Contact
Subscribe
Health-care bill is wrong for New Mexico
Turner at a protest of the health care bill Saturday in Albuquerque. (Courtesy photo)
Sunday’s vote won’t end our health-care debates – it will only start new ones. With a reconciliation vote in the Senate coming shortly (as of the time of this article being published), and more disputes in the House likely to follow, I encourage concerned lawmakers to use any and all legislative tactics on hand to stop the reconciliation bill from passing the Senate’s next vote and to fix the legislation passed by the Houses of Congress.
HR3590 is unconstitutional, burdensome to business and is harmful to patients and families. Let me explain.
This 10-year, $940 billion plan is the biggest expansion of the social safety net since the 1960s, when Medicare and Medicaid were created. This sweeping legislation will also touch every New Mexican, but in a negative way: Insurance premiums and government spending will increase; there will be doctor shortages and loss of specialists in rural communities; the quality of care will drop and some will even be turned away from expensive procedures by our government.
Lovelace, Blue Cross, Aetna and all the others will become national public utilities, governed by Congress and the Health and Human Services Department. This will surely cause our health care choices to suffer.
My brother is a medical doctor, as was my grandfather. I’ve heard health care discussed at the dinner table as long as I can remember. Now, with two young children of my own, I fear what they will face. This bill will cost New Mexico jobs because it encumbers New Mexican companies.
Witness the recent Caterpillar Inc. announcement that due to a stray provision about the tax treatment of retiree benefits, this bill will increase Caterpillar’s health care costs by $100 million in the first year alone. Such harmful surprises lay ahead for many businesses in the state.
House Minority Leader John Boehner indicates that the “revised” health care bill is worse than the original legislation. He has promised that the “American people are going to hear about every payoff, every kickback and every sweetheart deal that comes out.”
There is no doubt that Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but we must find ways to improve services and reduce costs that do not create deficit spending, hidden taxes, inferior health care services and expensive new federal bureaucracies.
As New Mexico’s next governor, I will join with Virginia, Idaho and other states and file lawsuit after lawsuit against this bill. We can do better. We must do better.
Turner is a Republican candidate for governor.
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
23 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
FSM_47 wrote: “Government control works best when it occurs within an entity closest to the citizen. If you don’t like it you can move or vote/protest locally. That is why our Constitution provides for States rights and States provide for Municipal rights.”
This is one reason I was strongly in favor of Kucinich’s single payer opt-out for individual states. It would provide local control and also a testing ground for what makes a good single-payer system.
You make a good point FSM, about the boom in government bureaucrats. An excellent study is shown here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003101210295246.html
Where you can see there is a 45% premium for government employees over private enterprise jobs. This kind of thing just can’t be good for an economy, when jobs that create no value and economic multipliers for the economy are so much more highly rewarded and incentivized than ones that do create value and economic multipliers. I’m sure the SEIU and AFSCME are happy about this however, as are elected officials who are doing it all. Big government benefits them all greatly.
The original idea of ‘Welfare’ in the Constitution was not that the federal government would provide everything to everybody. That is a definition that has grown primarily since the 1930′s into the current take-care-of-me nanny state. Even then, it seems that the brain-trusts we have elected to Congress could have devised a much easier and cheaper way to assist those who ‘truly’ cannot afford their health care.
Numbers show that more people are currently turned down for health procedures by the government (medicaid/medicare/VA) than by private health insurers. I had ‘free’ care in the Army. It wasn’t anything I would wish on my family. Setting up and staffing 159 new bureaucracies plus hiring 15,000 more IRS agents to check if you have health insurance seems a ridiculous way to approach a specific problem. I guess it does help the jobs situation that Congress should be putting its effort into.
Your taxes really need to be paying for more overpaid federal employees. Maybe if we quit giving away money to farmers, ranchers, lawyers, students, big corporations, wall street bankers, unions, college grant writers, and above all: foreign dictators, we would have enough money to provide for the ‘welfare’ of our citizens and not bankrupt future generations. Those trillions will really have to be paid back through higher taxes or inflationary dollars. The truth doesn’t go away just because it is inconvenient to your ideology.
Government control works best when it occurs within an entity closest to the citizen. If you don’t like it you can move or vote/protest locally. That is why our Constitution provides for States rights and States provide for Municipal rights.
