When Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna decided to spend our tax dollars joining nine other Republican AGs in a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the recently passed health care reform legislation, who the hell was he representing?
The 58% of Washington voters who cast their ballot for Barack Obama and his promise of health care reform? The 6 of 9 Washington congressional districts who overwhelmingly elected Democrats and their promise of health care reform? The 57% and 55% of voters who last reelected Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray respectively, and their promise of health care reform? The 500,000 Washingtonians who will be added to the state’s health care rolls?
Or, is Rob McKenna merely representing the interests of AWB and BIAW and other monied, special interests?
Washington is a state that supports health care reform and that benefits from it, yet McKenna is spending our tax dollars in the hope that an ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court will put aside a century of legal precedent and toss out this historic legislation. So I hope this puts to rest any notion that he is in someway a “moderate” Republican… a political animal that simply no longer exists.
If we can’t impeach him, perhaps we can just de-fund him? Isn’t the legislature still in special session, working on budget cuts and taxes? I think the first order of business would be to cut the spending in the A.G.’s office – refusing to allow any taxpayer money to be wasted on this futile effort at grandstanding for partison political purposes.
While we are at it, cut McKenna’s salary to partially compensate the taxpayers for the trouble they had to go through to keep him from wasting their money.
He needs to resign and just start running for governor now. Then he can posture for the tea-baggers all he wants.
Rob McKenna supports:
* using pre-existing conditions to deny insurance coverage and benefits
* denying prescription medicines to senior citizens, the disabled, and those with end-stage renal disease (IOW, Medicare) by retaining the “donut hole” in its present state
* denying access to health insurance coverage to half a million Washingtonians
* forcing young adults off their parents’ insurance long before they reach the age of 27
* not expanding Community Health Centers
* requiring deductibles and co-pays for screening and vaccinations
Etc.
If that’s what constitutes “consumer protection”, heaven forfend if he decides to step back from his signature issue as AG.
At the risk of sounding contrarian, but I really do not like the individual mandate. I feel passionate about it. I think it is a fundamental shift of power away from elected officials (i.e. democracy) to non-elected, corporate boards and CEOs. I think it is a bad precedent and will only weaken the increasingly fragile democracy of our country. I recognize that everyone is in a feel-good mood about HCR, but I support any effort do get rid of the individual mandate and all it represents.
I’ll donate…where’s the button?
Rob is merely going to underscore the firm legality of the bill. One state Bringing suit is sufficient for that, true, but we all know how firmly the Republix believe in the power of numbers. Dollars, numbers, same difference.
@4 a fundamental shift of power away from elected officials (i.e. democracy) to non-elected, corporate boards and CEOs
Why? You can buy your insurance from whomever you please. This just recognizes that those who don’t buy insurance are freeloaders on the system.
Or are you saying that you only support a government run system?
McKenna is mocking his constituency. He doesn’t seem to recognize who his client is. What a waste of this state’s dollars.
@4 I suspect a lot of us consider the passage of this bill to be only the first cut at a work in progress. Ultimately, we’ll likely spend the next ten years or so tweaking and fiddling with the details, and probably endure a number of Republican efforts to dump the whole thing. Finally, though, because just being America doesn’t entitle us to be dumb forever, we’ll find our way to implementation of a single-payer system, or something very close to it.
Every journey begins with a first step.
The comment line (unpublished on the website) at the Attorney General’s office is 360/664-2162.
@7 The point is, we are being required to buy a product from private, for-profit corporations. It would be called a tax if the money were not going straight into corporation’s coffers. So in essence it is taxation without representation. Private, for-profit corporations are replacing democratic institutions. It is another, and I think significant, example of the privatization of our government and its functions in our society. I am amazed actually that progressives in general are not more disturbed by this. It doesn’t help either that health insurance industry has monopoly exemption. In many parts of the country, one or two insurance companies control large markets. There is no choice in these areas.
What if McKenna is correct?
What if the Health Care Bill is unconstitutional?
Certainly you don’t expect our state’s chief law enforcement officer to turn his back on the Consitution….do you?
While you KLOWNS were celebrating the birth of another entitlement that will mirror the results of SOcial Security and Medicare….which combined have an unfunded liability of over $100 TRILLION…some GROWN-UPS are trying to save the Country from certain financial ruin.
Goldy, how do you explain to your daughter how the Federal, State & Local governments will deal with their Liabilities and Unfunded Liabilities which excceed $115 TRILLION???
Let’s hear your plan Goldy?
Of course folks like SS and Medicare.
Everyone likes it when someone uses a credit card to buy you things…even if they cannot afford it and burning up the credit card has dire long-term consequences.
Republicans and Democrats are to blame.
The Democrats are in charge today.
How does Obam-MaoCare help address the Budget and create jobs?
As this monstrosity is further vetted, you will see it is merely a power grab which will wipeout America as a superpower.
Perhaps that is the goal?
Massive deficit spending WILL gut our power.
Then we can all be equal with other nations….and live in Nirvana….smokin’ pot freely with Lee and the gang.
I guess McKenna is not interested in being governor. Or in even being reelected AG for that matter.
Cynical,
You old hypocrite, you. You’re always on the warpath against what you characterize as frivolous lawsuits, yet here you are promoting a frivolous lawsuit brought with public dollars for purely partisan purposes.
# 14: Yep, Cynical didn’t have a problem with Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy which killed our balanced budget and plunged us back into deep deficits, or an ill-conceived war in Iraq which didn’t make us any safer and squandered American lives and treasure, but suddenly the federal debt becomes an overwhelming problem when it comes to making sure Americans have access to affordable health care?
Sorry, but it’s hard to take seriously anyone who spells “clowns” with a “K” under any circumstance.
@12
Well Cyn, it looks like that shout of “baby killer” wasn’t from the balcony after all.
@12
Nice screed.
I welcome the lawsuit. Lets get all the objections out there on the table for everyone to see, deal with them and move on.
By the way, the source of the “Baby Killer” exclamation directed while Stupack was speaking on the floor of the house has been revealed. It was uttered by Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas. In his defense, he claims that the comment was not directed at Stupack, but was instead directed at the bill itself, and he issued a statement apologizing, saying that “…The timing and tone of my comment last night was inappropriate.”
It seems to me he’s trying to finesse the House rules. Making an innappropriate comment about a bill while another member is speaking is a relatively minor transgression, a breach of order. But insulting a member of the House from the floor is a considerably more serious rule violation. If Stupak accepts his explanation and apology, he likely won’t suffer any consequences greater than a mild warning against such outbursts in the future.
Dang, Michael beat me to it by five minutes, posting while I was still typing.
If McKenna were correct and the bill is unconstitutional because it requires citizens to purchase insurance from for-profit corporations, then why hasn’t he sued his own state to repeal the laws requiring drivers to purchase automobile insurance? Why doesn’t he insist that it is illegal for the federal government to restrict auto-buyer’s choices by forcing them to purchase cars with air bags, seat belts, lights and turn signals?
Of course, the answer to the “insurance mandate” is universal health care, or at least a public option. Shall we sound McKenna out on those issues, as well?
@4 I like mandatory insurance for the same reason I like helmet laws: I’m tired of paying other people’s medical bills. According to Rep. Inslee, the uninsured are costing Mrs. Rabbit and me $2,600 a year in higher premiums.
Gregoire won the largest settlement in history, bringing $4.25 billion into Washington’s coffeers. McKenna, by comparison, is a pipsqueak.
Remember all the yelling from the right about a staff attorney in the AGO who missed the deadline to appeal a $20 million verdict the state probably would have had to pay anyway? I wonder how much taxpayer money McKenna’s lawsuit will waste? But don’t expect the rightwing hypocrites to complain about that.
