Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
States eye “opt-out” option
As U.S. lawmakers work to draft national health care legislation, some state lawmakers are scrambling to draft “opt-out” legislation for their states. Arizona is already scheduled to have an initiative on the 2010 ballot that, if passed, would allow the state to opt out of any federal health care plan. Similar initiatives may also appear on the 2010 ballots in Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
Some state legislators say they worry that a government-mandated program will effectively eliminate their traditional role in regulating health insurers — an important power base. Others raise constitutional concerns. “The real goal of national health insurance exchange isn’t competition — it’s a federal power grab that flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment,” says Wisconsin state Rep. Leah Vukmir, a Republican.
The Tenth Amendment ensures that “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.” It’s the same constitutional roadblock Franklin D. Roosevelt ran into during the Great Depression when he tried to ram through the first round of recovery programs under the New Deal. In a series of rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court found the National Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act and several other recovery programs unconstitutional.
Thoughts?
back to top24 Comments to “States eye “opt-out” option”
Just now looking at 10th ammendment? How many other areas should this apply to? Ex. cap & trade
Report comment to moderator
That’s okay – D.C. will go to war with these states to force them into submission. One nation indivisible, remember?
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t there currently a bill in Congress disregarding each one of the Bill of Rights? (I haven’t heard that literally, but the hate crimes bill disregards free speech, and so forth. They pretty much ignore the Constitution these days.) It seems to me that states need to start pulling out of bills they don’t agree with, as they have every right to do, even if it leads to secession. Short of that, we all go down together; doing that might finally slow this full-speed run at the iceberg that’s sure to sink us. But really, without a swift return to God and national repentance, I think we’re past the point of no return, and only God can help us now.
Report comment to moderator
I think the comforting thing to remember is that only God can help us anyway, no matter what stage we’re at. But I do agree with your general post, Cheryl.
Report comment to moderator
I am not a pessimist. I was tremendously dismayed that Americans could not see that they were being sold a bad bill of goods in the election. But despite that tragic decision we are still a great country. As long as Barack Obama is president we are going to have bad times and worse news. Under BHO things will only get worse and worse. And by now we should recognize that the bad times are not only a sign of his incompetence but they are a sign of his willingness and desire to drive this country down. When Reverend Wright spoke, Obama did listen. We need to impeach Barack Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States.
Report comment to moderator
I like this movement. There are other instances when states opted out. Arizona does not go on daylight saving time, opting out of that law. Why not bigger things like health care and cap and trade? Why not the government stimulus package?
Report comment to moderator
Wow, you can already tell that 6 months into his 48 month term?
You’re fast.
It’s almost like you judged him before he even began.
(On the bright side, I am glad to see another conservative ditch the ridiculous “only history can be the judge” rhetoric that was so prevalent when they were still backing the most unpopular president in our nation’s history.)
Report comment to moderator
What they used to tell us in bar review before the big quiz is “The Tenth Amendment is never the answer except when it is.” I like this movement, too, and it’s about time the states fought back.
Report comment to moderator
It is worth noting that there seems to be no serious discussions that Medicare is unconstitutional, which I suggest is telling.
Given that so much of helath care would seem to be affected by interstate activity, I would anticipate that the interstate commerce clause would plausibly protect any Federal health insurance program.
And for financial reasons alone (i.e. to reduce costs) I would anticipate that a Federal option is nearly inevitable (actually, in medicare, already exists). And we have not begun to discuss the policy failures associated with private health insurance (retroactive canecellations, preexisting conditions, etc.)
Report comment to moderator
There is plenty of competition out there, plenty of plans. If you don’t believe me, ask your dear leader for a copy of his booklet listing all them. He had a choice among thousands.
So, no, we don’t need a federal option. There’s plenty of competition. They can pass a law mandating pre-existing conditions be covered. There are lots of things they could do. But they don’t need to take over and federalize health care.
There is a fundamental change in the character of government, and I applaud the states in their efforts to thwart federal control. Anyone who is a student of history would remember how important this was at the founding of the country, but I suppose socialists don’t want to be reminded about what they’re doing.
Report comment to moderator
States eye “opt-out” option
Good idea!. America needs a two-state solution, red and blue. We’ll see which one does better.
Report comment to moderator
This is just one of many examples of Republicans working to ensure failure of government.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
You said that I was fast. Perhaps the converse is the case.
Six months is plenty long enough to see how he has ruined this country. GM is no longer around (thinking about changing its name.) Many financial institutions are Kaput. Our allies are offended. Our enemies are coddled , bowed to, and encouraged to do wrong. Drug dealer dictators are personal buddies. terrorists are emboldened. People are dead. And the only promises kept are remaking America into a banana republic.
So yes I can easily see and say that Barack Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States.
Not to mention his doubtful birth and doubtful parentage and his constant lying.
Report comment to moderator
#13, KWATSON,
I think you may be a bit partisan there.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 11,
actually if competition were working so well, we would not need your suggestion that we regulate to ensure coverage of preexisting conditions.
A critical look at private plans suggests that they have in the main neither provided solid coverage nor controlled costs.
Medicare (perhaps the elephant in the room) by contrast is run very inexpensively (consider medicare overhead costs to private insurance overhead costs), has been the mainstay of elederly coverage in the U.S., and has exerted downward pressures on costs.
A Federal program would appear at this point nearly inevitable, in large measure due to failures by the private plans.
Opting out would appear to plausibly be illegal. One might look to the attempts to opt out of the stimulus for examples of how this would probably evolve.
And based on past history, it would appear that rivate plans left to the forces of “competition” have demonstrated a clear inability to respond to the health system pressures in the U.S..
Report comment to moderator
#13 KWatson
There is a sense in which that is true for me. I want the people to succeed and the government (that is government leaders as a body) to fail, if the success of the government means the harm of the people. In a competition between the state governments and the national governments, I want the states to succeed and Washington to fail.
However, I want out country, that is, the people of our country to succeed.
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof post 14/15,
and you are not acting partisan???
I agree that 6 months has apparently been sufficient to clearly see that the Republicans have no clear plans, no coherent agenda, but do appear to be highly focused on attacking Obama’s proposals on every front independent of the policy arguments.
Report comment to moderator
#13- And what would be wrong with the government failing at something it should not be doing in the first place? The sooner Big Government fails at business the better.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING, the focus should be on the problem, and the problem in big letters is BARACK OBAMA. It is sticking your head in the sand not to see it.
Report comment to moderator
Regulations are very different than the government taking control of a part of the economy.
What you fail to address, Musing, is that you want to literally change the nature of our government. Read that Constitution!!!! Read some history. The Tenth Amendment exists for a reason.
Report comment to moderator
montyfishwoof post 20,
hmm if we are to focus onthe problem(s) (I think you will find there are many), then why focus on the individual.
It would seem that you are being self-inconsistent in decrying partisanship even as you yourself appear to be demonstrating a partisan spirit.
If the problem is government run health insurance (plausibly the issue in this discussion thread) then lets talk about the issues surrounding government run health insurance. To confound government run health insurance (supproted incidenctly by nearly all political stricpes inthe form of medicare) with Brack Obama is, to say the least, a bit disingenuous.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 21,
since you have not addressed the consitutionality of Medicare, an issue I raised in my first post, then it would appear that you are tacitly admitting that it is not unconstitutional for the government to fund health care.
And with this as a foundation, additional Federal health care programs would not seem to be changing the fundamentals of our government.
Unless you can show, and get the supreme court to agree (please do read our constitution on this point), that medicare is unconstitutional, then your argument would seem to be without foundation.
To avoid what would seem to be a glaring inconsistency in your arguments, I suggest that you demonstrate, and show how the supreme court will support, that medicare is unconstitutional.
But perhaps you are right in your earlier post, perhaps often the tenth amendment is not the answer?
Report comment to moderator
I do find it truly fascinating the logical inconsistencies which seem to permeate the conservatvie arguments regarding health care policy in this country.
If conservatives do expect to be taken seriously, and to have any real role in the upcoming discussion, then I suggest they need to consider how to provide serious alternaives for managing the following:
a) the rising of health care costs at much higher rates than our economic or population growth
b) the observations that with among the most expensive health care programs in the developed world, the U.S. has one of the poorer outcomes from health care in the developed world
c) private health insurance has been unable to contain health care costs
d) private health insurance has been unable to provide coverage for all Americans
e) private health insurance has been unable to show equitable coverage for a number of those actually covered by insurance: consider retroactive cancellations when individuals get seriously ill
I can continue, of course, and it is not clear from the earlier posts whether the posters in WMB have realisitic alternatives for managing these issues: it is clear that the Republicans in congress do not.
And without serious and realisitic alernative proposals, the conservative input is moot.
P.S. and a clue: since free markets for health care have brought us these problems, it is not obvious that free markets can solve them. I am reminded of foxes and chicken coops.
P.P.S. and as an increasing minority in congress with increasingly weak ability even to stage a viable filibuster, the GOP in congress expects to exert power how???
P.P.P.S and of course, appeals to states rights on this issues has worked so well so far. Consider Sanford and the stimulus money.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!