Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Punting on Obamacare

—

by

Peter Galuszka
in , , , , ,

By Peter Galuszka

The Virginia General Assembly is taking a powder on Obamacare.

Faced with a federal mandate of next January to show they are making progress,
Richmond legislators have dilly-dallied past the problem, many apparently  fearful that too much action on setting up state-run exchanges for people to shop for health insurance will bring on conservative wrath.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require that every American  have a health insurance plan and requires the states to set up exchanges to offer  plans to citizens who otherwise can’t find one. The act also does away with the  “pre-existing condition” clause that allows insurance firms to deny new  customers they believe won’t make them as much in profits.

To be sure, many states are balking at Obamacare. As of last summer, only California, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia had passed laws that will set up exchanges. A number of states, like Virginia, are in court seeking repeal of Obamacare on the grounds that forcing Americans to buy insurance violates their constitutional rights.

Republican Gov. Robert F. McDonnell has been publicly silent recently on the legislature debate but it is clear where he stands. He wants the state to avoid setting up exchanges until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Obamacare. As a potential GOP vice presidential candidate, he hardly wants to get too far ahead on a federal program despised by the right wing.

True, there are problems with the General Assembly’s attempts to set up the  exchanges. One proposal would have the State Corporation Commission, which  oversees private companies and utilities, do it. Critics say that the SCC is  too consumer-unfriendly for the job. But alternative proposals to set up  independent state agencies to handle the exchanges run into the anti- government crowd’s opposition.

With the clock ticking on this year’s session, it seems likely that nothing will get  done. This once again raises the question of state versus federal rights – one  in which Virginia has a dark past. There is a tendency in the Old Dominion to  ignore federal laws or court rulings it doesn’t like. The shining example is  Massive Resistance, in which the state’s official policy was not to integrate  schools and close many down rather than bow to the legal power of the U.S.  Supreme Court.

We are seeing ghosts of that movement in play today.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

41 responses to “Punting on Obamacare”

  1. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Every time someone wants to restrict federal overreach, Peter waves the bloody shirt of states rights and massive resistance. It gets old, dude, real old. That was 50 years ago. Time to get a new schtick.

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    The truth, and history, hurt, don’t they? The very same states’ rights arguments were made back then, too. And where would you and the other conservatives have been? At the school house door? Welcoming change?

    Good questions.

  3. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Obamacare makes my head hurt. In fact, it makes my head hurt so much that I try not to think too much about it. However, Peter is right. The time has come to get serious about this law.

    Here’s my understanding (at a very bare bones level):

    1. Employers must provide insurance for employees. In fact, this insurance must meet minimum coverage levels. If employers don’t provide the minimum coverage they must pay taxes and/or fines.

    2. Self-employed people must obtain insurance on their own. To facilitate this, states must establish insurance exchanges which allow self employed people to buy insurance.

    3. Medicare and medicaid will remain in force.

    Here are the problems:

    1. Many employers would rather pay the taxes and/or fines than supply the insurance at the minimum coverage levels. This is particularly true for low wage employees where the insurance becomes a large percentage of the total employee cost. Many large employees have filed for and been granted waivers whereby they can offer insurance with coverage levels below the standards set by Obamacare.

    2. The states are not funded to build and operate the exchanges. Nor are they funded to provide the additional Medicaid coverage to people who do not meet the current Medicaid levels because they make some money – just not enough to buy insurance.

    3. The ticking Medicare time bomb is not addressed by Obamacare.

    That’s what I get out of all these articles. My head now hurts more than ever.

    Am I on the right track in understanding this?

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Don the Ripper,
    Good points all. I’m not saying Obamacare is perfect, but somehow, somewhere, health coverage must be addressed. You are right that there are no plans to help the states pay for the exchanges that I know of, although I am not sure how they would work out.
    I do, however, know how it feels to be self-employed and searching for health care. I just went through the exercise and was rejected twice because I had some conditions that are under control. I am pushing 60. I am not a shining jewel on the actuarial tables but am in pretty good health. Getting coverage was a total pain in the ass and now I am paying even more with enormous deductibles should something go wrong. I have been working, mostly for private corporations, for 38 years and have paid tens of thousands of dollars if not more to for-profit managed care firms. none of that matters now. At least Obamacare ends the “pre-existing” condition nonsense.
    See anything better out there? And pluh-lease, don’t given the Bacon “boutique” bullshit that works for the narrow 1 percent and no one else. And don’t start talking about the need to improve “productivity” or I will put my foot through the new desktop I bought.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Peter:

      Please do not put your foot through the desktop. Given what you wrote about your health insurance you might not be able to afford to get it fixed (your foot that is, not the desktop).

  5. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    it’s been almost 20 years since Clinton tried to do something about Health Care.

    Back then the Republicans hated HillaryCare with a passion, but said they supported an individual mandate but then they never pulled the trigger.

    Now.. they support “free market”…. “ideas”… but they can’t even agree among themselves which ideas to put into a competitive alternative to ObamaCare.

    It’s all show and no go.

    Va could have set up it’s own system and largely avoid ObamaCare but they evaded that responsibility also.

    we seem to be well into the kicking and screaming mode….

    Medicare:

    the biggest problem with Medicare IMHO is ignorance. People simply do not understand the specifics and when you don’t understand how it currently works – you have no real alternative to offer so we have the Hen House approach which is a bunch of dumb clucks crooning mindlessly about it being a ticking time bomb without a clue as to how it really works or informed opinions about how to fix it.

    the average American is totally disconnected from the specifics.

    Medicare Part B is entirely voluntary and is not pre-funded from FICA but instead is paid for 1/4 with premiums and 3/4 from govt subsidies.

    We owe those who want Part B – NOTHING. It’s purely a super cheap insurance product that is available but should not be sold at fire sale prices.

    We currently have people who own 2 or more houses, 3 or more cars and have a half million dollars+ in assets paying $100 a month for health insurance and receiving (for instance) 15K hip replacements on the taxpayer dime while complaining about the taxes on their beach homes and replacement tire costs for their Lexus.

    it’s downright nutty. we not only subsidize Part B but we subsidized drugs (PartD) and even more bizarre – we subsidize “gap”policies (Part C) to cover the 20% co-pay.

    saying “you pay more” to seniors is going to be easier that saying ” you have to operate on less” to DOD – IMHO.

    I WOULD LOVE to see a more free market approach to health care but until we actually get a real proposal from those who say we should do that instead of ObamaCare …what is the real alternative?

    The Republicans in Congress and the Republicans in the Va Gen Ass are AWOL on the issue even as they rail about ObamaCare.

    their sole reason for existing now days is to devote themselves to getting rid of Obama and legislative responsibilities are way down the list.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      “We currently have people who own 2 or more houses, 3 or more cars and have a half million dollars+ in assets paying $100 a month for health insurance and receiving (for instance) 15K hip replacements on the taxpayer dime while complaining about the taxes on their beach homes and replacement tire costs for their Lexus.”

      OK …. so, shouldn’t Obamacare have addressed this?

  6. JeffryKWashington Avatar
    JeffryKWashington

    The Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s health-care overhaul passed by Congress last year, was designed to make it easier for Americans in situations like Verone’s to get health insurance BTW check “Penny Medical” for more information

  7. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ObamaCare is for folks UNDER 65 DJ.

    but it WAS addressed and ObamaCare will cut 500 billion from Medicare (over 10 yrs I think) but you know what Romney and the other candidates are doing?

    they are saying that Obama wants to cut Medicare… almost in the same sentence where they say Medicare is unsustainable.

    this is the Republican narrative these days. They say that Medicare has to be cut but if Obama says he will cut it – they go to the seniors and say that Obama is cutting their benefits.

    the only cuts that the Republicans will agree to are the ones they want – the voucher system and nothing else -no compromises.

    this is the state of the Republican Party now days. It’s the Party of “No”…. and ” we don’t negotiate”.

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Obamacare is a funny topic. I honestly believe that the majority of Americans want it re-written or repealed. Sadly, I think that sentiment is more the result of a general disgust with government than a specific anti – Obama backlash.

    In November we are likely to see two candidates with “care” attached to their names. Obamacare / Romneycare.

    Americans are coming to the conclusion that something must be done but nobody trusts the government to do it.

    The core problem in America today is a lack of trust by the people in the political elite. Sadly, that lack of trust has been earned by decades of heinous misbehavior by politicians of all stripes.

  9. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the opposition has been exceptionally effective in convincing a majority that Obamacare is govt health care. the question is – are people satisfied with the current system and the current trajectory of the current system.

    It’s easy to be opposed …it’s much harder to find something that is better than what we have now and move it forward.

    The right does not want compromise. They want to write an alternative without “interference” from the Dems. They are assuming that they will get both houses of Congress and the Presidency and they are perfectly happy to block any other efforts for as long as it takes for them to get complete control.

    the Dems would compromise.. they DID compromise….

    in terms of trust….I agree… people do not trust many or most of our govt, private and business institutions any more.

  10. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.

    — Jay Leno.

  11. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    I imagine you and Jay Leno have health insurance.

    I and my employers paid my insurance premiums for over 20 years. Then I got sick enough that I could not work, lost my insurance just when I needed it, and could not then buy private insurance- at any price- because I ( suddenly and never before) had a “pre-existing condition.

    Your comments are usually spot on, but this time you are all wet.

    I was lucky: I got well, and I got a new job, otherwise I would still be without insurance, and I would be broke. Just as medical bills are responsible for 25% of bankruptcies for other Americans. Not Canadians, not Britons.

    My experience cost me tens of thousands. Had my insurance premiums actually bought me any insurance, those tens of thousands would be hundreds of thousands by now, and my retirement would be much more secure.

    Americans do need this. All the Americans without insurance need it, and all the Americans who think they have insurance need it.

    Maybe it can be improved, but eliminating it makes it awfully hard to ” fix”.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      You are missing the point. Once a government policy becomes the butt of late night comedians, it is doomed.

      Obama and the Democrats passed a health care plan that Americans don’t want.

      Boehner and the Republicans have no alternative. To them, the political value of kicking Obama over Obamacare is reward enough. I see no chance of the Republicans putting forth a plan ahead of this year’s elections.

      The only possible saving grace is that both candidates may have proposed government led health care plans – Romney in MA and Obama with Obamacare.

      From there, it’s a small step to keep Americans focused on the idea that “something has to be done”. Where there’s smoke there is fire. If both candidates have addressed the issue then there must be something to it.

      Unfortunately, that “something” may come down to the states rather than the national government. Mass. did not need federal mandate to implement Romneycare. Why does Virginia need a federal mandate to implement McDonnellcare? Or Bollingcare? Or *insert name of Democratic candidate here* care?

      The Republican political elite in Virginia has the same derangement syndrome over Obama that Democrats had over Bush. OK, fine. Presumably, they don’t have Romney Derangement Syndrome. Bolling is one of Romney’s BFFs. He even helped Romney use Virginia’s ballot scam law to keep Gingrich off the ballot on Super Tuesday.

      What does candidate Bolling think of Romneycare?

      Health care in America is broken. But waiting for answers from the federal government (to pretty much anything) is folly.

      If the Republicans in Virginia think health care is inherently a state problem then they should be forced to provide a state solution. And they need only to look at the home state of their presumed presidential nominee for an example.

  12. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Without universal health insurance, we are going to pick up the health tab for all those that went broke due to health problems, and then we are going to pick up the tab for r living expenses be wise they are broke.

    Repealing obamacare to save money is like throwing the life preservers over the side to lighten the load on a sinking boat.

  13. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    In Europe, or Korea, or Australia or Singapore when someone goes looking for a job… there is no consideration as to whether they “offer” health care or not.

    this is no concern about “pre-existing” conditions.

    employers, in turn, don’t have embedded health care costs.

    and everyone in these country pays payroll taxes to have insurance that virtually everyone will inevitably need sometime in their lives.

    and here’s the funny thing – neither the universal coverage or the individual mandate precludes a market-based environment for health care.

    Singapore has an individual mandate, universal coverage, and the government mandates that every provider – list their prices.

    ObamaCare was/is a tattered attempt to make some headway but was severely nibbled in the process.

    It was an attempt after the Republicans had clear shots at it and their sole accomplishment was Medicare Part B and since that time their approach has been one of opposition to what they don’t like and pompous and ineffectual promises to bring a better plan to the table.

    we can make lame jokes and Nancy Pelosi and the “outrage” of govt death panels and no end to right wing echo chamber blather but at the end of the day – we have something as opposed to nothing.. and that something is history if the GOP gets more power.

    I think the American people are starting to realize this. It takes the American people a long time to figure things out and it’s even harder now that the right spends every waking hour propagandizing and demonizing what they don’t like – which these days is pretty much everything.

    they live in their castle the peasants just won’t let them alone.

  14. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    now that the right spends every waking hour propagandizing and demonizing what they don’t like – which these days is pretty much everything.

    ===============================================

    You think only the right is guilty of this?

    Both sides make me want to barf.
    Both sides have abandoned the public interest for their interests,and those of their donors.

    The only differenceis that the right is more likely to lead to projectile vomit, as in guns and military barf.

    i have nothing against guns or the miltiary, but these guys are off the deep end.

  15. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Fasninating story this morning on NPR. it was about two men: the head of the Egg Producers Association and an official of the SPCA ( I think).

    These two have been battling each other for DECADES over the treatment of egg laying hens. They have spent tens of millions battling each other, and they never met, until recently.

    “Why would I want to talk to someone who wnats to put us out of business?”, said the egg man. But one day he called the SPCA man and said, why don’t we meet. the egg man discovered over time that the SPCA guy was a man of his word, and did not wish to eliminate eggs.

    The SPCA guy learned about the competitive pressures that ledd to factory eggs.

