Klein on Reconciliation on Colbert

10 Mar

From last night’s episode of The Colbert Report, here is Ezra Klein explaining the reconciliation strategy for health reform.

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Action Center – Health Care Bill – Ezra Klein
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Posted by on March 10, 2010 in Uncategorized


12 responses to “Klein on Reconciliation on Colbert

  1. Joel

    March 12, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    Watching these fake journalists peddle this stinker is a little like putting up with the pesky used car salesman. You don't want the warranty, but he simply HAS to explain to you how wonderful it is. He is perfectly aware that the warranty's terms are better for him than you, but he'll do his darndest to sell you on the fact that it's in your best interest. Oh, what would you do without that warranty!He'll try to scare you, proposing scenarios where your car breaks down or needs some unscheduled maintenance. He'll try to convince you that your supposed lack of knowledge is the only reason you'd turn it down. He'll pretend that the warranty should always be part of the car purchase (see: constitutional right), that it would be unimaginable that anyone would turn down something so obviously wonderful.In the end, though, you knew you didn't want it when you walked in. The salesman just looks pathetic and sad. The difference is that while this salesman has to sell you, the Used-Car-Salesman-In-Chief only has to sell the kings and queens of Congress and has the "Comedy Central News Headquarters" to help him do it. Bravo, sir!

  2. D. Brad Wright

    March 12, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    I'm a little confused by your comments and your analogy. First, are you referring to Ezra Klein as a "fake journalist?" I think that's one hell of a stretch. How do you define journalist? Who, in your opinion, is a "real" journalist?That aside, let's move to your analogy. You equate the "selling" of health care reform legislation with the selling of a warranty by a used car salesman. I suspect that you would acknowledge that the warranty scenario readily applies to lots more than used cars, and I suspect you used the "used car salesman" metaphor to paint a picture of a reprehensible personality.But let's be a bit more neutral in considering the example. Yes, when trying to sell you the warranty, the salesman will explain what "horrible things" might go awry. In reality, the likelihood of those things occurring is pretty small, which is why most people decline purchasing the warranty. That seems to be your point. We don't really need it.Jump over to health care. Now you–not a product you purchased–are the subject of the warranty. And unlike most consumer products, where the warranty is unlikely to be needed, health problems arise frequently and are increasingly unaffordable for most people.The problem with what I perceive to be your libertarian position, is that no one really takes that approach in Congress. Republicans are the most closely aligned in that they espouse limited government. But here's the problem: Republicans passed a poorly designed and hugely expensive expansion to Medicare. So that stands as evidence that they are steadfastly committed to small government principles.Going a step further, they claim that the American people don't want this reform and that it's going to cost the Dems big time in November. As I've said before, if I'm a Republican running this year, why wouldn't I just let the Dems go full steam ahead, fall flat on their faces, and reap the benefits for myself and my party? Why would I warn them not to do something that would greatly benefit me? After all, the Republicans could simply repeal the legislation when they assume the majority. In fact, many are running on promises to do just that. The answer is that they know that these reforms–while admittedly far from perfect–do a lot of good things and it will be a huge achievement for the Dems if they pass it.The health reforms on the table are not things conceived of by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barack Obama. They are the ideas of people like me–but with much more experience–who have studied this problem for decades. The reason it is so hard to pass reform is not because people don't want it, or don't need it, it's because the substance of health reform quickly becomes overshadowed by partisan political posturing, heavily influenced by the deep pockets of organized interests who fear that reform will cut into their profits.But I have a compromise: We'll let folks like you–who oppose "government-run" reform– opt out. You won't have to pay into the system and you won't be able to reap its benefits. That means you pay out of pocket for your care or you don't get any. It's your choice.

  3. Joel

    March 17, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Fortunately for all of us here, my state is one step ahead of you: you like that it's only 2 pages? I did.

  4. D. Brad Wright

    March 17, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Only problem is that federal law trumps state law.

  5. Joel

    March 17, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Wrong. Re-read your constitution.Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."And it's not like you have to sift through 2000 pages to find it. There it is, plain and simple.

  6. D. Brad Wright

    March 17, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Wow. Way to put me in place. You must be an expert in Constitutional law. Oh, wait. You're not. It's called pre-emption and it appears in the Constitution under the Supremacy Clause. to what you know, Slick.

  7. Joel

    March 18, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Such a polite liberal. Since offering Wikipedia links appears to be the way you've chosen to demonstrate your dubious credibility on matters Constitutional, here's one you may want to take a look at:

  8. D. Brad Wright

    March 18, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Fact: Bears eat beets. Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.

  9. Joel

    March 18, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    I think you meant red herrings.

  10. D. Brad Wright

    March 18, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    False. I meant that you are Dwight-like.

  11. D. Brad Wright

    March 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Also, using Wikipedia is an efficient way for me to provide someone with a broad overview of something about which they demonstrate a lack of understanding. It is never meant to be the most authoritative source–just the most expeditious. My knowledge of federal pre-emption came from courses in health law, but I'm not about to take the time to draft a lengthy and detailed reply, because well, why exert any effort when I know you'll just blow it off anyway regardless of its validity? Besides, quotes from The Office are more entertaining.

  12. Joel

    March 18, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    When you make sweeping statements like "federal law trumps state law", the lack of understanding is clearly yours – not only of the wording of the Constitution but of how the laws have been applied in reality. Put very simply: that is a false statement. The Supremacy Clause and associated Commerce Clause do not give absolute legal authority to the federal government, and this is supported by Supreme Court precedent in several cases. Both are subjected to repeated abuse by the extreme left and right.Hiding far-reaching legislation under the guise of the constitutionally protected right to regulate interstate commerce is an old, old tactic.Have you considered Prop 215 from California? New York v. United States (1992)? Printz v. United States? South Dakota v. Dole? Did you even glance at what happened with the horrific Real ID act? You seem rather disinterested in factual information that doesn't neatly line up with your unfortunately limited academic world view so I would guess not.Thomas Jefferson, in every sense of the word an expert on natural law, had strong opinions on state sovereignty:"[T]he government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."The nullification efforts are completely constitutional, and in all respects a healthy symptom of properly functioning Federalism. We will see how it pans out – I fully support the several states that have already drafted legislation to block this potential flagrant abuse of federal power. I think we can do without the "Cornhusker Kickback" here in Georgia.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: