Topic: Nulification gathers steam, Secession!

[edbikerii]

While I think it helps to get the message out that the people want something different, I'm not sure that opting themselves out of the system will allow them to avoid the problem.  See, if socialized healthcare gets going, the TAXES will be present no matter what state you live in, and whether you participate in the program or not.  There is no way for the American consumer to avoid the increased costs if Cap & Trade passes.  Cap & Trade tax revenues in his budget are the only way Obama was able to make his health plan LOOK like it was deficit-neutral.

I don't think the goal of these "resolutions" is to provide a reason for secession. They're for the obvious reasons that different states, regions, and even cities, need different types of laws due to the different types of people that live there (yes, people across the nation are different, regionally). And also to nullify blatantly unconstitutional laws.

For instance, my home state of Kansas doesn't really need all of the gun federal gun control mostly due to the rural nature of the state (other than the KC area). Nullifying such federal gun control laws such as the NFA and allowing Kansans to manufacture their own weapons would in itself create jobs (I'd personally go into business making silencers). Eliminating the $200 BATFE tax on such items makes them much more accessible as well.

FWIW, Kansas is considering a constitutional amendment that would allow Kansans to partake in federal heal care if they so choose, but would eliminate the feds being able to force it onto us.

[Pinhead]

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/kansas-west-virginia-to-consider-health-care-freedom-act/

In each state, the proposal is for a state constitutional amendment to ensure that “A law or rule may not compel directly or indirectly any person, employer or healthcare provider to participate in any healthcare system.” If passed, the proposal would go to the voters for approval before becoming law.

And the proposed amendment, itself:

https://kansasliberty.com/liberty-update-archive/2009/02nov/health-care-freedom-amendment

[Rocking-M]

Oh Andy.  You're always flying off the handle on the emotional stuff, Andy.  Slow down and use your head, man.  It doesn't matter how badly you want to give away health care.  In a perfect world we'd all be driving Ferraris and riding Ducatis, and they'd never break down.  Too bad that just ain't gonna happen.

Im not sure where you got this idea from but in this instance I was being very un-emotional about it and was simply asking some questions. No hidden meaning just opening a discussion which has been interesting. I read your links (thanks as always) but this particular thread is about secession and nullification so I was trying to stay on topic. Thanks in any case.

Good questions Andy.

First a few points of that need clarifying. It seems a lot of folks think the Constitution grants rights to the States. That is not
true. The Constitution is a compact between the States, the States delegate certain powers to the General (Federal) Government).
These powers are granted so the General Government may act in their interest in the areas delegate. Those areas not delegated
are the powers that remain with the States.

The problems arise when the General Government takes on areas (powers) not delegated. These have been many since the
War of Northern Aggression. During that war we had the Federal income tax started, the use of a Federal Army against States,
the denial of freedom of speech up North, the arrest of State Legislators, the whole of the State Representatives of Maryland.
At least a couple of States afterward were appalled at the aftermath and added usurpation. They subsequently saw the errors they committed in that war but were not allowed to withdraw there coerced votes for amendments added to the Constitution.
They were the States of Oregon and New Jersey. There may have been others. The added amendments were never ratified as per the rules of the Constitution but were instead enacted. But I'm getting off base a bit. The main problem stemming from that war
was and is the harm done to a strict construction of the constitution.

Nullification does not lead to Secession. But, I for one think the understood right of secession needs to be asserted for nullification to have teeth. It may not be necessary however (just my opinion). If the Federal Government oversteps it's bounds, such as in gun control, then the people have a duty to determine what gun laws are best for their respective States. Their State representatives have a duty to represent the people in that regard. Same applies to health care or any area the particular State may feel shorted in.
Health care in the uS is not to my liking. I think health care is now run by insurance companies, drug companies, and medical companies posing as hospitals. I don't like it one bit. I think the Hippocratic Oath has long since ceased to mean anything.
To me the only fix would be a compact between the States agreeing to a national Health care system. But that can't happen given
the speeding practices of our Federal Government. I'd say cut defense spending way down, stop trying to police the world and stick with serving our own. But, that's my opinion. Till then, what's a State to do?

Now as to secession. It is clear from the founding of our country that anytime the people even of a single State believe that the
powers they delegated to the compact which is our constitution are being misused then they have the right to recall them. Some of the areas may be the monetary system, the misuse of the military, or any of the powers delegated. They may recall them individually in the form of Constitutional amendments to that effect, or secede (which means nothing more than withdraw from the compact) and establish their own Government and go it alone or in concert with other States who may do the same. That is the guiding principle our Constitutional compact known as these United States was founded on and is as true today as then. It took a lot of gumption then and will take at least as much if not more today should a State deem it necessary.

 

[edbikerii]

I agree with you 100% on these points, RM!!!  I really think you should give the Mackey plan a good read, as the basis of it is to give the choices regarding care back to the people instead of having all the decisions made by the insurance companies and dictated to the doctors:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Health care in the uS is not to my liking. I think health care is now run by insurance companies, drug companies, and medical companies posing as hospitals. I don't like it one bit. I think the Hippocratic Oath has long since ceased to mean anything.

