Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:46 PM EDT
politics, health, us, states, overhaul
John Miller, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 5 photos
<p>Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter addresses the media during a news conference on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 inside his office at the Idaho statehouse in Boise, Idaho. On Wednesday Otter signed a piece of legislation that will require the state of Idaho to sue the federal government upon passage of health care reform which comes as Democrats in Congress hope to pass healthcare reform this weekend. (AP Photo/Charlie Litchfield)</p>

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter addresses the media during a news conference on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 inside his office at the Idaho statehouse in Boise, Idaho. On Wednesday Otter signed a piece of legislation that will require the state of Idaho to sue the federal government upon passage of health care reform which comes as Democrats in Congress hope to pass healthcare reform this weekend. (AP Photo/Charlie Litchfield)

Advertise | AdChoices

BOISE — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.

Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.

"Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Christie Herrera, the group's health task force director.

Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation. He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.

"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.

Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called the lawsuits frivolous.

Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year.

Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.

"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."

At the White House, spokesman Reid Cherlin declined to comment Wednesday night.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • John Miller's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Boise
  • Public Discussion (72)
goober.70

Vindictive showboating at it's lowest!!!

  • 7 votes
#1 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:02 PM EDT
The Grim Creeper

Vindictive showboating at it's lowest!!!

I beg to differ. This is the first of many challenges to Obamunism. Did you think we were just going to lie down while his Marxist administration attacks our freedoms?

  • 7 votes
#1.1 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:07 PM EDT
charnello

Did you think we were just going to lie down while his Marxist administration attacks our freedoms?

Don't be ridiculous. Enjoy your differences, but comparing Obama's policies to Marx's ideals makes as much sense as comparing Bush's to Hilter's.

They're both drop dead stupid comparisons.

  • 12 votes
#1.2 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:17 PM EDT
Scott-377513

Will he do the same for flood insurance? The Federal Government is the only one that provides flood insurance? Lets hear some cries of government take over or socialism. Let Idaho supply their citizens with flood insurance. Or better yet let the insurance companies lol.

Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.

They really do not know how to deal with their money, Idaho gets $1.21 for every 1 dollar they pay in taxes.

They should show how independent they can be by only taking $1 dollar for every $1 dollar they put in to the general fund.

Way to use my tax dollars with this stunt.

  • 7 votes
#1.3 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:35 PM EDT
landspirit

Grim Reeper

Did you think we were just going to lie down while his Marxist administration attacks our freedoms?

That would be just shocking if it were not for the fact that it is baseless. There is no Marxist administration and it is not Obama who is attacking your freedoms. I would look to the people who are lying, manipulating, using mind control strategies, hate mongering, fear mongering ("while his Marxist adminstration attacks our freedoms") and using deception for the people who are attacking your freedom. Why would you need to do any of the above if you were working within the truth?

  • 7 votes
#1.4 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:36 PM EDT
landspirit

Scott

they can be by only taking $1 dollar for every $1 dollar they put in to the general fund.

They can't. That would require great fiscal conservatism and non wasting of money. I have actually yet to see a Republican that is actually fiscally conservative and does not waste money especially since it is the citizen and tax payers money they always waste.

  • 3 votes
#1.5 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:45 PM EDT
Scott-377513

When is this take over going to happen? I am tired of waiting. Its been like a year and a half. When??

It better happen soon, I am running out of tin foil to make hats.

  • 6 votes
#1.6 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:45 PM EDT
StephenToo

They really do not know how to deal with their money, Idaho gets $1.21 for every 1 dollar they pay in taxes.

Of course they do - they're a conservative state. Here are some facts that I gathered for a different discussion. It's really eye-opening and worth re-posting:

The top 10 "takers" as states (highest in federal dollars received to dollars paid), and results from last election:

New Mexico - blue
Mississippi - red
Alaska - red
Louisiana - red
West Virginia - red
North Dakota - red
Alabama - red
South Dakota - red
Kentucky - red
Virginia - blue

So 8 of the 10 biggest "takers" are red states (and the two that are blue were red in the 2004 election, for a clean 10-of-10 sweep).

How about the other side - the 10 biggest "givers"? Here they are:

New Jersey - blue
Nevada - blue
Connecticut - blue
New Hampshire - blue
Minnesota - blue
Illinois - blue
Delaware - blue
California - blue
New York - blue
Colorado - blue

So in other words, the blue states are supporting the lazy red states.... Maybe we should stop, and see how they fare on their own.

  • 3 votes
#1.7 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:16 PM EDT
tommymaybewrongmayberight

It's not lazyness or idelogy have you checked on things like income, population, resorces, and finacial stability. A lot of those states in the takers are smaller income population with less industry then the blue ones. If you take a look at the states that need bailout starting with california most of them are blue.

  • 1 vote
#1.8 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:02 AM EDT
Scott-377513

So if California got back $1 dollar for ever dollar they put in the genral fund instead of $0.78 cents, do you think they would have needed a bail out?

If those states can not survive on their own it should not be up to the rest of the country to support them. They should be dissolved and annexed by the surrounding states.

    #1.9 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:10 AM EDT
    StephenToo

    OK, so I don't really believe the "lazy" part. However, it is very hypocritical when people in those conservative states complain about socialism and all they have to pay into the system, when they are the ones who are drawing from the system. They're the ones benefiting from the "redistributing the wealth" that they complain so much about.

    Scott: I didn't really think about it that way, but that's a really excellent point. In total, Californians sent about $47.6 billion more to Washington than it received back in expenditures (in 2005, the last year for which I saw figured published). The state budget shortfall last year was something less than $30 billion from what I can tell. So yes, if Californians just had the federal money back they could have more than closed that gap.

    Maybe we shouldn't dissolve the red states, but just let them seceed and not be a problem for us any more...

    • 1 vote
    #1.10 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:30 AM EDT
    tommymaybewrongmayberight

    Not even if California got a huge tax refund would it be enough to change it's bad fiscal policies. I am saying these states don't contribute because there ecnomies are not has large has california, they are more stable most of them because they dont' spend like california. Basically what that list is a good example of the federal goverment "spreading the wealth around".

    • 1 vote
    #1.11 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:34 AM EDT
    goober.70

    I am saying these states don't contribute because there ecnomies are not has large has California,

    Tommy, it doesn't matter why these states don't contribute more. You can twist or spin your apologist argument anyway you want. The fact remains, these states get more than they give!!! (socialism?)

    • 1 vote
    #1.12 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:24 AM EDT
    Rhinehold

    goober.70,

    I agree, let's END THE PRACTICE. You are the one wanting to continue it...

    I say we either let the states determine most of the impacts onto their citizen's lives OR we just eliminate the idea of states and wipe a way state lines. What is their purpose anymore?

      #1.13 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:39 AM EDT
      Scott-377513

      The fact remains, these states get more than they give!!! (socialism?)

      Ooooo Spreading the wealth!!! A witch a witch, I mean a plumber with out a plumbers license and who named Joe, who owes back taxes.

      Burn Him!!

        #1.14 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:25 PM EDT
        tommymaybewrongmayberight

        That is what I am saying is it not that these huge goverment programs are rip offs, but the fact remains even if you tax people with a flat tax, people who earn more money are going to contribute more money. California, and New York have more rich people (or at least they did) so they can contribute more. Personally I would rather go back to before the progressive movement and have only the goverment due the things that were issued to it by the consitution. Basically provide road ways, security, and the currency and that's it.

          #1.15 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:24 PM EDT
          StephenToo

          California, and New York have more rich people (or at least they did) so they can contribute more

          Yes, exactly. Because liberals are smarter, more educated, and more successful, making more money and living happier and more fulfilling lives. Oh, we smell better too. And drink much better coffee.

          So there.

            #1.16 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:49 PM EDT
            tommymaybewrongmayberight

            I don't know about that, since the most progressive states including new york are on the state of collaspe, same thing with california. The people in the states may be smarter but I don't know about your guys goverment.

              #1.17 - Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:38 AM EDT
              Reply
              believe anything

              Way to go Idaho...:)

              • 3 votes
              Reply#2 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:22 PM EDT
              The road rider...

              Our group has just now cancelled the yearly trip to Idaho. It probably won't hurt the dude Butch, but it's a start.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#3 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:27 PM EDT
              DS04

              Ok Idaho I hope your state doesnt have to raise taxes to pay for the time and effort to sue.