@21 There is an important difference between a health insurance mandate and laws requiring purchase of car insurance. Car insurance laws are not mandates because they do not require you to buy insurance if you do not drive your car on public roads. I know many people who do not drive and as a result do not buy car insurance. Someday, I hope to join them in being car-insurance free. There are other important differences but I think that is the primary one.
Health care shares led the stock market higher today. Damn. Looks like the bastion of capitalism doesn’t share the teabaggers’ belief that HCR is the end of life as we know it.
@12 “What if McKenna is correct?”
What if Mars is made of Emmentaler cheese? Some things are best dealt with if and when they happen.
@12 “While you KLOWNS were celebrating the birth of another entitlement that will mirror the results of SOcial Security and Medicare….which combined have an unfunded liability of over $100 TRILLION…some GROWN-UPS are trying to save the Country from certain financial ruin.”
Cynical, I have no idea what “grown-ups” you’re referring to, but it sure as hell isn’t the Republicans who created the trillion-dollar Medicare prescription drug entitlement and provided zero funding for it.
@17 Censure the bastard.
@24 I don’t like paying other people’s medical bills either. But imposing an insurance ‘tax’ (i.e. the mandate) on everyone that goes straight to private, monopolistic, for-profit corporations, with no say in how that money gets spent or used, is not the right answer, imho. Like I said, taxation without representation. I actually think it is quite dangerous. There were many ideas on how to extend access to health care to people, but our president landed on this approach and he wasn’t gonna budge. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for reform, but I don’t see the individual mandate as the way to go. It further empowers and enriches for-profit corporations at the expense of democracy.
Rob McKenna likes to pretend he’s a moderate when the media is around.
In this case, he’s making a BIG strategic mistake by pandering to the 10ther freaks. Just ask David Frum:
http://www.truthout.org/david-frum-waterloo57875
So, who is this Randy Neugebauer guy, who made the “baby killer” remark last night?
According to Wikipedia, “Neugebauer was a Lubbock city councilman from 1992 to 1998. He was mayor pro tempore from 1994 to 1996. While involved in Lubbock government, Neugebauer worked to reduce taxes and to privatize city services.” He was elected to Congress in 2003.
Before politics, Neugebauer was a real estate developer. Born in 1949, he apparently sat out the Vietnam War in college, graduating in 1972, as nothing in his biography indicates he’s a military veteran.
@30 “But imposing an insurance ‘tax’ (i.e. the mandate) on everyone that goes straight to private, monopolistic, for-profit corporations, with no say in how that money gets spent or used, is not the right answer, imho.”
There’s absolutely no difference between that and mandatory auto insurance.
@25 Screed
You would have a point IF we had a healthcare system that could refuse health care to the uninsured and (medically) insolvent.
The problem now is that some 30 yo with no healthcare who develops a lymphoma, unless he has really great insurance, will end up having 100s of $1000 in healthcare. Who do you suppose pays for that?
Same thing with Medicare. The “reforms” in Obamacare do reduce Medicare payments BECAUSE they assure that everyone will pay into the insurance system. Now, when Uncle Bill spends his own money in terminal care, cost shifting from the insured pool covers for these costs too.
Bottomline: either we get rid of Hill-Burton (the law that requires all hospitals to care for those in need regardless of ability to pay), socialize the entire system, or require that all people who are eligible for healthcare pay into the system.
Wow. Forceful argument there, Mr. Klyincal. It’s clear you put about as much thought into that legal question as McKenna and his political hack staff did.
As opposed to the actual career legal minds in the AG’s office, who are likely cringing and putting bags over their heads.
@25 Screed
Is this Consitutional?
I might begin by asking if the Bush legacy court is politicized?
Beyond that, I would support an opt-out rule IF i6t exempted the person from receiving healthcare from any provider who receives federal funds.
@33 I respectfully disagree. I know many people who do not own car insurance and are not breaking the law. Don’t own a car, and voila, no need to buy car insurance. Easy as pie. And, (but this is besides the point) there are lots of choice when buying car insurance. Lots and lots of choices. Health insurance companies are legally allowed to be monopolies. Many places have only one, maybe 2 companies to choose from. Good luck price shopping there.
@34 A robust public option would have been a way around this issue. The law could still be enacted, but people would not have been forced to buy a product/service from a private, for-profit corporation. They could have bought it from our representative government.
Otherwise I agree, socialize the system. I’m all for that, for economic and moral reasons.
Mr. Cynical, It is McKenna who is the clown. McKenna and a hand full of Republican AGs have been talking this crap for more than a month. Supposedly it tramples on the 10th amendment.
For this sort of legal asshattery one could hire pudge.
The tax penalties which are the enforcement mechanism for required coverage have been decided law for over 75 years. The Medicaid issue of unfair expansion of Medicaid would only work if Medicaid itself were unconstitutional.
I don’t know who in hell’s name is providing McKenna legal and political advice, but McKenna’s waist deep in stupidity at the moment and there certainly doesn’t seem to be a Republican near by to throw him a rope.
14. proud leftist spews:
And you deem it “frivilous” based on ???????????
What, the fact that you don’t “like” it??
Look, from Day 1, I said that even if this passes it’s not done until it passes legal muster. If the Supreme Court eventually rules this Health Care Bill is legal…I will accept it as law. If not, then I guess we need to start over and make sure it is legal.
You Hypocrite PL!!
You supported lawsuits against Eyman’s Initiatives. So did you other KLOWNS.
Same thing.
Laws must be “legal”…right?
rhp–
He also said “IT’S a Baby Killer”. Obviously referring to the Bill…not Stupak.
Just left a message on AG comment phone line. Is it just me, or is the opening phone message obnoxiously partisan? It makes reference to the huge and costly increase in medicaid expansion. Maybe he should resign and join the Seattle Times Editorial Board. Fit right in.
35. Max spews:
Actually YLB/Headlice…it’s also 9 other AG’s and possibly growing.
McKenna or any reputable AG cannot sit back and ignore the Constitutionality of a law.
You KLOWNS demanded he fight against Eyman’s Initiative’s.
Talk about hypocrites.
This will be settled by the SUpreme Court soon enough.
Hopefully just before the November ballots go out!!
Seems to me like our favorite congressman from Texas might want to worry a little more about the children that have already been born.
@12, 39, 40
Hey Cynical. You sleepin’? Seen your favorite Rasmussen over the last 4 days? So while the passage of HCR came down to the final days, and it looked like Obama’s #1 priority (err…radical socialist idea that Amurkin’s hate) looked assured of passage, which way did the numbers go?
(Tap, tap, tap. Is this thing on?)
SJ @ 34: Good point – or more acurately, that is precisely the point. We pay for it one way or another.
We pay for it in taxes to cover the indigent under Medicaid, in higher hospital costs to cover the uninsured who can’t get a doctor visit when it’s a minor problem but show up at the hospital when it’s become a real emergency, in higher health insurance premiums in many different ways, and even in “transfer payments” for the inexplicable process of insurance companies suing other insurance companies to decide who’s insured was at fault for an accident and thus must pick up the bill.
This latter example is known as “the right of subrogation”, and is an incredibly un-economical and wasteful way of paying for health care, enriching insurance company lawyers on both sides of the dispute. And let’s not forget that the driving force behind many lawsuits in this country isn’t greed, but simply an attempt to get medical bills paid. If you have the medical bills paid under a national no-faulth health plan, with no right of subrogation or the right to claim those expenses as damages, then the reason behind a lot of legal cases evaporates.
And Cyn,
That’s just back peddling. He called Rep Stupak a “baby killer ” And now he’s back pedaling. Yet another Republican that man up and take responsibility for his own actions.
I wonder if he has a wide stance?
