About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch
Defending New Hampshire Public Education

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
- Jackie Cilley
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

HB 1560: The Dubious Plan to Kill Health Care Reform

by: William Tucker

Sun Jan 15, 2012 at 13:30:18 PM EST


Opponents of federal health care reform have seized upon a novel end-run around the law, an interstate Health Care Compact that would replace all federal health care programs — including Medicare and Medicaid — with block grants to the states.

The history of compacts goes back to the colonial period, and more than 200 are currently in force. Many coordinate activities between contiguous states, such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Others, such as the Driver License Compact and the Wildlife Violators Compact, offer reciprocal recognition of laws and licenses in member states.

The Health Care Compact, however, is the first one that attempts to shield states from a whole area of federal law. It is four pages long and would replace the current federal health-care system with block grants to the states. ...

If a significant number of states pass the compact, supporters plan to submit it to Congress for approval in the same way that the body approves interstate compacts regulating commerce, transportation, and resource conservation and development.

And just like that, billions of dollars will be turned over to the states without any strings attached? Unlikely. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said "we will put a person on Neptune" before Congress approves the compact.

Nevertheless, the Health Care Compact initiative is backed by Tea Party Patriots, Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which adopted it as model legislation.

HB 1560 is crafted verbatim from the ALEC model legislation. Its intent is clear. The preamble promises to give New Hampshire the "authority to enact state laws that supersede any and all federal laws regarding health care" within the state. The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire describes it as "the vehicle that we must use to nullify Obamacare in New Hampshire!"

HB 1560 is sponsored by House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt and has been referred to the Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification committee. The first public hearing is scheduled for January 24 at 10:00 a.m. in LOB 206.

William Tucker :: HB 1560: The Dubious Plan to Kill Health Care Reform
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Never mind killing (4.00 / 1)
health care reform, they're trying to kill off a lot of US!

The thing about block grants (4.00 / 2)
With block grants, the Congress bears all the political costs of raising and maintaining taxes to fund them, while local politicos - from city councilors to Governors - get all the political benefits of using the funds to benefit people.

When the costs and benefits accrue to different groups things don't work well. The 'cost' bearers want to end the programs, the 'benefits' bearers want to expand them tenfold.


Ideological agenda. (0.00 / 0)
I think it's important to recognize that there is an ideological agenda that's being followed, so we know what we are contending with.
Conservatives do not believe in government by the people.  From their perspective the purpose of government is to rule and the American people in consenting to the Constitution agreed, once and for all, to be ruled by the people selected to represent them.
So, legislators' jobs are to make rules by which people have to live, if they want to be continue to live. And the states, being a smaller political unit and closer to the people and, therefor, more up on what rules have to be imposed, are the more appropriate arena for rule to be made.
The federal government, to the extent that it seeks to empower individuals and improve individual welfare is anathema to conservatives.  If the federal government provides rewards and benefits, what will the states use to keep the people in line? If conservatives even think about public service, they consider it in the context of not meeting their own private interest.

What we've got is a basic conflict between people who want to keep "their" population at home and under control in the states and a federal government that's intent on making it possible for individuals to live and work and get educated and get medical care wherever and whenever they need it--no strings attached.  The latter is totally offensive to people who are looking to exercise control.  Government, in their view, is supposed to be a backup to coerce behavior, not a facilitator who makes it easy for people to run/move away.
The traditional family is their model. The father's word is supposed to be law and if that doesn't work, the state is supposed to be available to back him up.
Ditto for enterprise.  Businesses are supposed to be able to set their own rules and, if they don't succeed, the state is supposed to back them up with patent protections, legislative privilege and monetary subsidies.
Conservatives do appreciate the "nanny state," but only when the "mommy state" fails them. In any case they expect to suckle at the public teat.

So, why do we favor Medicare for All?  Because, since illness and disease is neither age not location specific, people who want to move around, need to be able to access care everywhere.  Also, age-restricted medical care is un-constitutional because there is no rational basis for the unequal treatment.
Since conservatives would just as soon do away with all medical care, except for those who have earned it, it's not worth considering compromise, IMHO.  While the immediate enrollment of all comers was not practicable, Democrats should be relentless in promoting Medicare for all.


"Nullify"? (0.00 / 0)


--
Twitter: @DougLindner



Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox