state's rights and vertical power of checks and balances

[Guest]

From the Washington Post, "Virginia will file a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the Democratic health-care reform bill if Congress approves the measure, a spokesman for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II said Wednesday.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031703593.html

[Guest]

Apparently eleven other states have either passed or intend to put on the slate bills to do the same thing.

I commend them.

Forcing people to have health insurance is wrong.

[Guest]

Apparently eleven other states have either passed or intend to put on the slate bills to do the same thing.

I commend them.

Forcing people to have health insurance is wrong.

I totally agree.

[Guest]

Watch out - that may be what they use to make a more Canadian/UK model. In other words, they pass a law to provide health care, but court challenges "force" the federal government to "do better".

This is what happened in NH when a few poor towns challenged how schools are funded in this state. All of a sudden, we had a new property tax that was to be distributed according to a formula for funding schools. The state Constitution said NH was responsible for providing "reasonable funding" - the "Claremont decision" became notorious here for expanding the state's role in what had been an exclusively local process.

[Guest]

The health care in the USA works great for the majority of it's people. Why do they want to mess it up? Do the democrats really believe that our health care will be better after they mess with it?

[Guest]

...that the Republicans were going to sue the Democrats over the process used in the Congress to pass the health reform bill.

Do I understand it correctly that opposing members of the legislative body set up by the Constitution to make our laws are going to sue one another in the Supreme Court over the rules used that they themselves established?

Unbelievable!

[Guest]

What the Attorney General in Virginia, and as zcaveman pointed out, other state AGs and governors are saying, is that it is illegal for the government to require individuals (in their respective states) to purchase health insurance, a key component of the bills under consideration on Capitol Hill. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I've heard 36 other states are looking into similar suits. You and I both know, the feds will threaten to withhould federal funds from the states if they don't comply. That may be written into the mystery bill. Who knows what's in there?
I don't understand how it relates to the New Hampshire public schools though. What am I missing djplong?

[Guest]

The health care in the USA works great for the majority of it's people. Why do they want to mess it up? Do the democrats really believe that our health care will be better after they mess with it?

...until you get sick. The idea of insurance was to spread around the risk. Now it's all about the profits. When someone is no longer profitable, they're dumped - no insurance for you.

[Guest]

No doubt we need some healthcare reform. This bill is not about reform, it's about driving private insurance out of business so the government can control it. Why? So they can control you, plain and simple.

It's first and foremost always about government gaining more and more power over peoples lives.

Freedom and our Constitution is a precious thing and it's now under daily assault. I'd rather die with no insurance than give it up. Once it's gone it's gone.

[Guest]

No doubt we need some healthcare reform. This bill is not about reform, it's about driving private insurance out of business so the government can control it. Why? So they can control you, plain and simple.

It's first and foremost always about government gaining more and more power over peoples lives.

Freedom and our Constitution is a precious thing and it's now under daily assault. I'd rather die with no insurance than give it up. Once it's gone it's gone.

Thank you. A voice of reason.

[Guest]

Here's another sobering thought. The bill calls for 16,500 new IRS agents. Now just why do you think that is?

[Guest]

Here's another sobering thought. The bill calls for 16,500 new IRS agents. Now just why do you think that is?


I read that...the IRS will have exceedingly more power into EVERYONEs affairs with this...but what is bothering me is this...

We have a President who has approval ratings that in one short year are almost as low as a President who was in for 8 years and led us into an unpopular war.......a congress approaching historical low approval ratings.....passing a bill that the majority of Americans do NOT want....using methods that are questionable for sure....how is this happening ?

[Guest]

...I'd rather die with no insurance than give it up....

You may get that chance. Take a look at your own budget and tell us that everything will be just fine if your premiums go up more than 100% in the next few years. That's happened to lots of people, who had to drop their coverage because they couldn't afford it. I think the statistics are that it's happening to about 1,000 Americans every day.

Or what would happen if your insurance company simply sent you a letter saying, sorry we're dropping you. The way things are now, the insurance companies can and do exactly that. You don't even have to have a pre-existing condition. They can drop you just because you're old and are approaching the dreadfully expensive "end of life" situation. They answer to no one except their shareholders, certainly not you.

Lordy, then you'd only be left with Medicare--that dreadful insurance provided by the government, who can't run anything right.

[Guest]

We have a President who has approval ratings that in one short year are almost as low as a President who was in for 8 years and led us into an unpopular war.......a congress approaching historical low approval ratings.....passing a bill that the majority of Americans do NOT want....using methods that are questionable for sure....how is this happening ?

That's easy, Bucco.

We keep sending the same people back to Congress every election. The re-election rate is well above 90% because most people say, "...my members of Congress are OK and vote the way I want them to. I'll vote to re-elect them." They say that it's all those other yo-yo's in Congress that are the problem.

The Republican candidates will be returned to office by voters in the more conservative districts and states, and the reverse will be true in the liberal constituencies. Both the guy who called the President a liar in open Congress as well as the hated Nancy Pelosi will both be re-elected for exactly that reason. Their constituents think they're doing great. The problem is that they're part of an institution that doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the benefit of the country for several decades.

I know I won't say that or vote that way. But I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that when the curtain on the voting booths close in November, that the majority of voters will re-elect the same people who are there now. And we can look forward to another 2-4 years of what we've had for the last several Congresses.

[Guest]

No doubt we need some healthcare reform. This bill is not about reform, it's about driving private insurance out of business so the government can control it. Why? So they can control you, plain and simple.


