State Delays Health Care Reform Implementation

From a release (4.00 / 1)

I got today from NH Voices for Health:

Forty-seven other states have accepted the Exchange planning grant - including those that are challenging reform through lawsuits or legislation.

O'Brien and Bettencourt are playing a dangerous game with the lives and health of Granite Staters.

As for that guy that wants to run for NH-01 who endorsed John Stephen - can you imagine the shame of being in the company of Florida and Wisconsin on this?

I could.  Because that's where we would be with this statehouse and a Governor Stephen.

birch paper

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 18:45:55 PM CST

Do we have an Ethics Committee yet? (4.00 / 2)

Just wondering how the Speaker and Majority Leader find time to complete federal constitutional assessments and direct their Executive Branch colleagues.

I thought maybe they were all up-to-date with their own jobs, but I can't seem to find any record of a 2011-2012 Ethics Committee.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 18:56:38 PM CST

the budget peacocks (4.00 / 3)

are preening.

The exchanges are supposed to help folks buy cheaper insurance, something that even the preeners ought to be in favor of. Heck, even  the UL commenters are largely in favor of it - which ought to be a wakeup call:

So an exchange where private insurers have to list their pricing and benefits right along side of each other, promoting more competition is a bad idea? It sounds like capitalism to me.

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 19:16:37 PM CST

We wouldn't want Americans (4.00 / 1)

like Melissa Mia Hall to find affordable insurance, would we?

Oh wait - she's already dead because of that.

birch paper

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 19:48:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, you obviously don't understand. (4.00 / 2)

"Competition" is a euphemism for "knock the other fellow out with the help of the government in your corner."  The object of government regulation is to advantage the favored "son" and disadvantage the disfavored.  Of course, in the end, favors are just bribes that can be withdrawn (like our military aid to Egypt) whenever the favored steps out of line.
When you start with the preconceived notion that the default human behavior is evil, then an easily convertible system of rewards and punishments is imperative.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:22:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The first part (quoted below) sounds like the opening of a Tea Party rant.. (0.00 / 0)

"Competition" is a euphemism for "knock the other fellow out with the help of the government in your corner."  The object of government regulation is to advantage the favored "son" and disadvantage the disfavored.  

Please connect this thought with Health Care Reform.  Should I conclude that you would have voted against bill?


whp

---

by: whp @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 12:54:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why we need healthcare reform: from today's NY Times (4.00 / 3)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...

Senator Ayotte and Congressmen Bass and Guinta: please tell Hillary St. Pierre from Charlestown, NH why you are voting to eliminate her health insurance coverage:

"With a court decision on Monday declaring the health care law unconstitutional and Republicans intent on repealing at least parts of it, thousands of Americans with major illnesses are facing the renewed prospect of losing their health insurance coverage...For example, Hillary St. Pierre, a 28-year-old former registered nurse who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, had expected to reach her insurance plan's $2 million limit this year. Under the new law, the cap was eliminated when the policy she gets through her husband's employer was renewed this year. Ms. St. Pierre, who has already come close once before to losing her coverage because she had reached the plan's maximum, says she does not know what she will do if the cap is reinstated. "I will be forced to stop treatment or to alter my treatment," Ms. St. Pierre, who lives in Charlestown, N.H., with her husband and son, said in an e-mail. "I will find a way to continue and survive, but who is going to pay?"  

---

by: Putney Swope @ Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 20:14:15 PM CST

Right-wingers claim to be strict adherents to the Constitution ("unlike liberals", they imply) (4.00 / 2)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I'm guessing they find the Supremacy Clause even more inconvenient than the 26th Amendment.

One thing we've learned about Republican leaders this decade: they're for the supremacy of whichever level of government they control.

--
Hope 2012

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 00:41:12 AM CST