Kennedy to Be Missed in Health Care Fight

Washington Post: Both Parties Mourn Loss of Senate Icon as Debate Reaches a Crucial Phase

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Shailagh Murray.

---

As Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's death suddenly quieted the national debate over health-care reform, some Democratic lawmakers suggested Wednesday that the passing of such a prominent advocate for universal health coverage may represent an opportunity to hit the reset button on that issue.

But whether that would improve the odds of passing a health-care bill was much less clear. Leading Republican senators hinted that no Democrat seemed ready to assume Kennedy's traditional role both in crafting a political compromise and in selling it to the Democratic base.

When the veteran lawmaker died Tuesday night of brain cancer, the cause he long championed stood at a dangerous crossroads. As President Obama's top domestic goal, a health-care reform bill had advanced further in Congress than any such effort in decades, only to spark a partisan brawl upon lawmakers' return home for the August recess. With every acrimonious town hall meeting, the fate of a final deal seemed to grow less certain.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Ted Kennedy

With Congress's August recess nearing its end, the window is closing for opponents of a health-care overhaul to further undercut its public support before lawmakers resume working on the bill. Meanwhile, Kennedy's memorial services and burial are likely to draw more public attention to his political career, and to the issues he held dear -- including universal health insurance, which he once called "the cause of my life."

"My hope is that this will maybe cause people to take a breath, step back, and start talking with each other again, in more civil tones about what needs to be done, because that's what Teddy would do," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who has served as temporary chairman of the Senate health committee in Kennedy's absence.

"I hope that members of Congress will take a moment to reflect on Ted Kennedy's approach to issues, where he was passionate about his beliefs but willing to work with others to get things done, for the greater good," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "We need to renew that spirit in the current debate, not just about health care."

Three GOP senators suggested in their remembrances of Kennedy that Democrats will need more than respectful conversation to gain bipartisan support for a health-care bill. Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Judd Gregg (N.H.) lamented Kennedy's absence in the negotiations.

"I think we may have made progress on this health-care issue if he had been there," McCain told CNN. "He had this unique capability to sit people down at a table together -- and I've been there on numerous occasions -- and really negotiate, which means concessions. And so, he not only will be missed, but he has been missed."

"I believe if he had been active the last few months, we would have some sort of consensus agreement," said Gregg, a passionate advocate of Medicare reform who has sat out Senate deliberations on perhaps the most extensive revisions ever to that program.

"We would have worked it out. We would have worked it out on a bipartisan basis," Hatch, who co-authored numerous health-care bills with Kennedy over the years, said on CNN. "I'll be happy to work in a bipartisan basis any day, any time . . . but it's got to be on something that's good and not just some partisan hack job."

Other Republicans played down prospects that opponents of reform would reconsider their position. "Certainly people honor Sen. Ted Kennedy for all of his work," Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) told CNBC. "But at the end of the day, this is a democracy, and I think the voice of the people have been heard quite loudly in the month of August."

The senior Senate Democrat, Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), called for passage of health-care reform in Kennedy's honor. "As a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name-calling and have a civilized debate on health-care reform, which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name," he said.

Byrd's call drew jeers from conservative commentators. Michelle Malkin called the idea "crass," and Sean Hannity said that Kennedy's death "is not added reason to push for passage" and that "Obama-care deserves to be judged on its merits."

Read more stories on Sen. Kennedy's life and death at CBSNews.com:

CBS News Special: Ted Kennedy - The Last Brother
Mourners Gather For Kennedy Memorial
Kennedy Did His Life's Work Until the End

But liberal activist groups were quick to join Byrd in his call. MoveOn.org urged its supporters "to re-commit ourselves to achieving the thing that mattered most" to Kennedy, and Democrats.com called for lawmakers to pass "real health reform -- including a strong public option."

Kennedy's credibility with such groups tended to overcome their resistance to compromise as capitulation, and his skill as an expert dealmaker was such that when he worked with President George W. Bush to pass the No Child Left Behind education bill, he persuaded stalwart Democrats to vote with him on the controversial legislation.

"He brought to the table the absolute confidence of the liberal end of the spectrum, and so when he reached an agreement, there wasn't any sort of second-guessing of him," Gregg said.

Persuading the Democratic base to bend on provisions otherwise held as fundamental may be the single most important challenge for party leaders in the weeks ahead.

Staff writer Ben Pershing contributed to this report.

[daisyjingles]

Sorry. Cannot seem to type today. Enjoyed the other comments, though!

[ubrew12]

I just read an interesting statistic: The average internet download speed in the U.S. is 4.6 Mbps.

For Germany its 8.3 Mbps, for the Netherlands its 11 Mbps
For Sweden its 12.8 Mbps, for Japan its 15.8 Mbps
and for S Korea its 20.4 Mbps.