[BobbyR]

Let's take a look at this for a moment. The Hospitals are licensed by the States. The Doctors, Nurses and all other medical professionals are licensed by the State, and many receive State aid. So the Fed has very little to do with Hospitals and Doctors other than let the Ins Companies mess with them. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Rocking-M]

looks like we need a health care reform thread. 

But since health care is one of the areas of federal intrusion being considered for nullification perhaps we're in the
right thread. 

Ed, I think Mackey only deals with one issue. The insurance issue and it's cost. I agree if there is more
competition then the cost should come down. This will have to be addressed on the State level it sounds like.

He does not address the skyrocketing cost of health care, I see that primarily coming from the medical profession itself.
I know they blame it on malpractice suits and this and that, but, personally I think it is more a change from
those entering the profession with the Hippocratic oath in mind and those entering the field to make bucks.

That brings me to the this point he wrongly tries to make,

"A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America"  Mackey

In that time, no one was denied health care because of lacking money. If they made it to a doctor they were treated and
their life was not ruined monetarily because of the inability to pay an astronomical health care bill. That is because, Doctors were around who gave a damn and took seriously their job to provide medical service to those in need of it.

He dives off into bashing Canada's health care at the end of his article when the Canadians I have asked all seem okay with their health care system.

So in the end he actually said little that I see as helping reform the issues we have in health care provision.

[andy750]

Thanks RM for the posts and especially the last sentence which I agree with you on. I think we have also have a general agreement on the need and reason for health care reform. Thanks for the balanced reply.

Have a good weekend!
Andy

[Rocking-M]

Have a good one up there too Andy.

I was just reading some of the replies to the article on the WSJ site.

Never knew this one.

"For what its worth, Health Care was adopted as a right by the Geneva Convention and signed by the United States."

[BobbyR]

looks like we need a health care reform thread. 

He does not address the skyrocketing cost of health care, I see that primarily coming from the medical profession itself.
I know they blame it on malpractice suits and this and that, but, personally I think it is more a change from

I have recently had personal experience in this. My Brother is an MD and also was the VP of a Hospital and they were being driven under by the Insurance Companies, who make short payments and when called on it, they send you the corrected amount 90 Days later.

I have not hidden the fact I am being treated for Prostate Cancer. Having said that I as lucky enough to have a Company that does not nit pick and they have covered all types of special tests the average guy does no usually get. I get statements and this is what I see:

Biopsy Procedure:

Full charge                       $1,500
Reimbursement to provider  $   370

I did not have to make up the difference, I only paid a $35.00 office visit copay.

Now the question in my mind is was this a $1,500 procedure or a $370 procedure? If the MD was willing to take $370
from HealthNet, who is going to pay $1,500?  In my mind the fee should be $370. The poor Pr1ck with no coverage gets hammered. The fee should be $370.

The same disconnect happened with all the special MRIs, Bone Scans and the other unspeakable tortures I have been subjected to.

No one should not be able to receive good care, and no one in less fortunate situation then mine should be given second rate care. If we have a State run plan, or a Federal Plan, we need a plan that works. I am favoring a State plan since it shaves off one level of Bureaucracy.

My former employer writes into their contracts with the Insurance Companies, that they cannot invoke preexisting conditions on people like me. If not for that protection, as far as Insurers are concerned I am a dead man, if I could get coverage it would be so full of exclusions and expensive it would hardly be worth it.

My plan would have all Companies, Unions, kick in in their fair share forming a non profit Mutual Insurance Company. The State would kick in for the poor, since they pay for them anyway. Small employers and self employed people would pay their share. This is not counter to the American culture to form a non profit.

As the system works now, the smaller Hospitals are being driven out of business. St Vincents in NYC is on the verge of closing. The staff is taking a cut in pay including the MDs to help keep it open. There are so many Hospitals in NYC, they can probably take up the slack, but what about the smaller Community Hospitals that people depend on for primary and Emergency care, without a good stable system they will not be there for the people.

Obama, like him, dislike him or ambivalent toward him, is getting Schooled is special interest politics. This may be a point where we do have the States set up an interlocking State system, I say interlocking since if I was working in MA and someone banged into me while driving through one of those Rotary things they love up there, I could be treated.

The more I think about it, the more I am in favor of the States reclaiming what is theirs on many levels.    

[edbikerii]

Bear in mind that Mackey's piece in the WSJ is a rebuttal to years of attacks by socialist "reformers" with an entirely different agenda than truly correcting the relatively minor problems with our health care system.  I really should have posted a link that more clearly puts forth Mackey's plan, rather than defending against the "reformers".

