I agree with Herger.
Rahm Emanuel’s goons may be paying a visit to this brave congress critter.
Moving to China isn't in the Constitution either.
They might try that.
the pubbies are all lining up against this bill.
this article would be a little more meaningful if herder were a dem.
After denouncing the Obama plan to wild cheering, Herger offered a few solutions of his own including opening up competition among private health care companies by forcing companies to sell policies nationwide rather than just within individual states, tort reform to bring down malpractice costs and "risk pools like automobile companies" for those with preexisting conditions who Herger conceded are unable to get coverage. He also suggested "bargaining groups and associations" could help bring down costs.I support tort reform, term limits, requiring unions to take over ALL employee retirement and health care plans, and impeaching Obama.
Wally’s been there forever; used to be my Rep when I lived there ages ago, but he’s a good guy. Good call here, Wally!!
Now suddenly some Republicans grow a set after their constituents do the heavy lifting. While the congressman is probably sincere in his beliefs, it’s the finger in the wind Republicans who have caused their party to abdicate their responsibilty and made it necessary for the people to go over their heads and take matters into our own hands.
I was in Herger’s district for a few years. Great Representative. Best response to mail and email of any Congressman or woman.
Herger said the federal government does have a limited role to play in health care noting, “We do lots of things that are not in the Constitution.” “There are things we can do with health care, as long as the government is not running it,” Herger said.
This reply illustrates the dilemma conservative politicians are in. Judging from Congressman Herger's other comments he seems to be a reasonable conservative. Yet the pure conservative response to the question is that Constitution does not authorize Congress to be involved in healthcare. The exact wording of the Constitution makes clear that Congress is limited to involvement in matters explicitly authorized were necessary and proper to carry out enumerated functions.
But we all know that the Supreme Court has rationalized the extraconstitutional adventures of Congress in virtually every aspect of our lives including the size of our toilet flush and the wattage of our bulbs and it is not about to declare federal involvement in healthcare unconstitutional. The Congressman knows that. He also knows that there is insufficient public sentiment for getting Congress out of the health care system. Most of the people at these town halls protesting the Obama care are there not to signal their support for the 18th century constitutional conception of federalism-desirable as that may be-but to protect their entitlement called Medicare. They actually want Congressional involvement in healthcare as long as they're getting the gravy. The rest are there to protest increased taxes-so they don't have to pay for the gravy.
What is a poor conservative congressman to do? We live in this extra-constitutional world, he knows it, but he can do nothing about it, he cannot even comment on it or he will be labeled a fringe extremist. One need only review the evident bias in this article in support of Obama care to understand the congressman's dilemma. He will be destroyed by the press if he opens himself to charges of constitutional extremism.
The congressman's dilemma is also a practical political consideration. If the congressman goes too far in asserting the original intent of the Constitution, he will come close to taking away Medicare and there will not be 10% of the support of the room that he enjoys today. He will be alone battling both sides of the political spectrum.
Thus, this whole affair can be seen as a Kafkaesque allegory of the American constitutional conundrum.
The truth is, for most of the most important affairs that go on in America we have no Constitution. So our politics become more and more bizarre. Witness this discussion whether healthcare is a "right?" Evidently under today's Constitution one has a " right" if you can get a president or Congress or a combination of the two to say you do. There is simply no resort to the Constitution to consider whether such a right exists.
So here again our poor conservative congressman has got to dance around reality. He does not want to declare a "right" of healthcare so he says that no one should be denied access. He is doing the best he can. In effect he saying that, no one should be denied access, Congress evidently has a role to play:
Herger said the federal government does have a limited role to play in health care noting, “We do lots of things that are not in the Constitution.” “There are things we can do with health care, as long as the government is not running it,”
I do not understand the constitutional distinction between Congress "running it" (the public option) and Congress otherwise regulating it. The distinction is one purely drawn in the congressman's head. He certainly comes closer to the constitutional mandate, but why is his version better than the version offered by his Socialist heckler in the room? Once we depart from the Constitution, one man's opinion is just as valid as the next.
But the reality, of course, is that we have departed from the Constitution and we did that after the court packing scheme. We have now moved on to examining the "emanations and permutations" of the Constitution to confect "rights" to abortion. So, it is not surprising that we have moved the discussion from whether Congress has the constitutional power to regulate health care to whether there is a constitutional "right" to health care just as there is a constitutional "right" to abortion.
So the Congressman is fighting a rearguard action. He draws the line of resistance where he sees political support which in this case is a line against the public option. As soon as the left can assemble enough interest groups who will see themselves benefiting from some health care arrangement, the line will have to be redrawn farther back.
It is unfair to blame our embattled Congressman, he is constitutionally isolated and beleaguered. We have a government system much like the British system without a written constitution. That might have worked well for them so long as they had a homogeneous society with an unwritten code to which people actually adhered. I wonder how they will fare when their society becomes more than 50% non-British, comprised of the people who use Civil Code is called sharia? But as we have seen here in America, a written constitution is not a complete defense.
I think the these issues should be thought about in the context of Obama's disintegrating poll numbers. Republicans are now the beneficiaries of a reaction to Obama's overreaching. In effect, the Republicans somehow are in the position of supporting those people who oppose Obama's health care plan because they want to protect their Medicare. In other words, Republicans are defending an entitlement against a threat perceived by seniors from another entitlement.
Let us understand as conservatives that ultimately the Republican position is anomalous. I do not understand how you could be in support of Medicare and opposed to Obama care on constitutional grounds. You might be able to be in support of Medicare and opposed to Obama care because you could contrive some public policy distinctions about Medicare being more efficient because Obama care would carry all the deficiencies of a government run public option. But this is not a constitutional argument. It is a public policy position, not a constitutional position. Pure conservatives will see it as an argument of expediency.
The closer Republicans adhere to a pure constitutional position on health care, the more they will lose Medicare recipients. And the press will help us lose them. Until we do move to a pure constitutional position, we will be reduced to staking out defense lines arbitrarily at levels of opportunity or plausibility. Eventually, the Democrats will get their act together and Republicans will be in their old position of saying, "we approve of the idea of all this spending, just not so much of it."
And then we conservatives will complain that the Rinos have taken over the party.
He just getting that now???! Chh!
My wife was at this Town Hall Meeting.
Herger was well received and he said just keep doing what we’re doing (Tea parties, protests, email, letters, phone) because although it’s not reported often enough, the Congresscritters want to be re-elected above all else and they are hearing you.
I hope he said more than that a “public option” was not acceptable, I hope he said that nationalized health care in any form is unacceptable. We need tort reform, Medicare and Medicaid overhaul(gradual phasing out, IMO)and get the government out of health care period. We need less government, not more.
Herger praised the man’s attitude.
Wait, what?