Then explain the following to me - and I'm sorry if that sounds sarcastic, it's not intended that way.

Why, on WCVB-TV this morning, was Stephen Lynch (D-MA) changing his vote from yes to no? In an interview he said he was changing his mind because of all the calls he got from insurers and pharmaceuticals IN FAVOR OF THE BILL.

The cynic in me says that the back-room deals look bad on the surface, so as to 'sell' the public, but in reality just change some rules and CEMENT the insurers position. Remember, the public option is GONE.

[Guest]

That's easy, Bucco.

We keep sending the same people back to Congress every election. The re-election rate is well above 90% because most people say, "...my members of Congress are OK and vote the way I want them to. I'll vote to re-elect them." They say that it's all those other yo-yo's in Congress that are the problem.

The Republican candidates will be returned to office by voters in the more conservative districts and states, and the reverse will be true in the liberal constituencies. Both the guy who called the President a liar in open Congress as well as the hated Nancy Pelosi will both be re-elected for exactly that reason. Their constituents think they're doing great. The problem is that they're part of an institution that doesn't work, and hasn't worked for the benefit of the country for several decades.

I know I won't say that or vote that way. But I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that when the curtain on the voting booths close in November, that the majority of voters will re-elect the same people who are there now. And we can look forward to another 2-4 years of what we've had for the last several Congresses.


Of course your point is very valid, but this President, this congress think they are absolutely correct in their vision and that the american public is more upset about the process than the policy itself.

Of course we are upset at the the process but they actually think that is it...that they know the policy is correct.

I read this morning that the WH will not rule out using this "slaughter" solution on anything including immigration reform. What have we got in Washington.....can we actually wait until this November to change ?

[Guest]

and drug companies stand to gain 30,000,000 new customers. There is no need for back room or under the table deals with such a prospect. The other deals such as they are will always be there no matter what the legislation....always have been....and that is not going to change.

Now lets see adding 30,000,000 to a system that will be no larger than what we have today + $500 billion reduction is Medicare expenses = lessor services for all of us who are quite satisfied with the existing system.

I wonder what the percentage of the 30,000,000 is that could care less if they ever get insurance. A very high number of them do not have it today and they do have options to obtain coverage....but they aren't.
And if it is mandatory and you are part of the 30,000,000 that cannot afford to pay, or won't pay....guess who gets to pay that bill.

Fix the old system that works. Then prepare a separate bill for the 30,000,000 with it's own price tag and justifications.

And passage of this bill does what to fix the track Medicare is on to be defunct in less than 10 years.

It is a political crown that Obama is hammering to get through.....NOTHING MORE. Anybody who believes it is for the welfare of those in need is either, deaf, blind, both or a kool aid drinking blindly partisan supporter.

btk

[Guest]

16,500 more on the dole. Private sector is shrinking rapidly. Government's appetite for expansion goes unchecked. The hole of debt is so huge we'll never fill it up.

Government payroll, pensions, entitlements, welfare.....I clearly see the "haves" and "have-nots" in our future.

[Guest]

...the american public is more upset about the process than the policy itself....

Strangely, I think that's true. Even stranger, it's also true of Congress.

From all the polls I've read, when the proposed bill is broken down into individual elements both the public and members of Congress are in favor of almost the entire bill. I've heard partisans from both sides of the aisle say, "we're in agreement on 80-85% of the bill". When you ask either members of Congress or the public if healthcare reform is needed, the answer is almost 100% yes.

So why with that kind of agreement can't our Congress reach some compromise and pass the 80-85% of the bill that they all agree on...creating reforms that almost everyone agrees are critically necessary?

Why? Because politics is a more important blood sport in Washington than doing anything to benefit the country. It's all about getting and retaining power, certainly not governing the country for the better. How many times have you heard in recent days that one group of Congressmen or Senators or another won't vote for the bill because it may affect their chances of re-election in the fall?

That answers the question, dosen't it? What's more important to those that we sent to Washington is that they get to stay there...not passing legislation that a high majority of folks know is necessary, regardless of the negative effect that voting no and doing nothing will have on the electorate.

[Guest]

Strangely, I think that's true. Even stranger, it's also true of Congress.

From all the polls I've read, when the proposed bill is broken down into individual elements both the public and members of Congress are in favor of almost the entire bill. I've heard partisans from both sides of the aisle say, "we're in agreement on 80-85% of the bill". When you ask either members of Congress or the public if healthcare reform is needed, the answer is almost 100% yes.

So why with that kind of agreement can't our Congress reach some compromise and pass the 80-85% of the bill that they all agree on...creating reforms that almost everyone agrees are critically necessary?

Why? Because politics is a more important blood sport in Washington than doing anything to benefit the country. It's all about getting and retaining power, certainly not governing the country for the better. How many times have you heard in recent days that one group of Congressmen or Senators or another won't vote for the bill because it may affect their chances of re-election in the fall?

That answers the question, dosen't it? What's more important to those that we sent to Washington is that they get to stay there...not passing legislation that a high majority of folks know is necessary, regardless of the negative effect that voting no and doing nothing will have on the electorate.

VK...you misquoted me or at minimum quoted me out of context....you quoted me as saying...

"...the american public is more upset about the process than the policy itself...."

When actually what I really said was ..

"this congress think they are absolutely correct in their vision and that the american public is more upset about the process than the policy itself."

Now I know I dont make myself clear at times but this is an important difference....I am saying and was saying that the WH and congress are INCORRECT in the assumption that the public is more upset about the process.....The american public does not want this bill as it is written !

Just needed to clarify that !