# 40: That’s his explanation, now that it’s become an issue. That’s not what anybody around him heard.
Who knew Rob McKenna was a teabagger? Guess he finally came out of the closet.
Hey Cynical, quick – name for me how many acts of Congress have been overturned for violating the 10th Amendement?
Here is Stossel’s take on the 3 worst ingredients of Obam-MaoCare–
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusine.....gredients/
From now until the election in November, this Bill will be both vetted and legally challenged. Not sure why you folks are sooooo afraid of a legal challenge. Either requiring folks to buy health insurance is Constitutional the way it is written….or not.
That’s why we have Courts…and the Ultimate legal authority, the Supreme Court.
If you want to do away with the Supreme Court, how about a Constitutional Amendment.
And YES, I fully expect Obam-Mao to get a brief bounce in the polls for the simple reason is the vote is taken.
However, once likely Voters come to more fully understand what is in this Bill and what the legal issues are…Obam-Mao will likely drop again.
Will Obam-Mao actually sign the Senate Bill while it is being legally challenged?
How long does Obam-Mao have to sign the Bill??
Perhaps he will wait until the legal issue is resolved to save his own a$$…throwing the Senate & House Democrats under the bus for making a legal faux pas.
ANyway, good luck on your Progressive efforts to get rid of the Supreme Court!!!
@45 Unfortunately, this bill will not fully address this problem either. Because the dems caved to right-wing demagoguery and barred ‘illegals’ from buying insurance on the exchanges, even at full cost, no subsidies. This will keep them underground and uninsured so they will keep using emergency rooms for their primary health needs. I’m not even sure if the community health clinics, one of the few progressive ideas in the bill, will be able to treat undocumented people, seeing as federal money and all will be going to support the clinics. Anyone know?
Way to go Rob..
I guess he’s not interested in running for Governor after all…
I’m looking forward to Governor Inslee or even better Governor Ed Murray.
I was in DC this past week, flying home with the plane landing at Sea-Tac as the final votes were cast. I was so happy. But during the week I heard the threats from many in the opposition who said their next step was to take this to the Supreme Court. This mandate to have people ‘buy’ insurance from private insurance companies was the compromise, that the R’s didn’t want the gov’t collecting the money or paying the bills. The Republicans preferred that profits and ways of the private insurance companies were not interrupted. Well, they get to collect their premiums, but now there are conditions on who they cover (every one), how and when. They have to assume the risk for the pleasure of their profits.
AG McKenna should clean this state’s mess up with automobile insurance companies red lining folks based on their credit and addresses, especially in today’s economy. How home owner policies are routinely dropped if a claim is filed after years of timely premium payments. Yet both of these insurances are mandated if you drive a vehicle or own a home.
Right now, AG McKenna needs to look at his work load and decide if the cases he is pursuing have ‘value added’ benefit for all the time and money spent on them.
49. rhp6033 spews:
How many Acts of Congress have so obviously challenged the 10th Amendment??
We’ll see rhp. The wheels are already in motion. It won’t go away because of a political debate. It’s a legal issue.
Like I said, IF the Supreme Court rules it is legal, I will accept it as the law of the land.
What more can you ask???????????
Screaming about McKenna and his motives won’t change this freight train’s course.
It’s an obvious challenge….how can anyone be surprised as it has had a ton of Publicity.
They simply could not do what they said they would do UNTIL the House passed it…and Obam-Mao signs it.
When Obam-Mao signs, the lawsuit will progress as prescribed by the law.
That’s it.
Keep whining though.,,,if it makes you feel good.
If the Supreme Court tosses this…how will you feel? Blame the Court??
What if a Liberal Judge says it’s unconstitutional?
I Hope this goes directly to the Supreme Court.
IF the Supreme Court rules it is constitutional, then each State must decide how they want to deal with it.
Seems like you KLOWNS feel Obam-Mao is a Dictator??! He signs something and no one can contest it! Is that what you are saying?
@54 “I Hope this goes directly to the Supreme Court.”
Me, too, so I don’t have to listen to your whining for 10 years.
“IF the Supreme Court rules it is constitutional, then each State must decide how they want to deal with it.”
When (not if) SCOTUS rules it’s constitutional, there’ll be nothing for the states to deal with … unless some of them want to try secession again. (Remember how that worked out for them the last time?)
Health insurance mandates have been talked about for years.. I’m sure the concept has been constitutionally vetted to here and back..
We’ll see what happens..
Cynical @ 54 said:
Gee, do you tell your lawyer to file a lawsuit, and not check out whether you have a chance in hell of prevailing first? Do you say “Screw the cost, I just want my day in court!”? As the lawyer is running up his fees, do you just shrug, and say “I’ts a legal issue”?”
For somebody who’s so worried about waste and abuse in the government, you sure are cavalier about having our state government spend taxpayer money tilting at windmills, without first adding up the potential risks and costs.
For your information, there are very few cases under the 10th Amendment, and the only ones I am aware of where the statute was deemed unconstitutional due to the 10th Amendment were ones where the federal goverment required the state itself to enforce a federal regulation (an unfunded mandate).
Note that in 1942, the federal government was even deemed to have power under the Commerce Clause to prevent a farmer from growing wheat on their farm for personal consumption (persons and livestock) in excess of quotas, because it impacted interstate commerce by affecting the supply of wheat in general. (Wickard vs. Filburn).
The government can also force restaurants and hotels to serve people of any race without discrimination, because failure to do so negatively impacts interstate commerce.
Any attorney who’s passed the bar should be able to make out an argument that the availability of health care and health insurance, with it’s various conflicting state regulations, affects interstate commerce. Heck, they would only have to show that one person was unable to quit their job to take another one over the state line due to pre-existing coverage exclusions in their new employer’s insurance coverage negatively affected interstate commerce.
Don’t forget – in federal court, the judge can impose sanctions on an attorney and his client for presenting a cause of action not justified by either existing case law or a reasonable extension or change in case law. In other words, both McKenna and the State of Washington could be subject to an award of the federal government’s attorney’s fess and other costs if it loses.
But easy come, easy go, huh?????
Ah, yes, Cynical, the constitutional scholar. Why is it, Cynical, that only Republican AGs are signing on to this suit? You freaks are the sorest losers I’ve ever seen. Elections have consequences, Cynny, and your team hasn’t been doing very well in elections, lately (and don’t give me that Scott Brown crap).
I’m so angry there must be steam coming out of my ears. I want this jackass out of office, pronto; I sure as hell don’t want him joining a GOP lawsuit against the President in *my* name, thankyouverymuch!
The minute there’s a recall or impeachment effort underway, I am totally there.
CaseyL–
Too late dude!
He isn’t representing you…he is representing the State of WASHINGTON as an entity.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
And BTW…it’s a LEGAL ISSUE, not a political issue. How foolish will Democrat AG’s look if they turn a blind eye?
And State’s appear to have other issues they can Legislate State-by-State to circumvent this Big Brother Mandate.
It is NOT going away soon folks…no matter how much you screech.
Seems like YOU folks are becoming a bit disjointed here. Did you celebrate last night with one too many bowlsful?
@59 “Ah, yes, Cynical, the constitutional scholar.”
But I thought Pudge was the wingnut constitutional scholar around these parts? Hmm, maybe they’re all constitutional scholars? Sigh! Such dumb fucks.
I voted for McKenna (amidst an otherwise mostly-democratic ticket) in 2008, on the basis that it’s helpful to vote for the responsible, sane republicans in order to reward them for not playing to the fringes of their party.
This has made it clear to me that I was wrong on that count. I will be voting for whomever is running against Rob in 2012.
Bring it. Let them layout their best case for everyone to see and watch them fall on their faces.
@63
me too.
