As mentioned here yesterday, Idaho will sue to stop Obamacare’s mandatory purchase provision. Virginia’s bill, soon to become law, in effect, opts its citizens out of the mandatory purchase requirement altogether. From the story:
The Virginia General Assembly [official website] on Wednesday passed a bill [text, PDF] that will ban any federal mandate for individuals to have health insurance. The bill, called the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, is the first of its kind [WP report] passed by any state, and says that no individual shall be held liable if they refuse to sign up for health care. Governor Robert McDonnell [official website] has said that he will sign [WTVR report] the bill into law. About 30 other states are working on a similar measure to negate [ALEC report] the widely expected federal mandate for health insurance.
Adding to Obamacare’s woes, the VA Attorney General is also threatening to sue if the “Slaughter Rule” is used to pass the bill without actually voting on it. From the AG’s letter:
Dear Speaker Pelosi: I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under a so-called “deem and pass” rule because such a course of action would raise grave constitutional questions. Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill. This is an improper purpose under the bicameralism requirements of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, one of the purposes of which is to make our representatives fully accountable for their votes. Furthermore, to be validly enacted, the Senate bill would have to be accepted by the House in a form that is word-for-word identical (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)). Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge. A bill of this magnitude should not be passed using this maneuver. As the President noted last week, the American people are entitled to an up or down vote.
President Obama and his team badly lost the political debate over Obamacare, but are hell bent to pass their bill anyway–regardless of the political cost to the Democratic Party and the even greater harm it will cause to the country’s social fabric. They are recklessly sowing discord, division, and dissension, which will yield years of political and legal strife.
March 18th, 2010 | 4:40 pm
Good! My state (Florida) has something in the oven as well.
We all know this is nothing but a money grab, but I’m wicked curious as to why these politicians keep pushing it at their own career peril. Even Kucinich caved and I never thought I’d live to see that guy back down from a fight.
There has to be something more to this that we don’t see.
March 18th, 2010 | 4:55 pm
Because, like Nature, we have no ability to control/limit our legal system. And because, like Nature, this aspect of our legal system will inflict physical suffering and death on our species. Gad. I realize their genes may force the lawyers to do it, but legal strife (which will occur) should not be a deterrent.
Just another fear tactic derived from hysteria.
Anyways, you all need to check this unrelated info out. We live on such a cool planet, should we take care of it. It’ll be great when our species, should we not drive ourselves to extinction, understands the biology of aging, using trees, perhaps, as models and we humans can live full, vibrant lives for 1000s of years – like these trees.
(how does the flood of Noah fit into all this tree info?)
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/old-tree-gallery/all/1
March 18th, 2010 | 8:47 pm
gasp! …Whew?!? OKAY whats next?
March 18th, 2010 | 8:56 pm
It may be, unfortunately, much, much worse than that.
Americans aren’t European, and won’t roll-over like Europeans if social democratic legislation is forced over 1/5 of the economy. Most Americans will respond with outright rebellion and outrage.
Get ready for some really ugly stuff.
March 19th, 2010 | 7:59 am
Lubion,
Indeed. Americans should rebel against higher quality health care for 1/2 the price.
Specifically, how do you think “most” Americans will “respond with outright rebellion and outrage”? Storming and occupying the Capitol? Bombing federal buildings? Assassinating politicicans?
How should the majority of Americans who don’t support your violent revolution respond to your attempted coup?
Health Care Hysteria!
March 19th, 2010 | 9:35 am
That’s all well and good, but Federal law supersedes that of Virginia. Result: they’ll try to make a Federal case out of it; they may even make it to the Supreme Court before they lose. What I find interesting is that the fight over states’ rights is still being fought, although many of the same states would like the Feds to interfere in other historically state-jurisdictional matters — such as who can marry whom — when it suits them. Conclusion: don’t look for consistent patters of thought among conservatives.
March 19th, 2010 | 11:08 am
Lubion,
You betcha. Break out the gunpowder, muskets, n’ bibles. Raise the battle emblem and sound the war cry. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition around. I’ll be darned if I have to sacrifice a little more so my fellow neighbors can be taken care of in a clinic, should Nature beset them.
This is America, we kill people we disagree with. And if we don’t disagree, we make stuff up, like WMDs. Fight these terrorists here at home, amen. This isn’t hysteria, it’s pure survival, our Constitution is at stake.
Geez, conservatives are such a boisterous, boorish, primitive lot.
wils,
Good question, again. I have no idea what’s next. I suppose my predictions would be the bill passes by about 3 votes in the House (?). A few states will challenge and subsequently be dismissed. Interest groups will challenge and fail as well. I don’t see enough data one way or the other.
Deeptoad,
The converse also holds. Many dems may not get re-elected if they don’t vote in the affirmative. You’re right, it will be interesting to see where the money goes and what kind of political nepotism emerges. When the Kuch sells out, you have to wonder if the Browns are gonna start winning some ball games or something. He’s one of those folks who may not be re-elected if he votes ‘no’, this is based on my perception of the demographics of his constituency, of which I am familiar, and various articles in the Plain Dealer.
check it out:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1240389256135630.xml&coll=2
March 19th, 2010 | 11:09 am
Lubion…I think you’re right.
http://wcvarones.blogspot.com/2010/03/think-youll-get-revenge-in-november.html
March 19th, 2010 | 11:32 am
While I lack nearly all tact, respect, and civility, even I have limits.
