North Carolina’s new GOP House and Senate majorities have made it clear that one of their top priorities is passing legislation to “exempt” the state from the health care reform bill. The move is utterly unconstitutional, as states cannot overturn national laws, but that legal matter will be decided in the courts. Meanwhile, we’re wondering if the GOP reps’ opposition to “gummint health care” will extend to their own lives. N.C. state lawmakers, despite being technically part-time workers, get completely free — as in $0.00 in premiums — health coverage through the N.C. State Health Plan. By the way, no other part-time state employees are eligible for free coverage. We agree with NC Policy Watch blogger Adam Searing, who wrote:
Strange they want to take away from older adults the 50% discount on brand name drugs in Medicare, take away from parents the ability to keep their adult children on their own insurance plans up to age 26, eliminate the new affordable high risk pool for people with pre-existing health conditions, get rid of the requirement that health insurers spend at least 80% of their premiums on actual health care services and so on, but I guess GOPers feel someone must sacrifice.
Of course, if the GOP lawmakers have their way, they will be the last ones to have to sacrifice anything. Personally, I think it’s great that the state lawmakers get free health coverage. The question is why they want to deny merely “affordable” coverage to everyone else. But I guess that’s what makes them so special.
This article appears in Jan 4-10, 2011.
Typical conservitard hypocrisy.
Unconstitutional? The Constitution was meant to put limits on the Federal government, not states. Unfortunately it hasn’t been adhered to in years. The Feds have no authority in the Constitution to regulate the healthcare industry.
“Personally, I think it’s great that the state lawmakers get free health coverage.” It is not free, they just aren’t the ones paying for it, as would be the case with all the “benefits” you described in HCR. They aren’t free, but others will be forced to pay for the users.
Yes, BV, that’s right. Others would be paying for it, just like when you drive on roads I never use and I pay for them anyhow. Or like when your house catches fire, I pay for the fire dept. to put it out, even though I don’t even know you. It’s called communal responsibility. Look into it; it’s one of the basic concepts of civilization.
You said it was free, which was inaccurate. I never said I was for public funding of roads or fire departments either. Both can and have been done by private means including volunteer for longer than not, and both cost more than they would if not for being public.
Yeah, let’s line up all those volunteers for the next interstate construction project.
Like it or not Mike, if folks who couldn’t print money were paying for Interstates they would cost less and probably be more closely related to the needs of that area.
I know this is getting off topic but…BV…really? REALLY? Explain how that would work to us. How something like that gets funded, organized, connected to other road systems, how you’d keep those who haven’t paid into it from using it, etc, and how much better off we’d be for it?
Seems there’s a huge crop of “fiscal conservatives” now that don’t realize they’re really just closet anarchists.
That’s not “fiscal conservatism,” it’s libertarianism. That movement used to emphasize personal liberty more than anything else but over years it’s gotten more and more into these la-la land economic theories that have never worked anywhere, and will never work anywhere because they’re bordering on anarchy. Libertarians these days are eaten up by their little “ism” just like all the other “isms” that have fucked up the world. Their super-free-market ideas might work for a while in really small towns, but try organizing a city along libertarian lines, and you’ll see it turn into Deadwood pretty quick.
Rick, which libertarian nation has run up $14,000,000,000,000.00 in debt?
Stu/Rick/whomever, I assume your hangup is over the roads not the fire departments since that one seems pretty clear, there are tons of places that don’t have local tax-feeder fire stations. There are privately built roads that use tolls to serve as an example. More broadly, I find it disturbing that the main message of both parties is to list the reasons that people can’t be free. Your exactly right, libertarianism, not Conservatism, is the only stream of thought that is serious about having the gov’t get smaller, less intrusive, and less freedom infringing. What makes the institution of government so all powerful and capable in your minds? Do you seriously believe that our best and brightest make up the government and they make the correct choices for the rest of us? Any abilities that government has over individuals is related to their armed enforcers. Is that what makes government so necessary, that they can threaten imprisonment or death to the minority if they don’t pay toward the wants of the majority?
The personal freedom angle of Libertarianism is just great, it really is, but when it comes to government services I can’t imagine the world which you describe being anything but MORE petty and greedy towards its average citizens, and downright brutal to its poor. Sure government is inefficient, but do you really think a bunch of warring companies will be better trusted with our most important societal functions?
That you can state that privately built toll roads exist SOMEWHERE, and that some communities have privately funded fire stations (hmm I seem to recall reading about how that went awry recently, and I think I’ll not even ask about police and schools), does absolutely nothing to convince me that its a viable system nation-wide that wouldn’t devolve into anarchy.
Obviously no one on this board, except BV, truly understands Libertarianism. It’s not about anarchy, it’s about smaller, less intrusive government and it’s not about being brutal to the poor it’s about believing that, when left to our own devices, mankind will make the right choices or decisions on our own. I don’t need the government telling me what kind of lightbulbs I have to use or that my kids can’t eat food from McDonald’s.
“That government is best that governs least.”
“when left to our own devices, mankind will make the right choices or decisions on our own. ”
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SP, the philosophy of Libertarianism is, IMO, well and good in its application to personal freedoms. But we’re talking about the radical fringe idea of it, where people are seriously thinking that abolishing almost all government services is a swell idea.
I don’t think the 2 examples you named are the government’s place to dictate either, for what its worth.
Wes thinks that morality comes from bureaucrats I suppose? Go ahead and tell us what scary things may result from people being as free as possible, as long as they don’t harm or steal from others?
Jeez, BV, how old are you? 16?
I’m not sure what that means? Tell me what big scary things I’ll figure out when I hit my 40s. (I’m pretty close)