The three basic elements of the HCR package are reasonable–and probably necessary.

1. Guaranteed issue: Just about everybody except the hard-core free-market purists at RedState.com and the Cato Institute accept the need to ban the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

2. Mandated coverage: But then Americans can game the system by eschewing coverage until they get sick, at which point all insurers must accept their applications for membership anyway. That would send premiums way up. So the pool must expand, and a mandate that everyone must be covered with at least a basic package of catastrophic insurance is the only fair way to do that.

3. Subsidies: But if poor Americans are mandated to obtain coverage too, they will need subsidies to be able to afford the premiums.

Any reasonable health care reform package must incorporate those three elements–guaranteed issue, expanded pool, subsidies. I don’t see any other basis for an HCR package that preserves the current private insurance market and the social programs, like Medicare, that we already have.

The problems started when Congress wouldn’t leave well enough alone, and insisted on adding other things: Public option, much more generous mandated coverage, abortion coverage; and of course, those special sweeteners like the one for Nelson in Nebraska that alienated so many Americans.

Obama could have exercised real leadership by demanding such a simple HCR reform. That would have been enough of a major achievement for him. Instead he tossed the ball to Congress, with their 535 competing interests.

WSJ: MoveOn organized over 480 SOTU Watch Parties, the newly installed WH political hack and former campaign chief organized an additional 1,100 Watch Parties.

I wonder if there’s an attempt to stack the polling pool? Yeah, the Team that stole the election with ACORN fraud would never do that… nawh. Perish the thought.

Meanwhile, Nielsen makes it official: Obama’s SOTU was an epic failure in outdrawing most of W’s and most of Clinton’s SOTUs.

Ouch. 83%, eh? Well, they are still a lot of idiots who can’t face the fact they made the wrong choice in Nov 08 by picking Obama. No surprise.

As a smart rancher once told me, you can repackage cow pies, but at the end of the day they still stink, everyone knows where they came from and no one can be bothered with cleaning them up.

That fits for the Obama, far Left, liberal Democrat agenda of ‘08-09.

The bad news: Obama still doesn’t get it and he’s very willing to lie and spin to cover up that deficiency.

Afghan, I will give you that.

HCR as currently written is terrible. The Dems are running away from it. Nelson will not even vote for his own pile of corn written into the legislation. If passed the Dems will lose over 50 seats in the House. Don’t think the courage of Dems run that deep.

Gitmo detainees are not in legal limbo. There exists a Supreme Court approve military tribunal legal process to handle them. They can and should remain under military control. They were captured as a result of military action not arrested for parking tickets. They do not deserve the legal rights granted to American citizens. Only you and Holder may think otherwise.

There are conservative Dems. They do not follow in line behind Obama. That’s the nature of a big tent.

Not one single promise, measure, declaration has come true.

And I thought that people here would note that he not only met the Afghan troop committments he promised during the campaign, but actually increased them with his new wave of deployments.

Moving Gitmo is not closing Gitmo.

Actually, if they move detainees out of the legal limbo that is Guantanamo to someplace where either US or other nations laws are in place, then it certainly is a significant change.

Complaining about TARP then to continue to backdoor the use of recovered funds is fraudulant.

Where’s the fraud?

To belittle ideas of spending freezes during the campaign, then present a 1% freeze as substantial is pandering.

I’ll agree there. It is pandering.

And do we need to review the complete HCR debate after Brown in MS.

You do, eh? Well, unfortunately for you, the law of the land does not say that. It says that if the House accepts the Senate bill without modifications, it can proceed directly to reconciliation. After reconciliation it can proceed to the House and Senate for simple majority votes with no filibuster opportunity (although the Republicans will no doubt make the process excruciatingly long with a lot of proposed amendments that wouldn’t result in them voting for the resulting legislation even if accepted.

Nice try, though.

Though it is ancillary to my point, I will answer you. The mere fact that U.S. Corp, Inc. has considerable ties to Foreign Org, GmbH is going to invite careful scrutiny from domestic competitors, watchdog groups, opponents of the political position likely to be advocated, and even the FEC, that at the first whiff of impropriety, injunctions and complaints will fly like a swarm of bats. That violations carry criminal in addition to civil penalties are likely to give pause to anyone contemplating even minor violation. Any hint of a connection whatsoever between the foreign officers and the political arm of U.S. Corp, Inc. are going be so suspect, taint the message so clearly, and create such potential liability, that the risk of doing so will guard against almost all potential violations, as it has in the PAC context.

If, however, that is not good enough for you, then I suggest rather than railing against the Supreme Court (that did not suddenly create this situation) or defending the President’s gross misrepresentation of the law, you advocate a change in the law and regulations preventing subsidiaries or controlled entities of foreign organizations from engaging in the political process and from even establishing PACs. Without both prohibitions, neither is any more enforceable.

Nonetheless, my point remains the same: Foreign Nationals have no easier time participating in electoral politics. Any U.S. subsidiary that intends to participate in election activities will have to so structurally resemble a PAC, but with stricter limits on activities, that an actual PAC, long legal, will continue to present the more attractive alternative.

Obama’s first year is even worse than Carter’s. Not one single promise, measure, declaration has come true. Moving Gitmo is not closing Gitmo. Complaining about TARP then to continue to backdoor the use of recovered funds is fraudulant. To belittle ideas of spending freezes during the campaign, then present a 1% freeze as substantial is pandering. And do we need to review the complete HCR debate after Brown in MS.

If a foreign corporation has an American company then shareholders and officers of that foreign company are unable to direct that the US company place funds or advertise in US elections?

My question then is. who would know if an officer of a foreign entity did just that. No one! Who is policing all these foreign companies and governments that have basically bought the USA over the last decade?

“A foreign national [including foreign businesses and governments] shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person [including corporations, unions, PACs, and other legal "persons"] with regard to such person’s Federal and non-Federal election activities, such as decisions about making contributions, donations, or expenditures . . . or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.” 11 CFR 110.20(i)

That means if U.S. Corp, Inc is a subsidiary Foreign Org, GmbH (regardless of whether bought or created by the foreign parent), U.S. Corp, Inc. may engage in political speech only if no Foreign Org, GmbH officers, directors, employees, or shareholders have any influence over when or how the activity occurs, and that includes indirect influence of even the most informal variety, such as the use of funds from foreign sources.

Regardless, even before Citizens United, U.S. Corp, Inc., owned by Foreign Org, GmbH, could establish a PAC to engage in political activity, subject to the same limitations on foreign national involvement that now apply to U.S. Corp, Inc. as a corporation, but with even more permissible activities–such as direct contributions to candidates.

The door, let alone floodgate, is no wider for foreign influence in our elections.