What we read while not searching for sugarman . . .
What we read while Katie Holmes left Tom for Pacey…
- The Supreme Court disappointed conservatives twice last week. First, it made Mitt Romney’s life more difficult by striking down most of Arizona’s controversial immigration law (though Romney’s campaign is getting pretty good at avoiding questions). Then, of course, the Court upheld Obamacare. The swing vote in the latter case was, surprisingly, Chief Justice John Roberts, who is now an unlikely hero to many liberals and a traitor to many conservatives. Of course, the decision wasn’t a total win for liberals, and it certainly helped Romney raise money. The effect of the case on, you know, health care, is yet to be seen
What we read while Mega Millions disproved rational choice theory…
What we read while frantically revising our brackets…
Hey, did you guys know there was a health care bill being considered?
Here at NPI, we’ve only touched on this issue in passing. We don’t want to pretend we know more than we do about something as important as this.
With that said, there seems to be an underlying hypocrisy in the recent discussion of the Stupak Amendment. This amendment was added onto the version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month, and it essentially prevents any federally funded or subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortions. This amendment was important in getting 64 of the more moderate Democrats in the House to vote for the bill. On the other hand, many others view the Stupak Amendment as catastrophic, and some Democratic Senators are hoping to have the amendment stripped. Continue reading »
Conventional wisdom dictates that, if the Founding Fathers did something, then it must be right (unless it involves having sex with your slaves). As Josh has been outlining, though, this may not be the case.
Checks and balances are particularly revered as one the Constitution’s best features (unlike those parts we give the Founders a mulligan on). They are considered both brilliantly realist and especially democratic. Checks and balances are said to maintain a government “of the people” while simultaneously preventing demagoguery and a concentration of power. As Madison says in Federalist No. 51: “Ambition should be made to counteract ambition…. You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Problems only arise when you want the government to, you know, do something. Like fix health care. Continue reading »
This video has been makings its way around the old internets recently, like so many of Jon Stewart’s interviews do these days. It features William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, discussing his issues with Obama’s health care plan in a responsible, reasoned manner…and I mean that in most sarcastic way possible.
Kristol is, of course, spewing conservative talking points and Stewart, as he often does, get him to stumble a little over them. The real knock-out line that liberals have seized on is Kristol’s admission that the military deserves better health care than average American citizens do. Since military health care is public, Stewart twists this into an admission that government-run health care is better than private health care.
I don’t like Bill Kristol and I don’t think he handles himself well here, but I think he is kind of right. First of all, of course the government insures soldiers. That goes along with America’s (ridiculous) employer-provided health care system, since soldiers, like elected officials (who also have a government-run plan), are government employees. Rather than paying for a private insurer the Defense Department runs the Military Health Service itself. Continue reading »