Via commenter Punchy — who strangely neglected to ask what Sullivan thinks about this — Anthony Weiner says he thinks SCOTUS will strike down HCR and that that will lead to something better:
“We pretty much see the direction the Supreme Court is going,” he told an audience at the Center for American Progress. “The solution, if the mandate is struck down, is not that the bill falls like the house of cards … the solution is going to be offering something everyone agrees is constitutional and that’s the public option in the exchange.”
[….]“The Supreme Court unfortunately is a corporate-dominated arm of the Republican Party right now,” Weiner said. “I put nothing past them. But they would have to take a Bush v. Gore like leap to strike down the constitutionality of the whole law. Even the mandate is a pretty thin reed.”
I agree the Supreme Court is an arm of the Republican party right now. I’m less optimistic that striking down the mandate will lead to something better.
Moonbatting Average
That’s some quality magical thinking right there
fasteddie9318
I think he’s skipping over the “armed insurrection” that comes between “USSC strikes down the ACA” and “single-payer is passed.”
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
I’d like some of the meds Rep. Weiner is taking, please. Though he’s correct that the Court is “a corporate-dominated arm of the Republican Party right now,” which part of the speech he crafted prior to medication, obviously.
Or, ETA, what fasteddie notes above.
Erik Vanderhoff
Why doesn’t Congress just pass a modification that allows purchase of insurance across state lines? Boom, it’s interstate commerce and FUCK YOU REPUBLICANS.
/fantastical thinking
cleek
i wonder what’s hiding behind that ellipses ?
Hunter Gathers
@Moonbatting Average: It’s the same magical thinking (rule by teabaggers will lead to a progressive paradise!) that has infected most of the political left nowadays. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
malraux
One of the more impressive elements of conservatives is their ability to be incredibly inconsistent. An individual mandate was universally believed to be constitutional right up until democrats proposed it.
John Cole
I thought the mandate was a corporate give-away…
andy
No kidding- what they passed barely squeaked through when there were D majorities in both houses. It’ll be a fight just stopping the Teatards from shitting and pissing in all the corners.
The Dangerman
Pure crazy talk; if the USSC struck down HCR (which they aren’t going to do), it surely wouldn’t lead to something better.
OT, and speaking of crazy talk, I almost through something at my TV when I watched Fox News for a few minutes this morning. Apparently, according to Meghan Kelly, we are helping Al Queda in Libya because:
1) They shout Allah Akbar a lot
2) One of them said something bad about the U.S. once
Absolutely stunning evidence supporting the claim that the President is supporting Al Queda.
danimal
It may be true that the Supreme Court is the corpo-judicial wing of the GOP. It may not be true that this means the ACA will be struck down.
Publicly, the GOP hates ACA and want to abolish it. Publicly, they will do everything in their power to kill the bill. Privately, I’m not sold that the corporations really want to be responsible for their employees health care. Making health care a governmental responsibility relieves corporations of a major pain in the ass.
IOW, they’ll gripe because it makes for good politics, but they don’t really want to return to the status quo.
Dave
I think Weiner’s scenario hinges on control of Congress. If the GOP still holds the House, it’s dead. If not, maybe we could see the public option/open up Medicare ideas come to pass.
So for those of you thinking about sitting out 2012…that’s about when this case should hit the SCOTUS. Kind of need the Democrats running the show. Just saying that your little hissy fit in 2010 didn’t turn out so well…
Alex S.
Eh.. Anthony Weiner is the Democratic Party troll and trolling is what he does.
ruemara
Weiner is a jackass. There I said it. He can be right on a number of things, but he is often a complete jackass. This is a top progressive hero and he’s often repeating the stupidest talking points that don’t match up to reality. Damn, this is one on my side?
fasteddie9318
@John Cole:
It’ll be interesting to see what happens, because if the USSC decides that the mandate is severable and strikes it down but leaves the rest of the law in place, the insurance industry is going to go absolutely batshit (and that, eventually, may be the surest ticket to single payer as long as you don’t mind stepping over a lot of rubble and dead bodies on the way there). Of course, that’s the very reason why the USSC will strike down the entire ACA, because the five corporate lackeys on the court are pros in the corporate lackey business.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Indeed. Why would an arm of the Republican Party strike down a policy – the mandate – that is a Republican policy that is so fervently desired by Republicans?