62. Steve spews:
Never said I was Steve…nor are you.
That’s why we have the Supreme Court…for major issues like this.
BTW–
You enjoy the games this weekend?
One of my buddies went to Purdue and was in Spokane for all the games. It was great.
My Badgers lost to Cornell. They suck.
Puddy has not rubbed it in.
So many great games and upsets.
I had Kansas winning it all. My bubble was burst. Kentucky really looked good. So do the Huskies.
A hot team can win it…even with a not so good regular season.
It’s all how badly you want and how you are playing now.
Jerri @ 53 said:
“This mandate to have people ‘buy’ insurance from private insurance companies was the compromise, that the R’s didn’t want the gov’t collecting the money or paying the bills. The Republicans preferred that profits and ways of the private insurance companies were not interrupted….”
Yet another reason not to bother trying to compromise with Republicans. They urge “compromise”, then after they’ve gotten half of what they want, they still refuse to vote for the bill, and then try to file suit to steal the half of the compromise you’ve got left.
This alone should be reason enough not to even acknowledge their existence. They have made themselves irrelevent, no more than a mere whisper in the forest. Every proposal, every funding request, from them should be met with silence. They have earned nothing less.
64. Michael spews:
Good for you Michael!
Now that is the American spirit.
Your fellow KLOWNS seem to think bitching will make it go away.
I’m with you…bring it and let the chips fall where they may!!
Anachronym @63:
You’ll find his name on the “Governor” line.
@12
Maybe we can reduce the budget deficit by canceling FARM SUBSIDIES and removing the business tax credit for gas guzzling pickup trucks? Just a thought about some other entitlement programs that you seem to have overlooked.
@61 You’re a tad naive my friend (I do mean that kindly) — the AG is faced with more lawsuits than they could ever hope to bring, so they pick and choose. As for this choice – it’s a pretty big hint that the lawsuit is only being supported by Republicans. If it was a serious constitutional issue, there’d be broader support. It’s political, not legal.
Governor Gregoire slaps McKenna good (from a press release just issued):
Gov. Gregoire’s statement on Attorney General’s lawsuit against health care reform
OLYMPIA – Gov. Chris Gregoire issued the following statement today regarding news of Washington state’s Attorney General Rob McKenna’s decision to file a lawsuit against the health care reform law passed by Congress yesterday:
“I’m disappointed that the Attorney General would participate in a lawsuit to repeal a law that would help 1.5 million Washingtonians get access to affordable, quality health care.
“I completely disagree with the Attorney General’s decision and he does not represent me.
“He doesn’t represent the people of Washington who would get assistance so they could afford quality health insurance. He doesn’t represent the thousands of small businesses that would benefit from tax credits to provide coverage for their employees. He doesn’t represent the thousands who will no longer be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. He doesn’t represent the half million young people in our state who would be covered under their parents plan until they are 26. He doesn’t represent our state’s Medicare recipients. He doesn’t represent the taxpayers of Washington.
“This is landmark legislation that will cover over 32 million Americans who don’t have health care. I have made it clear to the Attorney General that I will actively oppose this lawsuit if it moves forward.”
# # #
N @ 69: Which means at best that he’s just doing this long enough to gain some publicity, at which point he will dump the consequences for his decision into somebody else’s lap (assuming he resigns to run for governor).
What I pity is the poor attorney in the A.G.’s office, a professional public servant who works hard to protect the people of Washington State and to safeguard the taxpayer’s money, who is going to be told that “I don’t care if there’s no merit to the suit, just sign your name on the papers! You don’t get paid to think, you get paid to do what I tell you to do! If you don’t win, it’ll be ALL YOUR FAULT!”
proud leftist–
And Tax-and-Squander lying Governor is about as popular as that wart on the end of your pointy schnoz!
Blah-blah-blah…talking points.
Gregoire was the AG!
She knows darn well it is McKenna’s job to make certain of the Constitutionality of this massive law..and it is massive as evidenced by Gregoire’s own press release.
McKenna=Law
Gregoire=Screeching politcal noisebox.
Cynny squeals: “She knows darn well it is McKenna’s job to make certain of the Constitutionality of this massive law..”
Actually, you’re quite wrong, Cynny. The AG has no obligation to test this legislation in court. None at all. Rather, his obligation is to represent his client, the people of the state of Washington. He is not doing that. This legislation helps this state. McKenna is pursuing political points. And, your mantra that this lawsuit is about the legal and not the political is laughable. Are you really that stupid?
I wonder, would progressives be against the state AG from challenging a federal law that says, oh, everyone must buy a membership in a group that protects the 2nd amendment? If not, the IRS will ding you 2% of your income, and money from that fine will go to a fund that ensures all Americans can have unfettered access to firearms. Or, what if the republicans passed a law that required every citizen to buy at least one firearm and keep it in their house for security. It is an imperfect analogy, of course, but not off by too much I think. My take is that the republicans are as incensed about healthcare reform (though I think they doth protest too much) as I would if any of the above were to happen. I’d want the AG to fight that with everything he/she had. So, sure, let the AG challenge this law and see how it plays out. I won’t begrudge the republicans their day in court. This might help people better accept it if it does pass constitutional muster.
Apples and oranges, screed. Health insurance plainly implicates interstate commerce. Congress can legislate in matters that implicate interstate commerce. I do not see constitutional authority for Congress to act with regard to the two alternatives you offer. Those two alternatives also raise free expression concerns.
@76 I hope you are right, because I really don’t like the precedence of this law. Guns are very much interstate traffic, so I’m not sure I understand your argument. And congress passes laws about free expression all the time.
Anyway, I used the analogy primarily to illustrate why I do not think it is inappropriate for the AG to challenge the law. Give the republicans their day in court. I’d want the same.
Oh Cyn?!?
“And YES, I fully expect Obam-Mao to get a brief bounce in the polls for the simple reason is the vote is taken.
However, once likely Voters come to more fully understand what is in this Bill and what the legal issues are…Obam-Mao will likely drop again.”
You might want to familiarize yourself with polling (surprisingly not done by Rasmussen) of how people feel about HCR in general vs. the specifics.
http://www.newsweek.com/media/84/1001_ftop_v2.pdf
Contrary to your fantasy, the more people fully understand what is in the bill, the MORE likely they are to support it.
Thanks for letting me pet your imaginary goat in your mind’s playground though. It’s cute the things you believe true.
77
I don’t think the lawsuit is brought in good faith. All Americans who work must pay Social Security, correct? Who is it that wants to privatize Social Security so that our premiums go to private entities? Why, the Republicans, of course, including Rep. Paul Ryan, who Cynny wants for president. So, if that mandatory payment can be directed to private entities, why is there this supposed philosophical opposition to the healthcare mandate? Why, because there is no philosophical opposition. It is purely political interests that drive this suit. The lawsuit is intended to maintain uncertainty about the healthcare legislation’s validity as long as possible so that political points might continue to be scored.
@66 Yeah, it was a great college basketball weekend, that’s for sure. I was surprised at how easily the Huskies dismantled the Lobos and how they went deep in the bench doing it. Coach Romar probably won over a recruit or two with that game. Now comes West Virginia.
79
You raise a good point. I don’t think the republicans in general are against the idea directing public money to private (coroporate) gain. This health care bill just streamlines the process, cutting out the ‘representative elected government’ middleman. I suppose this is an example of strange bedfellows, because I really don’t like the individual mandate. So, go ahead republican Rob McKenna, slay this beast. But I do think it is a question that needs to be vetted in the courts. The examples I gave in #75 were spur of the moment, I’m sure there are other examples that may be more appropo of how this precedence will be very bad for progressive values and policies. The example you gave is a good one, and I didn’t like the move to privatize SS either. I hope the couts find the individual mandate unconstitutional, even if it means cheering on the republicans in this one case. Gaar, I can’t believe I just wrote that…
Everyone who claims the health insurance mandate is different from the auto insurance mandate is mistaken.
Yes, you can avoid having to buy auto insurance by not owning a car or driving on public roads.
And you can also avoid having to buy health insurance by having a low enough income, or by working at a job that provides health insurance for you.
Maybe you think you can’t get by on less than you make now. Well, in many parts of the state, you can’t get by without a car.
Lowering your income to avoid the health insurance mandate is no less realistic than giving up your car to avoid the auto insurance mandate. Moving to a different job where you get health benefits is no less realistic than moving to a different house where you can walk or bike to work.
@81 screed
1. ALL attorneys must make decisions about how to use their client’s resources. Apparently our attorney feels this is more important to his clients than: Microsoft and Amazon claiming the right to avoid taxes by creating shells, Texas and Alaska taxing WA citizens use of gasoline, …………..
2. The lack of representation of Western states in Federal agencies and the HUGE extra costs we all face when dealing with federal agencies.
3. Failure or the legislative branch of WA state to fulfill our State Constitution in re K-12.
etc etc
McKenna has donned the brownshirt and arm band of the Tea Baggers.
@82
There’s also a religious exemption.
McKenna is a dickwad. (For those who don’t know, a dick wad is a used tampon. Been used, no good anymore.)
McKenna is running for governor. He got some press earlier for the Dish Network (or was it cable? ) fraud suit. It was trivial, and intended only to generate press releases.
The triviality of this move should be stapled to his forehead and he should have to answer questions about it left, right and center.
The Republicans are about hardly anything else.. All that social conservative crap is just noise to keep their base in line. Look at their private behavior – it’s a total joke.
They get really pissed off when Democrats do it and harvest a crapload of campaign contributions in the process. They went after Clinton so hard for EXACTLY this.
All Republican AG’s on this lawsuit..
Obama is so many chess moves ahead of these guys – it’s hilarious.
Those of us who have followed Robby since he was on King County Council know exactly what he is and he has just shown it.
If it is found illegal to require private insurance there goes auto insurance. Just create a public option and problem fixed.
I, for one, am absolutely thrilled Rob McKenna has decided to throw his hat in with the other AG wingnuts, even though it will waste some taxpayer moneybefore the Guv and State Leg shuts it down (I’m guessing a “no money may be spent” clause will be added to the budget that nukes that suit).
I was pretty worried that in 2012, he’d be able to walk into the Governor’s office with Rossi-esque “I’m a moderate” bullshit, thanks to all his consumer advocacy goo-goo work as AG obscuring his King County Council record. Well, now he won’t- it will be plain as day that he’s part and parcel with the crazies.
Here’s a hint, Rob- read this list of states AG you’re suing with:
Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, and South Dakota
Which one of those states had the highest voting percentage for Obama- you know, the guy who made that “unconstitutional” health care reform a campaign promise?
Being part of the Batshit Crazy Caucus might work in the primaries… but good luck with that in November 2012.
That little slimey twerp cut his teeth at the side of the reviled Indian hater Slade Gorton. It should come as no surprise that Mckenna be challenged by the scope of the limits of fucking state power. He’s an SOB
88. Bob spews:
Bob–
That silly argument has been refuted many, many times. Are you REQUIRED to own a car???
I’m just askin’
That is the difference…and a big one.
Owning a car is OPTIONAL.
Try again
And don’t forget McKenna is the ass that allows agencies to use the Attorney General’s office to attack state workers. And I’m not talking about state employees doing anything criminal, I am talking about state agencies using this bad economy to go after employees they target for elimination, all with the blessing of this prick McKenna. Disgusting.
We all know McKenna comes down on the side of the rich powers that be. Screw the other 95% of us, McKenna only supports the upper few percent.
With this ridiculous grandstanding on the HCR bill, he can kiss his chance at Governor goodbye. People aren’t going to forget he came down on the wrong side of this issue.
KKKlown sez: “Are you REQUIRED to own a car???
I’m just askin’
That is the difference…and a big one.
Owning a car is OPTIONAL.”
You are required to purchase auto insurance if you operate an auto. The fact that driving is optional is irrelevant. This mandate is adopted to promote the public good.
You are required to purchase health insurance because to be alive is to have a nearly 100% probability of having bad health sooner or later. The need for health care for the living is not “optional” in any meaningful sense unless you consider suicide an option. This mandate is adopted to promote the public good.
@91: Your argument is the one that’s been refuted (see #82).
Working at a job that pays enough to subject you to the mandate but doesn’t provide health insurance is “OPTIONAL” too. Sure, most people don’t really have a choice if they want to keep a roof over their heads, but most people can’t really give up their cars either.
The final word on Screed: His/her whole point is that the government is free to require people to particpate in the auto insurance market if they opt in by driving on the public roads. But of course, as Screed him/herself admits in one post you can not opt out of participation in the medical/system. Everyone (everyone, that is, who might ever get sick or have an accident) is already in it and either they are paying their share or someone else is paying it for them.
Cynny,
Any chance you’ll respond to my post at 79? Nah, you never engage when Glenn Beck doesn’t provide you your talking points.
Pay attention! What Rob is fighting for is state’s rights. The Feds do not have the power to force us to buy something – the state does.
I’m all for health-care, but not at the cost of my freedom. Have Americans forgotten our love and fight for freedom?
The state of Washington has a health-care program, it just needs a boost to help more people, maybe even an overhaul and some cost-cutting (as do all state agencies)
Federal control = east-coast control, lets keep power more local
95
My whole point is not that car insurance requirements are legal, health insurance mandates are not. One argument I am making, perhaps not well, is that there are meaningful differences between the two and because one is already accepted does not mean the other should be embraced with no thoughts to the consequences. My main (whole) point is that I do not like making it official, signed into law, that private, for-profit, monopolistic health insurance companies will be the primary gatekeepers and controllers of access to health care. The president had a choice – strengthen the private insurance stranglehold on access to health care or loosen that stranglehold. He opted to strengthen the stranglehold and I don’t like the implications, not just for health care but for other aspects of our society as well. I think it is bad and dangerous policy.
Wow. The hypocrisy here is hilarious. If the writers logic is followed we should never have this “reform” since polls show that near 60% of THE COUNTRY opposes the President/Senate plan. To include independents
By the way supporting a notion of reform doesn’t mean you support this piece of monstrosity
Does A Legal Challenge Have Any Chance?
Not unless opponents of health reform come up with a better argument than this one. Legal analyst Andrew Cohen writes in The Atlantic:
“Fifty years after its last high-water mark in American life, the dubious doctrine of interposition is back in vogue. Once offered up in vain by desperate southern leaders as a legal justification for blocking federal civil rights initiatives, including Supreme Court rulings, it is now being used by opponents of health care reform as they marshal their forces with an eye toward post-passage litigation challenging the constitutionality of the new legislation.
“The largely discredited doctrine posits that the effect of Supreme Court decisions or other ‘encroachment’ by the federal government may validly be blocked by the ‘interposition’ of a viable state right (say, under the 10th Amendment) between the feds and the subject of the consitututional pronouncement. … It … has no tangible support in modern American law. The Supreme Court has never, ever ruled the doctrine valid or permissible as a defense to the enforcement of a federal law. …
“Are we now going to see this loser’s gambit — we are taking our marbles, going home, and refusing to accept the legislative defeat — every time a controversial measure is passed? It seems to me this sort of ugly future would either diminish further the import of the interposition doctrine — which is hard to imagine given its lowly status — or it elevates beyond comprehension or reason the passion of the people … against this particular reform measure.