Giving up more and more control of citizen rights to an overarching government is what leads to autocracies,theocracies, socialism, dictators, and charismatic ideologues. Our rights get shortchanged when the lawmaking/financing side of our federal government(Congress) ignores constituent or majority opinion and the country’s financial good to acquiesce to the ideology of the administrative(President)side of government. This is true for liberals, conservatives, and independents in the center. If a group is happy with this now they may not be so agreeable when another group has the political power.
We should be hoping and praying for the success of the States and real State Attorneys General who have filed suits to uphold the right of the States to protect their citizens from the unprecedented federal requirement to buy a product(solely because you are a citizen)or be fined if you don’t. A true elected guardian of our Constitution would never have considered voting for this requirement. Providing for ‘Welfare’ must not include this type of forced purchase.
Well, Dr J, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop you from fixating on a comparison of this to past Congressional vote counts. Of COURSE this current vote count was one of the closest in history. Our current House and Senate have Democratic majorities, overwhelmingly elected by the citizens to do what they are doing, and who are facing a group of Republicans who merely for political gain are outright refusing to participate in any legislation, regardless of how much is handed to them. It’s gonna be close. Again, since that’s not the point I was making, it’s a red herring.
The POINT was regarding the caliber of right-wing, conservative, anti-government, John Birch Society/KKK/Posse Comitatus’ers and others who FREAK out over each and every jump forward we have made as a country.
As in the past, the current Republicans and the various and sundry “right” (who are NOT good conservatives, unfortunately) are willing to associate with whoever it takes, however venal or potentially destructive they are or may end up being. They’ll just point the finger back at the other side and say it was deserved.
Just don’t forget, when one foments the loosely hinged to somehow generate the anger to get one’s party re-elected, one is responsible IN HISTORY for the outcome, regardless of how irresponsible one is in the present.
Turk wrote, “The failures of this bill are obvious. The fact that this bill threatens to fine taxpaying Americans for failure to have health care smacks of fascism.”
Hmmm, isn’t that the same as what Republican Mitt Romney pushed through in Massachusetts?
Thinker, perhaps you really don’t know what the votes on and processes of The Civil Rights Act and The Social Security Act actually were when you say I am wrong. Let me educate you.
The roll call votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964: The original House version: * Democratic Party: Y152-N96 (61%-39%) * Republican Party: Y138-N34 (80%-20%) Cloture in the Senate: * Democratic Party: Y44-N23 (66%-34%) * Republican Party: Y27-N6 (82%-18%) The Senate version: * Democratic Party: Y46-N21 (69%-31%) * Republican Party: Y27-N6 (82%-18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House: * Democratic Party: Y153-N91 (63%-37%) * Republican Party: Y136-N35 (80%-20%).
And now for the Social Secuirty Act of 1935, the votes were:
HOUSE (4/19/35) Democrats : Yes 284, No 15
Republicans: Yes 81, No 15
SENATE (6/19/35) Democrats: Yes 60, No 1
Republicans: Yes 16, No 1
Compare those broad, bipartisan votes and support to the partisan and narrow support on ObamaCare, in addition;
Were any reconciliation or similar parliamentary tricks used to vote on these bills? No. Were there on ObamaCare? Yes. So as you can see, nothing at all similar about these eariler bills and ObamaCare.
And as for the polls, here are the numerous recent polls on ObamaCare,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
your Gallup poll is the outlier, not the recent Rasmussen poll, the average of all of them is an 11 point bulge against ObamaCare. You say that is changing as Obama goes out for his victory lap world tour to “sell” it, we shall see, it hasn’t happened yet.
The failures of this bill are obvious. The fact that this bill threatens to fine taxpaying Americans for failure to have health care smacks of fascism. The fact that this bill effectively gives control of 1/6 of our economy to the federal government smacks of socialism. The fact that this bill imposes a federal mandate on states smacks of totalitarianism. No card carrying Republican would support those fundamental aspects of this bill, and easily explains why every Republican voted against this bill. Agree or disagree, Mr. Turner is showing that he is willing to stand up to the flawed thinking of “Thinker”. Keep it up, Doug.
Dr. J: “I was merely pointing out that neither of these events were in any way, shape, or form similar to ObamaCare’s contrived, partisan, corrupted, and convoluted passage into law.”
Well, now I see what’s going on here. You’re not off topic, just WRONG.
