The First Amendment Guarantees ALL Freedoms, including a Truthful Press
Comments for NULLIFY NOW !!
Jefferson believed it was up to the States, the parties who drafted and ratified the Constitution and thus created the federal government to stand up to the government when it exceeds constitutional bounds. |
Michael,
Thanks for telling me exactly where you stand on social spending. I just couldn't imagine all I've gone thru with education, the incredible school loan debt, so many all-nighters, having my long-time boyfriend dump me because he was fed up with my graduate program, missing my 20's because of gradudate school, losing friends because I didn't have the time to keep in touch, missing vacation opportunities, sacrificing time with my parents and my children, building a career, working 60 hours a week and sometimes week-ends, having my children and returning to work right away, putting them in daycare and missing them so much... if I knew I would have to give up what I earned to serve the needs of others. If that were our system, I would have never been as motivated as I was, as ambitious as I was, or willing to make the sacrifices that I did. I know you've given me statistics to suggest that such a mentality and such a system offers many benefits, but I just don't understand how you advance as a civilization when you don't have a proper reward system. Sorry you have a wife that doesn't like housework. I have a husband that spends too much time doing things that I should do - that a woman should do. He invades my domain. I'm not cool with that.
Commented: Thursday, July 26th, 2012 @ 12:28 am
By: Diane Rufino
|
 |
Yep, Canucks are the French Canadians. Diane, I'm no Mike Myers. That being said, I've never been accused of taking myself too seriously. That is an accusation which could be aptly applied to many if not all "avowed Socialists." I'm not one. I jokingly posted a link to the Socialist Party's fundraising website in a comment to Stan on BCN's facebook page. He took me literally and I can see why..it was sort of an inside joke which some of my friends who were following the conversation would get. But I doubt anyone else would.
Although I'm not a Socialist, I'm a strong advocate of social spending. The Marxist credo is something along the lines of "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs." Edit the latter half to "at least according to his needs" and I'd agree. The credo as it stands implies, or perhaps even outright demands, "no more than according to his needs." That is outrageous and an economic system designed on those principles will never thrive. See Venezuela and Cuba. There are many countries with high levels of social spending and relatively thriving (these are tough times!) capitalist economies and laissez faire policies related to commerce. When looking at unemployment rates in these countries, no correlation can be found between social spending and individual initiative. Unless Americans are inherently less industrious, I don't see why this would not be the case here as well. While productivity in these countries is on par with our own, they consistently rank ahead of us by many measures. Poverty rates, infant mortality, education, and "overall happiness" are a few which immediately come to mind. @Stan....Ironically, if Obama doesn't get reelected it will be because he made a lot of empty promises to "the left" and never followed through. Economies overseen by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Castro and others like them will always fail. And so will those that follow economic policies developed by Milton Friedman and those who have survived him in the Chicago School of Economics. Those in the middle will remain stable. And this is, in part, because they take care of their own. Diane, you are obviously a busy professional with a hectic personal life. Yet you've found the time to respond to each comment eloquently while making points which even a "venemous" and "avowed Socialist" with wolf-like tendencies doesn't care to disagree with. I have two kids (and a wife who hates housework) but I've tried to respond in kind. Take care, Diane.....I'm off to tackle a mountain of laundry and dinner prep for the week. Stan, you must have two households of kids to look after.
Commented: Sunday, July 22nd, 2012 @ 9:44 am
By: Michael Varin
|
 |
On your receiving responses of the caliber of Diane: Don't have the time.
Anyway, that's why I have Diane. On matters of free men engaging in free markets, I always defer to Diane, unless I want to say it quickly, like now - Obama is a Communist Wannabe, and he should count his days in office, because they have a finite end, and the end will be soon.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 8:28 pm
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
Canucks? Is that the term for Canadians? Very cute. Canada has given us most of the great comedians of all time !! Second City TV was Canadian and several members of the cast of Saturday Night Live! were from Canada, including Phil Hartman (one of my all-time favorites) and Mike Myers (Who can ever forget Austin Powers !! We quote from those movies every single day in my house !) Canadians must naturally have a helluva sense-of humor. And Canada gave us Bryan Adams, who I personally bumped into in a hotel elevator and is not much taller than me, and Alannis Morissette. For all those reasons, I LOVE Canada.