This crosses my line, yet appears acceptable to many Christians and conservatives, I find this puzzling.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100318/pl_mcclatchy/3455226
March 19th, 2010 | 2:13 pm
I love the way that the left thinks it is perfectly OK for cities and states to ignore federal law when it comes to immigration and illegal drugs, but it is outrageous to try to do so here. And by “love” I mean “hate” of course.
So let’s have states and municipalities follow the lead of “sanctuary cities” and say that all local authorities are forbidden from assisting federal forces from enforcing anything related to this monstrosity in any way. And at the federal level the GOP, if it can’t repeal the abomination, should absolutely refuse to fund anything related to it as well. Shut it all down completely.
If this legislative atrocity is upheld by the courts it means the end of constitutional government. If the House doesn’t have to actually vote on a bill, then why can’t they just hold one vote every two years to say that they pass everything that the Senate passed, but with certain amendments, and then everything passed by the Senate could become law? Oh, that would never happen, you say? It’s absolutely no different from what we’re seeing them do today.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
TWEET! I am noting a lot of given and take about left versus right, Iraq, and etc. Please try and keep the discussion related to the post. Thanks all.
March 19th, 2010 | 5:25 pm
Lubion: I’m reminded of this excerpt from a speech that our former Ambassador to Germany, James W. Gerard, made in 1917:
“The Foreign Minister of Germany once said to me ‘your country does not dare do anything against Germany, because we have in your country 500,000 German reservists who will rise in arms against your government if you dare to make a move against Germany.’ Well, I told him that that might be so, but that we had 500,001 lamp posts in this country, and that that was where the reservists would be hanging the day after they tried to rise.”
I’m sure, nearly a century later, there will be an equally efficient way to deal with rebels. I’ll gladly volunteer to furnish the necessary ropes, and/or serve on one of the firing squads. As George W. once said, “Bring it on!”
March 19th, 2010 | 8:25 pm
Elections have consequences. The Democrats won majorities in both Houses and the White House. They are obligated to try to pass the legislation for which they were elected. The Republicans are obligated to oppose them, even to the point of threatening insurrection. The actions at the state levels reflects the organized Republican opposition to the progressive policies. All politics, all the time.
The talk of a constitutional crisis, the talk of rebellion is just that, talk. Conservatives are not getting their way. Wah!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
I’m not talking rebellion, as you well know. Actually, I have refused to post a few comments that I thought crossed that particular line. But this won’t end with passage (I expect) this Sunday. Because of the way this bill was passed, the country will soon be in a place where one half isn’t talking to the other half and every effort will be made to impede the new law, not to mention prevent further business along the same lines. It’s like the fall of the Roman Republic actually. All comity is lost, the process is corrupted, rules are broken that were once sacrosanct. Thank goodness there is no Julius Caesar on the horizon.
March 19th, 2010 | 8:41 pm
Brian,
I agree illegal immigration has some negative consequences here in the US; as well as positive. However, the House is, presumably, planning on voting for a “health care” bill, not an immigration bill.
So, no actual vote has been performed by the house. And no actual bill is yet law.
Anyways, I think your emotions and rhetoric are in conflict with reality.
I recall reading that some odd 25 bills (+/- 3) have been passed in this manner in the last 30 years, with the vast, vast majority of them being under GOP control. Should this be true – I will leave it to others to do the verification – it would suggest we’ve been ‘seeing them do [it]‘ for a long time.
So, did our constitutional government therefore end with the GOP about 30 years ago? Or only now would it end? If the house does vote and it passes (my prediction is by 2 or 3 votes or so), does this mean it wasn’t actually voted on simply because the wording is identical to a senate bill, minus the amendments?
Your position is very confusing to me; when things confuse me, I become fascinated.
March 19th, 2010 | 8:43 pm
Smith typed: “President Obama and his team badly lost the political debate over Obamacare, but are hell bent to pass their bill anyway–regardless of the political cost to the Democratic Party and the even greater harm it will cause to the country’s social fabric. They are recklessly sowing discord, division, and dissension, which will yield years of political and legal strife.”
How laughable are the alligator tears shed by conservatives and Republicans for the Democrats? If Republicans actually thought passing this bill would do irreparable damage to the Dems they would help pass it. Conservatives are terrified that it will pass and Americans will like it. Period.
The Dems are proposing policies that the Republicans dislike and you call it sowing discord?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Jeffrey: No, it will hurt the country, the policy, but even more the bitterness and the breaking apart of civil comity. I meant what I wrote, not what you interpreted what I wrote.
March 20th, 2010 | 3:59 am
WHAT??
People are SERIOUSLY talking about grabbing the pitchforks? Oh my gosh.
