein" Ham said...

Didn't know illegal immigrants could vote! Learn something new everyday here at Althouse.

They can.

In my home state, it is illegal to ask an illegal immigrant to prove his or her citizenship at the polls.

In fact, it is Democrat Party policy to oppose legislation requiring that voters prove their identity at polling places.

So, you did learn something new today at Althouse. You learned how corrupt your own political party is.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Principled fiscal conservative that you are, I thought you would welcome granting amnesty to people already living here, and making them pay for goods and services they receive, instead of living in the shadows paying and contributing little or nothing to society.

Oh I think they’re paying for goods and services they receive garage. I’m betting dollars to donuts that they’re not paying much in taxes though. I don’t believe in rewarding people who break our laws garage. Granting amnesty for those living here is the same as allowing me to keep the flat screen tv that I stole from Best Buy 5 years ago but you just got around to tracking me down. See in addition to principle fiscal conservative I’m big on following the law of the land too. That’s how my mommy and daddy raised me.

I know you're not one of those that constantly piss and moan about something, and never offer a solution to it.

Oh I have several solutions want to hear them? Good!

1)Enforce border security like other countries do. If that means building a big tall fence by all means do it.

2)Enforce the current illegal alien laws. Fine businesses that hire illegal aliens. Provide criminal prosecution for those business owners who continue to violate the law.

3)Grant those living in the United States illegally 3 months to return from whence they came and apply through proper channels like everyone else. I believe our current policy is racist as it favors Hispanics over Africans, Asians and Europeans who would like to come here but are forced by geography to follow the rules. If they don’t leave voluntarily make it clear they will be deported when caught and ineligible for future admission.

4)Establish a visiting worker program which will allow for migrant workers as the economy permits.

See that was easy and more than fair. If you would like to debate any of these points in a cogent and logical manner I would be delighted to do so although I won’t hold my breath there either. You can always surprise me though.

TMink said...

And Goliath was too big to fall.

Well, at least that was the pervailing "wisdom" of the time.

Trey

holdfast said...

New Ham - why would you want liberals to have guns? It might lead them to declare civil war.

garage mahal said...

The guest worker program is sensible, the fence idea not realistic. You will still have 20 million illegal immigrants here after any or all of your proposals took effect. Which aren't really different than the way it is now. Why on earth would they voluntarily turn themselves in when they can just wait to be caught?

Hoosier Daddy said...

The guest worker program is sensible,

Ok.

the fence idea not realistic.

Why?

will still have 20 million illegal immigrants here after any or all of your proposals took effect. Which aren't really different than the way it is now. Why on earth would they voluntarily turn themselves in when they can just wait to be caught?

Garage I don't care if they turn themselves in or not. The proposal to fine and criminally prosecute business owners that hire them will eventually dry up those jobs which means they're end up going back on their own volition. If they wait till their caught they get recorded, deported and are ineligible for re-entry.

Essentially what you're saying is just allow the 20 million who broke the law a free pass (sorry for those of you who followed the rules and are still waiting). By now implementing and instituting a rigourous immigration policy all you're doing is granting 20 million people amnesty and telling the rest of those who manage to get in the country illegally that they'll eventually get amnesty too.

Either we have a strict enforceable immigration policy or we don't. Seems your argument is if you can cross the border without being caught you're an automatic citizen. If I am incorrect in that view please tell me where I missed the mark.

traditionalguy said...

Is the United States government's formation under a Constitutional covenant of limited powers in order to allow maximum freedoms to citizens too free to not fail when all that Obama, Castro, Chavez, and Harvard's Collective viewpoint can see is a new state fascism that only protects the governing class? That is the question the SCOTUS will have to answer.

bagoh20 said...

When people say something is too big to fail they don't mean it can't fail, just that if it does the consequences are terrible so it must be maintained no matter how much it cost.

This is a great argument for why we should not go down that path. We sure wish we could have avoided all the other things that are now too big to fail, but too late to avoid. We can still avoid this biggest of all mistakes in American history.

How wonderful that such a big terrible thing can still be avoided, or can it?

In general, all things get worse for people when they get large, business, religion, government,...disasters.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The second paragraph should say By NOT instituting...

God forbid Ritmo come in here and spell check me.

cryptical said...

garage:

Would they just hunker down here without jobs? Remember, part of the plan is to make it too expensive for businesses to hire illegals.

That should help with the unemployment rate as well.

Mr. Buford said...

Shelley's poem said all that needs to be said on the subject of hubris.

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

bagoh20 said...