“Either way, history teaches us that it never ends well for the forces of interposition. And it won’t end well here, either. Like Jim Crow and de jure segregation of the races, the era of health care coverage as we have known it for decades has come and gone, never to return.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....ion/37778/
Finally!!! Someone is our state willing to stand for the constitution!!
As a political gimmick, this move by McKenna is a masterpiece in terms of blocking any primary challengers from the tea party activists. But it also makes it very difficult for him to win in 2012, as it will galvanize the Democrats, and more than a mere majority of the independents, against him.
I’m hoping Gregoire doesn’t run again, she’s a fine governor but a less-than-inspiring campaigner. I’m hoping we can get a good Democratic nominee who can carry the banner against McKenna. Any suggestions?
I said 2012, I meant 2010.
@101
Another nutjob who hasn’t actually read the Constitution.
A few Salient points from the Constitution (the original NOT the amendments, eat that “founders original intent” fans.)
Article one, Section eight.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Article six:
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Congress can make laws effecting the general welfare AND laws made by Congress are the supreme law AND officers of the states are bound by the Constitution to abide by it.
Now what might have been the framers original intent? That’s what the right claims to be fighting for.
@101 I’m Steve and you’re not. Get another screen name.
rhp6033:
No you didn’t. Washington elects its statewide officials in Presidential years.
Both Lisa Brown and Jay Inslee are thought to be angling for a gubernatorial run. It’s unknown whether Governor Gregoire would like to stay in office, but I hope she decides to move on to other things. I have no idea whether Brown and/or Inslee would stay out of it if she chose to run for a third term.
Rm is aligning hisself with the teacuppers; they’re a distinct minority here, but very visible, very Vocal.
This is a political ploy, paid with taxpayer funds, with only ONE Agenda: Further his career-ambitions.
It should be Stopped.
If the Health Care Authority would open up the Uniform Medical Plan to private parties (employers and other collective groups), then Washington would have its very own Public Option. Added bonus: stops McKenna in his tracks.
@107
Guy, what political ambitions? McKenna just ended an future he had as a statewide elected official. In 2012 he’s going to get creamed against Inslee, Brown, or even Gregiore.
As a “prefers GOP party” his only hope at winning statewide office is to win Pierce and Snohomish counties while not losing King to badly. Coming off as a crazy teabagger is not how you do that.
I read many spiteful posts condemning McKenna’s actions as some form of a disservice to Washingtonians, but none of those commentators displays the courage to examine the core complaint that, IF true, should muster support from the whole population left and right.
IF the bill is in violation of the Constitution, then the AG’s filing suit are to be commended for having discovered the perfidy.
If the bill is found to be Constitutional, then the AG’s filing suit were performing a vital vetting function we all need.
If we’re to be a united people then the valid concerns by a very significant percentage of Americans over the constitutionality of a law more than deserves the vetting process this suit will bring.
It’s not a “crazy teabagger” move to question the constitutionality of a law as sweeping and extensive as is the HCR.
I’m willing to bet big that those posting criticism for Mckenna’s actions couldn’t determine on their own whether the bill is Constitutional or not. I further suspect that these anti-lawsuit posters are probably less than concerned about following the Constitution so long as what results from Congress is in agreement with the posters’ own ideologies. Everything I’ve read here indicates a dissatisfaction because McKenna’s actions are inconsistent with Washingtonians’ voting record, while ignoring the question of Constitutionality. Whether we like the bill or not as Washingtonians, if it is unconstitutional, it must be repealed, period.
The philosophy displayed by these negative posters (“the ends justify the means”) is fatal for a republic.
Ross, the problem is that the “core complaint” is absurd. There is no reason to expect that the bill will be found unconstitutional. At best, this is a desperate Hail Mary pass; more likely it’s just a cynical attempt to pander to right-wingers at taxpayer expense.
Even if “a very significant percentage of Americans” believe the bill to be unconstitutional, so what? The popularity of that belief is not evidence that it’s correct. Those people have no evidence on their side: no text in the Constitution and no court precedent. Nothing but desperation and denial.
@110
If my reading of the bill is correct, then McKenna has no legal leg on which to stand.
The bill specifically lays out that individuals can opt out of buying insurance. And if they do, they are subject to a TAX (see the constitution regarding Congress’ ability to levy taxes). If you wish to not pay the constitutionally levied tax, buy insurance. But individuals still have a choice.
The language of the bill is quite specific that the penalty for not having insurance comes up as a line item on individual federal tax returns. It goes on to discuss exemptions for taxation (religious, 100% of poverty line, under 18, etc.) In fact, the language is so specific it’s almost as if someone in Congress is a lawyer who drafted the legislation with just this sort of bat-shit challenge in mind.
But there are no lawyers in Congress right?
You could read all of Sec. 1501 that’s relevant, or you could just spout off the theories you’re hearing on right wing radio. Admittedly, I just spouted off my own theory of what the text actually says.
Unconstitutional. . . Yes! They are relying on the commerce clause of the constitution to claim the power to regulate mandated health insurance. This will be found unconstitutional because (1) In order to be commerce, health insurance must be able to be purchased across states lines. . . it’s not. (2) Some are comparing this to mandatory auto insurance. We are required to purchase auto insurance IF <— SEE THIS CONDITION we own a car and drive it on public highways. We are not forced to purchase auto insurance just for living. This new healthcare law requires everybody to purchase a good or service just for living. Never in the history has the commerce clause been twisted to force an individual to purchase a good or service for living.
@113
Totally 100% wrong. The bill does NOT require you to purchase a good or service. The bill levies a new tax. And the bill spells out precisely how to become exempt from said federal tax (pegged to your income and adjustable for other current deductions I might add.)
It’s pretty damn clever now that I’ve read it. It mandates a new Federal Income Tax. Nothing more.
Now the frothing mouthed righties can rail all they want about their taxes being too high but only the truly foolish argue that federal income taxes are unconstitutional.
Even without going into the full text of the language it SPECIFICALLY says you have an option. Buy insurance or pay the tax. So the claim that the new law (I guess I should stop calling it a bill) MANDATES individuals to purchase insurance is just plain ignorant.
READ THE LAW!!! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111HrlEqD::
An individual’s choice not to have health insurance is not “commerce” and thus does not fall within Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.
@114
The tax penalty is unrelated to any taxable event or activity. “It is to be levied upon persons for their failure or refusal to do anything other than to exist and reside in the United States.”
You can call it a tax or anything you want but any sane individual understands it’s a penalty for a person’s failure or refusal to purchase health insurance. Period.
@116
Ah, but there’s the rub. Levying a penalty/tax is NOT unconstitutional in any way. It is tied specifically to your taxable income. That’s a taxable event. You made income over the amount of the exempted level.
Any sane individual would not argue that Congress can’t tax income. (That right of Congress is actually an Ammendment to the Constitution but who reads that silly old piece of paper?)
@111, 112,
Thanks for responding without insults.
Your points may be true, or they may not. Given that it is not your job to vet laws coming from Congress, your opinion satisfies only yourself, and not those of us who think the matter is more complex than what you purport it to be.
I’m sure there are nuances and legal precedents that your back-o-the-napkin analysis overlooks. I am sure that the matter isn’t as simple and dismiss-able as “absurd” as you would make it appear, as there are career lawmakers from 10 states that now feel otherwise. My guess is that list continues to grow.
Just how many “absurd” Attorneys General need to sign on to the lawsuit before you at least admit that maybe you’re analysis is not fully qualified?
I tend to take seriously claims made by a large number of educated and experienced people, particularly when I, as a lay person, can sense there is something wrong with forcing me to buy a financial product, from whatever source, without an opt out. There is no opt out; I must pay, either an insurance company or the IRS.