    Together, they worked out an agreement they can both live with, and neither got all that they wanted.

    That shoudl be the end of the story, right?

    Wrong.

    Now they are working together to get the laws passed that will make their agreement work. otherwise, some egg producers would work outside the system, to retain their competitive advantage. it is a classic example of what I have described as guarnteeing the wrong answer by insisting on ONLY your answer.

    Imagine a ship with two propellors, two rudders and two captains. The right captain is hard over right, the left captain is hard over left. The course is not altered, but the engines are working overtime to no purpose, wasting energy in the turbulence.

    I imagine China has a left and a right (within the meaning of what that is in China). But, somehow they make decisions and forge ahead. When they make wrong decisions, both the left and the right recognize as much, and they select a new course. They have been growing six and eight percent a year, while our economic engine is sitting on hordes of cash, refusing to grow at all until Obama is a one term president.

    As my T Rowe Price report put it, the chinese government has done a remarkable job of managing their economy.

    Think about that. That is a remarkable statement coming from a bastion of capitalism.

    And then there is this: The annual income of people in Brazil, Russina, India, and China earning at leat $6000 a year, will grow by 70% in the next ten years. Find something poor people need and can afford and invest in it.

    Average Chinese worker income grew by 35% A YEAR from 2003 to 2010. One result is that some manufacturing is moving back to the US, but that growth is astounding, especially considering the number of workers involved.

    In Brazil thse with middle and upper incomes have grown by 50% SINCE 2005, while the lower class has contracted.

    Despite what the right will tell you, it is possible to grow an economy without having 70% of the benfit wind up in the top 10% and 25% of the benefit winding up with the top 0.1%.

    And, there is an extremely interesting graph, showing the economyin every election year since 1928. Regardless of the party, if the incombent wins the econonomy (S&P 500) grows by 10%. If the incumbent loses the market goes down 4%.

    Against this kind of evidence, the right is apparently willing to scrap the delta of 14%, just to get rid of Obama.

    If they really wanted what is best for the economy, the right would withdraw from the race, and invest their superpac money in the S&P 500!

    Everyone would come out ahead, especially considering the crop of losers the money is trying to fertilize now. This is a no-brainer on an ROI argument.

    “Rarely have we ssen such a disturbing pattern of bipertisan inability to deal with serious issues affecting our nation….. there has been a lack of foresight, a lack of responsibility, and clearly a lack of courage.” – Larry Puglia, Blue Chip Growth Fund Manager.

    “Corporations are sitting on tons of cash and balance sheets are strong but there is tremendous uncertainty……Right now we don’t know if there will be Draconian cuts in defense spending…..State and local governments continue to slash expenditures….and housing has mad no contribution to GDP since 2009”

    But, Apple is trading under 15 times earnings, despite its tremendous gorwth, and its revenue inChina grew 250% in the third quarter of last year, compared to a year earlier. housing srtarts adn autou sales are still below the level of their long term equilibrium.

    We have an economy that is irrationally tanking [ or refusing to grow] on nothing but fear. Despite what the right will tell you, the economy has shown strong growth under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

    So, we find that by ANY MEASURE, the economy hates uncertainty. Why would we leave a quarter of the population uncertain about their entire life savings, due to lack of health coverage?

    I’m sorry folks, that is freaking nuts.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Nice story about the eggs. I’d like to hear how it ends.

      The Omega Protein Co could sail their fishing boats a few more miles and leave the Chesapeake Bay for the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. There, they could catch menhaden that are not performing a vital filtering function for a body of water that turns over too slowly for the amount of nutrient runoff (and related algae growth).

      But they don’t take their fishing boats those extra few miles. That would cause them to burn more fuel. So, they save a little money and continue to screw up a major resource to keeping the Bay clean.

      Meanwhile, the Clown Show is debating whether orbiting funeral urns should be tax deductible.

      The sad truth is that there is one thing that would clean up the Chesapeake Bay more than anything else …. turn it over to Maryland.

  16. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: “only the right demonizes…nope both sides do it”

    the right blocks whatever they oppose without any attempt to compromise.

    they block routine non-controversial appointments now.

    but if you want real proof of the difference between the right and left now days, look at who specializes in “wedge” issues – designed to drive people apart – even people who might be willing to mostly agree overall but agree to disagree on some things or even accept compromises – the right uses wedge politics to polarize and alienate people who might otherwise try to live with compromises.

    It’s the right he says that compromise destroys their principles and so they can’t.

  17. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the egg story is how many people who disagree on a variety of issues would work together on a compromise but the GOP takes something like this and makes it a culture war.

    that’s their specialty. They’d get involved and talk about the egg producers having to pay higher taxes and having to deal with “job killing” regulations, etc, etc.

    By the time the GOP gets done with it – no compromise on anything is possible.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      As Hydra correctly points out, both parties are engaged in obstruction of national progress. Both parties are engaged in culture war. The newest battle in the culture war is the Republicans and the 2nd amendment.

      “Obama’s going to take your guns if he’s reelected.”.

      They may be right, to an extent. Another couple of Supreme Court nominations like the last two and the 5 – 4 Heller decision is out the window. The 2nd amendment no longer constitutes a right to private gun ownership even though the founding father clearly intended it to do so.

      So, does Obama step back from this culture war battle?

      Does he promise to only nominate Supreme Court candidates who respect the 2nd amendment as a guarantee of private gun ownership?

      Of course not!

      He plays the same culture war game that they all play.

  18. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Liberals love the “separation of church and state” doctrine. Some erroneously claim it is in the Constitution. It is not. The term was taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and used as evidence of the founders’ intent with regard to the Constitution. OK, fair enough.

    What did the founders intent with regard to the second amendment?

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

    — Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

    “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”

    — George Washington

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

    — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

    Will Obama respect the obvious intent of the founders with regard to gun ownership as he expects everybody to respect their intent with regard to the separation of church and state?

    Of course not.

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  19. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” Health care in America is broken. But waiting for answers from the federal government (to pretty much anything) is folly.”

    and yet every other industrialized country in the world – implemented universal health care by government.

    there is no country in the world that has universal health care that was not implemented by govt.

  20. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” “Obama’s going to take your guns if he’s reelected.”.

    They may be right, to an extent. ”

    ” As Hydra correctly points out, both parties are engaged in obstruction of national progress. Both parties are engaged in culture war. The newest battle in the culture war is the Republicans and the 2nd amendment.”

    this is the example? Show me exactly where at the Presidential and Congressional level that Dems are trying to take your guns.

    this is the kind of blather that emanates from the right wing echo machine and people like DJ repeat… as if it were true.. when there is not a shred of evidence that it is except from conspiracy wackos..

    why do ya’ll equate this to the Republicans culture war when it’s clearly coming from the RWEM and conspiracy whackos?

  21. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    LarryG:

    As usual, you can only see the liberal side of the story. How many times have liberals insisted that electing a conservative president will cause women to lose “their right to choose”? What does this mean? It means that a conservative president is expected to nominate conservative justices to the US Supreme Court. It’s further presumed that those conservative justices will overturn Roe v Wade and rescind a woman’s “right to choose”.

    Are you following me so far, LarryG?

    Barack Obama understands. As a US Senator he voted against the nomination of John Roberts to the US Supreme Court. Describing his opposition, he said, ” In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, …”.

    Prior to becoming a Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor was part of a panel that ruled on a gun case in New York. In that ruling, the panel wrote, “… settled law that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in DC v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” .

    In other words, the invisible right to privacy guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion that cannot be abridged by the states while the clearly written right to bear arms is only a stricture against federal control.

    What about Obama’s other nominee – Elena Kagan? When Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote, “I’m not sympathetic” to the claim that “the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate [an individual’s] constitutional right to ‘keep and bear Arms.’ “

    So far, Obama has replaced liberals with liberals. Therefore, the Heller decision would be re-affirmed by the court if it voted today. Both of his appointees replaced justices who voted in the minority on Heller. However, Obama’s next term might well allow him the opportunity to replace one of the justices who voted in the majority in Heller. The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

    Obama is as slippery as an eel on the matter. In his 2004 Senate race, for example, Obama said it was a “scandal” that then-President George W. Bush didn’t force renewal of the assault weapons ban. But Obama himself has done nothing to promote that issue since becoming president.

    So, is the allegation that Obama will nominate Supreme Court justices who will reverse the Heller decision true? His first two appointments certainly look like they would reverse Heller.

    So, the Republicans ignite a culture war issue by claiming that a second Obama term will erase the second amendment. Obama refuses to address the issue but has a track record of anti gun rights.

    Is this a culture war issue or a legitimate question?

  22. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Speaking of two faced politicians seeking election in November ….

    Here is what Tim Kaine wrote on his web site as he was running for governor:

    “Tim Kaine strongly supports the Second Amendment. As the next Governor of Virginia, he will not propose any new gun laws. Instead Tim Kaine will guarantee strict enforcement of our existing criminal laws. He will also expand the use of such enforcement strategies as Project Exile that target criminals who use guns rather than law-abiding gun owners.”.

    Of course, that promise didn’t last long …

    Kaine announces effort to close gun-show ‘loophole’

    http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/142185

    Will Tim Kaine will feature his anti-gun rights thinking in his Senate campaign. Or, will he once again say one thing but do another?