"The guest worker program is sensible, the fence idea not realistic. You will still have 20 million illegal immigrants here after any or all of your proposals took effect."

Whatever policy is adopted should be designed first to prevent further illegal immigration, and second to deal with the ones already here.

Giving illegals benefits defeats both by making more want to come and those here never want to leave.

I personally have known hundreds of illegals in my life and many close friends. Quite a few have voluntarily returned to their countries because the benefits here have dried up or gotten less available. Eliminating the lures does work and it's not unkind. They don't even feel it's unfair, but it is a deterrent to being illegal here.

Kirby Olson said...

America is too big to fail, but only Red China can save it now, which is how he likes it. He has effectively sold the country to Red China.

John said...

A couple of comments about the illegal immigrants:

1) They pay all taxes going. Property tax? Check. Although they are renters, the owner collects the tax implicitly, sometimes explicitly, with the rent each month. Social Security? Check. Deducted by the employer. Income tax witholding? Yup. Deducted by the employer. Unemployment insurance? Again by the employer. Workers comp? employer.

In the case of the employment taxes, they probably pay much more than theri share since they can seldom collect on it without blowing their cover as illegals.

The above doesn't apply to those working on a cash basis, off the books but those are a minority of the total.

Sales, gas, use and other taxes are paid as well.

So yes, they pay at least their share of taxes.

2) While I share the idea of sanctions on the employers, it is not without consequences. Look at Arizona. It implemented laws like this in 2006 and employers got rid of illegals. The illegals went home or elsewhere.

Think it is a coincidence that 60-70% of all foreclosures in 2009 were concentrated in 4 states? One of which was Arizona?

I think we are in general agreement here. I just want to point out the old adage "Be careful what you wish for"

John Henry

Hoosier Daddy said...

Shelley's poem said all that needs to be said on the subject of hubris.

Operative: She is an albatross. She will rain destruction upon you and your ship.

Mel Reynolds: The way I see it, an albatross was a ship's good luck charm till some idiot killed it.

Yes. I've read a poem, try not to faint.

Serenity, 2005

Hoosier Daddy said...

The above doesn't apply to those working on a cash basis, off the books but those are a minority of the total.

Are they? I keep hearing how they are all hiding in the shadows which implies they're paid on a cash rather than a check reporting basis.

It implemented laws like this in 2006 and employers got rid of illegals. The illegals went home or elsewhere.

Think it is a coincidence that 60-70% of all foreclosures in 2009 were concentrated in 4 states? One of which was Arizona?


Well until I can see some figures that it was illegals who were a significant portion of the 60-70% of foreclosues I may have to go with coincidence.

I think we are in general agreement here. I just want to point out the old adage "Be careful what you wish for"

Well lets see. We're sitting at a tad shy of 10% unemployment which I'm guessing we're talking about American citizens. Now we want to add another 15-20 million basically unskilled, uneducated demographic to the citizenship mix with all the benefits that go with it? Yeah sounds like a splendid plan in the midst of the Great Recession.

Again, can someone tell me why awarding people who broke our laws is good? Why such benevolence isn't extended to anyone who wants to come here? Why we should be the only country that has an open border policy? I'm trying to find a logical argument and am at a loss.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

John said: "The above doesn't apply to those working on a cash basis, off the books but those are a minority of the total."

How could anyone know what percentage of the total are working under the table? I mean, even if you had given any basis for that statement.

Also, do you have any evidence that Arizona's foreclosures were related to illegals leaving? At all? Correlation does not prove causation, you know. And has anyone looked at the overall picture (not just a tiny slice like foreclosures) of problems that may have changed in AZ? Have you?
- Lyssa

Hoosier Daddy said...

And then, in interest of the topic, lets ask whether or not the CBO took into account an additional 15-20 million new citizens into its calculations for the health care bill.

I mean if they're citizens now, they will be required to buy health insurance correct? If so, how many are going to be eligible for Federal subsidy (read: taxpayer funds) to pay for their coverage?

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

Gonzales v. Raich, being the more recent of the two cases cited, is a nice little example of what is wrong with the Republican establishment.

Back in 2005, every Republican politician at the national level seemed to have the opinion that California couldn't decide on its own about medical marijuana. They needed the big Nanny State to act as Daddy and make the rules. The states cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own, you know.

And the "War on Drug Users" was indeed too big to fail. Too many enforcement jobs, too much money flowing from the Feds to the locals, too many committed interest groups, too many business interests in the whole venture. Hell, it was (and is) even in the schools! (Will the public schools be teaching that ObamaCare is essential to our nation's health and prosperity in five years? "Yay Obama!" "National hero Obama!")