Unless…naah. I guess it will just have to remain one of life’s great mysteries.
cleek
know how everybody here is always saying the Dems need more in-your-face, scrappy fighters – people who won’t recite statistics and quote policy, won’t cower in the face of GOP yammering, but will get up there and fight it out, dominate the conversation when possible, and most of all, show confidence in liberalism while taking as many shots on the GOP as they can get away with ?
that’s Weiner.
he’s not always perfectly accurate? he’s brash? outspoken? too bad. he’s a fighter. we need about 200 more of him. we need people who will take the fight to the GOP.
Sentient Puddle
@Erik Vanderhoff: That’s actually in the bill in a form. Naturally, Republicans still whined about it because it wouldn’t allow insurance companies to pile into the state with the most lax regulations and scrape at the bottom of the barrel.
No really, it was incredibly amusing to watch Marsha Blackburn play this semantic game at the health care summit last year…trying to explain why “customers buying insurance across state lines” was different and preferable to “insurers selling to other states” without mentioning the race to the bottom. It did not go well.
gnomedad
@Erik Vanderhoff:
Isn’t this one of the Repub’s magical solutions to insurance cost?
jibeaux
If the mandate is struck down, the public option isn’t going to help that…with no mandate, the whole insurance industry implodes in a death spiral as anyone in good health and with a high tolerance for risk opts on out of that system.
And, okay, that does theoretically create a large void in coverage out of which something better could be created, but it’s not going to be a significantly different void than existed before the ACA, and that’s as good as we got with 60 Senators and a solidly Dem House.
fasteddie9318
@cleek: Couldn’t agree more.
Svensker
@The Dangerman:
A huge plus in moving to Canukistan was not seeing FOX on at the doctor/dentist/car repair/whathaveyou waiting rooms. Apparently a FOX clone was trying to set up shop in Canada last year but gave up when they realized there was a law here that outlaws lying on broadcast news. Heh. Indeedy.
MaximusNYC
Weiner is cuckoo on this. I was at a town hall meeting with him in Brooklyn a little over a year ago, and he was obsessed with the public option then too. I was the first person to get up and say, “You guys have a health care reform bill ready to be voted on. It ain’t perfect, but it’s the best we’ll get right now. It could be on Obama’s desk tomorrow! Just pass it!” A good portion of the room started applauding wildly.
Weiner was totally knocked for a loop — evidently he couldn’t believe people from the real world wanted to see the Dems put the ball over the goal line rather than yet again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. At the end of the event, he said he’d been at least somewhat persuaded to give the bill a chance… but it seems he hasn’t really changed his tune all that much.
This is a classic “the best is the enemy of the good” situation.
Mark S.
test
Dennis SGMM
What a fine joke we’re having here. When SCOTUS stole the election for Bush without any blowback the die was cast. Now otherwise unaccountable corps have free speech rights (And money=speech, according to SCOTUS) just like you and I – only they have a shitpile more “speech” than any of us.
So, go ahead and vote – or not vote – for whomever you choose. The SCOTUS will make certain that the people in charge will remain the people in charge.
Some days I’m glad that I’m old.
Keith G
I like Rep. Weiner, but I never buy all of what he is selling. Hyperbole is his media strategy. Sometimes it matches the known universe and sometimes it does not.
Villago Delenda Est
@Hunter Gathers:
“Nach Hitler, uns.” The German Communist mantra in the 30s.
Litlebritdifrnt
I believe he is right about SCOTUS. There were several excellent articles in this month’s Trial Lawyer magazine about this very subject, the cover showed the Justices as puppets of the Chamber of Commerce. I would love to link to the articles but you have to subscribe to the online edition, which I am not about to do.
JITC
Weiner is right, but it won’t happen at the national level.
If SCOTUS does strike down the law and already-in-place benefits disappear, people will get active again. This is fodder and ammunition for the single payer movements in Vermont and California.
http://www.healthcareforall.org is a good place to start.
FlipYrWhig
Wait — the inset quotes and the analysis by DougJ seem contradictory. Is Weiner saying that the Supreme Court is going to strike down the mandate but not the whole bill? Or is he saying that there’d have to be a crazy leap of logic to strike down the mandate? Or is he saying that there’d have to be a crazy leap of logic to strike it down, but they’ll do it, because they’re just that crazy?
