Skip to content

Hey look… Another ObamaCare waiver…

March 24, 2011

From the man who will probably run for NYC Mayor…. Representative Anthony Weiner...

Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.

Wait a second. You mean that the law that Weiner voted for, finally because he wanted even MORE of a government influence in the part of a public option/single payer, is now wanting a waiver so that they can implement instead their OWN version of health care that “make more sense”.
Make more sense. You know. It is almost like this system of federalism where each state, and in turn each county and municipality, handle the majority of the day to day activities of its citizens best. But instead we’ve got the federal government overstepping its bounds. The City and State of New York would be better off ignoring this unconstitutional federal law then giving into it, giving it legitimacy, and asking for special dispensation for the heavily Democratic leaning NYC or state while everyone else gets it in the proverbial pooper.
Here is a thought from Federalist 56:

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.

Well. With 26 states filing lawsuits against this law, I’d say the general alarm has been sounded. Time for a little nullification and interposition from our state houses.

Oh, and I like the rhetorical question given by the author, “what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity”? Heh. Indeed. Perhaps the desire to control the people, in the name of helping them and it being in their best interest…..


Advertisements
5 Comments
  1. March 24, 2011 2:07 am

    “In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity.”

    Federalist 14. It is almost like they created a limited government of enumerated powers, with all of the other powers left to the “subordinate” governments, also known as the states, counties, and municipalities. Meh. That document is so old. What did they know that Anthony Weiner is now figuring out…. apparently alot…

  2. Michael Eaton permalink
    March 24, 2011 6:28 am

    “is now wanting a waiver so that they can implement instead their OWN version of health care that “make more sense”.”

    Craig, you are misrepresenting, as you well know. The “waivers” you keep talking about are small pieces of the legislation, not the entire shebang, like you keep implying.

    “With 26 states filing lawsuits against this law”
    You mean 26 REPUBLICAN Attorneys General, playing pure politics.

    “Time for a little nullification ” Ah, claim “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” while trying for the unconstitutional nullification tactic? Hypocrisy is not just a river in Egypt.

    “certain enumerated objects”

    Good thing the Affordable Care Act does, huh.

  3. Michael Eaton permalink
    March 24, 2011 7:08 am

    “Republicans are relying on the federal government to expand coverage to state residents, helping bring about the very thing they fear — greater government involvement in the health care sector — while most Democrats (many of whom are moving forward with exchange construction and design) are actually employing state-based solutions…states will have a good deal of flexibility in designing and forming the exchanges. They will be able to run their own insurance marketplaces (or partner if with other states), determine which insurance companies can offer coverage and establish benefit rules in their exchanges. But surprisingly, Republican governors are giving up that flexibility in favor of a federal intervention.”

    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/22/exchanges-red-states/

    Heh.

  4. March 24, 2011 8:45 pm

    “Craig, you are misrepresenting, as you well know. The “waivers” you keep talking about are small pieces of the legislation, not the entire shebang, like you keep implying.”

    Um Mike, the “waivers” for these “small pieces of the legislation” are big enough problems that they are being requested. And they are being requested at an ever increasing frequency as even the supporters of the legislation are learning that a one size fits all solution by the federal government is the least efficient and more meddlesome then they probably first figured.

    “You mean 26 REPUBLICAN Attorneys General, playing pure politics.” No, 26 Attorneys General who represent their states trying to protect their states from an overreach of federal power. Since they are from those evil, bible-clinging red states, the people they represent probably dont want the federal government dictating to them how healthcare is run in their individual state. If that is playing “pure politics”, I’m game.

    “Ah, claim “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” while trying for the unconstitutional nullification tactic? Hypocrisy is not just a river in Egypt.”

    I happen to agree with Jefferson and Madison’s assessment of the necessity of nullification. As we are seeing with California’s (among many others) attitudes towards the legalization of marijuana contrary to FEDERAL law, basically nullifying it, with the federal government more or less appearing impotent to stop it or enforce the federal statutes without state and local help, we see nullification in action. Heh. Don’t hear the left screaming about that unjust action by California concerning illicit drugs…

    “Good thing the Affordable Care Act does, huh.”

    Please inform me again how the “Affordable Care Act” is constitutional and one of the enumerated powers listed in Art I Sec 8? Will you use 3 word phrases out of the entire Constitution to do it? Probably, ignoring that the 3 word phrases place the rest of the limiting powers of the Constitution in the trash can and make them moot. But go ahead….

  5. March 24, 2011 8:53 pm

    ““Republicans are relying on the federal government to expand coverage to state residents, helping bring about the very thing they fear — greater government involvement in the health care sector — while most Democrats (many of whom are moving forward with exchange construction and design) are actually employing state-based solutions…”

    Let me get this straight, ThinkProgress is actually trying to spin and twist this into a Democrats are proponents of a “state solution” whereas the GOP is for the federal one?

    It’s so blatantly daft and quite flaccid. Having the federal government come in and decide that someone is going to create an “Affordable Health Care Act”, either the federal government, or the states. Either you guys do it, or we’ll do it for you. Sounds like to me like the kind of arm twisting that proponents of centralized power crave. So I’m not surprised that many of the Republicans won’t give into this arm twisting, giving any legitimacy to ObamaCare or its intended consequences.

    I’m all for the Democrats in their states coming up with a solution for their healthcare issues, and I’m all for the Republicans refusing to set up another entitlement dressed up as a friendly suggestion from the federal government and refuse to be coerced. If the State of Texas doesn’t really want its version of RomneyCare, or ObamaCare, then that is the business of the State of Texas, its citizens and their elected representatives in Austin. Not the worries of New York. Or Idaho. Or especially Washington D.C.

    Each state gets to decide how it runs its internal affairs concerning healthcare, atleast until a Constitutional amendment is created giving the federal government the ability to interfere and meddle.

    Atleast that was the way it was intended and used to be. And hopefully will be again.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: