Congress just passed health care reform for all Americans. This law will now be interpreted by the Executive Branch and the courts for generations. Even a 2700-page bill is not self-explanatory. There will be regulations. And wherever there is ambiguity, there may be lawsuits.
One way courts interpret new laws is through legislative history. Legislative history includes the debates and comments by the members of Congress who voted on the bill, as recorded by the Congressional Record.
Therefore we have the opportunity to explain what this bill means. Or, actually, I have that opportunity, which I'm sharing with you. I'm preparing an official statement that will be included in the Congressional Record early next week. This will be an official interpretation of what specific provisions in this law mean. To do this, I want your help.
I'm not looking for what you think the bill ought to have. I'm looking for what you think the bill already has, that needs to be explained further.
Read the bill here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4872enr.txt.pdf
Then, submit your comments to me here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dDR1VEprem1HMGpRajNoVGdCTi1vcHc6MQ
I won't be able to submit every comment for entry into the Congressional Record, or anywhere close to that. However, we will read them, consider them, and submit the most crucial entries regarding this most crucial law, in the Congressional Record. Thank you.
Follow Rep. Alan Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alangrayson
What exactly in the Constitution authorizes the mandate to buy insurance and the penalty for noncompliance?
Is the penalty for noncompliance a fine or tax or something else?
If it’s a tax, why did President Obama tell George Stephanopoulos it’s not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__Mgyw
Is the authority to impose a penalty separable from the authority to require the purchase of insurance, or are the two elements of the bill unavoidably connected?
so that future generations will look
back on this mess, and a least get to smile.
Excuse me while I wipe away the dripping irony.
In some parts of the world, and even ours at one time, we called that revisionist, or even propaganda. If a bill cannot stand on its own merits, then it should go. If it has to be sold, propped up, or simply "because I said so" that should be a warning bell for anyone.
The flip side to that is the propaganda machine did not work up to expectations this go around, and it has little enough support that it has to be fired up again.
How is this bill for *all* Americans when it leaves tens of millions out?
And how is it for *all* Americans when at least an equal number of those left out will not be able to afford it since there is no anti trust exemption repeal, and no regulations on premiums, copays, deductibles?
Yes, I know about the subsidies and tax credits, but I also know about 'falling through the cracks' into that gray area.
Please, keep it real.
Thank you.
No thanks, I don't want my name on any comments about this crap on the Congressional Record.
Should have stuck by that Public Option thing, sweetie - because Rahm can't vote for you.
so, you have swallowed the "interpretations" of others but haven't bothered to read it for yourself. You also seem to not understand that regulatory bodies may set up procedures and guidelines that may impact premiums. Additionally, you seem unaware of the facilitation of collective bargaining (a market means of helping to hold down price increases)....
I'm not saying the bill does or does not have various provisions....I'm just pointing out how inadequate your "read enough about the bill..." is.
Regulations - oh yeah, so far regulating banks and Wall Street has been so effective.
A stern letter from Sebelius seems to be the only regulation.
And insurance companies are even now raising premiums, shifting all possible costs into medical care column, etc. with impunity.
Collective bargaining is years and years away, I am quite aware of it, and I am quite aware of all the loopholes and lead time that insurance has built in, in order to nullify it.
So save your "inadequate" for your response.
The bill should stand as its own explanator. Those of us (myself included) who opposed the bill because we felt that it amounted to a handout to insurers have already seen plenty of revisionist historians claiming that it amounted to "health care for all" or similar nonsense.
While the bill does have strong points, please allow the real progressives and liberals who opposed it the last dignity of not attempting to rewrite history and make it seem like some sort of towering achievement when it was clearly, at best, a very narrow political victory.
Rep Grayson noted, again clearly, that he's going to attempt to clarify what the bill says, not change it. During the debate (ha, hard to call it that) the Republicans repeated the same dishonesty over and over, getting it recorded and repeated beyond the halls of Congress. Anything that can be done to be honest and truly explanatory is to be lauded.
I don't think the bill was nearly enough either. So I'm going to work with those who seem to want to continue to make things better by futher legislation to help Americans, whether single payer option or other means. By the definition of compromise, we won't get what we want entirely. But we can improve, and continue to improve our land and it's laws.
I'm old. I saw student riots and Civil Rights sit-ins, pushes for Womens Studies and seating for students on college boards. I also saw those who said it wasn't enough. Some of them continued to work for change, and we're still seeing change. I also saw those who wanted to whine and give up.
Which will you be?
Forget ideology and fight for every tiny scrape that moves us forward. Obama has done what no one else could do. He needs us to "make him do it" it ain't over.
So sit there and whine and threaten to withold support and see how much "progress" it will get you when the b@st@rds get hold of the levers of power agains. As for me I'm fighting and cheering any victory that will move us toward the future and not the past.
The only thing I am interested in now since I've been thrown to the corporate insurer wolves is obtaining the choice of a public option or Medicare buy-in as an alternative for everyone.
Personally, I'd prefer that Democrats not get toasted, if no other reason than that the majority of Republicans are slightly worse than the majority of Democrats when it comes to governing... but if this bill doesn't get fixed one way or the other, I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote third party. Or Republican, if there's a Democrat I intensely dislike, such as Senator Bill Nelson, on the ticket. Sorry.
These days, I don't see much difference between Ds and Rs.
In fact, they're two sides of the same corporate coin.
The rest of us? I guess we can eat cake (crumbs).