No Obamacare for Oklahoma?

[Gaspar]

Yesterday. . .

Oklahoma's House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul.

Several other states are following suit.

[nathanm]

Yesterday. . .

Oklahoma's House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul.

Several other states are following suit.

I suspect some Oklahoma legislators are not familiar with our system of government.

[Hoss]

I suspect some Oklahoma legislators are not familiar with our system of government.

This is Oklahoma after all.  Is that surprising?

[Townsend]

Federal trumps state.

It's another waste.  Just like the 10 commandments on the Capital lawn.

The OK tax payer will be paying to defend something that's illegal or not constitutional.

Ta da

[nathanm]

This is Oklahoma after all.  Is that surprising?

Not surprising, but disturbing. At least the legislative yahoos in Washington have something more closely approximating an understanding of our Constitution. They tend to only get it so grossly wrong in cases where the SC is about to change its mind or where there's no clear Constitutional guidance.

That's saying something, given how dysfunctional Congress seems to be lately.

[Gaspar]

Not surprising, but disturbing. At least the legislative yahoos in Washington have something more closely approximating an understanding of our Constitution. They tend to only get it so grossly wrong in cases where the SC is about to change its mind or where there's no clear Constitutional guidance.

That's saying something, given how dysfunctional Congress seems to be lately.

The supreme court has more or less cited the 10th amendment as no more than a novelty.  It should just be removed from the constitution.  No matter whether the court is liberal or conservative they understand that recognition of the 10th amendment threatens their power and authority. 

That was exactly the reason behind the amendment.  Unfortunately government is like any other life form, in that self-preservation is of paramount importance. 

[rwarn17588]

The supreme court has more or less cited the 10th amendment as no more than a novelty.  It should just be removed from the constitution.  No matter whether the court is liberal or conservative they understand that recognition of the 10th amendment threatens their power and authority. 

That was exactly the reason behind the amendment.  Unfortunately government is like any other life form, in that self-preservation is of paramount importance. 

Part of the reason that states' rights was so often cited in the past was to retain segregation.

Because some states were making their own little fiefdoms, there may be a reason that states' rights fell out of favor.

Oklahoma says: How dare the government extend more health-care access to Americans and lower the deficit! How dare they! (sarcasm)

Meanwhile, state legislators such as Newberry and Brogdon are more concerned about pressing issues such as the state motto but not wanting to put strong beer to a people's vote. Yeah, that's an example to emulate. 

[nathanm]

The supreme court has more or less cited the 10th amendment as no more than a novelty.

That's not quite what they've written. Since anything the Federal government can Constitutionally do requires a grant of power from the Constitution, the 10th Amendment by its own wording does not apply to those powers exercised by the Federal Government.

It's more the abuse of the commerce clause that renders the 10th Amendment mostly moot than anything specifically related to the Amendment itself.

[MichaelBates]

Oklahoma says: How dare the government extend more health-care access to Americans and lower the deficit! How dare they! (sarcasm)

Obamacare doesn't do either thing. Regarding the deficit, read Politico's report (my emphasis added):

Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

"Most health staff are already aware that our health proposal does not contain a 'doc fix.' ... The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine reform's budget neutrality. So again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered," the memo, sent Thursday to Democratic staff, said.

"As most health staff knows, leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians for a full SGR repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand we do not want that policy discussion discussed at this time, lest (it) complicate the last critical push to pass health reform," according to the memo.

SGR is the "Sustainable Growth Rate" mechanism that is supposed to control the growth of Medicare expenditures, but every year Congress overrides it to prevent cuts in Medicare payments. The financial assumptions given to CBO assume that SGR will remain and will be enforced, even as the Obama Admin and congressional Democrats are planning to kill it once Obamacare is in place.

[rwarn17588]

Obamacare doesn't do either thing. Regarding the deficit, read Politico's report (my emphasis added):

The report you cited has already been pulled by Politico because it cannot establish its veracity. Oops.

[Townsend]

The report you cited has already been pulled by Politico because it cannot establish its veracity. Oops.

Yowza

[Conan71]

Here's the Huffpo piece calling out the memo.

Who knows where the truth is on this, both sides are desperate at this point.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/doc-fix-memo-fake-health_n_506338.html

That still doesn't change the point that Michael made about what Congress does with the SGR every year, historically:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/8/1/0/8/p281083_index.html

"Physicians' fees under Medicare are updated by regulation annually, based on a formula called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Since 2003 Congress has reversed impending cuts to fees, and repeatedly physician groups have threatened to leave Medicare. Congress has always swept in at the last moment to override the rate cuts, most dramatically, in mid-2008 with Senator Kennedy's surprise appearance in the Senate. Thus, Congress now rewrites payment policy every year, and the SGR is fast becoming a theoretical payment rate. How did the SGR and Medicare physician payment policy turn into a cliff-hanger as it did in the summer of 2008? Examining the policy history of the SGR shows that physicians supported the SGR prior to 2003, and that the present crisis in physician payment can partly be blamed on physician groups, that are culpable for the failure of cost containment. Physicians resisted a stronger federal role in cost containment and promised to comply (but did not embrace) evidence-based controls on medical practice. Future policy changes should consider physician needs alongside broader cost containment and quality goals."