Oh, and I was referring to the GALLUP organization poll, because no body but Fox and the rest of the right wing cabal thinks Rasmussen polls are worth the paper they’re written on anymore.
NMCPA wrote, “…wedum59: “Thank goodness for Social Security.” Must be a medical marijuana user then? Pretty sure you would have to be high to thank goodness for social security…”
I am flattered at your lowballing my age, I guess? No NMCPA, I am over 65 and relying more on my Social Security payments this year as my investment income has tanked.
BTW, personal attacks are an indication of lack of any real ideas to discuss, IMHO.
Thinker, my comments were neither off-topic nor tangential, they referred to your direct assertion here:
“History is full of this kind of home-grown American delusionalism(sic). We saw this kind of absurd behavior every time we crossed into a better era, whether it was post-Depression Era programs such as Social Security or the passage of Civil Rights laws. I was always taught that we should learn from the mistakes of history and try to do better in our own times. I really hope the rest of my country does, too.”
I was merely pointing out that neither of these events were in any way, shape, or form similar to ObamaCare’s contrived, partisan, corrupted, and convoluted passage into law. These previous events were supported by a broad majority of Americans, Democrat and Republican, with large majorities. Certainly a few objected, but nothing like ObamaCare’s rejection rate.
And perhaps you are referring to the new Rasmussen poll that came out today, here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill
Where 55% of American favor the repeal of ObamaCare? And of course 59% of seniors favor repeal, considering the huge hit they will take from the $500 Billion in Medicare cuts in ObamaCare. 60% think ObamaCare will increase the deficit, so as you can see the public is smart and well informed on ObamaCare.
@ wedum59: “Thank goodness for Social Security.” Must be a medical marijuana user then? Pretty sure you would have to be high to thank goodness for social security…
Liberals just don’t get it. They don’t govern, they rule. There will be consequences for this radical agenda in 2010 and 2012. I just hope that the Republicans can actually do what they say they will do when they take back power – unlike what happened in 1994.
Thank you Mr. Turner for standing up to Federal bureaucracies!
Mr64,
Although you bring up a great point that it is the Congressman’s responsibility is to address national issues, but what you fail to recognize is that the Governor has to do what is best for his state. This could mean to stand up against a ‘national issue’ like health care because of what it could do to the state.
This bill is loaded with so many things that do more harm than good. For instance the expansion of Medicaid. As it stands now, states and the fed share the costs of Medicaid. New Mexico cannot afford having people on Medicaid now, how are we going to afford it when there are more people in it? It doesn’t make sense. Simple reality is that national issues can have a huge affect on states and governors should pay attention to them.
Like you Mr64 I am sick and tired of people soaking in the national lime light. It makes me sick. I have to give kudos to Doug for standing up and saying what he would do as governor. I look for candidates that tell me what they would do and how to do it. Doug has impressed me thus far. Even though I am an independent and can’t vote for him in the primary, i am looking forward to him being in the general election so I can vote for him.
Dr. J, you didn’t read what I wrote, and instead are referring to a tangental and off topic comment of your own choosing. I said nothing about the vote counts on those bills, just the hyperbolic rhetoric that encouraged violence and extremism that followed their passage.
The latest polls also verify that the MAJORITY of the American public is happy the bill passed. Not sure what a close vote in an absurdly politicized congress has to do with that, but face it, it IS the will of the people in the most literal sense.
Doug I may or may not agree with you but I won’t be voting for you. I am sick and tired of NewMexico Govenors who spent thier time grand standing for the the national media (Richardson and Johnson). Joining in lawsuits that others have filed and are funding is giant waste of time and dollars that we don’t have enough of to begin with. Govenors need to concentrate on the issuses that are within the span of responsibities. Last time I checked it was my Congessman’s responsibility to address national issues.
Thinker, perhaps you should look up the facts about and votes on the Social Security Act, the Medicare Act, and the Civil Rights Act. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts (thanks Harry). Those bills all passed with overwhelming majorities of both parties and enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Now, can you tell me what happened to ObamaCare?
Sorry, but hope you do not become our next governor. You seem to be a pleasant appearing person from your picture. As a retired ED nurse, I feel that I know a bit about our health care mess. You talk about the lack of specialists in rural areas. We lack primary care physicians in many areas. It happens to be the nature of poor, rural states such as ours. Hopefully this bill will help. Would prefer universal single payer as most industrialized nations have but forgot that is a “socialist” idea.
