Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare (attorney, revolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,837,024 times
Reputation: 670
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east
I love laughing at the naive, un-informed, simplistic nonsense that millions of our fellow citizens spew forth from rarely closed pie holes about how the Federal Govt shouldn't be in this business or that or the other. HOGWASH!
Our very own FEDERAL Public Health Service traces its roots back to 1798. Yes, 211 years ago. Ooops, there goes those "states rights" and other poop-spin of the far right nutters.
- The origins of the USPHS may be traced to the passage of an Act in 1798 that provided for the care and relief of sick and injured merchant seamen. The leaders of the young American nation recognized a healthy merchant marine was necessary to protect the economic prosperity and national defense of the country. The 1798 law created a fund to be used by the federal government to provide medical services to merchant seamen in American ports.
I'm sure if the nutters wanted to, they could google each state government and find out that the states have been in the public health biz a long time too. For some reason, our great free market captains of industry never came up with much of anything.
yup, and it was terrible then, and it will be terrible now.
- The origins of the USPHS may be traced to the passage of an Act in 1798 that provided for the care and relief of sick and injured merchant seamen. The leaders of the young American nation recognized a healthy merchant marine was necessary to protect the economic prosperity and national defense of the country. The 1798 law created a fund to be used by the federal government to provide medical services to merchant seamen in American ports..
Merchant seaman. Not American populace
As for the States being in the "health business" - that's fine. And under the 10th, exactly where it should be. If a State wishes to have health insurance for its citizens (such as Mass, Tenn, CA.), that's OK.
The time to argue tenth amendment aspects is long gone, the Feds have been in the business for 45 years with Medicare and Medicaid, even longer for the Veterans Administration and as the PHS examples points out, over 200 years.
We had, past tense, had a nutter here in Colorado who wrapped every tax, funding and spending issue in terms of "constitutionality" and even in this tax-aversive state, the voters finally booted out the clown. Issues of what is or isn't constitutional are little more than a ruse to confuse people.
IMO, the 10th is OBE, as is the concept of individual states, which are mere politically inspired lines on a map. The states are not capable of coming up with a uniform national standard for funding and care, leaving it solely in the bucket of the Federal level. I for one am tired of taxpayers footing the bill for 50 state governments, over 3000 separate county governments, hundreds of city governments, and all the massive duplication that goes with it. To let the all those state, city and county governments deal with health care is so massively unworkable that it defies belief that anyone will even consider it.
We need one national government with regional districts. The eliminated redundancies and streamlining will save a fortune.
Medicare and Social Security are managed with just 5% overhead, far less than the overhead of the health insurers whose overhead is often over 20%, partly to cover the outrageous CEO compensation of big insurers. The head of United Healthcare has pay and perks of $1.6B over ten years, money that should've been spent on patients, not on criminal levels of CEO thievery.
I'm all for some sort of national system. States rights has nothing to do with it.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 07-26-2009 at 07:07 PM..
A resolution, allowing the State of Arizona to succeed if certain events happen on the Federal level, will be put before the voters of this State.
While the outcome is uncertain obviously, there is however, tremendous support for the resolution at this time.
Frankly, many states are sick and tired of the Feds trying to walk all over them in so many ways - including the unfunded mandates like NCLB as one example -
If the Feds try to ban firearms - you will see a revolt. If a governmental run health insurance program comes about - again - a lot of states are going to say NO - (some already have).
Its all about States Rights.
Are you a supporter of States Rights?
Yes, but not the crazy kind you guys are talking.
That's called "Treason".
(It's in the dictionary).
No matter what Glenn and Crush Bimbaugh will tell ya, this is all just nonsense.
So climb down from the treehouse and put away the GI Joe camo.
As a "Lawyer" you should know this..................
Purple, a lot of the people who are uninsured (about a third of them if I remember correctly) in TX are illegal aliens. They cannot get insurance, yet they can go to hospitals and receive care (without paying for it), driving up everyone else's insurance rates. That's contributing to insurance rates being a bit too high and causing more people than just the illegals to be uninsured.
Perry has been against all anti-illegal immigration policies and has actually supported and instituted pro-illegal immigration policies. He wants them here to cause problems such as this one (he also LOVES the cheap labor aspect, but that's an entirely different story).
A lot of the uninsured would be insured if it weren't for the IA's, but Perry doesn't want to do anything about that problem either.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 07-26-2009 at 08:36 PM..
What is Perry's plan for the 1/4 of Texans that don't have health insurance or affordable health insurance?... snip....
Perry is going to rely on the long standing GOP "YOYO" plan. YOYO = You're On Your Own.
YOYO is the message of eight years of the Bush reign of error and terror. I got the message loud and clear long before Bush and took steps to make sure that all of my bases are covered, by me, as there simply isn't going to be any safety net of any sort for any one if the GOP has its way; all money is earmarked for the wealthy and vested interests. For everyone else it's a case of YOYO.
Perry to Texas: Bend over, because YOYO.
GOP to America: Bend over, because YOYO.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