  23. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    “As usual, you can only see the liberal side of the story.”

    “liberal” compared to DJ who supports taxing the bejesus out of his fellow Fairfax citizens and tolling the bejesus out of hapless DTR drivers?

    I’d be careful about using the “liberal” tag if I were you DJ.

    🙂

    ” How many times have liberals insisted that electing a conservative president will cause women to lose “their right to choose”? What does this mean? It means that a conservative president is expected to nominate conservative justices to the US Supreme Court. It’s further presumed that those conservative justices will overturn Roe v Wade and rescind a woman’s “right to choose”.”

    hmm… are you saying that “conservatives” won’t if they could seriously damage women’s right to choose? Have you checked the Va legislature lately nimrod?

    Are you following me so far, LarryG? yes.. but you’re NOT headed in the direction you think you are….

    🙂

    “Barack Obama understands. As a US Senator he voted against the nomination of John Roberts to the US Supreme Court. Describing his opposition, he said, ” In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, …”. ”

    and what exactly was he actually wrong about Roberts? not much, right?

    “Prior to becoming a Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor was part of a panel that ruled on a gun case in New York. In that ruling, the panel wrote, “… settled law that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in DC v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” . ”

    DJ – are you saying that ANY case that ANY SCOTUS ruled on in prior judicial experience disqualifies them for current cases?

    “In other words, the invisible right to privacy guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion that cannot be abridged by the states while the clearly written right to bear arms is only a stricture against federal control.”

    there are differences in judicial views but they are not “liberal” or “conservative” per se unless of course you are from the right wing and then they all are…

    I assume that since you sling the “liberal” word, you consider yourself Conservative but alas the rest of your views about taxes makes you not very conservative. The right wing would not want your “increase taxes” carcass in the party of Ronnie Baby.

    “What about Obama’s other nominee – Elena Kagan? When Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote, “I’m not sympathetic” to the claim that “the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate [an individual’s] constitutional right to ‘keep and bear Arms.’ “ ”

    what is your point here DJ? do you support guns in airports and classrooms?

    “So far, Obama has replaced liberals with liberals.”

    and what did Bush do? what is your point ?

    ” Therefore, the Heller decision would be re-affirmed by the court if it voted today. Both of his appointees replaced justices who voted in the minority on Heller. However, Obama’s next term might well allow him the opportunity to replace one of the justices who voted in the majority in Heller. The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.”

    do you mean replace one of the idiots that voted to allow unlimited and undisclosed campaign money?

    “Obama is as slippery as an eel on the matter. In his 2004 Senate race, for example, Obama said it was a “scandal” that then-President George W. Bush didn’t force renewal of the assault weapons ban. But Obama himself has done nothing to promote that issue since becoming president.”

    I think Obama is pretty consistent .. remember he’s NOT the one who warned us against Al Gore’s secret wish to nation build…

    😉

    “So, is the allegation that Obama will nominate Supreme Court justices who will reverse the Heller decision true? His first two appointments certainly look like they would reverse Heller.”

    if you’re asking that folks like Thomas, Alito and Roberts would be better replaced by others, I’d certain agree. Those three are a menace to Democracy in my view with their support of unlimited secret campaign money.

    “So, the Republicans ignite a culture war issue by claiming that a second Obama term will erase the second amendment. Obama refuses to address the issue but has a track record of anti gun rights.

    Is this a culture war issue or a legitimate question?”

    there are some legitimate questions and always have been and men of good conscience can debate and agree to disagree and compromise.

    this is not the MO of Republicans now days. There strategy is to discern which issues can serve as wedge issues and then to use them to divide the country in an effort to win over enough in the middle to… not to govern… but to rule… according to their “un-compromised” … “principles”.

    Look no further than the current Republican Primary race to see this on full display.

    Where are the moderates? Not even Romney can run as a center-right moderate. In order to win he has got to pander to the far right by tossing red meat to satisfy them.

    health care ? nope. let them die.

    gays in the military – nope… let them die or get out

    choice for women – no way… it’s against God and Country you know…

    go ahead DJ.. align yourself with the hard right…I assure you ..with your record on taxes.. you’re as bad as a RINO to them.

    😉

  24. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    DJ.. I now that you and Jim like to use the “liberal” label with me but I can prove to you that I am to your “right” on more than a few issues.

    and I think you are clearly to my “left” on things like taxes and bad local government.

    Your solution to bad state govt seems to be bad local government at times!

    even TMT finds your positions on Fairfax a bit scary!

    😉

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      I am on your left on the death penalty too. Probably on gay marriage as well.

      That’s my point LarryG … I won’t accept either the right or the left as an overall philosophy. To me MSNBC is as big a collection of fools as Fox News.

      As for blaming the Supreme Court justices for the ruling on campaign contributions – not so sure on that. The question seems to be open to dispute regarding the Constitution. It would be a good area for an amendment.

  25. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    So, LarryG ….

    If Obama is re-elected will the Supreme Court overturn Heller?

    That’s the NRA’s contention. It seems likely to me.

    Is this a wedge issue or a legitimate issue.

    Guns rights are a big deal in several swing states.

  26. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    it’s a wedge issue brought up by the right… like most of the other wedge issues they bring up.

    you are their target wedge DJ

  27. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” That’s my point LarryG … I won’t accept either the right or the left as an overall philosophy.”

    then why do you use the “liberal” word for others?

    ” To me MSNBC is as big a collection of fools as Fox News.”

    oh indeed! but wedge issue politics was invented by the right and they are pretty much the sole practitioners. It’s the way the right does business.

    ” As for blaming the Supreme Court justices for the ruling on campaign contributions – not so sure on that. The question seems to be open to dispute regarding the Constitution. It would be a good area for an amendment.”

    the “decision” that corporations can use money far in excess of individual voters is an absurd concept.

    Notice how fast the GOP rushed to void that decision with an amendment and hammered on Obama for not getting on board with their efforts, eh?

    Do you think the RIGHT…. SUPPORTs what Alido, Roberts and Thomas did?

    you bet your butt they do…. and you are “not sure”? come on man…

    how could you possibly see what is going on right now in the GOP primary and not see how this totally perverts the intent of the Constitution?

    and who supports it? Alido, Roberts, Thomas and the GOP… that’s who.

  28. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    “it’s a wedge issue brought up by the right…”.

    I disagree. Obama will appoint at least one new Supreme Court justice in his second term and the newly configured court will overturn Heller. It’s not a wedge issue, it’s a legitimate concern. His first two appointments have been publicly clear about their feelings about gun control. Why would anybody expect his next appointment to be any different? He needs to address this issue or face the consequences in November.

    “then why do you use the “liberal” word for others?”.

    Because there are liberals in the world who adhere entirely to the left’s philosophy. Also, conservatives who adhere to the right’s philosophy.

    “oh indeed! but wedge issue politics was invented by the right and they are pretty much the sole practitioners.”.

    Eliminate a woman’s right to choose.
    Oppose Obama because they are racist.
    The 99% vs the 1%.

    There are plenty of left wing wedge issues.

    As for the corporate personhood issue …

    The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    As usual LarryG – your anger is misplaced. There is almost 200 years of Supreme Court precedent for considering corporations (and labor unions for that matter) to have the same rights as people under the US Constitution. Therefore, providing corporations with first amendment protection is hardly a bizarre new way of thinking.

    The founders anticipated that the Constitution would need to be amended. Jefferson, in particular, felt that the Earth belonged to the living and expected that each generation would essentially rewrite the Constitution. Yet the last meaningful amendment was passed in 1971 (lowering voting age to 18).

    The US Constitution can be amended by the Congress proposing amendments or by 2/3 of the states convening a convention and proposing changes.

    The Supreme Court interprets the law, Congress makes the law. If you want to unravel 200 years of precedent regarding corporate personhood I’d suggest that the amendment process be followed. If Obama wants to make guns illegal he should push for a rewriting of the second amendment.

  29. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    ” I disagree. Obama will appoint at least one new Supreme Court justice in his second term and the newly configured court will overturn Heller. It’s not a wedge issue, it’s a legitimate concern. His first two appointments have been publicly clear about their feelings about gun control. Why would anybody expect his next appointment to be any different? He needs to address this issue or face the consequences in November.”

    it’s a wedge issue IN THE WAY that it is brought up; it’s designed explicitly to peel votes from Obama ON ONE ISSUE. that’s a WEDGE!

    “then why do you use the “liberal” word for others?”.

    Because there are liberals in the world who adhere entirely to the left’s philosophy. Also, conservatives who adhere to the right’s philosophy.”

    then why do you call me a libtard / liberal when you ADMIT you are to the LEFT of me on some issues?

    “There are plenty of left wing wedge issues.”

    not done as an explicit strategy to target specific candidates on litmus test issues. Liberals DO NOT tend to vote on single issues nor do they formulate explicit strategies that focus on doing that.

    right now – the Republicans want to bring up ObamaCare AGAIN on the floor of the house – even though they have no chance for passage but they want to bring it up RIGHT NOW to get Dems on the record now that the Catholic issue has surfaced.

    This is WEDGE politics guy. Admit it.