Sly
@danimal:
It’s a pain in the ass over which they have some degree of control, and that above all else is the most important criteria for the business class. Even if a public policy provides the marketplace with stability, so long as that stability is outside their control they will not like it.
In this case, having your employees on the hook to you for providing their insurance needs is a fantastic bargaining chip when contract negotiations come up. A person is less likely to take a position of “increase my pay or I walk” if, for instance, they have a sick kid. The current tax structure also makes it easier for corporations to minimize their payroll tax obligation since, unlike with wages, they don’t have to pay their portion of FICA when they increase medical benefits to appease unions. The ACA puts a cap on that, but its still a great way to save on labor costs.
Duncan Dönitz (formerly Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
This is a good example of why we need to get Obama reelected. I know he hasn’t done everything we want. I know it’s maddening when he goes out of his way to work with people who clearly aren’t willing to do anything in good faith. But anybody who says Obama’s just as bad as Bush, or that we need to sit this one out, or vote for a third party to “teach the Democrats a lesson” just doesn’t understand the first damned thing about how American politics work. There could be 2 or 3 or 4 slots opening on the Supreme Court between 2013 and 2017. Scalia’s been there 25 years. Thomas will have been there 20 by the end of this year. Ginsburg and Breyer have been there 18 and 17 years. We can’t afford to have a Republican putting up the next 4 justices.
dr. bloor
@danimal:
Yeah, I think this is as much a dare by Weiner as it is a prediction. “You break it, you bought it.”
Comrade DougJ
@cleek:
I agree.
Ronc99
Weiner is a big fat liar as evidence by him going on TV saying he’d never vote for ObamaCare if it didn’t contain the public option. Took no arm twisting from him to vote FOR it in the end.
Now Weiner is going to run for mayor of NYC to replace Bloomberg. Why? Because he is a Wall Street tool, much like his buddy Rahm Emanuel.
His staunchly pro-Israel routine cheapens anything I’d believe from that jerk. The only reason he gets on TV constantly is the fact he is Jewish, Wall Street bitch and from New York. Ignore the BUBBLE head, thanks!
Violet
Weiner is smoking something. If the mandate gets struck down, more people will be without health insurance as the companies drop coverages and raise rates. Eventually, after enough people are suffering, something will be done. By then it will be very late.
Comrade DougJ
@FlipYrWhig:
Weiner is saying they will only strike down the mandate, probably, and that that will lead to something better
Steve M.
@cleek: You know what the Dems need? Not “in-your-face, scrappy fighters” who throw hyperbolic verbal bombs. The Republicans don’t really have very mny of those — it only seems as if they do. What the Republicans have are lots and lots of people who skillfully deliver meticulously crafted talking points that sound accurate but aren’t, and that work on the emotions, but are delivered in a quiet, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone.
Everyone on the left thinks Chris Christie yells a lot. He doesn’t. Everyone thinks Bill O’Reilly is a “loudmouth.” He often speaks very quietly. Ditto Hannity and Limbaugh. Ditto most Republican elected officials. They’re not hyper and jittery like Grayson and Weiner. They make doleful pronouncements (that are utter rabble-rousing bullshit) in a very solemn tone. We need more people who can do that.
burnspbesq
@Dennis SGMM:
“Some days I’m glad that I’m old”
It does provide a convenient excuse for incoherence, doesn’t it?
Warren Terra
There are only three possible methods of legislating universal (ish) health care: Single Provider, Single Payer, or the Mandate. As pointed out upthread, if you want everyone to have access to private insurance, or if you want a public option to compete with private insurance instead of absorbing all the expensive patients, you have to ban rescission, ban exclusions for pre-existing conditions, ban lifetime and annual caps, and require community pricing. None of that is possible unless you have the Mandate – otherwise people can choose to pay for insurance only when they’re already sick, or the private insurers unhindered by such rules can push everyone who actually costs them money onto the public option.
If Weiner thinks a death for the Mandate will get us to legislating Single Payer, let alone Single Provider, he is just nuts. It took twenty years, a total Republican collapse, a year-long vicious fight, and the skin of our teeth to get the ACA. If it goes down it will be another generation before anyone tries again; if the lowest bar for a legal option is Single Payer, an idea I happen to like but that got only a handful of House Democrats even rhetorically and tentatively behind it in the recent debate, one generation won’t be enough.