The Republicans could offer a very attractive platform of national fiscal conservatism combined with a federalist approach on social issues. People would vote for that and put a party with that platform in power faster than I can light a joint. But ya' know what? The Republicans ain't going to do that, because you need to make sure the folks you have sold your political soul to get paid FIRST. Your contributors and buddies ain't gonna like any display of willingness to give up total control of what happens in every nook and cranny of this giant country.

Now the tables are turned, aren't they, you fucking pansy sellouts! The Democrats want to interpret the Commerce Clause the same way you did, and they've got their own patronage relationships to maintain.

John said...

For Lyssa:

I have seen estimates of 70-90% of illegals working at legitimate jobs where taxes are withheld. I don't have a source at the moment. I agree that precise numbers may be hard to come by but gross estimates are not that hard.

So, to restate: Those illegals who work in legitimate jobs pay SS, Income tax, Unemployment & workers comp (Indirectly) yet receive no tax refunds, no SS pension etc.

2) Your right. I do not have any proof that people leaving the state and leaving landlords stuck with unrentable properties cause high foreclosures. You are right. Probably just a coincidence.

John Henry

John said...

Hoosier,

Perhaps I was not clear in my first comment. I do want to keep illegals out. I do want to send them home.

I was just trying to point out that it will not be painless.

John Henry

Bruce Hayden said...

I really don't see Arizona's foreclosure problem, nor Las Vegas' probably worse problem having all that much to do with illegal aliens. Just too many of the houses in foreclosure in those cities were too upscale for most illegals.

Rather, they had been fairly low cost places to live, esp. compared to nearby Los Angeles, etc., and as a result, property values shot up. Throw in Fannie, Freddie, and all the other stuff going on, and you had a bubble. A big bubble that ultimately burst, as is their wont to do.

But that doesn't address the question of whether or not illegals pay their own way in our society. Someone pointed out above that they do pay at least some taxes. They definitely sales taxes and often payroll taxes. Income taxes? Likely not as much, since you can increase your withholdings to the extent that many do not actually pay much, if anything, into the IRS. And, yes, they pay some property taxes, often indirectly through rent.

But keep in mind that some of their work is under the table, and much of their work is lower paid, and thus not subject to as much taxation.

Contrast this with the government services they incur. The likely incur higher education costs due to larger family sizes, and also ESL problems. Indeed, without illegals here, the necessities of dual language and translation would likely be lower, as well as remedial ESL training in schools. Also, without adequate health care insurance, they are likely to use ER facilities more heavily than average Americans.

I really don't know where the calculations come in here, and we have heard numbers from both sides ad nauseum.

LarsPorsena said...

For goodness sake stop using the word
"illegals" when you mean Mexicans.

We don't have a flood of Canadians, Serbians, Senegalese, Laplanders, or
Patagonians crossing our borders with impunity. We have a Mexican problem. Stop using code.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I have seen estimates of 70-90% of illegals working at legitimate jobs where taxes are withheld. I don't have a source at the moment. I agree that precise numbers may be hard to come by but gross estimates are not that hard.

So, to restate: Those illegals who work in legitimate jobs pay SS, Income tax, Unemployment & workers comp (Indirectly) yet receive no tax refunds, no SS pension etc.


That is interesting because with all those forms the employer would need to complete, I wonder if they included the I-9? You know the employment eligibility verification.

Your right. I do not have any proof that people leaving the state and leaving landlords stuck with unrentable properties cause high foreclosures. You are right. Probably just a coincidence.

Well let’s see. Is it perhaps a coincidence that Arizona like Nevada and California also saw the biggest increase in home speculation during the boom and the high foreclosures are in connection with the overall bubble bursting thus hitting those boom areas more than say, Montana?
If not then I am really glad that the illegal immigrant community was doing so well that they not only were holding down legitimate jobs but ones paying enough that allowed them to get in the great housing market too. It certainly puts to bed the theme that these exploited people were living in the shadows.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I was just trying to point out that it will not be painless.

I understand John, I just disagree that it will be as painful as you think. That's all.

bagoh20 said...

As I said, I know a lot of illegals. They do get tax reunds and generally pay zero or less than zero thanks to earned income credits. They do pay most other taxes at fair rates, but generally they use things like roads, hospitals, schools and government assistance programs at rates far above the average legal citizen because of the demographics of being poor and active with high pregnancy rates and less healthy lifestyles.