Guess which one of these six countries does NOT have universal, nationalized, government-run or heavily-regulated healthcare?

Think our IQ's match our internet speeds?

[babooph]

The both parties voted FAST to fund the 2 endless lost wars-with no gripe about cost or peep about it causing a future tax increase-maybe we can use some" magic money" like that for health care & get a quick vote by both parties?

[hungry1968-16]

by bradkt1 August 27, 2009 4:01 PM EDT
Mortarman 29...The selective comments of one or two of the founders are not conclusive about the meaning of a document that was approved by an entire Constitutional Convention and ratified by the original 13 colonies.







This has been explained to Mortarman at least a dozen times.

One or two out-of-context quotes DO NOT circumvent the ENTIRE constitutional convention.

But no matter how many times it's explained to him, he thinks that an out-of-context comment takes precedent over any and all legal documents, up to and including the constitution, ***IF*** it proves his point.

[bradkt1]

...not to mention the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gave Congress explicit authority to enact laws that have jurisdiction over the states and that limited the powers of the states. Therefore, what any or all the founders have to say about the scope of "states rights" is totally irrelevant. They weren't around when the 14th Amendment was ratified by the states.

[nottellin1]

14th Amendment, what!!! I just read the 14th and sorry, nothing like this written.
Educate yourself,
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

[misha256]

Educate yourself on the expansive rulings related to the Commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper clause that the counts have ruled do pose significant limitiations on state's rights. PS many of these decisions were supported by at least some Republican Appointees as recently as Gonzales v. Raich (2005). The mergers / deregulation under Bush further expands the areas under federal control -- Republicans should realize big interstate enterprises negate state's rights even for the intrastate equivalents per Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

[bradkt1]

Mortarman29...Your crimped interpretation of the Constitution is not consistent with what the U.S. Supreme Court says, so your interpretation of what the Constitution means is an ideological interpretation and NOT a legal interpretation. The Supreme Court (both Democrats and Republicans) has repeatedly recognized the authority of Congres to legislate pursuant to the the Commerce Clause and other clauses of the Constitution for more than a century. This includes civil rights legislation, the regulation of businesses, the anti-trust laws, public health and product safety standards, public welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security, airport and highway construction, minimum wages, workplace safety standards, safety standards for public transportation, licenses for public broadcasters and a whole gamut of other issues. None of those subjects of legislation was specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The power of Congress to enact laws pursuant to the powers granted to it in the Constitution is not simply what you and some conservative ideologues want it to be. Perhaps if you had some semblance of a legal education instead of just a political indoctrination, you would know this...so don't try to wrap yourself in the Constitution to support your argument.

[TheMasses2002]

so don't try to wrap yourself in the Constitution to support your argument.
--------------------
mortarman29, like every patriotic American, sleeps under US Constitution bedsheets at night.

[Mortarman29]

Sorry. The Founders are against what you have said, and even what the SC has said. the guys who wrote the thing have basically said that even in the cases where the SC ruled that Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause, the Founders ruled that the SC is wrong!

Is it possible for the SC to be wrong?

The powers of Congress are what the people who wrote the Constitution and its Amendments say they are. And no more. If we have an open ended Commerce Clause, then we have no Constitution at all...because then Congress can do ANYHTING it sees fit to do.

Which is NOT what this Constitution says, not what the Founders said...and DEFINITELY not what we want.

It is precisely this false view of the Commerce Clause that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. And states are now starting to push back against the illegal actions of the Federal government, under the false cover of the Commerce Clause. Thirty Eight states have already ratified sovereignthy laws, stating the Federal government has NO jurisdiction over any actions in their state that isnt specifically outlined in the Constitution. Even Thomas Jefferson stated that if it isnt specifically stated, then any actions of Congress outside of that should be considered null and void.

I side with the interpretation of those that wrote the document...not those that want to make things up as they go along!

[Mortarman29]

In Federalist No. 32, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT.

[Mortarman29]

Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it's the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George's actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance -- perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we've become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants -- has made us easy prey for Washington's tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans' characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

You might ask, "Isn't the 10th Amendment that no-good states' rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?" That's the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance that big-government proponents, whether they're liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: "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."

New Hampshire's 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: "That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.

Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn't obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.

In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled "State Sovereignty Act." Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that's a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the "Federal Tax Fund" and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.

The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.

[bradkt1]

Mortarman 29...The selective comments of one or two of the founders are not conclusive about the meaning of a document that was approved by an entire Constitutional Convention and ratified by the original 13 colonies. The Confederate States of America already tried that argument and tried to back it up with military force...and lost...badly! That issue was decided at a place named Appomatox Junction and is no longer open for debate. The opponents of the Civil Rights Movement also tried that argument to support the Jim Crow laws that states had on their books and lost...badly! The Supreme Court ruled struck down those laws and President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to back that one up, too. The U.S. Supreme Court decides what the permissible scope of the power of Congress is...not the states.

