The CBS Political Hotsheet offered its own take on that poll, noting that opinions of the law break down along party lines. That, too, has been true awhile, with most Democrats approving of the law and a majority of Tea Partiers expressing disapproval. The Hill waded in with its own poll, which found that a majority of men and women want to void the law. It added a touch of politics. “The stagnant approval ratings are a frustration for Democrats, who had hoped the public would warm to healthcare reform once the heated rhetoric of the legislative debate died down. But now the law is back in the limelight,” The Hill reported.
The interesting tidbits. Now and then amidst all these numbers and heavy speculation comes simply an interesting story. The AP produced one yesterday called “America’s health care reform through history.” The piece, by the AP’s Connie Cass, illuminated the nation’s century-old struggle to provide medical care for its citizens. Beginning with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, who tried to win back the presidency by championing national health insurance, through Obama’s efforts to pass the Affordable Care Act, Cass traces the failed attempts to provide health insurance to Americans. The piece offers great context for whatever comes next.

Here's the root-level angle that so-called independent journos are not brave, or honest, enough to touch:
"The main idea of the Founding Fathers was that after a long and bloody revolution fought in the name of freedom and against tyranny, they would place everyone's freedom, and life itself, in the hands of five government lawyers with lifetime tenure. Or in some cases just one government lawyer with lifetime tenure if the nine-person Supreme Court happens to have a 4–4 ideological split on most issues.
"That's what I've learned from the nonstop gabfest in the media over the past week about the impending decision by the black-robed deities of the Supreme Court on whether or not the Obammunists' Soviet-style healthcare nationalization scheme is 'constitutional.'"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/108739.html
A free and independent press does not take for granted that the Feds get to decide whether the Feds have acted unlawfully.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 27 Mar 2012 at 02:54 PM
I'd like to see the likes of Lew Rockwell, or really anyone from the far right, address how forcing people to buy a shoddy to worthless financial product from public corporations at a guaranteed 15-30% top-line profit margin counts as any sort of nationalization, if they can be bothered to get out of campaigning for snake oil and feudalism for long enough.
#2 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Wed 28 Mar 2012 at 01:48 PM