Options

Trouble in Public Option Paradise

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

It seems that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have their hands full corralling their own party in support of health care "reform." Apparently, some still have enough sense to balk at taking over one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

In the Senate, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced Tuesday that he would back a Republican filibuster of any bill that contained the so-called "public option," even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out, as Reid has promised it would. "We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. "To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don't think we need it now."

That and it's unconstitutional.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who voted for the bill in committee, also said she would oppose the bill if it includes the public option. Reid has his work cut out for him.

As for the House, Politico reports: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi counted votes Thursday night and determined she could not pass a 'robust public option' -- the most aggressive of the three forms of a public option House Democrats have been considering as part of a national overhaul of health care." Perhaps that's why she wants to call it something other than the "public option" -- like the "competitive option" or the "consumer option." That'll fool 'em.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) claims he has "about 40 likeminded Democrats" who will vote against the bill if it does not prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. Pelosi, too, has a job ahead if she wants the bill passed.

There remains hope that the change proposed by Leftist Democrats will not actually come to pass. Can the American people stand for liberty and against unconstitutional government intrusion? Yes, we can.

 Email  Print |  Facebook  Twitter  More | Post a Comment

Comments

Howard Last

I turn 65 in December and will be getting socializwed medicine (Medicare). I received a letter from social security informing me that I will have to pay an additional premium every month because my modified adjusted gross income for 2007 was too high, I sold some property and had a capital gain. I will not get any additional benefits, just pay more. Sort of like "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Didn't a guy by the name of Karl say the same thing?

An additional question, If a bill is unconstitutional how is trying to modify it make it constitutional? Someone should ask the republican leadership (still an oxymoron). James Madison call your office.

Posted October 27, 2009 at 8:11:11 PM

Incredulous Canadian

Yes, government health care is unconstitutional. RIIIIGHT. Despite the fact that every other industrialized nation on the planet has healthcare and it is perfectly constitutional. Meanwhile, women who get raped in the US are denied healthcare because they could get aids:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html

Wow. That's real liberty. I'm free to pay for my healthcare as long as I don't get raped.

Posted October 28, 2009 at 12:07:38 PM

Editor's Reply:

So the fact that other nations have socialized medicine makes it legal here under our Constitution? That's brilliant constitutional theory right there.

And a clarification on the Huffington Post item you threw our way: Don't confuse health care with health insurance. She was not denied health care. Stories like this -- if true -- are certainly a shame, but turning over every citizens' life to government bureaucrats so that liberals (who, in your case, don't even live in our country) can assuage their consciences still doesn't make it constitutional. Or smart.

MichaelV

I think we should eye this develpment warily. This could very easily used by the Democratic leadership to claim they listened and softened their position to gain votes. Yes the original bill was awful, and the proposed changed bill only slightly less awful. But what's to stop them claiming that this is an example that they now See the Light, pulling in those moderates who were on the fence.

Posted October 28, 2009 at 12:54:08 PM

Rita

Personally, I'm beginning to think we'd be better off if it was a pay as you go system. Eliminate health insurance all-together or have it that will only cover a catastrophic illness. That way, there is no middle man between us and our doctors. He gets paid what he charges and not a percent because of the allowables. But the idea of the government taking over our healthcare system, is against the constitution. They are not suppose to control any part of our lives...and that's what they want.

Posted October 30, 2009 at 9:46:05 AM

Howard Last

You replied that "So the fact that other nations have socialized medicine makes it legal here under our Constitution? That's brilliant constitutional theory right there." The supremes rulled that way on executing murders who were not 18, becaues other countries had that provision. I believe Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision. Where is James Madison when we need him?

Posted October 30, 2009 at 7:20:10 PM

Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)

Navigation

  • Support

Patriot Headlines

More Headlines

Opinion

More Opinion

The Patriot is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2010 Patriot Fund