Had Broder written such an article about all the protestors from the left during the Bush era, his comments would have more credibility. I view his comments about those people criticizing the Obama healthcare plan as purely a political statement by a liberal left winged journalist using his newspaper column as the bully-pulpit to do so. Wouldn't it be nice if this journalist would write such an article about the need for our country to regain / recapture all the manufacturing jobs our gov't FREE TRADE agreements/policy have helped send to cheap overseas labor markets?

Granted, they could not see into the future, so they had to add, subtract, and change things, just as we do with all of our laws, Federal, State, Local. But I don`t believe that every thing that the government does has to be specifically written into the Constitution. How long would it have to be? The health care bill would be a pamphlet in comparison. Even now we can`t agree on what it says even though we read the same words, neither can the judges. I see it as an outline for us to fill in around, and there are always going to be disagreements. O.K.?

Free speech is fine if it makes sense. Your argument about the Constitution and health care does not, that is all I`m pointing out.

Well then, if we are going to have a standing army, we need to amend the Constitution. The same for buying Alaska, Louisiana Purchase, giving the railroads free land along right of ways,etc. Does it say in the Constitution the government cannot provide health care? If not quit bringing it up. I know you don`t want it, but that is not a valid reason to oppose it.

The U.S. Constitution and specifically the support for rugged individualism which is evident in the Bill of Rights, is the enemy of the Liberal. The Liberal despises the United States because it is the premier protector and promoter of individualism in the world.

andre, you are not getting the point. I think it is a good thing that we have an army, but you keep saying the Constitution doesn`t say we can do this or that, and that is true. I`m trying to get through to you that not everything is covered by the Constitution, times have changed, and will continue to change. The Constitution doesn`t say we can have a standing army, it says it is only temporary. If we follow your logic, and do what is written, we couldn`t have one. The Militia is still in the Constitution, but times have changed haven`t they? If we follow your logic, we have to bring them back to adhere to the Constitution, is that feasible? As for the government "giving" us health care, that is a figure of speech, no one I know expects to get free care, they know there is a price. Per the amendment process, we don`t need to amend, change, a document that does not prohibit having the government involved with health care, see Medicare/Medicaid already. Speaking of which, us taxpayers are already paying for those programs, and the free care the poor get . I hate a lot of the things that my tax dollars pay for, so I vote for people who agree with my views, just as I suppose you do, but there are still a multitude of things that I hate to pay taxes for, the war in Iraq for one. I don`t know what you mean about reading the whole thing and pointing out where it says it can be done. What can be done, what did I say can be done? I just pointed out what is written in the Constitution about not having a standing army, and quoted you from your site about the founders feelings/fears about a standing army. That is why the Constitution says you can only raise an army, and only fund it for two years, it is supposed to be temporary.

The site you, andre, cited says,"prompted by the fear of standing armies the framers inserted the two year appropriations clause."

I don`t need a solution, the Constitution does not provide for a "standing' army according to it`s written word. You, and Scalia, want to go by the written words there, you tell me if it says you can have a standing army, or an Air Force. To my reading an army can only be raised when we are at war, at other times the Militia will be used. You might read the same words I see and reach a different conclusion, but they are still the same words. It is an evolving(living) document and will be interpreted differently by various groups forever, as it has in the past. When you keep saying, "where in the Constitution does it say you can do x or y," you are being disingenuous. There are many things that have been done throughout history that are not mentioned in the Constitution, are they all bad, or just the ones you don`t agree with? It doesn`t say you are entitled to health care, but it doesn`t say the government can`t give it to you if it wants to.

The Constitution says you can "raise" an army, and only fund it for two years. It does not say you can have a standing army, but it does say that about the Navy. Now, if you really want to get specific in your interpretation of the Constitution, where does it say you can have, or fund, an Air Force? If you want to take the writing literally, it would have to be there, right? It`s all about interpretation, liberal or conservative. It was Scalia that said judges make law(activism).

I haven't read all the posts. Forgive me if this came up already. Question: Why are the opponents of government-run healthcare (regardless of their tactics) maligned as misfits and malcontents "playing with fire" while for the last forty years - and the last 8 in particular - whatever an opponent of GWB said or did was a patriotic expression of free speech and political courage?

Maybe neither party rules the country without someone not liking it - and everyone has the right to protest whatever they do not like. If not, this is not longer America, but Amerika, regardless of who is renting the White House.

As for the cost, George Bush's expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs (written by the drug companies and not allowing negotiating for lower prices!) had about the same or higher ten year cost than the current Health Care reform bills.

andre, is it legal under the Constitution to have a standing army? I`d like your opinion.

Activist judges are those that rule against your/mine opinions, they can be liberal or conservative. They serve on the Supreme and Appellate Courts, and to a lesser degree, lower courts. Anybody that believes otherwise is deluding themselves. If memory serves me, one of the conservative Supremes said this was true during the Sotomayer nomination, even as another said his background and life experiences had an effect on some of his rulings. On another matter, somebody brought up tort reform, and that is a good idea, but in the states that have done it, the Doctors pay less for insurance, but the cost of health insurance for consumers was not affected.

Excessive to cover almost everybody for ten years when the cost now is $2.5 trillion a year? No, I don`t think so, and if Obama has his way it will be revenue neutral, no added deficit. The cost is for everyone, not the less than 4% that would be under a public plan only. I don`t agree with everything in the plans so far, but I think something has to be done. Andre, Scalia INTERPRETS the Constitution the way he wants, just like a liberal would. If it, or any bill/law/bill of rights/ Constitution was written perfectly, there would be no arguments about the interpretation of them. If it is not a living document, explain why it was amended so many times, or why the Supreme Court has to INTERPRET so many cases dealing with constitutionality?

Pharm....So less that 4% of our population will sign up for a public plan--then why is the cost of implementing this thing $1.6 trillion? I realize that is the expense to us taxpayers over 10 years, but it seems excessive....don't you think?

If you`re going to keep saying, "show me in the Constitution where it says you can do x or y", you should be ready when someone says, "show me in the Constitution where it says you CAN`T do x or y." It has been changed(amended) numerous times, and even parts of the original are still being argued about(gun rights). Different people interpret it in different ways, who can truly say which way is right?

Right andre and RAF, keep up your self delusions and see where that gets you. Two socialists, union member andre, RAF VA system and government run military, who hate socialism. Talk about being an imbecile.

I read the letter from the CBO RAF, nice try. Obviously you did not read it.

First off, it is a letter from the CBO and not a peer reviewed study. Secondly, you need to actually read the letter because it is not the Holy Grail they seek. In fact, if you read it you will find the Republican latch in this disturbing. In effect, the letter states that the problem is with longevity. Preventative care will cause people to live longer and that will cost more. The reason why Republicans talk about death panels is because they want to play Russian Roulette with your life by denying all access to health care until you are being rushed to the ER.

Here is a direct quote:
In sum, expanded governmental support for preventive medical care would probably IMPROVE people’s health but would not generally reduce total spending on health care. However, government funding for some specific types of preventive care might lower total spending. In its estimates, CBO seeks to capture the likely future effects on the budget on a case-by-case basis.

It also says:
20% of Preventative care saves money
60% is cost effective meaning that it may cost more but you will live longer: pure evil(sarcasm).

However, this is ONLY medical spending and savings this does not take into account an individuals lost productivity for extensive treatment or the cost of death on a family that preventative care may have mitigated.

You're called followers for a reason.

I have a prediction, in ten years time the Republican party will no longer exist and will be replaced by an ultra nationalist party of violent crazies.

Darwin the constitution doesn’t say I can’t own the Green Bay Packers...

Makes as much logic as your trite retort on the constitution and health care. But then again anyone who blathers on about voting a national referendum on health care and paying taxes on groceries while claiming to have an advance degree is never wrong…

What part of the Constitution says we can't have universal health care? Where?

andre, if you're so smart how come you just repeat what other people say. I am guessing you're not really a person but rather a mindless computer program.

Even winning the election is not enough for these people. Is it still Bush's fault after 7 months?

His "people" always want to change it and modify it because the Constitution gives us great Americans awesome individual rights. It's something the leftist despise so much.

Oh yeah, they care much more than everyone else when in fact they don't involve themselves in anythiing of value.

The wool covered a lot of surface area Andre.

hemisphere what hemisphere is missing? America did give the power to the democrats, it was called an election. You know, the reason why we vote. Do you understand how elections and voting works?

What in the Constitution are you talking about? You keep talking about the Constitution but never actually cite a passage. Have you ever even read it?

Andre no one cares about computers. Its just a machine.

"More and more people are seeing the Democrats and the Left for what they are, despicable elitists who have a sneering disdain for the "common man" and all things American. They could care less about America, the poor, the hungry - they just want power and they're upset with voters for not giving it to them".

The constitution does not protect money yadi da yadi da...............

We love our country. That's the fundamental difference of opinion. We don't go against Constitution and try to change it.

Tea Party in Janesville Saturday Aug 15th 9am till noon. @ the Post office.....

T= Taxed
E= Enough
A= Already

This is relative to this story cause if this Health care what ever they are calling it now passes , you can bet your taxes are gonna go up. along with going up cause of the stimulus and bail outs. Hang on to what you have. Let them know your not a happy camper anymore
Don't be tardy to the party!!

The new Republican strategy is to use half witted metaphors instead of facts.

andre, you're called a follower for a reason. You couldn't even think of your own response. You had to use mine.

The crust under this administration's layer is starting to shake. Let's patiently wait for the implosion.

Ironic how good Republicans are at bringing up polls. If polls are so important then why didn't Georgy boy resign when he was at 30%? Democracies work through elections.

Ezoner, you are right right wing fanatics don't protest, they are mobs, take part in lynchings or blow up churches or federal buildings. BHLs don't bring guns to protests you brown shirted goon.

When somebody says, "Read between the lines..." It means they don't know crap. Notice the lack of facts and details in your comments.

Sorry, the article by Bruce Bartlett, "The GOP`s Misplaced Rage", is at The Daily Beast, not the Beast.

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/about.h...

If you didn't know that Obama wanted to fix health care, you weren't paying attention. There were even debates through the primaries and general election about health care. Remeber those? Guess not. It was the single biggest issue in the country until the economy crashed.

The President belongs to the EXECUTIVE branch of government, so, techincally, he/she really shouldn't WRITE legislation. That would be the responsibility of the LEGISLATIVE branch of government.

darwin; actually he ran on a generic platform of "change" - now that the details are coming out in "his" healthcare package- this is not "change" most of us want. (Speaking of which,if this is his version of health care reform, why didnt HE write it?) When I say most, I mean check the polls - not the retoric of "thugs" astroturf" or whatever else you want to call it. There was actually a time when Obama supporters loved the poll numbers & WE got to hear it everyday. Just because you may not like the poll numbers doesnt mean they are irrelavent. I think we all (well almost all anyway) could/would agree the system needs to be fixed - but this is not the answer.

The implied title of the article shows where the author stands. "Healthcare Opponents" ?? People are not healthcare opponents any more than they are thugs, astroturf, or whatever negative label can be applied.

I have never been to a town hall meeting. I would likely poke someone in the nose if they started something up with me. My tolerance for stupidity is pretty low.

I have attended town or township board meetings, they have all been civil and board members listened politely and attentively. I do not feel our politicians are doing so now.

Darwin -- you must be kidding, RIGHT WING PROTESTS???? Until healthcare reform, I'm not sure I have heard that in my 50 year lifetime.

The far left kooks, and right wing kooks, are missing the point. They have finally pissed off the centrist American public and its about time.

This past election I had such a hard time selecting someone to vote for. Obama was way to far left and I was never really sure what McCain stood for. At least people should have known what they were getting with Obama, but I truely believe they never really looked closely enough and now they reget it.

The government is not attempting to reform healthcare, they are reforming health insurance, and as such will eliminate an entire industry. They will also affect the healthcare of everyone. It may start with 4% (although originally the percentage was greater and later revised down), with intent to get to 100%. The 100% is implied or the end game here. You gotta read between the lines instead and parse the garbage out of ALL the politicians to get to that message. Personally, the far left is running on power, money and ideology, the far right is protesting, but secretly would want the same plan for the same reasons. I trust none of them.

From my life experiences, the best coverage comes from companies that are self insurred. I have seen privately owned companies self insurred that offer 100% coverage for all healthcare, and yes they still exist. Insurance companies/plans are the next best and the worst coverage comes from government plans, mainly because of the bureaucracy of a government agency. Rules written by groups of attorneys, corrupt and well meaning ones, along with people with hidden agendas, backroom deals for election $$, etc... If you think corruption exists in industry, wait until the government takes it over.

whoanellie, a majority of Americans voted for Obama who ran on a platform of Health Care reform. You comments are a perfect example of how the right wing constantly tries to circumvent voting through protests, threats, violence, lawsuits and lies about where Obama was born.