[trapbreaking]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey show that 43% of voters nationwide favor the plan working its way through Congress while 53% are opposed. Those figures are virtually identical to results from two weeks ago.

As has been true since the debate began, those opposed to the congressional overhaul feel more strongly about the legislation than supporters. Forty-three percent (43%) now Strongly Oppose the legislation while 23% Strongly Favor it. Those figures, too, are similar to results from earlier in August.

While supporters of the reform effort say it is needed to help reduce the cost of health care, 52% of voters believe it will have the opposite effect and lead to higher costs. Just 17% believe the plans now in Congress will reduce costs. This is a critical point at a time when voters see deficit reduction as more important than health care reform.

Rasmussen

[trapbreaking]

y reveal5 - Ted Kennedy will become a symbol now of the fight he waged for all of his life.

Yeah,

partial birth abortion

The IRA terrorist

Cars that float

Leave no bimbo behind

Bottoms up

[heresmy2cent]

Get the real story on healthcare reform:

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8482

[reveal5]

Ted Kennedy will become a symbol now of the fight he waged for all of his life. Ted Kennedy will serve a role in healthcare reform as an iconic symbol of the right for medical care for all Americans not based on income. This countries ghoulish disposition toward the uninsured, poorer, and unemployed, the let them suffer and die mindset of many Americans toward people in need of medical care is appalling. Ted Kennedy fought for the rights of the little guy. Ted Kennedy saw the needs of the uninsured and always worked for medical care as a right and not as a priviledge. Compassion was a part of Ted Kennedy's bone marrow. This is a reason so many on the right fringe hated him. The fringe does not have compassion. They just do not get it. They just do not care. They just don't care that they don't get it. They don't know what "it" is.

[timing20002000]

GOP AND REPUBLICANS...If you cared so much about health care reform why did you not tackle it on like Pres. Obama is doing when you had Pres. Bush in office and the majority republican congress??? The GOP and republicans either were to scared to tackle such a tough issue, or did not care, or like the status quo. I don't like the spending right now, but Pres. Obama has a lot to fix. He can't do it in only 8 months. I am willing to stay the course with Pres. Obama over the NO party any day.

[TheMasses2002]

Spoken like a political-hacking, unAmerican Communist.

[the74blaster]

I see. If anyone complains about the mis-management by the Bush administration in support of Obama, they are a communist?

What a crock! Do you even know what Communism means?

[Mortarman29]

Ted Kennedy was an enemy of the Constitution he swore to protect and defend. He did neither.

[skyk-2009]

Mortarman29 will YOU ever grow up? I'm serious you Radical Right Wing Wacko's just can't seem to get it through your head that YOU are not the big boys on the block anymore AND that you are going to have to deal with people who's views YOU do not like. It's called DEMOCRACY and if nothing else comes out of this, YOU POOR SMALL MINDED PEOPLE must learn that. Ted Kennedy fought and fought hard for his beliefs and his ideals but was NEVER above or better than the other AMERICAN he did not agree with. Thats what we are about as a people and IF we surive you in the Extreme Right are going to have to accept that.

[Mortarman29]

Sky...why are you always posting like you are a teenager? Maybe a few more years of life and you might understand what adults do!

I never said Kennedy didnt fight for his ideals. Fighting for something that is WRONG and unConstitutional doesnt make him an American hero. It makes him an enemy of the Constitution.

Now, the question would be: do I want to be i nthe company of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, et al...or do I want to be in the company of Ted Kennedy? Kennedy agreed with almost nothing the Founders believed in or set-up for our national government. Kennedy actually spent his career tearing down much of what the Founders set up.

So, if I back the Founders and our founding principles...I have to be against what Ted Kennedy did.

No matter how earnestly he fought for what he believed.

[Mortarman29]

Oh, and again Sky...that is the difference between a conservative and a liberal...that is the difference between the Founders and Ted Kennedy.

Liberals like Kennedy and you believe this is a democracy, that majority rules.

Conservatives and the Founders believed (and the Founders set up) a constitutional republic, where the Federal government is hamstrung to do only that which is laid out for them to do. And the Federal government cannot, thru a majority mandate, run roughshod over the rights and liberties of the minority.

That is the difference. Kennedy was as wrong as you are. No matter how good a person is, or how much they tried to help the "little man," if they are wrong, they are wrong.

[reveal5]

Okeydokey, mm...About 2 or 3 percent of the population agree with you.

[Mortarman29]

You have data that supports that, Reveal.

And even if true...I would rather side with the Founders and with the facts, then with what the majority may think or want.

The truth is the truth!

[speakinup23]

skyk-2009 - grow up. Do you ALWAYS need to attack people and call them names ?