Judas Escargot (aka "your liberal-interventionist pal, who's fun to be with")
@danimal:
Making health care a governmental responsibility relieves corporations of a major pain in the ass.
Yes, this, and I’m disappointed that this is never brought up in the conversations that matter.
I’d like just 10 mins, on camera, to ask Joe the Plumber (or a reasonable substitute) why he thinks the owner of a plumbing business should ever have to concern himself with his employee’s health care, anymore than he should have to worry about paving the roads that enable his Plumber-mobile to drive to the job site.
Dennis SGMM
@burnspbesq:
Oooo, I have a stalker. I just wish it was more clever.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Ronc99: teh j0000000000000z OMG
Davis X. Machina
If you strike The Mandate down it shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Elizabelle
@ Judas, comment 40:
Yes, leveling the playing field by making the government cover health insurance — as healthy European countries already do — TO PROMOTE AMERICAN ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS — should be a Democratic talking point.
Said again and again until we are sick of it.
No downside to it.
Think of the entrepreneurial efforts that will take flight once Americans are freed from working in a cubicle farm so that one’s family or self can have health insurance.
Cubicle slave at the corporation’s beck and call, in a country that brays about “individual choice” and “liberty.”
cleek
@Steve M.:
how about a couple dozen of each, then?
we need people who can do something – rhetorically, that is. make liberalism something to be excited about.
Davis X. Machina
In a country where you are what you own, owning people is the coolest thing of all.
gex
@Sly: I really tend to think, having listened to so many middle class people talk like they are indentured servants, that employers like the labor immobility caused by them providing health care.
The Dangerman
@Svensker:
Do tell, how does that work and how do we get one?
Now, to be fair to Fox, they didn’t lie; they do shout “God is Great” (along with just about every other Muslim on the planet) and at least one of them doesn’t like the U.S. much. They didn’t lie; they analysis is shit to the point of treason (suggesting that Obama is knowingly supporting Al Queda has to at least approach some line), but it wasn’t a lie.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Steve M.: And if we had lots of those type of perfect Democrats, no doubt you could find something wrong about them that negates any possible good they could do.
Democrats: if you’re not utterly perfect according to the Platonic ideal of a left-wing leader, then fuck you! We don’t even want your help.
The Moar You Know
@Warren Terra: You forgot the Republican favorite: “Die Quickly”
The Dangerman
@Davis X. Machina:
Over/Under on how fast Private Insurers stop privately insuring after The Mandate is struck down? I’m calling 10 minutes.
Bob Loblaw
@Hunter Gathers:
Honestly, it was easy to think that way before. But then Wisconsin and Ohio happened, and it turns out there might be a kernel of truth to the idea.
At least as far as the midwest is concerned. The south and much of the west are still rather hopeless on that count.
Davis X. Machina
@The Dangerman: Never underestimate the power of The Force.
Suck It Up!
@cleek:
What we need are Democrats who can get votes for bills we need. Weiner doesn’t impress me. He is great for a few minutes of entertainment and then nothing. When his rants get votes, I’ll start looking for more Dems like him.
Also, scrappy? every time I hear that word I just think of someone who even though he continues to fight, is still getting his ass kicked and ends up losing anyway.
BFR
@Villago Delenda Est:
Technically, they were right though now weren’t they?
Suck It Up!
sigh. schmuck.
The Moar You Know
@gex: Actually, we really, really don’t. People who want to move on and feel they can’t because it’s not in their economic best interests tend to become REALLY, REALLY shitty employees that poison the entire workplace for everyone that has to deal with them.
For that alone, I’d support any alternative to the clusterfuck that we have now.
jl
Maybe come commenter has mentioned it above (no time to read all the comments now), but the politicians in the GOP seem to think the Supreme Court is a political operation.
That is my take home when I hear a House Rep or Senator talk about how many of the three branches of government they control. If I remember my civics classes correctly, the three branches are executive, legislature and courts.
Svensker
@The Dangerman:
Harper tried to get rid of the “Truth in Broadcast” provision so that the FOX-clone could operate here, but it was just denied.
Broadcasting must be not just “true” but also not “misleading”. Double heh.
soonergrunt
@Judas, 40;
I agree with you in principle, but I don’t think joe and his ilk think things like roads and sewers and clean water and police and fire service come from the government. They think it comes from the magic galt-fairy blowing tax-free ozzie dust out of his ass.
Ruckus
Reply to a particular comment does not seem to be working this morning.
Anyway
Judas @40
For small business you are absolutely correct. Having to screw with insurance companies is a complete waste of energy and time.
However, as Sly @31 states big business has an immense leg up here. They have HR departments anyway and really big businesses can self insure. And it imparts a level of control over the employees. So, it is possible that we are screwed.
The Dangerman
@Svensker:
I want! I want!!
Seriously, how did that ever pass constitutional muster in Canada? I doubt it would in the US, especially with this USSC. But, I’m sick and tired that some of my cable payment goes to Fox.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@The Dangerman: I want 20 minutes, in case there’s a new war somewhere to distract them.
Bob Loblaw
@The Dangerman:
Canada doesn’t have the same constitutional speech guarantees as in the US.
That’s why they’re also able to pass hate speech laws and other restrictions that wouldn’t be constitutional in our country. It reduces the flourishing of reactionary and bigoted sentiments in the public sphere, at the expense of abstract freedom.
Svensker
@The Dangerman:
Canada just has a very different attitude toward the “commons” and the “common good”. Here’s an article that explains a bit more about the law and how it was adjudged in compliance with Canada’s Charter of Rights.
Linnaeus
@danimal:
I’d argue that what they want is a situation in which all health care costs are fully borne by the consumer; they don’t want to provide health care benefits, but also don’t want to pay the taxes to fund a public health care system.
Elizabelle
@Davis X. Machina:
That’s the part that these dumb ass tea partiers haven’t figured out yet.
jibeaux
@The Dangerman:
What is it on cable that you want? It may be more doable to cut the cord than you think.
jl
@Svensker:
thanks for the link on press laws in Canada. The only part of it I question is the following:
“But its enduring strength is that few are willing to take the first step down the slippery slope of determining who is a journalist and who is not, and what constitutes good journalism and what does not. It’s all protected, for good or ill.”
Looks like Wikileaks as prompted a coalition of very powerful forces (an important ‘few’) who will try to determine who is a journalist and who is not, and what constitutes good journalism and what does not, for the sake of the national security and crony corporate state.
The US may end up with the worst of both worlds.
Sly
@gex:
Absolutely they love it. Anything that gives them control they are generally in favor of.
To illustrate the point further, large corporate interests adored the National Recovery Administration during the Great Depression (small businesses, not so much) because by allowing businesses to write their own operational codes (which they would then selectively enforce), they could use the NRA to set up barriers to entry in their respective markets. They wanted stability, yes, but stability to them was getting rid of all that pesky competition that is at least theoretically implicit in a free market.
As such, one of the biggest regulatory turning points of the New Deal was the overturning of the National Recovery Act and the implementation of a regime much less vulnerable to regulatory capture under the Wagner Act.
jl
@Elizabelle:
‘ Cubicle slave at the corporation’s beck and call, in a country that brays about “individual choice” and “liberty.” ‘
After some one (a commenter here, maybe?) ridiculed the US fantasy in the US of the rugged individualist corporate company man, I started noticing how pervasive this cognitive dissonance is.
Like, commercial after commercial telling you how some gizmo will turn you into an analytical corporate terminator, that will shoot you up the corporate status and money s H * T ladder. We are a strange people.
The Dangerman
@jibeaux:
Well, for example, watching all the NCAA ball games this weekend on 4 different channels was fun.
As for news, I can get Al-Jazeera over Roku, so it’s not like I need news. Roku means movies over Netflix, so that’s covered. I watch little network programming (House, but I can watch that a week after air on Fox.com). I like watching golf, but only the majors (Masters, U.S. Open, mostly). All things considered, I only need cable for the odd events (see ball games previously mentioned, Super Bowl, etc.).
I’ve seen some streaming solutions online, but nothing that has proven to be The Answer (non Iverson version) yet. All ideas welcomed.
gex
@The Moar You Know: Fair enough. I’m sure there are plenty, and most on the small business side. On the other hand, in terms of how the business community participated in HCR (which I know isn’t the entire business community, just the portion with the most power) didn’t seem too eager to jettison the responsibility.
gex
@The Dangerman: I’ve found that sports bars cover the major sporting events I want to see. But that would stink for the entire NCAA tourney…
Punchy
I think the Supreme Court will study plate techtonics, and decide to strike this bitch down just before a 8.0+ shaker in the Cali foothills. They’ll need some serious…..cover….ha ha ha…sorry, cant continue. Who am I kidding? The media will yawn when this happens, while Koch makes another payment in Genni Thomas’ bank account.
agrippa
The 111th Congress should have expanded medicare.
Instead, Congress passed this law that seems to have been written by Groucho Marx. Woulda, coulda shoulda.
Ailuridae
@The Dangerman:
You know about March Madness on Demand right? Free, Near HD quality feeds – all four regions at any point. Perfectly legal etc?
How do you like Roku? I use my XBox for the same thing but wasn’t thinking of Roku as a solution for my partner’s place.
The Dangerman
@Ailuridae:
Can On Demand be had without regular TV service? I thought it was just a premium channel like HBO.
Haven’t got Roku yet, so can’t give it a review. Everything I hear is positive (kinda wanted Apple TV, but it doesn’t stream things like AJE).
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
does this mean we can start calling them SCROTUS?
Nylund
Yup, I totally expect to see the Bush-Gore argument come out:
“this ruling only applies to this case. You can’t use it as a precedent for other things the GOP doesn’t like!”
Its getting harder and harder to tell the difference between Supreme Court Rulings and a game of Calvinball.
Emerald
@Ailuridae: I have Roku too–got it tuned to the Al Jazeera live stream right now (I can get actual news!).
I got Roku several years ago when it only did Netflix. Lately all sorts of new free channels have become available. I get the “Newscaster” channel, which has the aforementioned Al Jazeera live stream, plus all the major networks, with all of their news shows, including nightly news, available on the night they air, with no or very limited commercials. Only MSNBC has yet to update their lineup, since Olbermann’s demise. But it also gets Current TV, so perhaps we’ll get Keith back again. Also C-Span and their major shows, an audio BBC channel with lots of interesting content, and a few more.
I can get Amazon videos if I rent or pay for them, plus Pandora, a German language news channel, a local weather screen, and several other interesting choices.
In short, Roku gets better and better, and all for just the initial price of the device. I love it, but I don’t have a Wii or a TiVo, so I don’t know if much of that content might also be available through those devices.
cynickal
It creates another window of opportunity.
Whether that window is large enough to drive a sausage factory filled with sociopaths through is an entirely different question.
mickeywhite
But 400 BILLION to 1 TRILLION on unconstitutional health care is ok?
Prescription Drug Benefit.
The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Beginning in 2006, prescription coverage would be available to seniors through private insurers for a monthly premium estimated at $35. There would be a $250 annual deductible, then 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 would be reimbursed. Drug costs greater than $2,250 would not be covered until out-of pocket expenses exceeded $3,600, after which 95 percent of drug costs would be reimbursed. Low-income recipients would receive more subsidies than other seniors by paying lower premiums, having smaller deductibles, and making lower co-payments for each prescription. The total cost of the new prescription drug benefit would be limited to the $400 billion that Congress had budgeted earlier this year for the first 10 years of this new entitlement program. The House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215 (Roll Call 669).
Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR this bill.
Marsha Blackburn is a Hypocrite.
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2009/09/tn-congressman-marsha-blackburn-votes.html
Mickey
Ailuridae
@The Dangerman:
Ah, this service is unfortunately named and it not linked to any cable TV service. All you need(ed) was an internet connection. I even had friends in Turkey and Sweden who were able to watch any game from Tuesday through Sunday.
Mary
@dr. bloor:
Exactly my thought. Weiner’s posturing in the hopes that at least a portion of HCR opponents are stupid/paranoid enough to believe him.
jpe
@Erik Vanderhoff: No one disputes that insurance markets are interstate; the question is whether not buying insurance in the first place is interstate. That won’t change if we allow interstate insurance sales.
jpe
@Nylund: The argument for striking the entire law is actually pretty solid. There’s no recission clause in the bill and the mandate was a necessary component of the bill as a whole (see comments upthread about mandates being a necessary component of a scheme like this).