Senate Sends a Message to Somebody
There's a great country song by Travis Tritt. (no, that's not an oxymoron)
The title is "Here's a quarter. Call someone who cares."
The Senate of Virginia had its own Travis Tritt moment yesterday. In the heat of the national debate over health care, the Senate passed SB 283 on a vote of 23-17.
That bill states plainly that "No Virginian shall be required to purchase or maintain an individual policy for health insurance."
The proponents of SB 283 tell us that it is intended to protect Virginians from government-mandated health care. That's a noble sentiment based on the twin assumptions that (i) the U.S. Congress is going to pass a mandate (increasingly doubtful) and (ii) our state law could prevent such Congressional action (impossible).
In reality, the bill was a "message" to the U.S. Congress. It was not intended to impact our laws.
However, in its current form, the unintended consequences of the bill will have an impact -- on kids around the Commonwealth.
Every day, Virginia courts enter orders requiring parents to carry health insurance for their kids. This situation occurs most often in divorces but can also happen in separations or other split custody situations. In these cases, parents are legally required to provide for their children whether they like it or not.
When a parent has health insurance and can add a minor child to the plan at small cost, why not require him to do so? Isn't that better than having the child on her own with no health care?
Of course, this real-life situation -- which happens all over Virginia -- was swept aside in the Tea Party stampede yesterday. Needless to say, I voted "no" on the bill.
The protest can begin at 10 a.m. this Saturday when I have my town hall in Fairfax. I'll bring the coffee and donuts.
:
so...what happened to Edd Houck?
why didn't the Senate ALSO go on record and oppose govt-mandated Social Security and Medicare and MedicAid?
here we have a serious budget problem and a fiscal open sore on Transportation and these yahoos are playing to the Tea Party idiots...
Why is common sense drowned out in most political discussions these days?
BTW, I'm partial to jelly.
Another Perspective Chap: http://www.familyfoundationblog.com/ It’s not hyberbole to say this afternoon’s Senate vote was historic. The legislation it passed in three identically worded bills – SB 283, SB 311 and SB 417 – guarantees Virginians the right to freely choose their health care options irregardless of federal government mandates. It also asserts a notion long ignored but firmly ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. It also shows, from a political perspective, that there are Democrats who understand the small government movement isn’t limited to “swastika-wearing” thugs as U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would have us believe. Not that the debate wasn’t sharp. The questions from Senate liberals to the bills’ patrons —Senators Fred Quayle (R-13, Suffolk), SB 283; Steve Martin (R-11, Chesterfield) SB 311; and Jill Vogel (R-27, Winchester), SB 417 — came from Senators Donald McEachin (D-9, Henrico), John Edwards (D-21, Roanoke), and Majority Leader Richard Saslaw (D-37, Springfield), as well as the more moderate Senator Chap Peterson (D-34, Fairfax). But their questions repeatedly missed the point, including questions about contracts, insurance requirements to join athletic clubs, and ex-spouses providing insurance in divorce settlements. Senator Quayle nailed it in his opening remarks when he said, “This bill attempts to reinforce the Constitution of the United States. … The Constitution doesn’t grant rights to anyone. It puts limits on what government can do to us.” Nothing more needed to be said. This being the Senate, of course, more was. Including this gem from the not-smarting-enough-from-his-November-trip-to-the-shed Senator Creigh Deeds (D-25, Bath), who complained that with the economy and employment in bad shape, the General Assembly should not be “legislating in theory. The Constitution is the law of the land. Amazing he doesn’t understand that, but his comments today make it clear why his campaign was a case study in political disasters, prompting comparisons to other campaigns (”Deeds-like”). More:“Monday’s bipartisan vote illustrates just how far out of touch Democrats like Rep. Tom Perriello, D-5th, and Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-11th, are on the issue of health care,” Mullins said. “When Republicans asked Senate Democrats to join them in standing up against federal overreach, five decided to put the rights of their constituents ahead of the wishes of Washington, D.C.” Perriello and Connolly voted in favor of a bill backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi last year that would have required every Virginian to purchase federal government approved insurance from a federal government approved insurance company in a federal government created marketplace, or face stiff or jail time. “Even Democrats in the Virginia Senate realize that the health care nightmare being negotiated behind closed doors across the Potomac is bad news for their constituents,” Mullins said. “Monday’s vote shows again that Reps. Perriello, Connolly and the rest of the Dems
Thomas: Thanks for sharing that and, yes, I'm more than happy to give "equal time" on this issue. (I don't even mind being cited as one of the "Senate liberals" -- which will come as a great surprise to some back in Fairfax!) Anyway, I go back to my original point that the legislation as written has no impact on state law, except as it impacts kids (and ex-spouses for that matter) who are beneficiaries of health insurance polices mandated by court order. Maybe their plight is not part of the agenda for this bill, but I represent them all.
thanks again for your comments, Chap
Well I think opportunities were missed in this regard.
Amendments to the bill should have included ALL govt-mandated entitlements - proposed or existing - including SS, Medicare, Medicaid and aid to school kids, etc.
...because the sense of this bill was based on a state-rights principle and the bill is hypocritical in that it cherry-picks one entitlement but opposes in ON THE PRINCIPLE of states-rights.
so why don't we call it what it is and let people vote on that basis?
Having reads Thomas response, he actually gave you praise over the Senate Liberals by calling you a Moderate Dem. Not bad given the divide between parties.
I am not sure about this being a tea party stampede (why pick that movement) given the makeup of the senate, but even if the senate passes the bill, doesn't’t the house need to do the same before going to conference and finally being signed by the Gov? With those milestones yet to be reached, the unintended consequences stated below are moot but valid and could surely be addressed in an amendment to the house version of the bill and agreed upon while in conference. Or did I sleep in American Government? Retorical, I probably did.
Bit slow given I live in the Seattle, WA and my coffee has yet to kick in.
Thanks for noting that. Thomas, thanks for giving me props and sorry I didn't pick up on it earlier. Chap
If the "sense" of the General Assembly is to opposed govt-mandated entitlements then say so - and stand on that position with your constituents - ALL of them who ALSO get Medicare, SS, and MedicAID.
all this is - is partisan blather... when Virginia has big issues with funding education and transportation and getting our economy going again... we've got these zealots sending a "message".
Would such a law, if passed by the GA, and defended by AG Cunccielli against the Federal Government if necessary, allow individuals, to claim that mandatory auto insurance, is in violation, of state rights? How about mandatory bank protection through FDIC? As far as Thomas is concerned, a reading of the current Constitution, drafted in 1787 and approved in 1789, and amended 27 times, has approved the rights of Americans to equal representation (the right to free speech, the 3/5 rule for slaves, women's right to votes, etc.) The Constitution is indeed our greatest protection of our rights as Americans. We are not beholden to states to limit our rights as Americans.