24 July 2009

States Rigths Raised Over Healthcare Debacle

"Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas."

Story here.

8 comments:

Chaps said...

Gov. Perry talks nicely but, unfortunately, the 9th and 10th Amendments were effectively repealed on 9 April, 1865. I am certain it will take more than bold talk to reinstate them.

Jacksonian Lawyer said...

Kudos to Gov. Perry!

You know RW, it brought to mind a piece by Honorary Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris, that I read a few months back. For the time being, it appears to still be posted over at WND:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103

Bob Pollock said...

Richard,

How can we attack a plan when we don't even know yet what it will be? Even O'Reilly was crying after the President's press conference that he didn't know what the plan is yet. Is it your contention that there is nothing wrong with the current health care system?
I found this in the article you linked to quite informative:
"Texas has a higher percentage of uninsured people than any other state, with 1 in 4 Texans lacking health coverage. Dunkelberg, whose organization supports policies to help low- and modest-income Texans, said the House version would create a "predictable and comprehensive benefits package" for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans."

I'm sorry, but I don't see how Perry's constant threats of secession and invocations of state's rights are at all constructive. Most people on both sides of the political spectrum are happy to use the federal government or states' rights whenever they think one or the other will advance their political agenda or career.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Bob:

The more obvious question is how can we support a plan when we don't know yet what it will be? How can Dems ram in through when we don't know yet what it will be? How can Obama say it has to be done before August recess when we don't know yet what it will be?

But, to directly answer your question, we do know some of what's in the House plan - outlawing private insurance and "death counseling" every 5 years for the elderly, just to name 2 that come to mind. For more, check out the non-partisan Factcheck.org analysis:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_health_care_news_conference.html

Are there problems with the current healthcare system? Yes.

1. State mandates. For example, covering drug addiction, Viagra, plastic surgery, etc, etc. That costs money Bob and those are just a few examples.
2. The Malpractice Mafia (which supported Obama). Defensive medicine adds billions per year in costs because Dr.s go overboard in testing, etc because they fear being sued.
3. Malpractice insurance premiums. See #2.
4. Restricted market access across state lines. I can't buy a policy in NC, even though it might suit my needs better and be better priced, because I live in Virginia.
5. Limited access for med school causing a Dr. shortage which means demand is outpacing supply. Economics 101 - this drives costs up dramatically. My wife called for a dermatologist appt. this week and was told her Dr. was booked until 2010.

So most of the problems are market related and caused by government. As Reagan said, government is not the solution, it's the problem.

"predictable and comprehensive benefits package" for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans."

Right Bob. You believe that and I have some ocean-front property for sale for you here in Western Virginia. That "predictable" part worked out real well for Medicare, huh and Social Security, huh? Yeah, since the Feds have such a stellar record with those two programs, let's give them even more. Right, makes perfect sense to me.

Besides, many folks are uninsured by choice. Those numbers are always skewed by that fact.

"Most people on both sides of the political spectrum are happy to use the federal government or states' rights whenever they think one or the other will advance their political agenda or career."

"Most"? Really? I don't know of anything to support that statement. You might qualify it with "politicians" and I would more likely agree with you. That being said, I'm not most people.

Best,
RGW

Bob Pollock said...

Richard,

"Outlawing private insurance"? Haven't heard that.

As someone who did not have health insurance for years, I will agree that it is a matter of choice for some, but only if you don't consider the cost. Rates were always prohibitive if not impossibly high.

Are you advocating the elimination of Social Security and Medicare?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Bob:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law."

That's in the House version, Section 102(a)1(A).

In other words, you can keep (gee, how nice of them) your private coverage, but insurers can't sell new policies. This effectively kills health insurers. No new customers. Do you support that?

"Rates were always prohibitive if not impossibly high."

Attorneys get $150 to $400 an hour. I can't afford that. Should the government provide one for me for my non-criminal legal needs, lawsuits, various other issues where I need advice? Why not?

Here's the truth about the "uninsured" -

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html

Am I advocating the elimination of Social Security and Medicare? Promises have been made to those already paid in. That promise should be honored. But they should be phased out. Actually, they will be phased out because both are actuarially unsound and cannot be sustained. The law of mathematics will assure they are eliminated. There are market solutions. Why in God's name do you and others trust the Federal government to do so much when there is abundant evidence and examples of them screwing up everything they touch? They can't balance a budget. Medicare is bankrupt. Social Security is bankrupt. They ruined the mortgage business. Veteran's hospitals are almost 3rd world pathetic. The examples are endless.

Anything dealing with finances that they've been involved in for the last 50 years is an unmitigated disaster, so let's give them even more.

Amazing.

Answer this. If nationalized healthcare is such a wonderful thing, why are Congress and Federal employees exempt?

Anonymous said...

It's clear Obamacare is losing bipartisan support in Congress as well as the public's support according to recent polls. And there stands TX like a stonewall against this silly legislation.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Anon:

Which is exactly why Obama and the Dems in Congress wanted to ram it down our throats before recess - they knew what was going to happen once their dirty little secrets got out. Despicable. So much for Obama's "transparency" promise.