Alternative suggestion: pick up a library card, then a voter registration card. No need for pitchforks.
allea iacta est
No, health care is not like the fall of the Roman Republic. Obama is not rex. The republic started unwinding the day after Scipio africanus defeated Hannibal at Zama. Fiscal corruption permeated an empire that was spread too thin and spent all its efforts maintaining a war machine, further, an aristocracy was established whereby their leaders came from the same families and would steal elections, warlords like Marius and Sulla would hire mercenaries to do their evil bidding, the economic dispartity between the rich and the poor became huge… whoa this is all starting to sound kind of familiar, but I can’t put my finger on it…hmmm
fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 20th, 2010 at 8:11 am
I didn’t say health care was the fall of the Republic, and I explicitly said Obama isn’t Caesar. But Obamacare and the way it is being pushed through reflects the bitter divisions, loss of comity, win at any cost mentality that the Republic’s last days exhibited. We also see attempts to criminalize political differences, as they did then. The financial corruption. The distinct stink of special influence, etc. Hopefully, our system’s ability to balance itself will see us through. But just as we don’t have a Caesar yet, we also don’t have a Cicero. Plenty of Cato’s though.
March 20th, 2010 | 1:44 pm
Again:
I don’t think that the individual mandate will survive an honest Constitutional challenge. If it’s sustained on some kind of “emanations and penumbras” sophistry, I think grave damage will be done to the social contract. Given the emotions on display in this thread, I worry about what will happen if the bill passes through skulduggery of the kind currently on display.
March 20th, 2010 | 4:31 pm
Wesley:
You wrote: “Plenty of Catos though.”
I’ll say! The incessant, hysterical repetition by Republicans of “socialized medicine!” is reminiscent of “Carthago delenda est.” Or was it the other Cato you were referring to? As for Cicero, we have plenty of people who, like him, aren’t quite sure which side of the fence to be on.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 20th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I am talking about the Cato who committed suicide rather than submit to Caesar. And when his friends fixed him up, opened his own wounds the next day. Plenty of them to go around History Writer.
March 20th, 2010 | 8:58 pm
Jeffery,
I have a $1,000 deductible, which in practical application is often not much different from having no insurance. If they can mandate that people buy it, I don’t see why they can’t decide that what I have isn’t good enough. We’ll see what comes down the pike.
Health insurance is a losing proposition for a 24-year-old who — like a lot of young folks — gets maybe a sinus infection once a year (this year is an exception; lest you think I’m a hypocrite, I’m paying it from my savings which are there for precisely that reason. The difference is, if I don’t use that money, at least it’s not gone forever!) and has several thousand dollars of student loans coming due very soon. Why on earth should I pay more in premiums so I can have the privilege of spending $20 for $60 worth of amoxicillin once a year, and risk the immediate reality of defaulting on the loan? It’s stupid. Penalizing folks who don’t buy insurance screws over not just me, but an entire class of people like me. There’s no place for consideration of individual circumstances in Obamacare. I will resist if I have to, and I’m not suggesting violence. Lord, just watch them try to put me in jail for not paying their stupid fine for the crime of being a non-burden on the healthcare system. I do believe people will see that the emperor has no clothes.
March 21st, 2010 | 1:30 pm
College Goyl,
We have a $10,000 deductible and HSA that, even at our age, suits us fine. But the debate is not about me, not about you, it’s about what is best for America in the long run.
Surprisingly, health insurance is a losing proposition for most people, especially the young. Our culture does not allow its citizens to suffer and die just because they lack the foresight to provide for their own health care needs. So a 24 yr old who thinks they don’t need insurance, when diagnosed with leukemia still receives expensive treatment. Someone pays for it. What’s the best way to pay for this as a society? Our current system costs twice as much as most other industrialized nations.
March 22nd, 2010 | 12:06 am
Jeffery:
That depends on whether you think this bill is what’s best for America, and I guarantee we won’t agree on that. But even assuming that it is, why should I get steamrolled in this whole process? I have a charitable heart, but forgive me for not quite being Mother Teresa — which puts me in much company.
The most common reason for a female my age to be admitted to a hospital is pregnancy, not leukemia, not by a long shot. The second is mental illness. The most expensive conditions and those with the longest stays are a very small percentage of the whole. You can’t scare me with the cancer bogeyman as is the vogue in these discussions. If I should get it before Obamacare kicks in, I’ll be happy to eat my words, but if I were you I wouldn’t bet my house on it.
I _do_ provide for my healthcare needs. Routine things come out of pocket; for the unexpected I built an emergency fund. The message being sent by the mandatory insurance/fine is that frugal people and educated consumers shouldn’t bother, because they’ll just get screwed in the end, even if they’re right. Also, that people can be punished not for the things they do, but what may or may not happen, someday. Two great victories for America!
March 22nd, 2010 | 4:14 am
Fact, medicare and medicaid reject more healthcare claims than private insurance, this bill will just set more govt. standards for rejections.
This is not budget neutral, with the doc fix it adds to the deficit in first 10 years about 60 billion, ( that’s for 6 yrs of the plan in operation). This will bankrupt the country unless they increase the taxes even higher than they project and ration care.
This is a scam and designed to bankrupt insurance companies and hospitals so the government will do a complete take over of everything within 5-8 years
April 23rd, 2010 | 8:00 am
[...] fight back against [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact