PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Idaho first to sign law against health care reform


thecoffeeguy
03-17-2010, 04:41 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EGKR7G1&show_article=1

37 other states, pending the same thing?

This is getting ugly and it should.

Taco John
03-17-2010, 04:45 PM
God bless my home state.

orange
03-17-2010, 04:46 PM
I sure hope one or more states carries through and files suit.

Then when it is unequivocally ruled by the Supreme Court that federal law has precedence - (from the link) "Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states" - at least a few less loon threads will be posted every day.

Taco John
03-17-2010, 04:46 PM
Hey Banyon. Here is the state's revolt that I was talking about.

orange
03-17-2010, 04:47 PM
"As goes Idaho, so goes the nation."

Taco John
03-17-2010, 04:48 PM
"As goes Idaho, so goes the nation."

We'd be a much better nation if that were true.

orange
03-17-2010, 04:48 PM
Hey Banyon. Here is the state's revolt that I was talking about.

What will you have to say when this suit is filed (har har) and slapped down? When you can no longer say with any credence whatsoever that the Courts buy into the Tenther view of the Constitution?

Taco John
03-17-2010, 04:55 PM
What will you have to say when this suit is filed (har har) and slapped down?


That the United States of America was a good idea while it lasted. I don't personally believe the Union would survive any form of nationalized health care. I don't like to say it, but it's what I believe. I think that this being slapped down would only serve to escalate the issue until a coalition of states broke off to form their own confederacy. I believe this would be exacerbated by the monetary and market issue. Obama is already warning that job numbers are going to be poor for some time to come. If this bill passes, I believe the dollar will be put in much more peril than it is currently right now. I believe that we'd basically be in the middle of a perfect storm.

I certainly hope that I'm wrong, and all that would happen is that we'd be greatly inconvenienced by another measure of socialism. But eventually the economic chickens come home to roost on that even. Sooooo...

Norman Einstein
03-17-2010, 05:04 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EGKR7G1&show_article=1

37 other states, pending the same thing?

This is getting ugly and it should.

Call the capitol - know your poing of contact, got to have the senators/congressmans name to get through.
Keep Trying to Call If It's Busy (That's the Point!)
Dial: 877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121

mlyonsd
03-17-2010, 05:05 PM
What will you have to say when this suit is filed (har har) and slapped down? When you can no longer say with any credence whatsoever that the Courts buy into the Tenther view of the Constitution?

Either way its a loser for the dems so I'm ok with it.

Hydrae
03-17-2010, 05:09 PM
Who would have thought that health care would be the issue to tear this country apart?

Taco John
03-17-2010, 05:10 PM
Who would have thought that health care would be the issue to tear this country apart?

Me. I've been saying this for years.

banyon
03-17-2010, 05:44 PM
Hey Banyon. Here is the state's revolt that I was talking about.

No, it's a "revolution". Don't forget what you said, then you backpeddled on it.

Taco John
03-17-2010, 05:50 PM
No, it's a "revolution". Don't forget what you said, then you backpeddled on it.

I'll make you a deal. For every instance you can find where I make a reference to a "revolution" in the context of the states I will pay you $100. In return, for every instance that I can find in which I referred to a "revolt" in the context of the states, you will pay me $100.

Do we have a deal?

Taco John
03-17-2010, 05:54 PM
Here's a hint Banyon... You're wrong. You don't want to take the deal. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6127390&highlight=revolution#post6127390)

BucEyedPea
03-17-2010, 05:55 PM
I sure hope one or more states carries through and files suit.

Then when it is unequivocally ruled by the Supreme Court that federal law has precedence - (from the link) "Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states" - at least a few less loon threads will be posted every day.

Except that's the big LIE promoted by the left and sometimes the others. That's Hamiltonianism right there. The Constitution is only supreme law where it has specific and enumerated aka delegated powers. Sorry, but there is no power to mandate anyone buy insurance.

banyon
03-17-2010, 06:21 PM
Here's a hint Banyon... You're wrong. You don't want to take the deal. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=6127390&highlight=revolution#post6127390)

Yes, that is the thread I was thinking of (it took me a while to find it, but I just got done searching after you had posted this link). You were correct, you only used the word "revolt", which I still think if all it means is some legislators writing angry non-binding resolutions, then it's still overblown. But you score a point on this round.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 06:39 PM
Good for Idaho. Wonder if our new Gov. will stand aginst health care too.

ClevelandBronco
03-17-2010, 06:41 PM
That the United States of America was a good idea while it lasted. I don't personally believe the Union would survive any form of nationalized health care. I don't like to say it, but it's what I believe. I think that this being slapped down would only serve to escalate the issue until a coalition of states broke off to form their own confederacy. I believe this would be exacerbated by the monetary and market issue. Obama is already warning that job numbers are going to be poor for some time to come. If this bill passes, I believe the dollar will be put in much more peril than it is currently right now. I believe that we'd basically be in the middle of a perfect storm.

I certainly hope that I'm wrong, and all that would happen is that we'd be greatly inconvenienced by another measure of socialism. But eventually the economic chickens come home to roost on that even. Sooooo...

A sad but appropriate epitaph.

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 10:11 PM
Except that's the big LIE promoted by the left and sometimes the others. That's Hamiltonianism right there. The Constitution is only supreme law where it has specific and enumerated aka delegated powers. Sorry, but there is no power to mandate anyone buy insurance.

You and me agree. Instead of bullshit insurance the government should just provide health care for everyone. Dozens of other countries provide UHC both more efficiently and far cheaper then what the average American, if he is able to get it at all, is paying for health insurance.

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 10:15 PM
Hahaha, UHC is what will destroy this country. Just think of it, the poor, elderly, your neighbors, co-workers, and even children themselves not dying and/or going bankrupt because a for profit business does not think they will make enough money curing their treatable ailments. Truly this is the end of days. I am glad reasonable folk like TJ and Buc have realized that the one thing this country can't handle is UHC. SOCIALISSSM

Taco John
03-17-2010, 10:26 PM
Hahaha, UHC is what will destroy this country. Just think of it, the poor, elderly, your neighbors, co-workers, and even children themselves not dying and/or going bankrupt because a for profit business does not think they will make enough money curing their treatable ailments. Truly this is the end of days. I am glad reasonable folk like TJ and Buc have realized that the one thing this country can't handle is UHC. SOCIALISSSM


I don't think you understand the issues all that well.

beer bacon
03-17-2010, 10:28 PM
I don't think you understand the issues all that well.

What you think means a lot to me TJ.

Taco John
03-17-2010, 10:30 PM
What you think means a lot to me TJ.

Clearly.

Taco John
03-18-2010, 02:14 AM
More on this from Idaho:

reforms that require the state's residents to buy insurance.

Tuesday afternoon's vote was 24-10 and divided closely along party lines.

All seven Democrats voted against it.

All but a few Republicans, including Joe Stegner of Lewiston and Chuck Coiner of Twin Falls, voted for it.

Sen. Monty Pearce, from New Plymouth, adopted a pugilistic style, saying "We're putting our guards up. We're putting up our hands and saying, 'We're going to protect our people.' "

Democrats said it was premature to pass legislation against a federal law that doesn't exist.

The bill passed on a 52-18 party line vote in the House. Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is almost guaranteed to sign it.

http://www.kpvi.com/global/story.asp?s=12113050

Taco John
03-18-2010, 02:14 AM
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 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.

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 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."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/17/politics/p143124D15.DTL

Garcia Bronco
03-18-2010, 10:48 AM
What will you have to say when this suit is filed (har har) and slapped down? When you can no longer say with any credence whatsoever that the Courts buy into the Tenther view of the Constitution?

It's not a "view" it's an actual law. JHFC where do you people come from?

orange
03-18-2010, 11:03 AM
It's not a "view" it's an actual law. JHFC where do you people come from?

America.

Where we have lots and lots of government programs.

Because Americans want them.

And Tenthers are a disaffected minority whose VIEW of what the Constitution means has been roundly rejected.

By most Americans.

Including the courts.

Garcia Bronco
03-18-2010, 11:18 AM
I don't think you understand the issues all that well.

I have to agree. There are so many issues...more than Playboy

Garcia Bronco
03-18-2010, 11:20 AM
America.

Where we have lots and lots of government programs.

Because Americans want them.

And Tenthers are a disaffected minority whose VIEW of what the Constitution means has been roundly rejected.

By most Americans.

Including the courts.

It's still a law in plain english and they are hardly a minority.