For example, since people have a hard time getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions, then why not simply legislate that there be no exclusions based on pre-existing conditions?  There is no need for a complete government takeover to fix that.  That one's a simple no-brainer that could be fixed in a few minutes in congress with NO DISAGREEMENT WHATSOEVER from republicans or democrats.  Why not just draft a simple bill that handles that?

As for rising costs, Mackey's plan involves cost-cutting by reducing the premiums for health insurance as a trade-off with higher deductibles.  So, let's say that you pay $100 less per month for insurance, but put the other $100 into a medical savings account (pre-tax, of course).  Catastrophic illnesses/injuries are what we really need health insurance for, after all.

So, imagine you get a weird rash.  You go to the doctor, and they give you the bull#$%* line that a 20-minute exam with your primary care physician will cost YOU $250, and then your PCP gives you a referral to a dermatologist who will cost YOU another $250.  Now that YOU are paying for that visit with money you have saved on your health insurance premiums, you have an interest in telling those doctors to go to hell with their $750/hr. rates.  Most likely, you will complain to the primary care physician, "why are you charging me $250 when you have done absolutely nothing?"  As a matter of fact, ALL patients with similar plans will bargain with their doctors, and the docs will simply stop trying to gouge.

The idea is that if people are more involved in making their own health care decisions, then they will be more likely to complain when their doctor is over-charging them.  If the insurance company is paying, then people just don't give a damn, or will actually choose the MORE EXPENSIVE treatment because they think that other people are doing it, too.  

Doesn't that just make sense?  There is no net increase in costs to the individuals, and, in fact, the health care will get cheaper as doctors figure out ways to be more efficient and treat people for less money.

Does anyone complain to their doctor when he overcharges?  Or do you do what 90% of Americans do, and just hand him your insurance card?  I'll bet you sure #$%* like crazy when the auto mechanic charges you $100 to change your spark plugs, though.

Oh, and RM, I just want to point out that the average doctor "back in the day" when they treated people who were "poor", and didn't have insurance, didn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans and 10 years of college, medical school, internships, residency, etc. invested in their careers.  Doctors today have a much greater knowledge base to learn, and the job is much tougher than it used to be.  Also, the treatments are much better.  Hell, we didn't even have Penicillin until 1928.  Back in those days, people just died of various things that we consider very minor today (simple infections, for one).  We have made TREMENDOUS PROGRESS in medicine since those days.  Still, there is a lot of overcharging goin on, and I believe most of that is because people don't bother to apply price pressure on their doctors, since the insurance company will pay it anyway.

[BobbyR]

For example, since people have a hard time getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions, then why not simply legislate that there be no exclusions based on pre-existing conditions?  There is no need for a complete government takeover to fix that.  That one's a simple no-brainer that could be fixed in a few minutes in congress with NO DISAGREEMENT WHATSOEVER from republicans or democrats.  Why not just draft a simple bill that handles that?

See here is the rub. The Insurance carriers will buy their way out of that. They make money collecting premuims and investing the money, not paying claims. These companies will take a simple rational thought like that and get the legislation twisted up. Their bought and paid for lackeys will yell, restraint of trade, government interference in private enterprise. You may have pure motives, they do not.

[edbikerii]

Agreed!!!!!!!!   1000%.  We need to make sure that our government does what we tell them to!  We want a bill -- one line:

No patient shall be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or the insurer will be barred from selling insurance products.

Sure, the premiums will have to increase to cover the costs of the pre-existing conditions, but that will be either higher insurance premiums and good medicine or higher taxes and crappy medicine.  Take your pick.

For example, since people have a hard time getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions, then why not simply legislate that there be no exclusions based on pre-existing conditions?  There is no need for a complete government takeover to fix that.  That one's a simple no-brainer that could be fixed in a few minutes in congress with NO DISAGREEMENT WHATSOEVER from republicans or democrats.  Why not just draft a simple bill that handles that?

See here is the rub. The Insurance carriers will buy their way out of that. They make money collecting premuims and investing the money, not paying claims. These companies will take a simple rational thought like that and get the legislation twisted up. Their bought and paid for lackeys will yell, restraint of trade, government interference in private enterprise. You may have pure motives, they do not.

[Rocking-M]

I agree with you 100% on these points, RM!!!  I really think you should give the Mackey plan a good read, as the basis of it is to give the choices regarding care back to the people instead of having all the decisions made by the insurance companies and dictated to the doctors:

We can hope. One thing that was clear with my broken leg in the deer incident. Doctors will not give you
the same care if your paying cash. For one thing, I asked them about the cat scan cost they wanted to do.
It wouldn't really have helped so I said no thanks. I asked them about the surgery they wanted to do. They wanted to put
screws in the fracture, the doctor said it wouldn't make it heal any faster. I said no thanks.
My knee is fine now. But, they never did an x-ray of my ankle and x-ray my damn knee way more than necessary.
I kept asking about the ankle and they'd have me move my foot and say that's okay.
IT's the only thing still bugging me now. The lesson I learned from that is be,
"aggressive as hell with the damn doctor" tell him/her how you want it done!