Oh, and thank you Doug Turner for giving me the go-to editorial on why you are not Governor material.
As usual, Wedum provides a rational and calm response. There are so many reasons that this bill could be much better, and it is mostly because of concessions to the Republicans in hopes of getting their vote that it ISN’T. Given the last year of debate and opportunity to work together, there really is no reasonable basis for the outrageous temper-tantruming and continued outright inciting of violence being conducted on the right. Not only is it unnecessary, it is being supported mainly by hyperbolic misstatements and outright imaginings.
“The Health Care Bill is Unconstitutional!” “It’s Socialism!” “It will bankrupt America!” Sorry guys, but that’s just wishful thinking on the part of folks who chose not to participate in the first place, and are now sore losers in what has been a completely democratic and Constittutional process. Ten years ago, I’d just blow all of you off as delusional fringers, but now your side is also using threat of and actual acts of violence to get your way. Spoiled, irrational, ego-centric 4 year-olds having tantrums WITH GUNS kinda scare me.
History is full of this kind of home-grown American delusionalism. We saw this kind of absurd behavior every time we crossed into a better era, whether it was post-Depression Era programs such as Social Security or the passage of Civil Rights laws. I was always taught that we should learn from the mistakes of history and try to do better in our own times. I really hope the rest of my country does, too.
The bill would be a lot better if the single payer opt-out for the states had been included, as it was in the original HR 3200. But the for-profit insurance companies that Turner does not want regulated lobbied to get it removed, it wasn’t even in the HR 3962 that the House passed.
Here’s a couple of paragraphs from the executive talking points about the bill:
“Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don’t meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders.
“Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges.”
Is Turner opposed to requiring the insurance companies to actually pay benefits? Horrors! That’s *gasp* regulation! And note the phrase “HELPS states require ….” The regulation of premium increases will be handled on a state-by-state basis, not at the Federal level.
Republicans continue to oppose regulation of Wall Street and the banks too. How’s that deregulation thingy working for you? For me it meant that my investment income has been reduced by 70% in the last year. Thank goodness for Social Security.
I will agree with you Doug and take it one step further. This Health bill is wrong for the entire country. No one in their right mind would want to live with this monstrosity. I will agree with you that it is as you say “unconstitutional, burdensome, burdensome to business and harmful to patients and families.”
It not only touched every New Mexican, it touched everyone in the entire nation. We as New Mexicans do no live as an island alone, but are a large part of the whole which makes up this great country. What hurts one, hurts all and should be fought vigorously.
I also agree that it will add millions of dollars to our tax burden and drive many doctors out of the business, but we can as a state, using States Rights and the laws of this country opt out of the Obama’s HR 3590 Health Care Reform bill. It will be up to the people to fight this bill and the rest of the drive to change the structure of our nation from a power-drunk President and Congress.
HR 3590 is just the tip of the iceberg that is being pushed on the American people. Now that it has passed, the President and Congress is much more emboldened than before. We as a state can protect ourselves by passing laws that cap the amount of money an attorney can sue a hospital, or doctor for. This will solve a lot of the cost of health care in this state and may even act as a rallying point for the rest of the nation.
The rationale for the ObamaCare bill being unconstitutional is: 1. The Constitution does not reserve to the federal government the right of regulating insurance companies, thus it has been assigned to the states for all these many decades. We and every state has a PRC that does that, it is intrastate commerce, not interstate (as the constitution allows regulation of interstate commerce to the feds), since you cannot buy insurance across state lines (something the Repubs wanted but the Dems rejected in ObamaCare). And as we all know, ObamaCare is the most draconian and drastic restriction and regulation of insurance companies ever written in any government venue. 2. The Constitution does not speak to citizens being forced to buy any private product by the federal government. Thus there are no constitutional grounds for this part of ObamaCare.
People may scoff at the numerous lawsuits, but many constitutional scholars think they have merit, including the prestigeous Stanford Univ. Center of Constitutional Law. Add to that the fact of the majority of Supreme Court being very strict in it’s construction of the Constitution and the progressives should be very afraid of these cases reaching it, which they will.
1. You never explain why the bill is unconstitutional, although you do a good job of explaining the rest of the second paragraph.
2. If we can do better and we must do better, why didn’t the Republicans–and I am a lifelong Republican–do that when they had the chance?