              • 3 votes
              Reply#4 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:33 PM EDT
              Amanda Blue

              Idaho? Isn't this the state where the white supremacist's go to their survivalist compounds and hide from the world while they nurture their beliefs and reproduce with other pure race individuals? Snicker snicker!

              • 3 votes
              Reply#5 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:34 PM EDT
              UVA

              That's it Amanda Blue ... if it were not for the Aryan Nations and Skin-Heads, Idaho wouldn't even have a State Legislature.

              Why don't we help them to secede?

              • 3 votes
              #5.1 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:38 PM EDT
              Skidude

              That's correct about the supremacists, but I think they were run out. I lived in Idaho recently. It's not a very progressive state. It's the home of senator (wide stance) Larry Craig. The Governor's proposal sounds bogus. Are there laws that say "im going to sue you, if you do something"? Sounds fairly childish. I think the governor should read the bill first, and then open his mouth. Typical GOP posturing. I like the law where certain federal funds for states will not be made available to the states that don't comply with the new federal health care laws. I made that up. Sue away. The fed has plenty of lawyers. The Governor can keep Idaho in litigation for years. Idaho will still have to comply until they get a judgement. Getting a judgement could take years and cost the state millions. Good luck with that. Maybe the Governor will shock us and come up with some ideas about fixing health care instead of the typical GOP party line.

              • 2 votes
              #5.2 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:51 PM EDT
              daxy1979

              Wow.. way to be an adult here folks..

              Idaho? Isn't this the state where the white supremacist's go to their survivalist compounds and hide from the world while they nurture their beliefs and reproduce with other pure race individuals? Snicker snicker!

              Ok so anything bad that happens in a state means everyone from that state is the same way? really? Must be sooo nice to be able to sit so high on your pedestal. I'm sure nothing bad has EVER happened ANYWHERE you've ever lived.

              How about we keep to debating what the legislature did and leave the bashes on the population out of it shall we?

              • 1 vote
              #5.3 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:31 AM EDT
              Scott-377513

              Nope, them are my tax dollars at work in Idaho. The population kinda works for me.

                #5.4 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:34 AM EDT
                daxy1979

                So that gives you the right to basically treat them like crap and call them names? wow.. thank the goddess I don't work for you.

                • 1 vote
                #5.5 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:39 AM EDT
                Reply
                UVA

                Hey Larry Craig, good luck with that lawsuit. I hope the people of Idaho would just say they want to secede, and the United States will be a safer, more prosperous nation.

                • 2 votes
                Reply#6 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:36 PM EDT
                FRED-1090120

                Looks like Idaho ain't going to take any of Obama's socialist @!$%#, more to follow.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#7 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:47 PM EDT
                UVA

                Fred ... it looks like Idaho should stop accepting Federal Funds of ALL types.

                Why not show us if they are for real?

                If Idaho is so 'independent', then Idaho should start covering their own Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security payouts.

                And don't forget to fix your own crumbling former interstate highways and bridges!

                • 4 votes
                #7.1 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:52 PM EDT
                Scott-377513

                Idaho get a pretty good deal, $1.21 paid to them for every $1 dollar they put in the general fund.

                I wish a potato famine on Idaho.

                • 1 vote
                #7.2 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:05 PM EDT
                Z00CREW

                UVA,

                Please tell me how to get through ignorant people that every US LEGAL WORKING CITIZEN pays for medicare and social security with their paychecks. If we were taxed some other way, and we didn't pay for these two programs with our paycheck, then your example would fit, that would be socialism. BUT BECAUSE WE PAY FOR THESE TWO PROGRAMS OUT OF OUR PAYCHECKS, these aren't socialistic programs.

                AND IF EVERY STATE KEPT THE TAX MONEY FROM THE SELL OF GASOLINE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT getting federal money for highways and bridges.

                Please, stop arguing these stupid ideas.

                When it comes to the insurance farce, if I have insurance through my work AND I pay the premiums out of my paycheck deductions, I WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE THROUGH A SEPARATE TAX DEDUCTION. I don't get benefits of that tax, the lazy good for nothing bums who don't want to get a job or keep their day jobs will get the benefit of the taxes being taken out of my paycheck.

                Lest we forget, this country was founded on the idea that "You get what you work for and earn!" You work hard and you can succeed!! You don't work, you don't get, unless of course the government takes from me and gives to you. Horse ch!t if you ask me!!

                • 1 vote
                #7.3 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:20 PM EDT
                Scott-377513

                Well it seems that if you work hard in Massachusetts you get to pay for Virgina and Idaho to pull stunts.

                If they can not support themselves then they are too big and need to be annexed by the neighboring states.

                I don't get benefits of that tax, the lazy good for nothing bums who don't want to get a job or keep their day jobs will get the benefit of the taxes being taken out of my paycheck.

                I know how you feel, I never been to Idaho.

                  #7.4 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:29 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  AlphaDogReporter

                  Butch is a multimillionaire who doesn't give a rat's behind who loses their health insurance or has to take out bankruptcy from medical bills. He has cut benefits to Idaho state employees and tried to shove state retirees off their guaranteed private plan in their retirement package onto Medicare so the state doesn't have to pay. Only a little more than half of all private companies in Idaho now offer health insurance, mostly because the premiums have been going up an average of almost 25% a year for the last several years. This is despite the fact that they provide 80% of the employment.

                  Butch is a typical Republican who has no alternative plan other than to preserve the insurance company monopolies and keep the same broken system. Democrats in Idaho tried to propose reform several years ago and it went nowhere.

                  The Republicans all talk the talk, but they can't walk the walk when it comes to reform. They claim to have all these ideas but they have been in power in Idaho for decades and done zilch. Kind of like the ones in Congress, why didn't they do anything about it when they had all the votes to do it? Liars and hypocrites.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#8 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:48 PM EDT
                  UVA

                  Only a little more than half of all private companies in Idaho now offer health insurance

                  When can we start drafting those Documents of Secession? There are many Constitutional Lawyers here at the University who will donate the time and effort to complete all the paperwork.

                    #8.1 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:54 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    Mister Jones

                    Butch Otter... cowboy in office, he works hard for the people of Idaho. Show him some kindness in his quest to discredit the President.

                      Reply#9 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:02 PM EDT
                      Dragonminder

                      There are people in Idaho? I thought all they had there were potatoes... That's it! Their Governor is Mister Potato Head!

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#10 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:05 PM EDT
                      UVA

                      Oh there are people ... the charges read every day from those courtroom dockets involving carnal events with goats are not filed by prosecutors who are putting other goats on trial.

                        #10.1 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:46 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        AlphaDogReporter

                        Let me pose another scenario to the 37 states who are supposedly all in on this 'unconstitutional' bit.

                        Almost everyone in this country who has a job, owns property, drives a car, or purchases goods and services is required to pay taxes at the federal, state, county and city levels. This is required by law and you can't weasel out of it. A huge percentage of those taxes go to subsidizing government employees and also private citizens health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, state, county, and local health care programs and the like.

                        Since you are required by law to pay taxes, and those taxes are being used to provide health insurance and health care for people, that is mandated insurance and health care. Please tell me why that is (apparently) Constitutional. I sure don't hear anyone complaining about that.

                          Reply#11 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:07 PM EDT
                          Scott-377513

                          http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

                          Here go here, see how many of those states get more money back in federal funds than it pay to the general fund.

                            #11.1 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:12 PM EDT
                            Rhinehold

                            Except, you are not required to pay taxes just because you are an American, you have to engage in some economic function (earn an income, buy a good or services, etc). This would be the first time that we attempted to make it a law that someone must purchase something just because they are alive and American. It is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down by this court when it is challenged, and it will be challenged. That the left knows this and is continuing along thinking that it is a good idea is incredulous...

                            A good bit of detail: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614123304945580.html

                            Populism aside, the idea that we think it is 'noble' to put a gun to someone's head and make them help another irregardless of the situation involved on either side in order to help someone themselves is the much more selfish and tyrannical action, IMO. But that would require having a concern about the true Forgotten Man...

                            • 1 vote
                            #11.2 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:02 AM EDT
                            SkepticalThomas

                            That's in fact one of the big lies about this health care plan. The dems know this part of the bill won't fly but they simply don't care. That's why they will argue that you must have the government pay for everything. i.e. SIngle payer.

