It's looking possible that a national health care reform bill may include a public option.
That is driving some legislators nuts. Well, nuttier than they already are. Especially Repugnican legislators.
So, three of these conniving bastards in the great state of Kansas are working on a way to opt out. Their efforts are being duplicated in several other states by legislators who think their states are "sovereign" and cannot be told what to do by the federal government.
Didn't we fight a war about this a while back?
In Kansas, Repugnicans Mary Pilcher-Cook, Brenda Landwehr, and Peggy Mast, have introduced an amendment to the state constitution which would specify that "no law can require individuals or employers to buy health insurance."
Pilcher-Cook, showing off her ignorance, said, "Kansas citizens have a right to make their own health care decisions without federal czars." Heh, heh.
Of course, these morons are currently covered by insurance paid for by the taxpayers of the state of Kansas! And you can bet your bootie that it is good insurance. But, being Repugnicans, and likely beholden to corporate paymasters (insurance and health companies), they don't want their fellow citizens to share that same opportunity.
Landwehr, another ignoramus (where do these morons come from?) cries that they're not against health care reform but they don't want the feds to tell them what to do! "We were created to have state sovereignty," said Ms. Landwehr, full of her own pompous ignorance. "We were not set up to have the federal government tell the states who, what, when, where and how."
God, give this woman a class in civics, government, American history, etc.
Fortunately, the amendment must be passed by a 2/3rds majority of the Kansas Legislature, and, if that happens, must be approved by the voters.
It would be nice to think that the people of Kansas would see through the blithering nonsense of these three Repugs, but the state's recent history doesn't give much hope for that.
Read the article by the Kansas City Star here.
1 comment:
If Obama won overwhelmingly, yet can be defeated by a minority party, what have we won? Does it matter how we vote? He wasted too much time seeking one Republican vote. That did not make it bipartisan. The Republicans are “slow walking” legislation re extending the unemployment benefits and that's costing weeks of pain for those whose benefits have expired. When the bill finally comes up for a vote, they will vote for it and claim they extended the benefits. Why does our media not report the slowdown that takes weeks to get a bill passed instead of hours!
If Obama or the Democrats do not expose what is happening, the votes of the majority of voters has little meaning. If money is to be removed from influence, it has to start now. A public option takes care of a small number but they need it desperately. The rest of us can continue overpaying if that is what we want. We get what we deserve. I am happy with my VA, Medicare and AARP gap insurance, but I can afford it. What happens to those in real need or do our leaders care? We voted for change but the losers are winning delays, compromises etc. Should we stay home next time and give up?
What if Obama fights back and changes things even if he loses votes next time? He received a real mandate and must use it if we will ever get the changes he wants.
Post a Comment