    “As for the corporate personhood issue …

    “As usual LarryG – your anger is misplaced. There is almost 200 years of Supreme Court precedent for considering corporations (and labor unions for that matter) to have the same rights as people under the US Constitution. Therefore, providing corporations with first amendment protection is hardly a bizarre new way of thinking.”

    is that how we handled slavery and womens rights also?

    “The founders anticipated that the Constitution would need to be amended. Jefferson, in particular, felt that the Earth belonged to the living and expected that each generation would essentially rewrite the Constitution. Yet the last meaningful amendment was passed in 1971 (lowering voting age to 18).”

    no according to Conservatives who say they are STRICT Constitutionalists and oppose amendments in general.

    “The US Constitution can be amended by the Congress proposing amendments or by 2/3 of the states convening a convention and proposing changes.”

    yes and you’d think 2/3 of the country is opposed to unlimited secret corporate money in election campaigns but guess what the elected Republicans want – regardless of the feelings of those who they represent?

    “The Supreme Court interprets the law, Congress makes the law. If you want to unravel 200 years of precedent regarding corporate personhood I’d suggest that the amendment process be followed. If Obama wants to make guns illegal he should push for a rewriting of the second amendment.”

    The GOP are STRICT constitutionalists on things they do not want changed and obstruct the process even if a majority of voters do not want secret corporate (and union) money in elections.

    Most every industrialized nation in the world OUTLAWS corporate money in elections.

    We, on the other hand, allow it, because it’s the way Republicans prefer to govern.

  30. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” “There are plenty of left wing wedge issues.”

    name some that the left INITIATED explicitly as wedge issues.

    the left RESPONDS when the right brings them up but name some that the left has brought up initially that were explicitly designed was wedge issues.

    I think you will be hard pressed to find many, if any examples.

    this latest thing with the Catholic church is an excellent example of the right purposely pursuing a strategy designed to divide and separate people and pit them against each other – as an explicit political strategy.

    28 states for more than two decades have required Catholic employers who offer health care not to restrict what is offered to no-Catholic employees.

    this includes Massachusetts where Romney came from and Georgia where Gingrich came from.

    Where was the “outrage” from the Church when Massachusetts and Georgia passed their regulations? Where was the ‘outrage’ from national Republicans to keep these states from restricting religious “rights”.

    why did this issue sit for 20 years before it surfaced?

    Answer – it became yet another anti-Obama political cudgel.

    this kind of politics is corrosive and divisive and does not seek reasonable compromises but instead to create political firestorms that will further polarize and divide the country.

    this is the preferred method of governance form the right these days.

    they really are not about “governing” at all. What they are about is getting enough votes to IMPOSE their uncompromising beliefs on everyone regardless of the impacts to people.

    it is the GOP’s explicit desire to delineate “liberal” and “conservative” on all issues…. Remember… we USED to have fiscally conservative but socially moderate Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats but now those kinds of Republicans are effectively banned from the party. They are being TARGETED by their own party in primaries.

    Republicans have moved far, far right as a party and they REQUIRE strict devotion to their hard right principles or else out you go.

    then for the rest of society – it’s wedge issue politics to divide the country and target “liberals” of which you DJ follow along on.

    You use the term as a pejorative to diss those who are even to YOUR RIGHT on issues…

    DJ – if you decided to run for office anywhere but Fairfax, – you could NEVER run as a Republican guy. They ferret out your support for taxes and the death penalty and same sex marriages and out you’d go.

    and if you ran for office, they’d put up a hard right guy to run against you.

  31. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    The 2nd amendment no longer constitutes a right to private gun ownership even though the founding father clearly intended it to do so.

    +++++++++++++++++

    I agree with the founding fathers: every private citizen should be allowed to own a muzzle loading musket.

    No damage to the intent of the second amendment, the founding fathers are honored for their wisdom, and we don’t suffer 17 round glocks, and semi-automatic assault weapons that can be converted to full auto by a child with an internet connection.

  32. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Why does Virginia need a federal mandate to introduce mcdonnellcare?

    Because otherwise it wont happen, Virginia has had plenty of time, and they blew it.

    I wish you could hear some of the conversation between me and the insurance commissioner after Aetna cancelled retroactively.

    Then you might understand why a mandate is needed.

    Where would civil rights be today without federal mandates?

  33. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Liberalism is mental disorder: anything goes and everything is a mess.

    Conservativism is abject paranoid fear of anything.or anybody new, said fear being compensated for by catatonia and delusions.

    Progressivism is the search for meaningful change that works, starting with mandated health insurance which provides mental health treatment for those in need.

  34. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    I think women should have guns and use them against anyone that opposes their right to do as they please or don’t please with their own body.

  35. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    I think the right to wear arms trumps the right to bear arms.

Leave a Reply

Read More