                            • 1 vote
                            #11.3 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:20 AM EDT
                            Reply
                            Radio Free America

                            I am not a right winger but, I agree with this 100 percent. Actually all sides are on the same track more than acknowledge. I hope all the other 37 states file their claims. This bill is this administration's quagmire/Iraq. They are too much for Wall Street, banks, and insurance companies. Only insurance companies benefit from this bill's forced/mandated health insurance. This is a bail out for the insurance companies that will rob us and continue to make bad investments and decision just like Wall Street continues to by paying out bonuses. They want a larger share of the healthcare dollars even though they have zero percent to do with healthcare.

                            Bailout what is too big to fail, the 300,000,000 plus of us on main street. The money given to the banks should have been set aside for Americans to refinance their homes at affordable rates and market values. Instead it was given to banks to hoard. If Wall Street did not have to leave their homes/offices why do the American people have to leave their homes?

                            I am also a New Yorker but, from western New York where we have real commodities and companies that manufacture products that are not just paper. We have Wegmans, Xerox and Bausch and Lomb that were started here and remain here even though hit by the recession. These companies did not take America down yet Wall Street in eastern New York was saved.

                            Does the federal government have the right to make the IRS the collector/enforcer for the insurance companies? Or, is the IRS to collect money to run the country? If it was wrong for the previous administration to rob Medicare for the pharmaceutical companies, then it is wrong to rob Medicare for the insurance companies. If corporate America can no longer afford the rising cost of health insurance, how are the American people to afford it, directly as premiums or indirectly as taxpayers of subsidies to the insurance companies? Federal law does not supersede the Constitution or its intent. Any government official would not advise anyone to sign something without reading it first. Remember this Congress before signing this bill as representatives of the people.

                            Thank you Idaho. November 2010. Remember Massachusetts.

                            • 1 vote
                            #12 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:17 PM EDT
                            Scott-377513

                            Remember Massachusetts.

                            Yes Please Do, thanks to SCOTT BROWN(R) and MITT ROMNEY(R) we have health care for all!

                            Remember the New York 23rd and California's 10th!!

                              #12.1 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:35 PM EDT
                              UVA

                              Yeah ... and Mitt Romney gave Massachusetts a Health Care Law that covers abortion.

                              • 1 vote
                              #12.2 - Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:49 PM EDT
                              Scott-377513

                              I don't if it does, but Scott Brown is Pro Choice. Here you can look here, I found a $50 out of pocket fee, So I do not know all the details.

                              https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/

                              Have you written any letters to China?

                              http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/15/112856.shtml

                              • 1 vote
                              #12.3 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:01 AM EDT
                              Z00CREW

                              And if memory serves me correctly, Massachusetts is deep in debt due to the "universal health care" program.

                              damn, if you want the nation to be deep in doodoo like Massachusetts, behave in an unconstitutional method and pass this health care ripoff.

                              • 2 votes
                              #12.4 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:09 AM EDT
                              Scott-377513

                              Well your memory is wrong

                              http://www.massbudget.org/

                              Thanks to Scott Brown (R) and Mitt Romney (R) all in Massachusetts have health insurance that want or need it.

                              And we support other states too, we only get $0.82 back for every dollar of taxes we pay.

                                #12.5 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:47 AM EDT
                                Rhinehold

                                have health care for all!

                                You mean health INSURANCE... the US already has healthcare for all and has for quite some time...

                                Health insurance is great, especially when you take away all of the costs of unhealthy behavior from people and pass that on to those who try to take care of themselves. Such a great plan, because we all know that with health insurance, healthcare costs will decrease for EVERYONE!

                                • 1 vote
                                #12.6 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:05 AM EDT
                                Scott-377513

                                What?

                                • 1 vote
                                #12.7 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:17 AM EDT
                                Rhinehold

                                I'll try to be clearer...

                                Health care will cost less for someone who is healthy if they pay for it directly than if they buy health insurance.

                                Insurance is a 'system' by which we all put in an amount of money in a gamble, the insurer is betting we don't get sick, the insured is betting that they do.

                                The mechanism is now that we will have lower rates if we lead healthy lifestyles because the odds are in the favor of the insurer whereas someone who leads an unhealthy lifestyle or is, by nature, a more unhealthy person, will have to pay more because the odds get pushed into the insured's favor.

                                What this bill wants to do is remove those odds and put everyone on a level playing field, removing all incentive to make healthy choices AND force everyone to enter into this gamble instead of paying for their healthcare on their own, which would be a cheaper proposition.

                                For those worried about catastrophies, catastrophic healthcare is a great option because it will allow someone to pay for their own healthcare and still be covered for huge unexpected issues at a much lower cost. OR new Healthcare Savings Accounts that allow people to put pre-tax money into an interest bearing account that will act as an IRA for medical useage and can be built up while young and healthy to be used when medical needs are most likely.

                                Of course, with this bill, those two options are now 'illegal'. Paying a doctor directly will become 'illegal'. You must purchase and use the insurance...

                                The best part is that with this bill, it may be cheaper for most people to NOT get the insurance and pay the 'tax' associated with it, then if you need it (say, while in the emergency room of a hospital) just call up an insurer and get it activated long enough to pay for whatever and then drop it again. They can't say no, can they?

                                However, this notion that 'everyone will have healthcare' is a misnomer because every single person in this country has access to healthcare now. In fact, the Supreme Court has rules already that no one can be denied healthcare for any reason, even the ability to pay for that care.

                                • 3 votes
                                #12.8 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:08 AM EDT
                                Scott-377513

                                Ok Anthem Blue Cross of California had record profits while insuring a lot less then they did the year before. Why are you defending the health care companies?

                                In fact, the Supreme Court has rules already that no one can be denied healthcare for any reason, even the ability to pay for that care.

                                Lies!!! http://vimeo.com/6216109

                                Here tell Isaac that, he was sent home from a Texas hospital to go blind because he could not pay. He was 14, I don't think his paper route had a health insurance plan.

                                  #12.9 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:03 AM EDT
                                  Rhinehold

                                  Ok Anthem Blue Cross of California had record profits while insuring a lot less then they did the year before. Why are you defending the health care companies?

                                  I don't see anywhere where I defended the health INSURANCE companies, perhaps you should learn the difference between health care provider and health insurance provider?

                                    #12.10 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:13 AM EDT
                                    Scott-377513

                                    So you didn't watch the video.

                                    BTW I was a health care provider. Paramedic, had to fill out run reports, I think I only put the insurance companies name where the PCPs name goes maybe once. No wait I didn't

                                    So what did you think of the video?

                                    In fact, the Supreme Court has rules already that no one can be denied healthcare for any reason, even the ability to pay for that care.

                                    Was that the case?

                                    Health insurance is great, especially when you take away all of the costs of unhealthy behavior from people and pass that on to those who try to take care of themselves

                                    Gotta love that Sickle Cell, Asthma, Hypertension, Muscular Dystrophy, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, Spinal Bifada. These people should all take a lap and try and cure themselves.

                                    We need to cover our kids with Nerf.

                                      #12.11 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:22 AM EDT
                                      Rhinehold

                                      So you didn't watch the video.

                                      Actually, I did, not sure where you get your assumptions from...

                                      Are you saying now that if there is a law against something that that event will never happen again? You must be continuously disappointed...

                                      Gotta love that Sickle Cell, Asthma, Hypertension, Muscular Dystrophy, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, Spinal Bifada. These people should all take a lap and try and cure themselves.

                                      No, they should try to get by as best they can and rely upon the help of others. But should I not take care of my family because I am taking care of someone eles's? That help should not be done by law, through force. I know in your mind there is no problem with that, but the money we give to others through the government is originally someone else's, it isn't 'free' money just sitting around doing nothing.

                                      And are you really suggesting that the primary health care costs in the US are from genetic diseases that we don't have cures for or from unhealthy lifestyle choices that Americans make? You were a paramedic like my wife, surely you see much more of the latter than the former...

                                      You also misread what I wrote, but I won't get into the detail of that now, unless you keep making the same mistake going forward.

                                        #12.12 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:47 AM EDT
                                        Scott-377513

                                        Well you said "In fact, the Supreme Court has rules already that no one can be denied healthcare for any reason, even the ability to pay for that care".

                                        And that was not the case. He was turned away from the hospital. That would have never happened in Massachusetts or Hawaii.

                                        You were a paramedic like my wife, surely you see much more of the latter than the former...

                                        I worked the city and your wife should have told you that trauma is the most expensive.

                                        No, they should try to get by as best they can and rely upon the help of others. But should I not take care of my family because I am taking care of someone eles's? That help should not be done by law, through force. I know in your mind there is no problem with that, but the money we give to others through the government is originally someone else's, it isn't 'free' money just sitting around doing nothing.

                                        What state you live in? Did you wife ever ask someone for money before she treated them?

                                        And are you really suggesting that the primary health care costs in the US are from genetic diseases that we don't have cures for or from unhealthy lifestyle choices that Americans make?

                                        Yes, hello Trauma!! High Blood Pressure. Respiratory Disease. Heart Disease, Cancer.

                                        What do you think a drive by shooting, stroke, status asmaticus, sudden heart attack or a brain tumor with seizures with a helicopter ride into Boston cost?

                                        Aside from the drive by, they all can be attributed to genetics.

                                          #12.13 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:41 PM EDT
                                          Rhinehold

                                          And that was not the case. He was turned away from the hospital. That would have never happened in Massachusetts or Hawaii.

                                          LEGALLY happened. That doesn't mean that it NEVER happens, you need to keep up. And right now the ruling is that no one could be turned away for emergency care. If the hospital is trying to say it isn't 'emergency care', they are wrong and should be sued for it. But why didn't the parents say that they would pay for it, be on the hook for it? There are a lot of unanswered questions that you don't see to care about because you think it supports YOUR view.

                                          AND if that was what this was all about, making sure no one was turned away for ANY procedure (what do we include/exclude in this? Bariatric Surgery? Skin Grafts? Facelifts?) I think you would find much more common ground!

                                          BUT That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice of forcing each and every American to purchase something. That has never been attempted, is in direct opposition to the ideals of this country and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as I have pointed out many times before.

                                          I worked the city and your wife should have told you that trauma is the most expensive.

                                          Again, I never said it wasn't. You were the one who went down the path of genetic disease...

                                          What state you live in? Did you wife ever ask someone for money before she treated them?

                                          Of course not because that would be ILLEGAL according to the Supreme Court, now wouldn't it?

                                          Yes, hello Trauma!! High Blood Pressure. Respiratory Disease. Heart Disease, Cancer.

                                          High blood pressure from unhealthy diets, respiratory disease from smoking, heart disease from unhealthy diets, cancer from smoking, unhealthy diets, etc...

                                          A lot of personal responsibility needs to be taken for many of the health challenges that every person must face, by eliminating incentive to not enter into unhealthy living by sharing the cost across the entire population equally, you will incur higher costs for people engaging in activities that they know they will be treated for at the same cost.

                                          Nevermind that that thinking is, again, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

                                          Aside from the drive by, they all can be attributed to genetics.

                                          AND from lifestyle choices. You aren't ignorant enough to not see how that plays into it... How many 'heart attack victims' do you see who are overweight, how many aren't? What is that ratio, do you think?

                                          And it is IRRELEVANT, your desire to force every person to BUY health insurance is unconstitutional, simple as that. Continuing to try to push it is a good example of how 'good intentions' leads us to a fascist/police state.

                                            #12.14 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:06 PM EDT
                                            Chthonic Knight

                                            Rhinehold

                                            In fact, the Supreme Court has rules already that no one can be denied healthcare for any reason, even the ability to pay for that care.

                                            Can you cite the case?

                                              #12.15 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:05 PM EDT
                                              Scott-377513

                                              How many 'heart attack victims' do you see who are overweight, how many aren't? What is that ratio, do you think?

                                              Not many, nice stereotype btw. and I am done with you.....Ignore

                                                #12.16 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:15 PM EDT
                                                Rhinehold

                                                Stereotype? Obesity is the leading cause of heart disease...

                                                Feel free to ignore reality, that's fine by me, it's the equivalent putting your finger in your ears and saying 'na na na na'...

                                                Such childishness.

                                                  #12.17 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:27 PM EDT
                                                  Rhinehold

                                                  Can you cite the case?

                                                  http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-53.ZPC.html

                                                    #12.18 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:28 PM EDT
                                                    Chthonic Knight

                                                    Rhinehold

                                                    Can you cite the case?

                                                    http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-53.ZPC.html

                                                    Thanks

                                                      #12.19 - Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:57 PM EDT
                                                      Chthonic Knight

                                                      Rhinehold, apparently I'm missing something. I do not see where the case that you have cited, Roberts v. Galen of Va., Inc. 525 U.S. 249 (1999), holds that no one can be denied healthcare. Doesn't the statute cited in the case only apply to emergency medical treatment?

                                                        #12.20 - Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:09 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        Shub Tnediserp Remrof

                                                        Why Idaho of all states to make themselves a name in this health care nightmare?

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        Reply#13 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:09 AM EDT
                                                        PresObamaforeveramen

                                                        Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

                                                        I will no longer buy any potatos from Idaho. McDonalds gets all its potatos from Idaho. Boybott McDonalds and you'll see this Idaho Gov. resign in record time.

                                                          Reply#14 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:54 AM EDT
                                                          The road rider...

                                                          A portion of a letter by Butch to his neighbors (check out his website)

                                                          "We now are reaching out to hundreds of Oregon businesses, and will do the same with those in Washington if the legislature there follows Oregon’s lead. We aren’t offering many bells and whistles, but what we can offer is a business-friendly State government, a highly qualified and motivated work force, and communities where people understand that while government cannot be the solution to their problems it can and must be a champion for their own solutions.

                                                          Businesses small and large are the backbone of Idaho’s economy. They employ our citizens, who in turn can provide for their families. Businesses and individuals also pay reasonable taxes that enable State and local governments to provide such essential services as public schools and public safety. And make no mistake: Any business that doesn’t pass along its operating costs to consumers – including their tax bills – doesn’t stay in business for long!!!

                                                          That's mighty nice of Butch!!!!!!!!!!

                                                            Reply#15 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:13 AM EDT
                                                            SkepticalThomas

                                                            Only problem is the MA plan is out of control and can only sustain itself with the help of the federal government . In other words it is bankrupts and it's only a small shadow of the CLuster Stupp the federal plan would become. That's why they voted for brown to begin with.

                                                            Now anyone with half a brain knows the government is out of control. Communist and fascists may disagree, but by any reasonable yardstick, like say the US constitution, that would be easy to prove. It's a shame that progressives have undermined the constitution to such a degree now it's no different than the what the old soviet union used to offer up to the world..

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            Reply#16 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:16 AM EDT
                                                            Scott-377513

                                                            Only problem is the MA plan is out of control

                                                            Are you sure? I am here in Mass and it seems to be working pretty well.

                                                            Did you need your tin foil hat adjusted?

                                                            https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/

                                                            an only sustain itself with the help of the federal government

                                                            http://www.massbudget.org/

                                                            Massachusetts gets back $0.82 cents for every dollar it gives to the federal government. Pedal that garbage elsewhere, like Virgina which gets $1.51 for every dollar it pays.

                                                              #16.1 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:24 AM EDT
                                                              Scott-377513

                                                              How about Hawaii, they had health care for all for about 50 years now.

                                                                #16.2 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:35 AM EDT
                                                                Reply
                                                                SkepticalThomas

                                                                In fact nowadays if you cite constitutional principles you are likely to be considered subversive.

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                Reply#17 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:18 AM EDT
                                                                Juliana Smith, An Alaskan

                                                                What a waste of paper used on Freedom Bill policies.
                                                                Obama's bill can be used to remove a freedom privilege on a person's health insurance, then an Idaho governor use another bill to give a privilege to sue if freedom is forcefully taken from an person to use a regulated health insurance.

                                                                History is replicated because some people refuse to Learn.

                                                                "Independent"

                                                                  Reply#18 - Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:35 AM EDT
                                                                  sfadisfsdjfDeleted
                                                                  antisocialist behavior

                                                                  I think there are about 37 states considering passing the same measures, although federal law supercedes state law. I think its a show of solidarity that Obamacare sucks. I hope wv does the same thing.

                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                  Reply#20 - Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:30 AM EDT
                                                                  Leave a Comment:
                                                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                  FUN STUFF:
                                                                  • Leaderboard |
                                                                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                  • Top of the Vine |
                                                                  • Newsvine Live |
                                                                  • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                  • The Greenhouse
                                                                  COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                  • Code of Honor |
                                                                  • Company Info |
                                                                  • Contact Us |
                                                                  • Jobs |
                                                                  • User Agreement |
                                                                  • Privacy Policy |
                                                                  • About our ads
                                                                  LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com