« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Health Care Nuclear Option Shows Contempt for Public Opinion

ObamaCare is not popular.  The people don’t want it.  The people have rejected it.  Yet President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are going to ram it down the throats of the American people using a special Congressional procedure that avoids a filibuster in the Senate – The Health Care Nuclear Option.  The Obama Administration and Leaders in Congress have shown contempt for the opinions and views of the American people.  They just don’t get it and they don’t care what people think about this plan. 

Townhalls, Tea Parties, 9-12 demonstrations, ObamaCare low polling numbers and the election of Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) are all products of an unpopular health care idea by President Obama.  The Declaration of Independence states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Consent of the governed is an important concept, yet politicians in the Federal Government seem to believe that they can pass unpopular legislation and work to get the consent of the governed at some future date.  This is not how this democracy is supposed to work.  Members of Congress are supposed to be responsive to voters and the American public.  I truly believe that many Representatives and Senators believe that the American peoples only are allowed to participate in this democracy when they vote every other November.  This ObamaCare should not pass without the consent of the American people.

Today, the left is cheering on the President and Congress to pull the Nuclear Option trigger.  Eugene Robinson writes in the Washington Post today (HT to RCP):

Better late than never. Now that President Obama has finally put a health care proposal on the table, the Democratic leadership in Congress has only one rational course of action: Pass the thing, and quickly, or risk becoming the loyal minority.

The left wants this passed “quickly,” because they know the American people will be mad.  The American people do not follow every permutation in the ObamaCare debate and they were shocked to find out that the bill is still alive. 

Robert Reich writes in Salon:

Most polls still show a majority of Americans still in favor of the basic tenets of reform — expanded coverage, regulations barring insurers from refusing coverage because of someone’s preexisting conditions and preventing insurers from kicking someone off the rolls because they get sick, requirements that employers provide coverage or pay into a common pool, and so on. And now that many private insurers are hiking up premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, the public is even readier to embrace reform.

Don’t believe this spin.  The polls indicate that the American people hate the totality of this bill – a de facto government run health care system.  They may embrace a few concepts in the legislation, but clearly these numbers have not translated into support.  To argue that somehow the American people love a bill is ignoring the polls.  Real Clear Politics has links to ObamaCare polls and none of them are good for liberals. 

Newsweek‘s most recent poll finds that in response to the question ”if health coverage is required for everyone, imposing fines on individuals who don’t obtain coverage and on larger businesses that don’t offer it do you Support (28%), Oppose (62%), or don’t know (10%).”  That is the problem with ObamaCare, the core elements of the plan are nonstarters for the American people.  If this plan contains some good ideas, those are outweighed by some elements that are highly offensive to the American people.  The American people support addition by subtraction in this debate.  Remove the mandate that all individuals have to purchase health care or fear going to jail, federal funding of abortion, massive tax increases, massive long term cost to the taxpayer, new government bureaucracy to lord over the health care insurance companies and you may see some of these polling numbers move in a different direction. 

The Newsweek poll is favorable for Democrats, because of the questions they asked.  Check out some of the other polls that lead to an overall Real Clear Politics Average of this and 14.3% oppose the President”s plan more than they support it.  This includes two polls with the ObamaCare support deficit at 19% – Rasmussen and Quinnipiac.

I wrote another piece today for Human Events, ”Reconciliation is Not Negotiation,” about the unusual procedure being employed by leaders to pass ObamaCare.  Dan Perrin has published some excellent work on ObamaCare and argues in an earlier post on Red State that this a “Vapor Bill” because the Obama Administration has yet to release the text of his bill.

COMMENTS

  • edintexas

    The people’s support for many of the items on the “list” depends on the big heart of the American people, and a lack of knowledge of the subject matter. For example most would probably be in favor of not allowing insurance companies to reject people who have pre-existing conditions. But if the question was “Would you agree to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for covering pre-existing conditions?”, the answer would likely be significantly different. And, of course, the elephant in the room is the Federal government’s deciding how a business may conduct it’s business, and the proposals currently contain the capability to force private insurers out of business through Federal regulation. I hadn’t noticed any such power granted, in the Constitution, to the Federal government.

  • qurys

    The majority of Americans MAY favor the basic tenets of reform: expanded coverage, regulations barring insurers from denying coverage when you get sick,,,,,etc, And I am allowing the word MAY. But that is not what this bill is about. It is the first step to single payer, so described and designated by its designers. This bill is about a heck of a lot more than denied coverage for pre-existing condition. The public is NOT ready to embrace this reform and they have said so consistently and loudly. Barack Obama is deaf to the constituents he took and oath to serve.

  • renny

    Little O now sees himself as a one-term pres. (but he’ll be ready to move on to the UN or World Health or World Bank–wherever the money and dictatorial control are) because he seems to have a short pol. attention span anyway. However, he cannot see himself leaving without impressing his Alinksy-Ayers-Wright leftism on the Am. legal system.

    My guess is this will not come to a vote. Surely, no Rep. is going to vote for it. The Dems. in the House have already lost Murtha, have a resignation coming, and were only a couple votes in the majority in the first place when people were not as incensed as they are now.

    As O was never an assistant manager of a Taco Bell, he is entirely out of whack on economics. You cannot dictate an ins. never raise premiums but serve all customers, no matter what their med. conditions. I think it is his way into the pub. option, because no private insurer will be left.

    On the other hand, maybe he really thinks he can legislate supply and demand and profit or loss. After all, the CRAs demanded banks make loans to people who were not credit worthy or outright crooks in areas where housing did not thrive and expected the banks to remain solvent. Cong. can be terminally stupid.

    Bork Cong. 202-224/225-3121. Never stop calling, never surrender, never give up.

  • stigmo

    …Maybe the Donks know they’ve overplayed their hand, but it’s too late to back out. So they’re going all in and hoping to land an ace.

    Perhaps they know right now this is a lost cause. But the air of inevitability combined with a chance that the faux summit produces an uptick in public opinion could be JUST enough to ram this thing through.

  • Tbone

    Politicians of BOTH parties become just as entrenched as if they held their seats by right of birth rather than by ballot.

    Only strict term limits and mandatory retirement can address this fundamental flaw that has arisen in our representative democracy.

  • gman2008

    When are you guys going to start pushing Nullification. Not just Nullification of healthcare or just a small part of it (like the mandate) and not just a toothless resolution, but something with teeth:

    Here is an article about Georgia bill 880. It has only been introduced, but we nee to be pushing for passage of similar bill all across this nation. We will never take back this country in DC, we will take it back in state chambers and governorships across this nation.

    A bill with teeth. House Bill 880 includes strong language to assert this principle:

    Any actions taken by the federal government through its agents or employees that are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States are unlawful; and being unlawful, they are criminal offenses against the affected parties

    This bill would make it a crime ? with imprisonment for up to 30 years for each offense ? for ?any judicial officer, law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of the federal government, any multinational government, any international government, or any global government? to attempt to ?enforce any federal, multinational, international, or global law? reserved to the State of Georgia under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

    Also check out:

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/11/29/resist-dc-a-step-by-step-plan-for-freedom/

    • gman2008

      http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/31/state-authority-and-anti-racketeering-act/

    • writeblock

      …if we lose this battle. The states will sue for redress and the Supreme Court will knock the bill down. I’m thinking Obama will rue the day he took the Court to task during his SOTU address.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      The case was Lincoln v. Davis. CJ Grant wrote the opinion of the court, which was joined by JJ Farragut, McClellan, Scott, and Sherman. J Lee wrote a dissent joined by JJ Jackson, Johnston, and Longstreet.

      • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

        They may want to set out less broad parameters.
        VB

        • gman2008

          Read the TAC article above about what it would take to do nullification. It would basically be the civil rights movement in reverse and would not be an easy road. With civil rights, the last nail in the coffin of state’s rights was nailed in. Wallace really screwed us all on that one. The social security institute (www.socialsecurityinstitute.com) by Dr. Larry Hunter has a great deal of information about the slow and unperceptible erosion of constitutional governance and the conseqences of apathy on the part of the populace. It is why we find ourselves where we are today.

          There will be many painful steps to take our powers back and a showdown may occur between the feds and the states. However, if enough states take this route, the feds won’t have the power or the ability to direct law enforcement or military to take unconstitutional actions against the citizens. I think Oath Keepers is playing a very critical role in what I perceive to be the true battle here. I again stronly urge the reading of the TAC article on how to do nullification. It’s time to start thinking about this in a serious way, even if the Federal governement begins to listen to us – which it won’t. It is the only way to take back our power from disconnected, egotistical, spending, big governement elitists.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        Frustrating, in its way.

        • gman2008

          Great blog.

      • gman2008

        Read all the material and the Tenth Amendment Center, at the Social Security Institute. The Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter of the constitution – the States are, period. We have been lulled into believing otherwise. Of COURSE the SCOTUS and other federal courts are going to rule Nullification unconstitutional – although I don’t actually think they have done so. Please point out the case your are referring to.

        If you are part of the federal governement, you don’t want to lose power back to the states, but our founding fathers specifically meant for this to be how this country is operated.

        Sorry, but you are dead wrong on this one. Nullification will be hard, but it won’t be unconstitutional. No reading of the constitution and the enumerated powers clause can lead one to believe otherwise. Just because the SCOTUS over the years has eroded states powers while we sat around like a bunch of sheeple does not mean that once we awaken to the fact the Supreme Court is subservient to us we can’t take out country back.

        • gman2008

          Did not see the case. However, it still does nothing to the argument that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the constitution – it is the states. That we have been slowly programmed over the years to believe otherwise does not change the fact.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            To be fair, it took me half a minute to figure it out myself. I actually muttered “Huh. A lot of names there that I recogn… Ohhhhh.:)

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          -NT-

          • Achance
        • Achance

          even the archetypal blood-stained Testament, from the last time some people decided states were the final arbiter of Federal power. I ain’t volunteering for another run up that damned hill.

          • gman2008

            If the federal powers continue their abuse, then succession would be what happens. I am not talking about succession, but rather nullification. They are two very different animals. Do you HONESTLY see the US military taking orders to fire upon civilians? Again, the Civial Rights movement was not the Cival War and neither will this be. It will just be civil disobedience on a massive scale that will revert us back to constitutional governance. I don’t think a single shot needs to be fired at all – I think a passive agressive approach, much like King’s, and Ghandi, would work just fine.

            Again, this is not succession. I do not advocate that except in extreme cases. I argue that without nullification, we may find ourselves facing these extreme cases, but that nullification is a way to mitigate the threat of us going there.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Every time it has been tried, it has failed.

            I promise you I will oppose anyone who tries to drag my party into that quagmire.

            Note: I’m fine with laws refusing state cooperation with federal laws, but I think the constitution and precedent are clear in that the state doesn’t get to nullify squat.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            By ‘cooperation’ I mean I don’t expect the states to enforce Obama’s laws for him. That’s his job.

          • streiff

            you mean like Kent State? The Blair Mountain fight? The Pullman Strikes?

          • Achance

            if they’re ordered to do so and I see the officers giving that order if the CIC orders it. And, they won’t spend much time doing that thinking stuff about it either.

            You know, the people on the other side of this ditch aren’t stupid. If we do start getting significant civil disobedience, they will turn the whole power of the National government and its media and academic allies to the task of absolutely vilifying and marginalizing the opposition. And when they send the troops to fire on some group of protesters or Tea Partiers or whoever has raised their ire, most of the Country will think it is a good thing just like most of the Country thought Waco and Ruby Ridge were good things. Don’t delude yourself about this.

            We on the right have to be very careful and very restrained, even to the point of allowing ourselves to be harmed so as to make sure that if this all comes unravelled, any violence starts on the left or from identificable Democrat constituencies. It is entirely too likely that Comrade Obama’s bunch will try to provoke Helter-Skelter rather than losing power.

          • hickorystick

            about the Feds poisining the citizenry who continued to drink during the Prohibition, that Erick put up?
            http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/
            Lots of other citizens were able to rationalize that quite easily.

          • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

            I think Neil looks at this overly broad, up to and including secession….a deed which would require force of arms to undo, or consummate, as when the Texas Rangers decide to kick the feds out of the federal office buildings in Dallas. I can’t see that repeat of Sumpter this time.

            I don’t see things playing out they way. I can see states telling Obama and Congress, “OK, you wrote that law, now come implement it, just don’t use our buildings, our phone lines, our roads, our concrete to try and do it. If our people want to ignore your law, we ofer them sanctuary.”

            Nullification-by-degree is a Texas standoff. I’m for that, as a way to buy time. If we can’t throw them out in November with the time bought, then repeal the damned thing, we deserve what we get.

            Nullification should be a Damocles sword hanging over the Fed’s head.

          • Achance

            I don’t much see things coming to armed confrontation, though I have been investing in precious metals like brass and lead. That said, there are plenty of wannabe Strelnikovs on the Left and they’d just love an excuse to put down the Right. I just think we should be very careful not to give them that excuse.

          • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

            No way they’re going to go quietly back into their cave. Just a matter of where and when and how many…and who’s side the Army’s on. We’re past that point, I fear.

            I don’t want to fire the first shot. Just stake out the banner…on a well fortified hill. I will accept a surrender, and pass out pardons aplenty, if they’ll turn over the ringleaders.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            We formed … to face the last line of battle, and receive the last remnant of the arms and colors of that great army which ours had been created to confront for all that death can do for life. We were remnants also … this little line, … men of near blood born, made nearer by blood shed. Those facing us–now, thank God! the same.
            :
            Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond;–was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured?
            :
            On our part not a sound of trumpet more, nor roll of drum; not a cheer, nor word nor whisper of vain-glorying, nor motion of man standing again at the order, but an awed stillness rather, and breath-holding, as if it were the passing of the dead!

            As each successive division masks our own, it halts, the men face inward towards us across the road, twelve feet away … Lastly,– reluctantly, with agony of expression,–they tenderly fold their flags, battle-worn and torn, blood-stained, heart-holding colors, and lay them down; some frenziedly rushing from the ranks, kneeling over them, clinging to them, pressing them to their lips with burning tears. And only the Flag of the Union greets the sky!

            What visions thronged as we looked into each others eyes!
            :
            … met now, so thin, so pale, purged of the mortal,–as if knowing pain or joy no more. How could we help falling on our knees, all of us together, and praying God to pity and forgive us all!

            Chamberlain at Appomattox

      • blooch

        i can almost see Johnston trying to get his 12-pounder Napoleons past the Federal courthouse metal detectors.

        lol

        • gman2008

          Nullification does not equate to armed conflict. Civil disobedience does not equate to armed conflict. After Katrina, the sites and sounds of law enforcement disarming citizens lead to the Oath Keepers movement exploding. There are plenty of currently serving police and military who will not fire upon citizens after the Katrina episode made them study what is and is not constitutional for them to do. The only issue with the ones I speak with is that, as currently serving, they will not become explicit members of Oath Keepers.

          With the world watching and the cameras on, a strong state legislature and government, backed by citizens with just as much guts as their leaders could win a stand off if the civil disobedience were widespread enough. The only other option, if what is happening today continues and gets worse, is to give up and resign yourself to socialism and progressive politics. You will never win this fight at the federal level with federal politicians. It won’t happen. I would highly recommend reading Walter Myer’s “Taming of the Tyrant” (I think I got the title right). This is not a full on assault I am talking about, it is a chess game, well played, with public opinion on the side of right (recall MLK and his non-violence). As long as we are non-violent and stand on principle, nullification is NOT a violent uprising. To think it is, is to not understand it.

          Brains, not brawn, win the contemporary battle of nullification. Don’t get stuck in a rut thinking about the past and succession (Civil War), think about how this could be done today. King did it in reverse (more centralized power) because he had to and Wallace was stupid enough to be on the morally wrong side of the issue. Nullification would move us back towards decentralized governance and we would be on the morally right side of the issue, with most of the country backing us.

          Ignore this issue or shy away from it, thinking it impossible, and it is very, very possible that you may be selling out your own future. Do you honestly trust that Washington will solve your problems, regardless of who is in power.

          Nullify, remove liberals from federal office wherever possible, and don’t kneecap yourself by supporting a third party. A more conservative centralized power will buy time for nullification to begin to work. Again, we are taming the tyrant, not attacking him head on.

          • JSobieski

            Civil disobedience should only used by conservatives when absolutely necessary. We are not progressives who wield such tools casually.

            As conservatism is making enroads with the electorate, talking about nullification is counter-productive—lets talk about elections and voters.

          • gman2008

            I think the threat of nullification is also a useful tool. Check out the TAC for a list of states and where they are with their nullification legislation. I talked with an expert in this area recently and he stated nullifcation is a process, not an event, and depending on the issue and the strength of the public outcry, it could take one year or ten years to complete. Again, this is a very slow process. The Civil Rights movement did not happen overnight and neither will this. There is not better time like the present to start as we are well on our way downhill right now and there really is no time to waste.

            Nullification should never be casual and I was not attempting to communicate that.

          • redpens

            What’s Obama gonna do then? Don’t come around here for a beer summit, Barack. You’re so not welcome here.

  • writeblock

    Privacy is destroyed, making the individual a ward of the state. It gives bureaucrats life-or-death decision-making powers based primarily on cost effectiveness, usurping the proper roles of doctors and patients. It necessarily rations care and blocks research.

    None of which bothers the media in the least.

  • http://www,livingfortruth.wordpress.com livingfortruth

    is textbook TYRANNY!

    This is OBVIOUSLY not an area that the Federal Government should be involved. They can’t even claim the Interstate Commerce Clause on this because they will not allow interstate commerce to occur.
    And Taxing someone for NOT getting something is the hight of Tyrannical Rule.

    http://livingfortruth.wordpress.com/

  • gman2008

    Did not see the case. It still cannot be ruled by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Many believe it can, but in reality it can’t. We have been programmed to think of the SCOTUS as the supreme power when it comes to the constitution, while it is, in fact, the states.

    • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

      …Lincoln v Davis WAS the Civil War. Nullification was never adjudicated before the courts, the battlefield the only court. A million died. It was in all the papers.

      I lean in your direction, the lesser aspects of nullification, a cut below secession (not “succession”…see how nice we are?) are still valid. I advocate that as well.

      But your tormentors are correct, you need to make a better case.
      Cheers

  • http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish/ reelman

    THE UGLY FACE OF SOCIALISM

    Update Feb. 23, 2010 despite trillions in spending, smiles, promises, blame shifting yada yda.
    Consumer Confidence Falls to 10-Month Low?
    Mass layoffs edge up?
    Harry Reid Unleashed: ?Men, when they?re out of work, tend to become abusive??
    Harvard?s Rogoff Sees ?Bunch? of Sovereign Defaults?
    FDIC reports 27% jump in problem banks?
    CONFIDENCE LOWEST SINCE ?83
    =====
    Crawfish comment:
    Not a word of course change, not an admission of error on any front, not a concern the polls are heavy against huge socialist bills, not a
    regret, not an apology, not a clue of honesty or realism. This has to be the most frightening administration ever. Now America knows what lies deep in the hearts of the modern democrat?strident secular socialism.
    Sick of the distractions, lies, business demonization and personal smears yet?
    http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

    • blooch
  • lukematthews

    Reich further displays his ignorance about the American political system by insisting that a majority vote is democracy. No, democracy is rule by the people and the people have clearly spoken, No. Don’t pretend an end run around the American people is a ‘democratic’ win. You fly in the face of the people’s will, you are denying their legitimate voice. Period.

    How’s that hoax and derange treatin’ ya.

  • sethduncan

    Brian,

    I?d like to get you involved in the SC-03 race. I can setup an interview for you with the Club for Growth?s candidate Jeff Duncan. Please contact me.

    Seth Duncan
    seth[@]jeffduncan[.]com
    e-Director

  • sarge324

    we must vote out those who voted for the inslavement of the american people with the health care the cap and trade,and those who follow obamas lies.that is hurting the people vote them out in 2010 and 2012.there is only one constitution we live by.