I know this personally, by seeing their refund checks, hospital bills that don't get paid and personal stories they have told me. They generally are good people with noble goals and hate living illegal, but the alternative is poverty. The U.S. is just too damn good to pass up. That's why none of us are leaving to live elsewhere. Why would they?

The reason they can get away with this is that for practical purposes they ARE legal. They have fake legal identities that meet most requirements and the law is not very tough to beat. The ones I know do very little hiding and they don't fear the government; that who sends the checks.

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem for the Democrats here is that part of the "reform" legislation may get thrown out, while other parts remain. I think a lot of people now expect at least a split, and maybe even an invalidation, of the individual mandate. But with over 2,000 pages of legislation, there will likely be parts that survive, like, maybe the student loan portion.

One thing to keep in mind though is that while taxes start quickly, many of the benefits don't start until after the next Presidential election. And, voting out Obama and the present Congress in order to reverse much of this legislation is likely feasible if done promptly for that reason. Without a lot of people depending on ObamaCare, the "too big to fail" won't have kicked in yet.

I see a couple of places where the program may ultimately become too big to fail. First, when a lot of people start depending on being able to get insurance at the last minute, after they have dropped their insurance, it will be very hard to go back to underwriting for pre-existing coverage.

Secondly, once a lot of people start getting subsidized for their health insurance, it will be hard to eliminate that - "entitlements" are hard to eliminate, which I think was the purpose of this in the first place.

But, as I understand this, much of this is far enough down the road that the Republicans can rip out big pieces before the major components go into force, if they win in 2010, and, in particular, 2012. (And that may be one of the best reasons to vote against Obama in that election).

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

Are you guys seriously trying to blame the housing crash in CA, AZ, and NV on illegal immigrants?

You are out of your minds!

Those illegals - Mexicans mostly, but also Asians - rent almost all of the bread-and-butter apartments. In some sections of SoCal, you'll find nothing but smaller apartment buildings (40 units or less), with all small and unattractive apartments that most legal Americans would find to be beneath their living standard. City Heights San Diego 92105 is a good example, for instance.

These folks are still there! If da fuzz were to come door-to-door checking immigration status, and these illegals had to leave, there would be a crash of epic massive huge proportion... much worse than what we have now.

The illegals are the ones propping up the market, not the ones who destroyed it!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I have seen estimates of 70-90% of illegals working at legitimate jobs where taxes are withheld. I don't have a source at the moment. I agree that precise numbers may be hard to come by but gross estimates are not that hard.


M'kay. Let's assume that is correct, which I sincerely doubt that it is.

Just who's tax ID are they using for withholding? They are ILLEGAL and don't have a legitimate government issued Social Security number.

You don't mind if they withhold using yours, do you? That extra 18K a year of wages you earned in Corona California that you didn't report to the IRS won't be a big problem when you are audited for under reporting your income. What? You've never been in Corona. Tough shit.....until you can prove it you have to pay taxes...After all they withheld from your income.

Also...those Best Buy and various credit card accounts in your tax ID are now past due.....your credit is now ruined. You'd better pay up.

But...what the hey....the ILLEGALS need to make a living some way. Right?

LarsPorsena said...

"...If da fuzz were to come door-to-door checking immigration status, and these illegals had to leave, there would be a crash of epic massive huge proportion... much worse than what we have now."

Really? What industries?

Kirk Parker said...

LarsPorsena,

Hmmmm, I don't recognize your name from the Regular Trolls list, so I'll bite:

We don't have a "Mexican" problem because Mexicans who come here legally aren't part of the problem! Is that really so hard to understand?

Kirk Parker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirby Olson said...

Q. Has there ever been a precedent of sending hundreds of thousands of illegals home?

A. Yes. It happened before, when Hoover sent home a half a million to Mexico.

Q. Were they delighted?

A. Not really.

Q. Did it help America?

A. It helped some Americans.

Q. How?

A. Dunno.

Q. Does anybody know?

AJ Lynch said...

It's a fact that population growth [legal and illegal] is a big factor in economic growth.

So it's safe to say a sharp drop in our population would cause a sharp drop in economic activity.

Doug Wright-OG said...

Dear Prof, please approve this comment! Thank you very much!

Now to comment! This country is now in "Alice in Wonderland" mode. So, whatever anyone deems to be legal analysis is, by definition, so deemed. Also, what was said yesterday doesn't count if it's not deemed to count.

Rep. Waxman wants to haul banks up before his committee because they're following the dictates of the brand new ObamaCare bill, and the requirements of the relatively new banking regulations acts, by declaring a huge hit on their profitability. So, Rep. Waxman says that's wrong: "How dare they?"

What's appropriate is whatever Congress, and by extension also the Obama Administration, says is appropriate.

There, that's what I deemed today, but not necessarily tomorrow.

Ps: Wondered how the recent load of advert. spam emails would be handled. God Speed.

Cheers.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So it's safe to say a sharp drop in our population would cause a sharp drop in economic activity.

Not necessarily. It would depend on which part of the population we are dropping.

In addition. The inability for people to hire illegals, under the table would then induce them to hire the currently high percentage of legal but unemployed low skilled workers.

The production/productivity reporting would be more accurate with legally employed and openly reported figures.

There is a lot of economic activity that goes UNreported precisely because the employers and workers are breaking the law.

bagoh20 said...

"Just who's tax ID are they using for withholding? They are ILLEGAL and don't have a legitimate government issued Social Security number."

There are a number of strategies, but they all boil down to: using someone else identity, either with or without their permission. It's very common to pay someone to use their identity. Sometimes the real person has left the country or has little use for their number, i.e., they don't file taxes and work under the table. Lots of perfectly legal people work off the grid. It does save you money and trouble.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

A million dollars repaid at a dollar a second takes 11 days. A trillion dollares repaid at a dollar a second takes 32 years. The devaluation fix must return Americans to great depression starvation days. The Democrats are scurrying to vote themselves a lifeboat and leave the rest of us to go down with the ship. This is not normal politics anymore. BTW, blacks and the whites will die of poverty and starvation equally when the devaluation of the dollar hits.

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ;

I agree with your under the table issue.

However, that would not make up for millions of meals not eaten, barges full of oil and gasoline gasoline products not purchased, utility and phone services cancelled. Most of these types of economic activities are not under the table today as far as I know.

So there is no way the GDP would not decrease after a sharp drop in population. It would be like if we lost a state or large city's worth of people.

Keep in mind I am not in favor of amnesty or a path to citizenship for lawbreakers.

EDH said...

As we speak, the Masschusetts HC system has just gone into crisis today.

State won’t list health insurance plans in rate dispute

The state govt has denied rate increases to insurers, many of whom are already losing money and had to increase premiums due to coverage mandated by the state and adverse selection due to elimination of pre-existing conditions.

All but one obscure health insurer is now barred from the state Connector.

This is a harbinger of Obamacare. Once this story goes national, it's hard to see how Obamacare is not repealed.

The Mass issue taken nationally goes directly to Richard Epstein's alternative argument about unconstitutional rate setting.

John Stodder said...

The guest worker program is sensible, the fence idea not realistic.

Why do those who oppose stricter border controls always express their point of view in such a patronizing manner?

They don't want to argue about the fence or any other strict border control measures on the policy merits. They are more comfortable telling proponents of such controls to get those silly notions out of our heads, because they won't work -- which is a massive cop-out.

Of course, at some level of expenditure, we could reduce illegal immigration nearly 100 percent. Do you think that's a good idea or not? Is it a goal to be pursued, or not?

Personally, I'm torn. I might be more in tune with garage on this issue than Hoosier, quite frankly. But I resent the dishonesty of liberals on this issue, and it's time to smoke it out so we can have a meaningful discussion.

Let's just stipulate for the sake of argument -- a fence is realistic. It can happen. I'm about to build it right now. I've got all the tools and materials right here and a blueprint designed by the smartest architect in the world. And I've got the budget. So don't tell me it's impractical. Instead, give me the legal, ethical and economic reasons why I shouldn't build it.

Opus One Media said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"I think Congressperson Hare(D) summed up the consensus among liberals when he said he doesn't care about the Constitution."

This is so typical of the junk crap from the right wing. They can't quote correctly, they take things wildly out of context, and it doesn't matter anyway because it HAS NO RELATIONSHIP to the topic at hand.

It is just more stupidity from the right wing. Just my lying. Just more saying things for effect rather than substance.

But then again it is the nitwit of nitwits who wrote it so I can expect little else.

Opus One Media said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

Yeah as someone very smart once said....."just wait and see how expensive healthcare is when it's free".

Methadras said...

Is President Barely's hubris to big to fail?

PatCA said...

It has not really started yet, so let's kill it while we still can.

garage mahal said...

Why do those who oppose stricter border controls always express their point of view in such a patronizing manner?

So tell me what are the discourse rules for liberals that must be followed? I agreed with one of his proposals, and thought it wasn't realistic to build a fence because I don't think it's realistic to build a fence! I don't think it would be effective use of money to build thousands of miles of fence where high tech surveillance could be done cheaper and more effectively in my opinion. More importantly it's not realistic because there isn't the political will to build a Great Wall type structure on our border. There is a small unfinished, unfunded fence that was recently tried if you remember.

Pogo said...

Rome was too big to fail.

traditionalguy said...

The American industrial base was shipped overseas to cheaper labor markets during the last 12 years, and we now give out IOUs for goods from overseas. That game stopped in 2005, and we are about to find that there is no way to get money to buy food,clothing,transpotation and free medical care . (Housing we don't need for 20 years). But those homes not already paid for will soon belong to foreign landlords.We are the world's Too Big To Fail problem. That is why we need interested friends and energy resources found domestically. So why are Soros, Pelosi and Obama steering us into certain doom by stiffing all our friends and yoking us with worthless windmills?

AJ Lynch said...

Rome could have used a fence.

Opus One Media said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"I think Congressperson Hare(D) summed up the consensus among liberals when he said he doesn't care about the Constitution."

1. out of context
2. not the complete or accurate quote
3. more lame shit from the lamest of the right on here.

honest to God Hoosier, your family needs to stop breeding with your cousins.

Opus One Media said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Opus One Media said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joan said...

HCR is repeal-able because of its implementation schedule: taxes now, benefits later. We need to keep hammering on it. There wasn't much legal analysis in that linked piece, but it did link to some. It's clear to many people (me included) that the mandate to purchase insurance is unprecedented and should be impossible to justify with either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. If this law passes muster, we are well and truly screwed.

As for immigration reform, this kind of story isn't helping the pro-amnesty crowd.

AZ housing collapse was caused by excessive speculation and overbuilding. We had incredible growth in the past decade, with several of the top-growing cities in the country. Even so, building far outstripped demand, prices rose ridiculously high, and then the bottom fell out. Illegals have left in significant numbers, if judging only by the number of day laborers I see loitering around on Arizona Ave in the early mornings, but I doubt that the "missing" illegals made a significant contribution to the foreclosure rate.

BTW, since lenders reverted to their old policy of allowing RE investors to finance 10 properties instead of just 4, the supply of foreclosed homes has dried up considerably. The market is stabilizing somewhat as a result.

Michael McNeil said...

A million dollars repaid at a dollar a second takes 11 days.

A bit over 11 and a half days, actually.

A trillion dollares repaid at a dollar a second takes 32 years.

On the contrary, presuming no interest or inflation, it takes 31,688 years to pay off a trillion dollars at $1 per second. (A billion dollars can be paid off in somewhat less than 32 years.)

traditionalguy said...

Michael Mcneill...Thanks for the correction...A trillion repaid at a thousand dollars a second is 32 years. Any way, the 30 trillion that Social Security and Medicare will tap even at a thousand dollars a second is only 960 years. The point is that the money will have to become worthless first.

ken in sc said...

Someone mentioned that illegals (Mexicans and Central Americans) pay sales and payroll taxes but don’t get any benefits from them. Here in South Carolina, They get benefits with out paying taxes. Recently, a group of illegals have been arrested for filing fake income tax returns worth millions of dollars. They have been collecting these refunds for years, without paying any taxes to be refunded.

LilyBart said...

But, it turns out, the United States ISN'T too big to fail.

cubanbob said...

The question for the SCOTUS is what happens if they rule DemCare is constitutional but a republican Congress refuses to fund it? Do they discover some hidden clause in the constitution that enables them to order Congress to fund?

Fen said...

They generally are good people with noble goals and hate living illegal, but the alternative is poverty.

Well that makes it okay then. And the rest of us can use the same justification to avoid paying taxes.

Hoosier Daddy said...

honest to God Hoosier, your family needs to stop breeding with your cousins.

Wow. First Former Law Student calls my wife a whore and now hdhouse says my family inbreeds.

Glad to see the level of discourse among liberals is still set at such a high level. I could, of course reciprocate however my 'inbred' upbringing taught me that was childish.

Hoosier Daddy said...

1. out of context
2. not the complete or accurate quote
3. more lame shit from the lamest of the right on here
.

Oh and hdhouse, it wasn't taken out of context. I watched the video and when asked whether he thought the mandate was constitutional his unequivocal response was; "I don't care about the constitution".

That pretty much means to me in terms of HCR, he doesn't care about the Constitution.

Now go clean your bedpan.