Comments by Diane Rufino | Eastern NC Now

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

I take it you think my article is crappy.

If our government (all 3 branches) had continued to provide the tools and the freedom parents need to raise their children properly and not done all it possibly could to frustrate their efforts, we wouldn't need to "evolve" as you suggest and government wouldn't need to continue its cycle of control and oppression. Schools should still be allowed to reflect on religious principles, schools should still emphasize morality and not the opposite, schools should not support homosexuality and other immortal lifestyles, schools should focus on education and not racial quotas, and government shouldn't promise free money as a reward for having and raising children out of wedlock. All these decisions (except the last) were not made by the will of the people but rather by progressive judges. But that last program, perhaps the most destructive of all on the upbringing of our children is the one most strongly protected by Democrats. There is simply no promotion of good and productive human values underlying their programs. They are all about the destruction of them.

I don't see a single bit of evidence to suggest that the Tea Party movement or its ideology is fading. Rather, I think the opposite. For example, do you know that the #1 question submitted in the GOP presidential debates this year was typified by the question posed by a couple from Spencer, Indiana: "There is a growing concern on the part of Americans as to the size and scope of the federal government and on teh infringement of state and individual rights. If you are elected President, what do you intend to do to restore the Tenth Amendment and hold the government only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution and allow the states to govern themselves?" This is not the type of question citizens have asked in the past. On the other hand, this question shows the impact of the Tea Party.

A similar question was asked of the candidates - "What is the President's responsibility in the face of a Congressional bill that exceeds the powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?" One candidate answered (and I can't remember which one): "The President's responsibility would be to veto every single bill that violates the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment." Again, that sounds like Tea Party influence.

We're suffering selective amnesia in this country. We've forgotten what we stand for and where we came from. The Tea Party is helping people to overcome that amnesia and make sense of why we have the freedoms that we do, how our Founders secured them, and what responsibilities are incumbent upon a people who wish to keep and protect them.

Commented: Sunday, April 22nd, 2012 @ 1:34 pm By: Diane Rufino

Amen bubba

Commented: Tuesday, June 15th, 2010 @ 3:09 pm By: Diane Rufino

As always, I appreciate the opportunity to speak my so-called mind. I don't think of this exchange as a slugfest, but merely as a chance to explore the differences in viewpoints and maybe find room to start a productive dialogue for how we can come together to find solutions and embrace commonality

Commented: Monday, May 24th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm By: Diane Rufino

I believe that Mike and I see eye to eye on many things, although it might not be very apparent in our articles. We both love our country very much, we both appreciate certain fundamental values, and we both want the best for her future. Perhaps it is I now who needs to fuel up with lots of coffee.

Commented: Monday, May 3rd, 2010 @ 10:41 pm By: Diane Rufino