The Fallacy Of Applying Logic To Republican Healthcare Statements

Posted by on . 6 comments.

For a blogger who has won a Polk Award, Josh Marshall sure can be embarrassingly naive at times. Take this post:

You’ve got several members of the GOP Congressional leadership today saying that they believe the Health Care Reform bill is actually unconstitutional: Grassley, Boehner and others.

Not only is the idea preposterous in itself. But like six months ago, Grassley not only believed it was constitutional. It was a policy he supported.

Come on, Josh! Yes, he supported it. But why, pray, does that mean he thought it was constitutional?

These are guys who not only disavow but actively oppose their own proposals. Not just proposals they supported, but proposals they wrote themselves. What sense does it make to apply rules of logic to such charlatans?

There’s only one possible response to the kind of chicanery Republicans like Grassley and Boehner (and lest there be any doubt as to what I mean by “Republicans like Grassley and Boehner”, a perfectly adequate free verse translation would be “99% of Congressional Republicans”) now display routinely on a daily basis: A pox on both their faces!

Comments

  1. Jim Cline says:
    February 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Regardless of Republican vacillation on the matter,
    I simply have two questions to ask of any knowledgeable person.

    Understanding the enumerated powers of Congress:

    1. Where in the Constitution, specifically, is Congress given the power to provide health care?

    2. Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to require any level of participation in any health care program?

    Wouldn’t any Health Care reform bill signed into law that includes either of these two aspects, government provider and mandatory participation, be immediately struck down as unconstitutional?

    Perhaps I misunderstand the Constitution so anyone please correct me if I am wrong. Not that being unconstitutional would stop any member of the Congress from pursuing their agendas anyway, regardless of party.

    Unless of course the latest version(s) of health care reform don’t include these two aspects, then please disregard the questions.

  2. sarabeth says:
    February 26, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    So let’s see, you care passionately about this issue, and yet somehow you have managed to totally miss the fact that nuttier Republicans have been asking these exact same questions for almost a year now, and Democrats have been patiently debunking them?

    You might look at this August 2009 article from The American Prospect, for example.

    Would it help you at all to recognize that by your argument Medicare and Medicaid would be unconstitutional? Yet, somehow, not only have they not been immediately struck down as unconstitutional, none of the nutty Republicans raising these questions has actually challenged them in court. Maybe these Republicans are not exactly sincere in their professed beliefs?

  3. Jim Cline says:
    February 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Very interesting article. You are correct, under the same premise; those programs also would not be constitutional. I will do some research on the subject. If I had to guess, I imagine that if these programs haven’t been challenged is because it would be going against popular programs. However, popularity does not make it any more legal.

    It would be unfortunate to ignore the legality of such things just because they may be popular and even a good thing. Just as an off the cuff opinion, it may be better that these program be funded by their respective state governments, or at least leave it to the citizens of each state to determine their own participation in such programs but I suppose the inevitable argument would be that poorer states would not be able to afford such programs…but is that wrong?

    Thanks for giving me something to look into.

  4. sarabeth says:
    February 26, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    If I had to guess, I imagine that if these programs haven’t been challenged is because it would be going against popular programs.

    That’s funny; I imagine that if these programs haven’t been challenged, it is because lawyers have advised those who are itching to challenge them — most of whom are not politicians and don’t care too hoots how popular the programs may be — that they don’t stand a snowball’s hope in hell of getting the Supreme Court to even hear the case.

  5. Don SinFalta says:
    March 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

    I suspect Josh isn’t being naive here, but rather trying to make a similar point to yours in somewhat gentler language.

  6. sarabeth says:
    March 1, 2010 at 9:49 am

    I was just kidding with the “naive”.

    (But I don’t think we’re making the same point at all. His point is that Grassley and Republicans say things that make no sense and contradict their own past statements/actions. My point is that Republicans jumped the shark so comprehensively and so long ago, that it doesn’t make any sense to hold them to standards of logic or consistency).