New Huffington Post Column

Andrea Mitchell asked Baucus if he was dedicated to passing the reforms that Teddy wanted, and he dodged the question and said he didnt want to talk about it.

Thanks, Bob. We need a bill that Senator Kennedy would be proud of.

Tragedy? I personally think not. Yes cancer is a horrible disease but Ted was 77 and there is no doubt he received the best medicine and care money can buy. The tragedy will be not to pass a humane healthcare bill.

Ok, Obama….the moment is RIPE…but, Barack, you’ve got to ACT.http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/466561John Nichols, The Nation”Obama would do well as he celebrates Kennedy’s legacy — and their own deep connection — to seize upon those words.The great gap in the healthcare debate has, to this point, been one of presidential passion.Obama has been too cautious, too technical.Now, he can, he must, echo Kennedy’s faith that “every American — north, south, east, west, young, old — will have decent, quality healthcare as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”Healthcare as a fundamental right, not a privilege. That’s the starting point for a renewed debate about reform.”____________Man up, Obama! We want to see some fire in the belly!

Bob, a mandate to be taxed, allowing congress to allocate those taxes toward universal coverage, is far less unconstitutional than a mandate that forces you to buy into a private pool, or exchange, regulated, sure, but it’s still a for-profit enterprise you’d be required to directly enrich.That’s really a loophole in the powers of taxation.Sure, congress can tax you and then turn around and allocate those taxes to Halliburton, Boeing, or Lockheed Martin, but that’s up to elected representatives to decide through democracy, as far as the thin line between public/private ties that bind, for better or for worse.The government can’t forcibly coerce, or mandate an individual, to the purchase of Halliburton or Blackwater services, just like you can not mandate private health insurance and still claim the high ground of constitutional authority.Taxation and allocation is up to congress to determine through the legislative process. They’re passing their responsibility onto the individual to avoid the politics of appearances to preserve a sector of industry that should die in the public square.A “tax mandate” into a universal coverage plan is well within the powers of congress, and since getting sick and dying isn’t optional like auto, life, or won’t-hurt-to-miss-work insurance, the proper role of government is perfectly vindicated in providing a safety net in lieu of “free enterprise” protections.I consider doctor visits and treatments in a civilized society “little fires” or 911 calls.The President has said numerous times he’s looking for a “uniquely American solution” to this moral and financial healthcare crisis, but in the process of that pursuit, he’s undermining the proper role of government to “save capitalism.”You can’t “save capitalism” and individually mandate the American people at the same time, in this particular instance.That’s the opposite of capitalism, really, but you certainly won’t hear the health insurance corporations complaining about “unfair competition” with a mandate. And you know very well that without a public option at the very least, they won’t have that competition. Big business has spent the better part of a century using congress to eliminate competition, to great success.Not that the government should be competing at all with health insurance corporations, I don’t believe the government should be tip-toeing around the distinction. Profit has no place indetermining a potential death sentence reprieve, and congress has the constitution on their side in making clear that point.“Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid.”Take note, Mr. President.

Public Option should also be the required health care of EVERY Elected official and SS should be the ONLY state funded retirement benefits for them as well.When that happens things will get better…