Diane Rufino Defends Nullification and her "Gray Matter" | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's note: First and foremost, we encourage all ideas and all manner of contribution here at BCN, even those from an avowed Socialist, although this admitted train of thought is quite rare in these parts. And while Beaufort County has its share of Liberals, we have few who will express themselves as honestly as the aforementioned Socialist, Michael Varin; however, we do not mistake honest delivery for polite discourse.

   Michael Varin began his attack of my anti-Socialist/anti-Communist rhetoric within my article "Candidate Barack Obama Goes Off Teleprompter: Bears his Political Soul," which I promoted on BCN's Facebook site. His tone was well structured in a condescending manner, which is often the tenor and limiting range of the hardcore Liberal, and in Michael's case, Socialist, and I grew quickly tired of it, and, furthermore, saw little merit in continuing the process.

   Like a ravenous wolf on the scent of his prey, Michael followed me over to my flagship publication and Symbiotic Publisher prototype, Beaufort County Now, to continue his attack on me, and some of BCN's latest content: first from our newest contributor, Alicia Colon, who submitted "Americans' Ignorance About Socialism Is Unbelievable," and then Michael started in on our mainstay contributor, Diane Rufino, regarding her new series on "Nullification."

   Ms. Colon, who, at first blush in BCN, appears to have the rare talent to effectively denote the obvious, understood and refuted Michael's venomous rebuff of her work, which I regard as a very well presented piece ... it spoke to me, and I will dearly love to publish more work of this caliber in BCN.

   Next, Michael lit into Diane Rufino's work on the Nullification issue, with the similar condescending tone he employed on me over at BCN's Facebook site, and Diane is much more patient and kind than I would ever be. Here below is her reply, which I feel is a proper primer on the Nullification issue, as is previously, and voluminously, expressed by my very good friend, and my favorite lawyer, Diane.

The Reply

    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"]