[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

California Joins Friend of the Court Brief in Support of Health Care Reform

by: Brian Leubitz

Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 13:42:45 PM PST


Just another reason to be glad we got that Democratic sweep:

Days after House Republicans voted to repeal last year's health care reforms, California Attorney General Kamala Harris kept a campaign pledge Friday by joining with other state attorneys general to file a brief in the Affordable Care Act's defense.

Harris and the Democratic attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Oregon and Vermont planned to file their friend-of-the-court brief with the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case brought by Thomas More Law Center. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the law's mandate that most people maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or else pay a tax penalty.

Harris -- a Democrat who defeated Republican rival Steve Cooley by less than 1 percent of the vote in last November's election -- said during a conference call Friday with Oregon Attorney General John Kroger and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller that the spirit and intent of the Constitution and its Commerce Clause indicate such a mandate is a crucial and permissible exercise of Congress' power. (San Jose Mercury News)

During the campaign (on which I worked), Kamala Harris strongly and repeatedly voiced her support for health care reform. And, hey, look at that, she's following up on what she said.

Brian Leubitz :: California Joins Friend of the Court Brief in Support of Health Care Reform
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

RomneyCare Mandate (4.50 / 2)
This isn't about expanding Medicaid or defending any of the good things in HCR, this is about the RomneyCare Mandate. It should be unconstitutional for the government to force people to pay tribute to private corporations. It is philosophically bankrupt to have a RomneyCare Mandate without a public option.

Calitics and progressive across the state fought against a RomneyCare Mandate when Ahnold tried to bring it here. Obama mocked it during the campaign, it was the main reason he was better on HCR than Clinton.

It is not simply not progressive to defend the RomneyCare Mandate. Hopefully the RomneyCare Mandate will be ruled unconstitutional.

Twitter: @BobBrigham


I've gotta agree. For now. (0.00 / 0)
The reflexive support of the Democratic institutions, representatives, and rank and file for this is dismaying.  This specific expansion of Congress' Interstate Commerce Power simply has not been decided by the Courts.  We disrespect our  history by taking for granted the extreme social injustice that compelled the expansion of ISC in the 60's.  We are being politically naïve by ignoring that Courts have been trending the other way since US v. Lopez.   And we are exhibiting the same intellectual laziness of which we accuse the right by assuming "its constitutional" without even engaging in basic analysis.  We as a society need to deliberate this in good faith, and we are woefully out of practice.

I'm wiling to be convinced otherwise, but I currently believe we were so desperate for anything resembling actual reform, we supported something fundamentally wrong.  Further, we risk our credibility to work for meaningful reform by continuing to support it.  


[ Parent ]
I've gotta agree. For now. (0.00 / 0)
The reflexive support of the Democratic institutions, representatives, and rank and file for this is dismaying.  This specific expansion of Congress' Interstate Commerce Power simply has not been decided by the Courts.  We disrespect our  history by taking for granted the extreme social injustice that compelled the expansion of ISC in the 60's.  We are being politically naïve by ignoring that Courts have been trending the other way since US v. Lopez.   And we are exhibiting the same intellectual laziness of which we accuse the right by assuming "its constitutional" without even engaging in basic analysis.  We as a society need to deliberate this in good faith, and we are woefully out of practice.

I'm wiling to be convinced otherwise, but I currently believe we were so desperate for anything resembling actual reform, we supported something fundamentally wrong.  Further, we risk our credibility to work for meaningful reform by continuing to support it.  

And before I hear a counter that abandoning this specific Act necessarily will continue to expose X million of Americans to no coverage, I have little doubt the Insurance Companies have already dedicated the intervening years until its full implementation by gaming the system to deny or radically limit coverage to X million Americans.   That's not cynicism, that's just how we roll.    


[ Parent ]
A public option would be a better solution (0.00 / 0)
California mandates that all drivers have auto insurance. I suppose if you object to paying tribute to Allstate, you can take the bus. But California also has a little-known "public option", a state-run pool to provide bare-bones coverage for low-income drivers. It should be available to everybody.

Auto Insurance has become a publicly-regulated utility in California. Rates are set by an commission, just like for electric power, natural gas, and water service.

I wouldn't object to a health insurance industry run the same way.


[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
It exists, Problem is I have the Bare legal minimum on My car, It costs Me either $18.20 or $18.16 a month to insure My car through GMAC, I don't think the pool would be all that much lower. The $18.20 is once every 6 months and the $18.16 is the rest of the time. As to Health Insurance saying You have to pay for It(If Your able), If auto insurance under California Law can make one pay, Then Medical insurance should be no different, Cause If being forced to buy Medical insurance were unconstitutional, Then why isn't the other?

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox