2941

Yeah, this is completely wrong in several ways. In fact, it goes so counter to what is actually happening that I’m not even going to bother telling you why. Read my links above, plus this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/23/health.care.timeline/index.html?hpt=T2

and shaddup.

H.

2942

As usual, 538 addresses the question rather well.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/good-timing-role-of-quantitative.html

Lots of good follow-up as to how we really might be able to distinguish effects due to health care reform.

2943

On the lawsuits, I was discussing this with my law school homie who lurks here as Smokeynecros. I wrote the following email summing things up. I don’t have time to clean it up much so here it is fairly rough form. This was originally an informal email between friends so I apologize if it’s not up to my normal rhetorical standards. It’s sort of a survey of legal views on the AG lawsuits:

Here is a full length op-ed by conservative/libertarian law professor Randy Barnett:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html

Bottom line, in between the legalese, he says the bill is highly likely to be held constitutional and the only way to overturn it is to have both houses of Congress and the Presidency go Republican.

Barnett is a serious bona fide libertarian/conservative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Barnett

Here is a shorter post by moderate/conservative law professor Orin Kerr saying that he estimates the chances of the bill being held constitutional at 99%.

Kerr is moderate-conservative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orin_Kerr

(You’ll notice in that wiki bio that Kerr worked for Republican Senator Cornryn during the Sotmayor confirmation, and IIRC Cornryn opposed Sotomayor, so that’s pretty conservative.)

Here’s yet another moderate/conservative law profession, Jonathan Adler, with a post on the subject, again saying its nearly certain that the bill is constitutional: http://volokh.com/2010/03/23/what-will-the-courts-do-with-the-individual-mandate/

Adler is actually more conservative than moderate, but with libertarian tendancies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_H._Adler

He serves as a contributing editor at National Review (and that’s like the neo-con New York Times) and he serves on the academic advisory board of the Cato Institute (which a big time libertarian/conservative think tank).

I couldn’t find a recent post by Professor Volokh himself, but I would predict he agrees with Barnett, Kerr and Adler.

If you want to see the moderate/liberal view on this, look at Professor Balkin’s blog:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/

Balkin is a heavy hitter constitution wise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Balkin

Here’s a debate between Balkin and two conservative lawyers (note they are NOT law professors) who think the bill is unconstitutional:

http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/debate.php?did=23

You will note that the two guys opposing Balkin are total Fox News type hacks: Rivkin and Casey.

Rivkin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B._Rivkin

His resume reads like an add for Fox news. Also, he’s not a law prof, hes a partner in a firm that represents big business and foreign governments.

Casey is not prominent enough to have a wiki site, but he’s a junior partner in Rivkin’s firm so that tells you all you need to know.

Bottom line: all the legit con-law guys say the bill is either fully constitutional or at least highly likely to be upheld. And the guys contradicting them are a partisan hack and his little junior partner buddy. :O

And if you want the full on liberal view, lets roll with Prof Chemerinsky: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html

So these AGs who say they are going to sue, they are just asshats. And they are going to lose.

PS – Orly Taitz has now said she’s gonna file amicus briefs helping these AGs out. That’s like the kiss of death. :O

2944

snicker

2945

Here’s another helpful “What will this mean for me” type graphic:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/24/us/politics/20100319-health-care-effect.htm

2946

Isn’t filing frivilous doomed-to-fail lawsuits the opposite of a special skill? If I want to burn a steak on the grill, I don’t call the worst chef I know for help. I can do it myself.

H.

2947

Orly Taitz has now said she’s gonna file amicus briefs helping these AGs out.

I’m picturing people running for phones in slow motion yelling, “NOOOOOoooooo…”

2948

Good information there, but rather odd choices for the categories.

2949

My favorite part of the White People Tax complaints is finding out that in Tea Party America, there are only white people and black people. I figured there would still be latinos so they could bitch about Mexicans stealing their jerbs, but I guess the outrage over a tax on tanning beds has made them disappear.

2950

Yeah it’s kind of… a clunky setup.

I was hoping I could have something easy to print out on one or two pages and make copies for patients at this office.

2951

OMG WHAT ABOUT THE ASIANS DO THEY NEED TANNING BEDS I HAVE NO IDEA BUT IT CAN’T BE FAIR FOR WHITEY HHHHRRRRGGMMMMPPPHPHHHH

Wake up, sheeple!

2952

Wow, I’ve just been pounding on Asian people recently. As a means of compensation: Where do you fall on the white-people tax? Pro? For? Loving it? Hating it? Cackling with glee?

And by you I mean asian people. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

2953

So, Republicans, miffed about health care reform, are now stopping the Senate from holding any hearings past 2pm. Apparently there’s a rule that any hearings after 2pm must be by unanimous consent and the Republicans are refusing. Verrrrry mature, guys.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/senate_republicans_refuse_to_w.html

2954

I’ve seen Chinese, Korean and Japanese girls/women here in Vancouver who are paler than most white people. I guess it’s because it’s the old Asian thinking that if you have tanned/dark skin you were rural (ie. working in the fields).

Personally I find tanning saloons a waste of money (I tan easily in the summer). It’s a luxury, so tax it.

2955

So, Republicans, miffed about health care reform, are now stopping the Senate from holding any hearings past 2pm. Apparently there’s a rule that any hearings after 2pm must be by unanimous consent and the Republicans are refusing. Verrrrry mature, guys.

I really can’t wait to see how all of this plays out in Nov. They aren’t even trying to govern.

2956

It’ll play out no differently, I expect. Elections are based off of broader things than the current bit of political theater, most of the time. Moderate loss of seats for the Dems.

2957

I’ll be curious to see the reaction of the tea partiers after the elections if the Democrats losses are light (or even if, unlikely as it may be, they gain seats). I’m wondering if the frustration of being unable to gain a voice will finally start to spill over into isolated acts of violence. I think people can only fume with hatred for so long before it comes out in one form or another, and I’m concerned that simply spouting it via ineffective rhetoric won’t be enough, over time.

2958

It’s the American system. What was supposed to be a party in power and a watchdog party that critiques ended up being a party in power and a party that does its best undermine anything the first party attempts.

Its either the worst system ever developed (except for every other system) or brilliant, consuming all the time and energy of our politically ambiscious without risk that they will mess anything up.

2959

In this case, it isn’t so much a luxury tax as a “Please give me skin cancer” tax.

2960

So far they’ve delayed hearings on transparency in government and aiding homeless veterans. If the Democrats were even a little more aggressive on messaging the Republicans would be completely destroyed by this move.