Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Just Say No

    By JGillman, Section News
    Posted on Wed Jul 13, 2011 at 09:41:00 PM EST
    Tags: Michigan, Obamacare, Senator, Jim Marleau, Insurance Exchange, Nancy Reagan, Drugs, Addiction, Washington Money, Mandates, Constitutionality, JUST SAY NO (all tags)

    Remember Nancy Reagan? And the age of anti-drug education?

    Nancy's "just say no" theme was used to encourage our young minds full of mush to abstain when offered that chance to get high.  Even if the pusher was offering it free, at least at first.  "Your brain on drugs" commercials soon followed, pointing out the scrambled senses you will endure upon taking such things that promote dependence on controlled substances and the effects of your addiction on family and friends with the later occurring "friends don't let friends use drugs" campaign.

    It seems some folks recognized the dangers of addiction, and used media and the first lady's profile to advance that such things like addiction are bad.  But now, it has apparently flipped, with Obama playing the pusherman.

    What surprises me is that one of our state senators, who by many acts has tried to properly fight addictive drugs, might have missed the addiction he might serve personally to the people in Michigan.  Michigan State Senator Jim Marleau seemingly capitulating to an unconstitutional role that the federal government would force on the state's citizenry, appears to be ready to promise our resources in a way that will keep us addicted to federal handouts and mandates into eternity.

    The details following below.

    Earlier, I notified readers that there would be a hearing on the topic of the new mandate of a "Health Insurance Exchange," a fundamental part of the unconstitutional Obamacare package passed last year by congress critters who were (by the way) shown the door for doing such a thing.

    But rather than tell the government where tyo take it's mandate it appears the good Senator is willing to roll, at least for now under the assumption that the bill will stand.  From a press release:

    Joint Senate panel hears testimony on a Michigan health insurance exchange

    LANSING--The Senate Health Policy and Insurance committees held a joint hearing Wednesday on the importance of Michigan establishing its own health insurance exchange.

    Health Policy Chairman Sen. Jim Marleau said if Michigan does not establish its own exchange within the necessary time line, the federal government will forcibly create an exchange within the state.

    "We cannot allow the federal government to control our health care by setting up our insurance exchange," said Marleau, R-Lake Orion.

    The panel heard testimony from several groups and individuals, including Public Sector Consultants President Peter Pratt. Pratt reported on a workgroup of health care stakeholders and other groups representing a combination of business interests and consumer advocacy groups.

    All groups testified that Michigan needs to take initiative to establish an exchange unique to its business and residents.

    "We have to protect Michigan's health care system, which is one of the best in the world," Marleau said. "Michigan residents deserve to determine their future."

    Emphasis mine, on the part that is really scary.

    We still seem to be allowing the federal thugocracy dictate how we manage such things in our state.  The implication that they will impose on us a system we don't like is a suggestion that we would capitulate to such things.  Remember the third option.  We have protection under the tenth amendment that only matters if we enforce it and stand up for it.  

    If it is about losing other federal funds, perhaps a detox session is long overdue.  It might be painful, but the monkey on our back needs to be tossed.  Perhaps maybe a 12th district step program of denial to those who would be our masters in an overreaching administration.

    Senator Marleau, the tea pot has been watched consistently.  But don't think for a minute the citizens of this state would accept this forced federal bureaucracy, without a drag out fight that would likely leave as casualties those who fail to be the first line of defense.  Don't think an acceptance of the fate of being under the foot of a national top down monstrosity will be at all appreciated. Boiling points are hard to gauge these days. But look at the change over in 2010, and remind the feds what "no" means.

    Make Nancy Reagan proud Senator. Stand up for Michigan, and tell Washington that until the supreme court has heard the constitutionality arguments of Obamacare, that Michigan is not interested in expending its limited resources toward questionable necessities

    JUST SAY NO to Obamacare. In all its forms.

    < Appropriate Resolution | Obama's Agenda: Overwhelm The System >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Jason, this is the part where I'm confused. (none / 0) (#1)
    by KG One on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:55:46 AM EST
    Committees can and have sat on things in the past.

    A recent example can be found here.

    Like flies on excrement, of course you're going to have people at the ready to testify in favor of this issue. Must be nice not having to actually work for a living.

    What I'm still trying to figure out is why a republican chair of a committee even allowed this issue to be discussed at all, including the big bad boogeyman argument of the federal government stepping in.

    Is there more to this issue that isn't well known, that brought this about?

    Like this?

    Or this?

    Just say No/Insurance Exchanges (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rick Murdock on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    Just trying to offer a little more input here on exchanges. This is posted by David Waymire, who handles communications for the Michigan Association of Health Plans, on behalf of MAHP Executive Director Rick Murdock.

    Readers here should be aware that there are really only three options:
    1.    Put in place a state exchange operation, developed by state stakeholders including providers of insurance and consumers of insurance or
    2.    Letting the federal government impose its will on the state.
    3.    Doing nothing and crossing your fingers that the Supreme Court will hear this matter AND decide against all aspects of the Affordable Care Act before the law takes effect in 2014 - a position that is not very prudent. And if you are wrong, you will have effectively put the state back in position 2.

    It's this problem that has resulted in the state Chamber of Commerce, Economic Alliance and Small Busienss Association of Michigan, among other business groups, to testify recently in support of Sen. Marleau's position and for exchanges. But there's even more.

    Considering that Utah, one of the most conservative states in the nation, set up an exchange system in 2008 - before President Obama's election -- that meets the requirements of the federal law, it would seem that there may be merits to such a system even if it were not established in the Affordable Care Act.

    Indeed, the conservative Heritage Foundation espoused the idea of an exchange back in 2006. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/the-rationale-for-a-statewide-health-insurance-exch ange. It said then: "Americans get unlimited federal tax breaks for the purchase of health insurance if they receive that coverage through their workplace. Outside of the workplace, however, they almost always pay for coverage with after-tax dollars. Statewide health insurance exchanges are a solution to this inefficient inconsistency, giving individuals and families the opportunity to secure the health plans of their choice without losing tax benefits."

    So let's look at what an state developed exchange might be able to do:

    1.    It's like Expedia for insurance. That means it's easier for consumers in a free market system to actually compare various products and pick the right one for him or her.
    2.    Insurers that don't want to participate don't have to. They will just not have their products listed on the exchange.
    3.    Insurers that want to participate will be working primarily under rules set up by the state, with their input.
    4.    There's no requirement for consumers to use the exchange to buy insurance.

    It's easy to see why a state would want to set up an exchange system, even if the federal health care reforms had not included it. Just because it was included in the federal law is not sufficient reason to oppose it.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search