Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., proposes letting Americans in some states have the “public option” while leaving out other Americans who happen in lives in states that choose to opt out. The politically motivated idea offends Washington Post columnist David Broder. “Consider the precedent that would be set if a major piece of social legislation were to be passed with a states’ rights provision,” Broder wrote. “Imagine, for example, if Franklin Roosevelt had signed the first Social Security law with the proviso that any states with Republican governors and legislatures could exempt themselves from its coverage. This might have seemed a minimal concession to conservative opinion. But what would have followed? How long before some states would have demanded an exemption from the wage-and-hour law that established a minimum wage? And what about the clamor in a broad swath of the country when the first civil rights law was passed?”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
16 Comments
Reid is just putting everything he can think of in the bill trying to get the votes he wants.
Ms. Holman makes a good point about it being a bad idea.
If DC wants to proceed on this it would be better to not mandate their program and allow it to be an option for the people.
Listen to the people, take some time and work this out. Do not cram it down the peoples throat and claim that you have done something for them.
The people should not be dependent on government.
“Politico” seems to have forgotten the concept of “…government of the people,, by the people, and for the people…”
Constitutionality of forcing the public to purchase and maintain health insurance; will it pass the SCOTUS if it is presented?
Yea well, Sol, the Pelosis, the Reids, and the President are well convinced it will, or haven;t even considered the question. Next, we will be required to have a membership in gold’s gym. To promote the general welfare, you now.
David “Always Wrong” Broder doesn’t get it.
1. This is the only way it will pass.
2. It undercuts the CONs by saying “if states don’t want it, they don’t need to take it.”
3. It is diabolical in its effect–the Red states like Kansas are going to have hell to pay when their citizens are price-gouged by BigCorporation Incorporated and Blue states aren’t.
Yeah, let’s have a test to see which works better.
Effing, bring it on.
If ReidCare passes and IF any states opt out, the states and their various industries/citizens will still have to pay taxes to pay for it.
I think there should be a 75 percent increase in taxes on Casinos. They make plenty of money, they can pay for ReidCare.
“Regular” floats –
“If ReidCare passes….”
What?!
It’s not “Obamacare” anymore?
It’s no longer “Pelosicare?”
You’re getting desperate in your name-calling, ol’ man.
It does seem to me that it would be unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance. Except that states get away with forcing us to buy car insurance for the same reason that Congress is suggesting a mandate for health insurance.
I don’t like it, but I think it will fly.
EugeneDebs-
Your analogy goes to far. You are only required to have insurance on a car if you drive on government provided roads. If it just sits in your garage, you aren;t required to have insurance. Except, of course, when you renew the tag, which is another requirement only if you drive on public roads.
EugeneDebs-
You also overlook the distinction between a state law and a federal law. This is where SCOTUS would be involved.
Funny how the dim-libs shy away from the question
Isn’t forcing people to buy overpriced and underbenefitted private health insurance one of those “unfunded mandates” everyone is railing about? If they are going to require it, shouldn’t the government offer at least an honest option?
Link provides an article by Rob Natelson, Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar (See http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm) regarding the constitutionality of the National Health Care Plan – relevant and instructive.
LINK: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/18/is-obamacare-constitutional/
Having auto insurance is more to protect the person you might run into than it is to protect you.
Health insurance is for your benefit. Having the gov mandate that you buy it from them is unconstitutional.
The states will opt out just about as much as they opted out of the stimulus money. Once it’s passed the con politicians will read the writing on the wall and do what will help them to keep their jobs. Embrace it.
#
Monkeyhawk
Posted November 4, 2009 at 11:37 am | Permalink
“Regular” floats –
“If ReidCare passes….”
What?!
It’s not “Obamacare” anymore?
It’s no longer “Pelosicare?”
You’re getting desperate in your name-calling, ol’ man.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I wish they’d just cut to the chase and start calling it Hitlercare. We all know that’s where their headed, anyway.
‘their’ should be ‘they’re.’
Long day…..I’m tired.