When Glenn Beck was on CNN in 2008, he was constantly complaining how bad American Health Care was. Now, that he is on Fox, it is great. Where is Bill Bennett with his Outrage?

I personally feel that all this complaining by the elected officials is whining!! This is what you are elected for, to come back to your constituents and find out exactly how we feel about what you are doing. Get over yourselves and listen!!! If we think you aren't listening we will talk LOUDER!Maybe if you came back for our opinion more often instead of sitting in your little office in DC we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. We don't want socialized health care we want to decide what to get for our families. If you have an insurance carrier at work the government will make it so that they can only afford the government healthcare, therefore forcing everyone to have it. If you don't have insurance you will get a free ride with the government but lose your self-respect in providing for your family. I know there are some out there that want a free ride, they get alot of it already, but I personally want to pay for my own family and NOT yours!!!

Less than 4% ,by CBO estimates, will sign up for a public plan. They also estimate more than 3 million more will be covered by employers than are covered now. Bruce Bartlett, one of Reagans "supply side, trickle down" architects has a good article in "The Beast", entitled, "The GOP`s Misplaced Rage", 8/13/09.

"Health care opponents"?!? No one is against health care...can we lose the inaccurate labels? How about "Socialized Medicine opponents"?

Oh, I get it now ("You WILL participate." LOL) Your proclamation is rather like being forced to drive on the Interstate Highways, forced to have police and fire protection, forced to get Social Security and Medicaid benefits, forced to let the FDA determine what food products are or are not safe to ingest, forced to have my taxes spent on things I don't agree with, and forced to provide a PUBLIC education for all. Funny...I'd bet those same people who are foolishy afraid of being denied their "choice" in "health" insurance are the same who would deny all women their choice to access of all safe and legal reproductive medical procedures. Health care form comes down to the realization that the current system is not just broken; it's heinous. Real reform comes from the knowledge that we're all part of community where diversity is celebrated and yet we provide and care for even the least of us to the BENEFIT of all.

1st - There is a general lack of trust in our elected officials. In general, congressional popularity is weak at best.

2nd - Given the above, people are skeptical and critical of any proposal that will affect their lives as much as legislation on healthcare.

3rd - The message from congressional leaders calling protestors repulsive names, has heightened the intensity and elevated the emotional responses. So BOTH sides should be using a more calming tone and understand why the intensity exists.

4th - Given the recent banking industry government intervention, right or wrong, the auto industry intervention, right or wrong, it is difficult for anyone to accept that the government would not or is not attempt to take over healthcare with a single payer system as an end-game.

The best discussion I have heard was on Hannity last evening. A split discussion between Obama / Healthcare supporters and those that are in dissent. It was a balanced fair discussion. You could hear and feel the emotion on both sides. If you for a minute assumed Hannity was on one side, and just ignored his comments, the participants made good arguements, for and against.

Personally, I am against a complete dismantling of the current system and feel that changes are required. I feel that the Dem leaders are in favor of a single payer end game long term. I do not like the ideaology of the Obama leaders. That will never change. What can change is Obama wanting to find a real solution that most would accept and the far right making some compromises as well. If that doesnt happen, Obama will be done as a leader, and far rights will lose as well. The next pres, will be a moderate left or right.

Broder seems to be confused. The strong arm tactics are perpetrated by Obama- care supporters, not its opponents. The scenario is pretty typical at these meetings. Someone stands up to voice there opinion - with a "hint" of anger in their voice - and a supporter interjects himself. Naturally, a confrontation ensues. Why is this Health Care Bill socialists? Because, you are not given the choice to participate. You WILL participate.

Pharm....So the total extent of the government involvement in health care reform will only directly affect 4% of the country's population?

Grinin,
Could you please you please explain your statment "This Health Care Bill is a straight up Socialist take over of Americans Rights and Liberties"? I keep hearing this but I do not understand how our providing an option for 4% of the population to purchase health insurance from a public plan would take over your rights and liberties? Could you explain your statment in a reasonable way without more retoric?

When CBO estimates less than 4% of the population will be covered by any "public option"by 2019 that is hardly a takeover.

ROFLMAO! Sorry Davey but we are not swayed by your "Shut Your Face, Get In Line OR ELSE!" message. This Health Care Bill is a straight up Socialist take over of Americans Rights and Liberties. It is way beyond some politicians dream of glory it is Americans Standing against TYRANNY!