I cannot opt out of the privilege like I can with auto insurance.
In short, you’re claim is that you know better, from your armchair analysis, than those that do this for a living and have the degrees to back it up. I want to know the deal is tight and right, and frankly, I don’t now know that and I also believe you don’t either, so your opinion is only mildly valuable to me in my analysis of these events.
I hardly consider as “absurd” the valuable and needed testing a legal challenge brings to a brand new, game changing, cobbled-together, not-read-by-most-of-those-that-voted-for-it, back-door-deal-driven, pay-off-ridden, week-end-midnight-voted-on, unquestionably-unpopular (every pole shows the bill lacked popular support) legislation that had even Warren Buffet claiming it was better to start over.
You think you know better. I doubt your opinion has the necessary academic and scholarly background, and I want it proven to me that this is not another example of Congress overstepping its boundaries.
Thanks for reading.
Ross
@118
Well put.
@117
Read the Title of the Bill (Law). It’s not about levying a new tax, it’s about Healthcare and requiring everyone to purchase it or pay a penalty to the IRS for not doing so. Even during the debates, the dems were arguing that they had the authority under the commerce clause of the constitution.
@118
There were well academically trained career professional individuals who argued that a school board could keep a child with different skin pigmentation from attending.
Just recently, there were academically trained career professionals who argued that the U.S. could hold a prisoner indefinitely without access to Habeas Corpus.
If looking for professional opinions, why ignore the small army of attorney’s who actually craft the language of bills?
@120
“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”
That says, “Requiring everyone to purchase (Healthcare) or pay a penalty to the IRS?”
I have never been so motivated to make calls, donate, post and tweet as I have about the need for health care reform. AG McKenna’s unilateral choice to join in the lawsuit with other GOP AG’s wasn’t representative of all or even most Washington voters. I’d sign any petition that could result in his departure. He’s an embarrassment.
@121
Thanks for the examples. They are poignant but it’s a non-sequitur to posit that because lawmakers have been extremely fallible in the past a rigorous debate and analysis by the same group, of a product they themselves (small army of attorneys) produced, is not now needed or is “absurd”. Given your own examples, why the unquestioned trust in what was just passed?
We have to work with what we have; human legislators, and like science, we need to test, try, and vet for soundness anything as important as the socialization of 17% of the US economy.
Like science, where theories are tested and tried for truthfulness, not ideology, no one should be afraid to have this bill tested and scrutinized for Constitutionality. If it’s a sound bill, it should pass scrutiny. If not, it should be sent back to the drawing board.
Like science, it will withstand testing if sound, and fail under analysis if not.
I’m not ignoring the product of that small army of legislators, czechsaaz, I just understand all too clearly the incredible pressure put on them to pass the bill; I’m all too aware of the pay-offs, bribes, secret deals that even Obama called “ugly” to trust that everyone voted their un-coerced conscience on this bill.
Frankly, I understand “groupthink” all too well.
Hence my sincere doubts that need to be addressed, as will be the case in a legal challenge of the HCR act.
I welcome it as I do the testing of any plan I have to be invested in.
It’s too bad too many are too quick to trust government to produce and run a sound economic program of this size. I see too little historical evidence that government can get it right and not end up with colossal unfunded obligations.
Actually, history is not kind to those trying to find confidence in government thriftiness and financial acumen.
@113
That is not true. Read my comment #82.
@118
First, you can opt out, just like with auto insurance, as I’ve repeatedly explained. You do, however, have to give something up in order to opt out — again, just like with auto insurance.
Second, why is it that you take seriously those claims that align with your “sense”, but you don’t take seriously the claims made by a large number of educated and experienced people who state that the bill is constitutional?
Not really. A majority of people polled shortly before the bill passed believed that the bill was either just right or didn’t go far enough, with only 40% believing it went too far. After the bill passed, a majority believes it was the right thing to do and a plurality is happy that it passed, again with only about 40% opposed.
@124
I guess you’ve never looked at any other country’s health care system, then?
I am sure that far more brilliant minds than Rob McKenna have looked at the constitutionality of the health care reform. Health care in the US is BROKEN… We have insurance companies making health care decisions, insurance companies OWNING hospitals and clinics. The original purpose of insurance companies was to invest the premiums, and insure that individuals did not bare the burden of catastrophic events. We are one of the only countries that does not provide universal health care… FOLKS PEOPLE ARE DYING AND SUFFERING NEEDLESSLY in this country. We are not talking about ROAD improvements or bridges to no-where, we are talking about HUMAN LIFE, and the quality of that life. Reform has to start somewhere, we cannot wait for 10s of thousands of people to die or suffer while we try to craft a perfect health care reform. We need to start with something… and this is far from perfect, but it is a start. I think we all need to step back and think about what is really at stake here.
@125
Jesse, it does no good to compare other countries’ infrastructure to America’s institutions because no other country shares our form of government and definitely not our make-up; the American electorate and tricameral government, with it’s unique-in-all-the-world states’ rights is too dissimilar to any other developed country to make a useful comparison of something so large as socialized medicine.
Besides, I can honestly say I have heard both good and bad from Candians about their system. I’m no closer to knowing the system is the right thing to do by asking Canadians or Aussies; I’ll just continue to receive more polar responses.
I’ll concede the polls have shifted but I’m not sure the public wont change its mind again, as they have in the last week.
Everyone has his/her biases, and mine is toward not trusting the government to run this thing right. Neither do I trust they are within their constitutional limits.
I have history on my side to support my deep pessimism. History is not your friend on the matter of government administration of large and expensive projects. So, in light of the near uniform failure rate of the federal government to stay on budget, I suspect we will see a repeat of all the past incredibly large fiscal failures (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) to come even remotely close to original budgets and projections. Hence my alignment with those that are equally skeptical of the government’s purposes and limits.
I’m amazed at your apologetic posture to defend a government that has such a dismal track record for responsibility and execution; we’re bankrupt nationally and the majority of the states are swimming in red ink; you have no examples of the government successfully running large entitlement programs, just the contrary, but you embrace more of the same. You look to the drunk for sobriety, to the fool for wisdom, to the addict for self restraint. Why? What have you to support your confidence that this time will be different? You have no examples of a program this size running on budget for any appreciable length of time. You have runaway deficits and otherworldly-large (can you even comprehend the trillions of dollars that are the unfunded mandates of both? I can’t) unfunded mandates in SS and Medicare.
If this were an investment decision, you would be faced with the question of whether or not to give more money and authority over your estate to a money manager that has already broken every promise and exceeded every pledged limit made in the first big investment (Social Security) and exceeded loss expectations by about 1000% in the second big investment (Medicare).
Why would you give a third round of investment funding (and orders of magnitude larger than the first) to a manager with this record of completely underestimating the losses and breaking all pledged limits and restraints (none of the promises made in 1936 with Social Security has been kept. Not one. They were all broken just four administrations later).
You are expecting what the government has never delivered. You are trusting to do the right thing a body that is known for the opposite disposition. You anticipate intelligent vetting from a body that cannot make the claim that they even read the bill (many made remarks to the contrary, that we’ll “read it after it passes” and that “why read it? I would need a lawyer to help me understand it,”…). Sorry, but this group has displayed plenty of dishonesty, ineptitude, and impetuousness for me to accept their product without looking under the hood and talking to the neighbors.
Thanks for reading.
Ross
Yesterday on The Bob Rivers Show, we talked health care with both Rob McKenna and Christine Gregoire. Check it out on our website at http://www.bobrivers.com/#v0c0i12332
Where do I sign? I want this man out of office ASAP. Let him spend his own money to fund his windmill hunt.
This article is misleading. The people of American, of the majority did not want Obama Care. Also, our state of Washington has little impact as to the actual election of a president. To be honest you saying: “The 58% of Washington voters who cast their ballot for Barack Obama and his promise of health care reform? The 6 of 9 Washington congressional districts who overwhelmingly elected Democrats and their promise of health care reform? The 57% and 55% of voters who last reelected Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray respectively, and their promise of health care reform? The 500,000 Washingtonians who will be added to the state’s health care rolls?” Is not the point.
This is the point: Both Republicans and Democrates serve big business. Proof of that is how Obama made deals with the healthcare industries….if you doubt that, then look at how the medical inductry stocks are goin up and up and up…. Obama is no different than Bush when Bush allowed the finanical industry to take advantage of America. You have to realize that Democrates and Republicans are killing we the people of America….we the tax payers. If you can’t see that, then you need to do some more investigation.
Sincerely,
Dan Carroll
McKenna looks like a evangelical minister with a God complex–if his issue had been put to a vote of the people then it might have represented PART (not me)of Washington–I think he should be removed from office post haste for going this far on his own agenda and not representing the people–cut his funding,impeach him whatever it takes to make him remember he is supposed to represent ALL OF US not just special interest!
Re 125
Jesse, your opt out simply isn’t true. Nor is it philisophically sound.
What you offer is a way for someone else to pay for me. What you ask is that I surrender my right to pursue financial security in order to comply with a law. ANY law that asks that of me is fundamentally at odds with the spirit of this country.
Nor does it relieve the obligation. It passes it on to my neighbors. It passes it on to my employer. It in no way alters the fact that under this law, for the first time in US history, I’m taxed not for activity or wealth earned, but for the simple act of existence.
I respect your right to your opinions. But I’m baffled by how you came by them.
Re 131
What specific violation of law did Mr. McKenna commit? What mal or misfeasance in the performance of his office?
I would bet you joined the loud cries of hatred when President Bush fired employees serving at his pleasure. I bet you called that an injustice and an unwarranted interference with the justice department.
Where is the outrage now?
This is the text of an email I sent Gregoire:
I run a small business in Kennewick Washington, and wanted to let you know that Democratic policies towards healthcare in this state have destroyed my ability to provide reasonable health insurance for my employees. We have recently been forced by the lack of competition among insurance companies (I can only access 3…3!!!!) to go to catastrophic policies and HSA’s. Unacceptable: as is your opposition to Rob McKenna.
Your blog is appropriately named.
@132
Just like the auto insurance mandate asks you to surrender your right to pursue mobility in order to comply with a law, right?
You can have a car, or you can have the freedom from having to buy auto insurance. But you can’t have both.
Likewise, you can have certain jobs — those that pay enough to subject you to the mandate — or you can have the freedom from having to buy health insurance. But you can’t have both.
Once again, that simply isn’t true: it depends on both income and activity. If your income is below a certain level, if you buy private insurance, or if you receive insurance from your employer, you will not be subject to this tax.
You are simply wrong.
My drivers license is a priviledge granted by the state. To obtain the priviledge I surrender certain rights. (For my money mandatory auto insurance is unconstitutional as well, but this is a different topic.) I can elect not to drive and not to limit my liberties.
I cannot choose not to engage in the health care system. I can, and ought to be allowed to, choose on what financial terms I do so. I choose. Not Obama. Not my insurance company. Me. It is my right, which I will never surrender to a thing like Obama. I will never pay a fine (not a tax, a fine) for non-comnpliance. If the feds want to steal my home they can. I can’t stop them. But no voluntary dime of mine will go to support this encroachment of basic economic liberty. They will have to force it and show that this is about control and force, not assistance.
“Once again, that simply isn’t true: it depends on both income and activity. If your income is below a certain level, if you buy private insurance, or if you receive insurance from your employer, you will not be subject to this tax.”
It isn’t a tax. It’s a fine. It’s a penalty for not being a good boy and doing exactly as Der Feurher Obama wants me to. And what you write is false. Someone pays, me or someone else. I could care less who, the gist is that either I engage in commerce against my will or I’m a criminal. This strikes at the heart of basic freedom of choice. Not you, Obama Pelosi or any other traitor to this country has any fucking right to tell me how wealthy I can be without penalty. Clear enough?
Choose slavery if you like. Just don’t kid yourself on the terms under which you sell your freedoms.
@136
Well, then, I guess everyone else on the road is lucky that you aren’t the arbiter of constitutionality.
Why give him all the credit? Don’t forget the hundreds of other Fuehrers in Congress. Oh, and the nearly 70 million Fuehrers who voted for Obama in 2008, when health care was at the forefront of the campaigns.
You go, girl! Let us know when you decide to take a stand so we can come visit you in prison, OK?
… or no one pays, if you aren’t subject to the mandate. Funny how you keep forgetting that part. Why, it’s almost as if you’re willfully ignoring the facts that contradict you.
He is my hero! What guts it takes to stand
up against Obama and do the right thing. Good
for Rob!
This an interesting blog. I really do not understand the anger aimed at our AG. From what I’ve read about the suit he has joined is that it claims that it is unconstitutional to require all citizens (except those deemed exempt) to purchase some type of health insurance product from a private company or face a penalty from the IRS. Please correct me if I am misinformed about that.
The company I have health insurance with has paid Virginia Mason, a non profit hospital, well over $200,000 on my behaf as a cancer patient there. I was making payments to V.M. for my responsibility but fell behind during treatment, (mostly due to being without income for a year, but also being debilitated from treatment). V.M. turned my account over to Merchants Credit in Bellevue who refused to accept a payment plan on my debt (they are robotic in their tenacity to collect debt regardless of how ill you may be). After missing a year of work, I could not afford to pay off that debt in a lump sum, so they sued me and received permission from the court to garnish my wages.
With so many knowledgeable voices here, please tell me how many missed mandatory payments it would take before the IRS did the same thing?
The reason I am against the mandate part of the health care bill (which is what he is suing about) is there is no public option, therefore the mandate is a win/win for insurance companies. Making it a mandate to buy insurance is difficult for the poor. If they could afford insurance, they most likely would already have it. Without a public option, insurance companies will go ape-shit with their prices. So-o-o I’m a tad-bit supportive of Rob suing to remove the mandate part. I’m no so sure that is right to make it mandatory for us to buy a product from a company. Does that seem right to you? If we did have a cheaper public option, I think the mandate would have a different meaning. But without it, it seems a tad unconstitutional. It is like forcing us to support a business whether we want to or not. He is not suing against the whole health care bill, just the mandate portion.
@136: So – Lost is still arguing his pathetic little points.
Let us sat that Lost opts to not get insurance because he/she thinks that they are young and healthy and not in need of insurance.
Of course, the young are most likely to be injured in catastrophic accidents, lose their jobs (if they have one) and not have health insurance.
So we (everybody else) then has to pay for Lost to be a free loader on the system. We (the government) then has to pay for Lost – because Lost was too myopic and cheap to buy health insurance on its own.
So instead, we require everyone to buy health insurance to lower the cost and prevent freeloaders from gaming the system.
Lost feels that this is “unconstitutional” – but in fact, everyone is “buying” into the current system (because everyone will get some health care regardless of whether they have insurance) which is ripping off those who actually play by the rules. Everyone is “covered” anyways, we are only making those who are “gaming” the system pay for part of it – making it more fair for the rest of us good citizens.
Rob McKenna is my Hero…I am so greatful to have someone that is NOT afraid to stand up for our Constitutional Rights.
Go Rob!!
If this is unconstitutional, then so is the mortgage interest deduction: you have to pay extra tax unless you purchase a home loan from a private bank. No different from having to pay extra tax unless you purchase health insurance from a private insurer.