25 States Standing up to Obamacare – Why not North Carolina?

Civitias Institute Marianne Suarez  |  January 12, 2010

Popular sentiment is that final passage of the Obamacare Frankenstein is inevitable.  Reform in its near final form is far from that which was promised by the Obama administration, in that many will be forced out of their private insurance, costs will rise, care will be rationed, and millions will be left uninsured.

Further, contrary to traditional congressional procedure, it has become evident that the differences in the House and Senate bills will be resolved outside of conference and behind closed doors. 

It seems that all conservatives are left to grapple with are calls for greater transparency, while they cling to the claim that bipartisanship is dead.  But is this really the endgame?

Of all the proposed changes, the inclusion of individual mandates in both the House and Senate bills is one of the most oppressive elements of the health care overhaul.  Individual mandates have been a sticking point in the health care debate since the presidential primaries, and was in fact one of the central elements that distinguished the Obama and Clinton platforms.  In the campaign, then candidate Obama was set against individual mandates, acknowledging that they had the potential to result in more harm than good. 

President Obama should listen to candidate Obama. A report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services confirms that even with the inclusion of individual mandates, the Senate bill would leave 19 million people uninsured while further burdening this group with $29 billion in additional taxes and penalties. 

Is there any way to hold the congressional Democrats accountable for these broken promises and misguided reform plans? A few states have decided they will not sit back and await destructive “reform.” Arizona is one of the most striking examples. It has developed its own legislation, HCR 2014, which will be put on the ballot in the 2010 election. The resolution blocks any effort that forces the state’s residents to enroll in a government run insurance plan, that restricts a person’s ability to purchase private insurance, or that interferes with the right to pay directly for medical services.  Most importantly the legislation blocks any effort to penalize individuals or businesses that decline health coverage.

Massachusetts, a precursor state in implementing individual mandates, has seen its health care costs increase by 42 percent in the two years since their implementation, and continues to grapple with nearly a quarter of a million people still lacking health insurance coverage in the state.

Arizona’s proposed legislation does more than just attempt to block Obamacare’s misguided reform efforts; it also proposes alternative reforms that will actually lower the cost of health care and increase accessibility in the state.  A few of these reforms include allowing for the purchase of health insurance across state lines, extending tax breaks to those who purchase their own private insurance, and eliminating sales and premium taxes on HSA eligible plans. 

Arizona is not the only state to propose legislation protecting its citizens from Obamacare’s liberty-eroding mandates. Thirteen other states have also filed or pre-filed similar legislation including: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  In addition 10 states - Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire,Oklahoma, Montana, Tennessee, and Utah have announced intentions to move forward with similar legislation in 2010. 

Notably absent from that list is North Carolina - a state that faces a possible $600 million in new expenses as a result of the proposed Medicaid expansion included in the Obamacare reform plan. This will surely be an unwelcome added financial burden in a state already feeling the pinch of more than a billion dollars in new taxes enacted a few months ago.  

The question is what is North Carolina waiting for? The health care overhaul has proven to be so unpopular with the American people that legislatures are ramming bills through Congress on Christmas Eve, going back on their promises to televise debates on C-SPAN and make legislation publicly available before a vote, and circumventing the customary procedure of conference in drafting the final bill. 

Amidst the incredible lack of transparency there is distinct clarity – it is now up to the states to take matters into their own hands, carry the voice of the American people and counter the evolving monster of government-run health care before it consumes even more of our freedom.

The contrast could not be more clear. And,

CNN -- hardly a conservative front group --

The second number: Gallup Polling Company

As the rally ended and the thousands of

He's right. We're not going to quit. Harry Reid and President Obama and Speaker

 Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tim

PS: No matter what announcements and pronouncements come from Obama, Reid,Pelosi and company,-- keep focused on delivering our message through calls, emails,and personal visits to your Senate and House offices. And, now more than ever, get your friends to do the same.

CLICK here to send this email to your friends. The Holidays are here but we've got to keep fighting.

Sewergate is a word

Esteem turns to poison

During a state Senate debate years ago, a frustrated "Uncle Ralph" Scott, the plain-spoken brother of one governor and the uncle of another, put it bluntly: "I don't know the smooth language lawyers use, but somebody's lyin'."

It was evident last week that somebody was lying before the State Board of Elections. Much of the drama focused on contradictory testimony from former Gov. Mike Easley and McQueen Campbell, the former chairman of the N.C. State University trustees.

The two men's starkly different stories will likely play out in the coming weeks as state and federal investigators continue investigating whether Easley misused his position to get a sweetheart land deal, a free car, illegal plane rides and other benefits.

The Easley and Campbell families had been close for decades. Easley rose in politics as a Brunswick County district attorney, while the Campbells were prominent Bladen County business leaders. Easley watched young McQueen grow up, and he took him under his wing.

When Easley wanted to get somewhere fast, Campbell flew him in his plane. When Easley wanted repairs on his private home, he asked Campbell to take care of it. When his wife, Mary, wanted a job at NCSU, he asked Campbell to help make it happen.

In return, Easley helped move Campbell into the fast lane of big-time politics, business and academia.

That relationship has now turned poisonous.

State and federal investigators have been circling Easley, and it seems evident that they have gotten Campbell to cooperate.

On Monday, a stone-faced Campbell unloaded on his old mentor. Campbell, 38, said he had provided free, unreported flights for Easley for years. He also said he repaired Easley's private residence and falsely billed Easley's political committee for the work, charging it as a campaign flight and then filing a bogus insurance claim.

Appearing before the board on Wednesday, Easley, 59, strongly denied Campbell's testimony. He said that Campbell had assured him that the flights were paid for, and that in no way had he approved the filing of the insurance claim.

Easley and his lawyer, Thomas Hicks, began trying to discredit Campbell. Hicks referred to Campbell several times as a "young man" and compared him to a teenaged boy who, once he starts telling a lie, can't stop. Easley and his lawyer noted that Campbell has told contradictory stories in public.

At another point, Hicks referred to Campbell as a "sycophant," which the dictionary describes as a servile person who tells lies against a fellow citizen for a kind of profit.

Why, Hicks asked at one point, would a two-term governor, two-term attorney general and former prosecutor risk his reputation and possibly his liberty for a few thousand dollars in house repairs, when his political campaign could have paid for them?

(WHY????  BECAUSE  HE FELT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH IT.  LOOK WHO WAS THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND HOW MANY RHINO'S COMPLEMENTED THAT LEAKE WAS DOING A GOOD JOB.  THEY ALL ARE COVERING FOR EACH OTHER.  ANYONE KNOWS THAT YOU CAN'T DEPEND ON A CROOK.  THERE FORE LET CAMPBELL AND EASLEY EAT EACH OTHER.  DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE SHOW PUT ON BY LEAKE AND COMPANY.  these comments by Don Yelton.)   

But several members of the State Elections Board openly wondered: Why would Campbell invent such a story, in which he was implicating himself in part of an illegality?  

(TOO COVER HIS OWN BUTT AND GET A GOOD DEAL.  HE HAS PROVEN HE WILL DO ANYTHING FOR A DEAL, JUST LIKE EASLEY.   these comments by Don Yelton) 

Now state and federal authorities, like Uncle Ralph, have to figure out who is lyin'.

rob.christensen@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4532  Thanks to the newsobserver for the story but keep digging on Leake and why he went first.  (Don Yelton November 1, 2009.

Could you use leader or leaner instead?

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. 

 If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
 A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
 
 If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life..
 If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
 
If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
 
If a conservative  is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
 
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
 
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.  
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

Just maybe conservative and liberal does not mean what we think or assume it does!!!!