For a good chunk of my life, I've had nothing but great experiences with the healthcare in this country. I even volunteered in the emergency ward for several years when I was in my early 20's trying to decide if I wanted to go into the medical profession or into cancer research. I chose the latter. But there is no comparison to the emergency rooms of that era and now. And Americans in general have changed. They engage in more violence (emergency rooms are full of trauma patients; at least here in Pitt County), they eat a lot more fast food, they exercise less (because of the computer and video games), and they are larger now. Over 1/3 of all Americans are obese and a good chunk of them are hugely obese. Obesity has grown rapidly since the late 1990's, especially in the south and mid-west states such as Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Iowa Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. In these states, obesity is the most prevalent. Obesity is highest among blacks and Hispanics are not far behind. These are the groups who are reproducing at the highest rates and those who make up the largest chunk of people living in poverty. Approximately 33% are Hispanic, 25% are black, and 9% are white. I agree with you that in an ideal world people, are concerned about the well-being of their fellow citizens and would gladly fork over more of their tax dollars to take care of them, but that's not the United States we live in anymore. The dynamics in the country with respect to population and status are changing (as I eluded to above) and there is no feasible way to expect that Americans who work hard can keep up with the demands this brings. This is where religious organizations and other charitable organizations come into play. Government should not legislate charity. It should not FORCE people to surrender their effort and reward to serve others. That is, and I apologize that I have to put it in such terms - slavery. Indentured servitude. Using one person to benefit the other. This is forbidden under the 13 Amendment. The healthcare bill (by its own stated goals) is the forced sacrifice of the young and healthy to serve the benefits of others and therefore legislative slavery. Of course, I exaggerate, but you get the point. We constantly hear that those who make enough should "do their fair share" and pay more and more taxes because too many people are doing without and living in poverty. But the government never asks the poor to do "their fair share" and stop over producing, stay in shape, stop smoking, stay in school, and go to a community college and get some kind of degree or training. If we are supposed to look out for one another, than both sides have to do so. I also believe as you do that most Americans are an exceptionally industrious people who feel shame when they are unable to support themselves and their loved ones. I firmly believe that most Americans want earned success and want to feel good about themselves. But we all know there are many who feel no such shame. They feel a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of contribution. I've been in high schools where it is clear that students have no intention of trying to learn because they know that a job isn't required to get a check. It is indeed a shame that we can't do all the things we would like, but again, dynamics are changing. Also, and importantly, the nation was founded on INDIVIDUAL liberty and not on a "guaranteed standard of living." When government provides more than just a temporary safety net, it relieves the individual from his own responsibility over his life and success. It relieves people from the consequences of their conduct, whether it is in not taking education seriously, being sexually active while not married, doing drugs, smoking, or eating poorly and not exercising. I guess you can tell that I tend to write too much. But finally, I think I will have to agree with you for the most part in your statement that the healthcare decision doesn't really expand the taxing power as profoundly as I led on. Many legal pundits don't think it did at all. I happen to think it set a dangerous precedent to use the taxing power, per se, as Roberts set out, to force people to do as the government wants. I think the decision stands for the bright line rule that the government can do anything it wants, including anything it would have liked to do under the Commerce Clause, by using its taxing power. I also had an issue with him classifying the 'penalty' as an excise tax rather than a direct tax which as you know, would have required the government to apportion among the states according to population. And I was extremely disturbed that Roberts was able to classify the mandate as a tax for Article I purposes but not for the Anti-Injunction Act. It's such legal slight-of-hand that makes it almost impossible to have confidence in the opinion. But let me tell you why many legal pundits disagree with me (and I do see their point). First, remember during the oral arguments, there was the very brief exchange where all nine justices, and I think even some of the lawyers arguing against the healthcare bill, agreed that the individual mandate could be enforced under the taxing power. But the discussion after that stressed that the government intended the "shared responsibility" payment as a penalty and not a tax. And they went into all the evidence of that intent. Second, the dissenting justices even admitted that the "shared responsibility" payment could have been imposed as a tax. But the problem conservatives have with the decision is whether the Court had the responsibility to frame the bill in terms that the Congress expressly chose not to. Here is what the dissent wrote: “Of course in many cases, what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action, or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. . . . The issue [here] is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so." In other words, the fight among the justices was not an epic struggle regarding the extent of the taxation power. It was a rather mundane fight over statutory interpretation, and whether the mandate, as written, could be construed as a tax or not. The problem with the Court trying to save the Individual Mandate by phrasing it as a "tax" is that the healthcare bill - and specifically, the Individual Mandate - would surely have never passed Congress if it had been expressly framed as a tax. Well, I think I've bloviated enough here. Cheers, Friend. By the way, being a Canuck, do you also happen to have a keen sense of humor? I can't tell from our discourse!
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 5:20 pm
By: Diane Rufino
|
|
Diane, I'm unclear as to how the court's decision has enlarged or broadened the government's taxing power. It seems to have simply confirmed this power and applied it to the "penalty" associated with Obamacare. I don't agree with the notion that our government is simply providing "free stuff" to its citizens through Obamacare and other social program. We contribute to these programs when possible and receive their benefits when in need. I realize this sounds remarkably similar to the Socialist credo of "to each according to his needs and from each according to his ability." However, it is not being applied to our nation's entire economic system. Rather, it is being applied in selective ways to ensure the well-being of the American people.
I also disagree with the notion that Americans prefer government "handouts" over contributing to society and supporting themselves. I believe Americans are an exceptionally industrious people who feel shame when they are unable to support themselves and their loved ones. With regards to Canadian healthcare, I come from a very long line of Canucks. We've had many discussions concerning the merits and deficiencies of healthcare in both countries. Among those who have lived on both sides of the border, a preference for the Canadian system was shared by all. Similarly, I have a friend (also an attorney) who married a French citizen. She lived in Paris for six years and developed a strong preference for their approach to healthcare. Your experiences with American healthcare have obviously been dismal. To be completely honest, I have never had cause for complaint. My oldest son has been to the hospital (Children's Healthcare of Atlanta) twice in the last three years, once for a broken arm and once for appendicitis. The treatment he received was excellent in both cases. While we paid next to nothing for medical procedures, I did have the opportunity to see the bills prior to payment by Cigna. They were astounding. I also want to make it perfectly clear that my reference to your "gray matter" was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Your article and all subsequent responses have been exceptional in every way and I applaud your reasoning and courtesy. The "venomous" tone was certainly uncalled for and was a holdover from my reaction to Stan's dismissive and condescending tone throughout our facebook discussion. You've done an extraordinary job defending your views. Now, if I could receive responses of the same caliber from Alicia and Stan we could actually move a couple of conversations forward. Cheers, Comrade.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 2:38 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Now there you go. That's how we should all play in the sandbox.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 1:59 pm
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
Michael,
I wish it were as easy as you say. I wish Congress can just repeal the bill and this whole "universal healthcare" exercise can go away. But even if Congress were to repeal the bill or defund it, and we escape the "shared responsibility" payment, the newly-enlarged taxing POWER has been engrained in jurisprudence. At some point, the government will summon those powers to so something equally as insidious. Just look at the government's case on the Commerce Clause. It referenced a case from 1942 (Wickard v. Filburn), the case which took the most liberal view of the Commerce Clause possible. Look at the government's powers post 9/11 where it now claims the power to label Americans as enemy-combatants and therefore indefinitely detain them and even kill them (that is, deny them habeas corpus and other fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights). It reached back to an obscure case from 1942 (Ex parte Quirin) where the Supreme Court was made up of justices hand-picked by the ultra liberal FDR which gave the president that authority. Although the facts of that case showed that the accused were, for all intents and purposes, trained Nazi agents who infiltrated Long Island for the express purposes of blowing up strategic sites (one claiming to have dual citizenship though), the Bush administration sought to extend the power to American citizens. That was also the same court that upheld the mass internment of Japanese citizens during WWII (still good law, by the way, because it's still on the books and not overturned). 4 justices on the Supreme Court today want very badly to take away the second amendment rights to own and possess guns from individuals and hand the power of gun control to the government. Despite the volumes and volumes of direct authority to show the right has always intended to be an individual right (for both personal protection and to protect against a tyrannical government), those 4 justices have aligned themselves behind a totally obscure Texas Supreme Court decision (not even US Supreme Court !!) that says it is only a collective right - only when men are called up in a militia. That Texas decision, by the way, is merely the ramblings of the judge and is based on NO legal authority or historical record. My point is that no Supreme Court decision should be taken lightly. To get rid of them, the Court itself must over-rule them. You are right that we need to address the healthcare problem. But the problem is that fundamental reform is needed. Tort reform, for example, is one area that Congressional democrats refuse to entertain. Lawyers represent a huge lobby and donate lots of money to campaigns. I'm a lawyer and although it hurts me to say it, they notoriously look to financially benefit from other's misfortunes. This results in huge malpractice insurance premiums which not only limits the # of doctors in the particular specialty but forces doctors to pass those costs into his services. The huge numbers of immigrants and illegals that use the emergency room for basic health services are an enormous impact on our system. In the past 3 years, I've had to take my children on two occasions in the middle of the night to the emergency room - my eldest daughter felt intense pressure on her chest and couldn't breathe and my 8-yr-old son was doubled over in intense pain (it was a kidney stone). One occasion was in Greenville and the other when we were visiting in Wilmington. NC. On both occasions, not only did I have to be screened for guns and knives before I entered the emergency room, I had to wait for several hours. With my daughter it was over 5 hours. Both times the emergency room was overwhelmingly populated with Hispanics. (According to NC immigration groups, such as NCFIRE and Immigration Coalition, 1/2 - 1/3 of all Hispanics in the state are illegal). This is not to be mean or discriminatory, but just to make a point that there are factors within the power of the government that could be addressed to bring down the cost of healthcare. Another factor lies within the notion of personal responsibility. And let me reference what Chief Justice Roberts himself had to say in the decision. Roberts emphasized that many Americans eat fast food and otherwise have a bad diet. This group makes up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance. The failure of this group to have a healthy diet increases healthcare costs to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance. The data is clear that this group pays only a small fraction of the costs themselves associated with their behaviors. The point is that people often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society, as Roberts wrote, because they know they aren't forced to pay the consequences. Sure, those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can easily have a substantial effect on heathcare costs. The sad thing, and the frustrating thing, is that the most "just" solution is never the one the government pursues because of political pay-offs and the need to "provide free stuff" to voting blocs. I imagine that you and I will continue to push our opinions so that, as Thomas Jefferson envisioned, the "marketplace of ideas" will be well-represented and people can make the most informed decisions.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 11:38 am
By: Diane Rufino
|
|
Diane, your response is thoughtful and eloquent. However, I believe it is you who fails to understand the enormity of the court's decision. It has clearly labeled the penalty as a tax. It can therefore be repealed by our elected representatives. As for the rest, you seem be saying that the states can't afford to not comply with Obamacare. They can, however, focus their efforts on it's ultimate demise through the repeal of the newly labeled tax. This is a cumbersome but democratic process. Should Obamacare ultimately be repealed, we will continue to pay for the uninsured through outrageously inflated medical costs. I don't believe your response addresses this issue. The young and healthy are already required to contribute to Social Security. I assume you are also opposed to this as it represents "big government's" intrusion into your personal affairs. I remember another individual who frequently spoke of the insidious federal government and its evil ways. His name was Timothy McVeigh. Diane, you are undoubtedly well-informed. Unfortunately, I question the integrity of the sources to which you obviously turn for information. As you undoubtedly question the integrity of those to which I turn. So we'll always be at a stalemate. We live in a democracy which continually tries the patience of both sides of this debate. Continue to participate and I will do the same.
Commented: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 9:40 am
By: Michael Varin
|
|
Michael,
I'm very proud of my gray matter, thank you very much. And may I return the sarcasm by urging you to get your head out of the Communist Manifesto and socialism texts. I might recommend Ludwig von Mises' book "Socialism: An Economic & Sociological Analysis. You don't seem to have a grasp on the enormity of the Supreme Court's decision regarding healthcare. And you don't seem to have a grasp on the audacity of the federal government to propose a scheme that forces individuals to do what it tells them to do, with the money that they've worked hard for. The government's scheme ONLY works and only achieves its intended goal of universal coverage with controlled premiums if the government can force a huge chunk of Americans into the market FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of paying for other's coverage AND if all of the states take part in the Medicaid expansion program. If either cannot be achieved, then the plan fails. Then there is no way the government can afford to provide healthcare to all the poor, the people with serious pre-existing conditions, the union members, the ACORN volunteers, and illegal immigrants for free (yes, those provisions are in the bill). The Individual Mandate is the government's scheme to force those who least need health services (the young and healthy) to pay a monthly premium or else be penalized (ie, "taxed" according to Chief Justice Roberts). The money forced from the pockets of those young and healthy individuals, combined with the "penalty" payments (the "shared responsibility" payment) comprise a huge chunk of the funding for the healthcare scheme. The Medicaid Expansion provision forces - FORCES - all states to comply with the provisions of the government's scheme and expand the medicaid program and accept several groups that weren't eligible before or lose all medicaid funding completely. In other words, if the states don't go along with the government's plan, then the states themselves must come up with the funding to cover those medicaid patients already on the plan and that funding, conservatively, will consume about 10% or so of the state's entire budget. States can't sustain that. Florida would be bankrupt. California would be bankrupt the first day the government withheld funding. The Supreme Court upheld the Individual Mandate but struck down the Medicaid Expansion program. Therefore, states can opt out and the government can't penalize them. If states opt out, which is their constitutional right to do so, then the healthcare plan begins to fall apart. There will be a point when enough states opt out that the plan becomes a financial impossibility. Nullification is the legal step on the part of the states to make a statement about the constitutionality of the bill and to declare that the people of the particular state are legally protected from participating in the healthcare plan. Nullification combined with the "opt-out" option will, theoretically, render the healthcare bill functionally impossible. If the possibility exists, as you present, and it's a very real scenario for sure, that people may live in a state that participates but may move to one that has nullified the bill. So, using your hypothetical, if you move from VT (a participating state) to NC (a nullification state), the nullification bill will immediately protects you and you won't have to pay any longer. But yes, you will lose the money you have already paid, which, if a monthly premium, is just that. Look at it this way... if the government is so determined to move forward with its plan even as states opt out and nullify, then the premiums will be so high that you will either want to move to a nullification state or protest government as conservatives did. The goal is to render the federal healthcare scheme impossible so that individuals don't come under a new taxing power of the federal government. It's not to deny people healthcare. It's to force the government to recognize constitutional limits. What you think is fine and dandy today in the form of healthcare will be a nightmare tomorrow when you are fined ("taxed") for being obese, not installing solar panels, not owning an electric car, joining a fitness center, not carpooling, exceeding water usage, etc. That's the big picture. And that's the point here with the nullification effort to fight Obamacare. I'm sorry if I don't subscribe to the way you see this issue and I'm sorry that you don't see it the way I do. I have a houseful of kids and I hate the thought that they will be forced to pay for something they don't need and if they don't, the IRS will have direct access to their bank accounts (also in the healthcare bill) at a time in their young lives when they have to make decisions about what they need and what they don't because their first paychecks aren't going to be enough to do all they'd like. And with respect to other countries that have socialized healthcare, I'd ask you to take a good hard look at what's going on in Canada. The waiting list, even for patients with cancer, is a year - year and a half. Emergency room waits run several days. There are scores of stories of elderly men and women with fractured hips, in great pain, sitting on stretchers in hallways for days. Cat scan machines are regulated very heavily. They can only be used for patients from 8:00 - 4:00, even though patients are on long waiting lists for testing. Canada rations its healthcare very tightly. Bureaurocrats make decisions and not doctors. [See the documentary "Sick and Sicker"]
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 11:55 pm
By: Diane Rufino
|
|
No, Stan. It doesn't get confusing until conservative obfuscation comes into play. And yes, Diane. I think I have a pretty solid grasp on Nullification. So let's imagine this principle in play. I live in VT. I contribute to state-funded healthcare via the tax referenced in the recent Supreme Court decision and my medical expenses are paid by a state-administered program. My job relocates me to NC. NC has no such program. Now consider that this difference was made possible through your proposed Nullification scenario. How do I get my $ back? Your proposal is nonsensical. The ACA approach works very well in dozens of other countries with capitalist economies. Why not here? You and Stan need to step away from your daily dosages of Fox News and the National Review. It's eroding your gray matter.
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 8:16 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
|
You know ObamaCare, Nullification, the U.S. Constitution ... it just all gets so confusing.
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
By: Stan Deatherage
|
|
I take it you you don't understand the concept of Nullification.
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 6:56 pm
By: Diane Rufino
|
|
Sure, Diane. And the tens of millions of American who didn't want to pay taxes in support of the Iraq War didn't have much of a say either. We argued against the taking of innocent lives on our bill. You argue against saving them. Whatever. What you don't acknowledge is the fact that you've always paid for the uninsured when you paid $60 for an aspirin or a blanket during a hospital visit. Get real.
Commented: Friday, July 20th, 2012 @ 6:18 pm
By: Michael Varin
|
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
