Huckleberries Online

Risch: ‘Where’s The Outrage?’

Posted by DFO

Dec. 22, 2009 3:42 p.m. • 31 comments

A video clip of U.S. Senator Jim Risch speaking today on the floor of the Senate has been posted on his Web site www.risch.senate.gov/public and can be found under the video tab. Risch spoke in opposition to the current health care reform bill citing numerous polls showing a majority of Americans do not support the legislation.

Question: What do you make of Risch’s speech?

31 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

Smacky on December 22 at 3:50 p.m.
Full of irony, as he was one of the most secretive governors Idaho ever endured who managed to get legislation passed through bullying.
hmoffsuite on December 22 at 3:52 p.m.
Question: What do you make of Risch’s speech?

Appropriate, under the circumstances. He’s right. The majority of we citizens don’t want it.
Sisyphus on December 22 at 4:36 p.m.
Actually when voters are polled on what’s actually in the bill, as opposed to whether they support or oppose HCR, its much more popular than the polls Risch cites.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/climate-change/the-morning-plum-33/

And now since it has detractors on the left and the right, they think they’ve accomplished something. Per capita we pay double what France does for health care for worse results. If this legislation doesn’t help the middle class there’ll be hell to pay. But since it actually will result in reducing deficits over the next ten years, teabaggers should be licking their chops.

Five years ago Republicans, including Risch, were pushing for privatization for Social Security. Imagine how disastrous that would have been had it passed. Tens of millions losing their safety net through the bankster crisis. We’ve come a long way baby.
hmoffsuite on December 22 at 4:55 p.m.
Sis >> “But since it actually will result in reducing deficits over the next ten years,”

That may or may not be correct. Those figures you are using are based on assumptions provided by the administration. If the assumptions for each metric is off, so will be the final result. Now, if you think the economy will be growing at 6% as they do and all of the other inaccurate assumptions they made come to pass, then you are not being very realistic. Remember, the government projected medicare to be solvent and the social security also. As a matter of fact, every projection or assumption the government has made has been way off the mark. Garbage in, garbage out. The Obama plan would put the Country in bankrupcy at some point. They used smoke and mirrors in their financial analysis.
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 4:56 p.m.
Congress lacks the authority to require people to buy health insurance. Period. Trying to get around this, the bill claims that the “individual responsibility requirement…is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce….”

Are they serious? They tried to claim authority under this concept when they passed the Violence Against Women Act, which was supported by detailed findings and a voluminous record attempting to show the economic costs of gender violence.

And the Supreme Court struck it down, because it had no reasonable relationship to interstate commerce. How does a personal health insurance policy?
Sisyphus on December 22 at 5:00 p.m.
“The Obama plan would put the Country in bankrupcy at some point. They used smoke and mirrors in their financial analysis.”—please provide any credible source who says this. Any.

As you know, its from the non-partisan CBO, cited approvingly by both sides, depending on what politics it supports. Do you have a more credible source?
Sisyphus on December 22 at 5:04 p.m.
Go Larry go. You hunt that baby down. And while you’re at it throw in an argument about the illegality of income tax and how we illegally left the gold standard. Judges love that.
hmoffsuite on December 22 at 5:08 p.m.
Sis. Sure. One thing this item doesn’t address is the uncalculated cost of allowing prexisting conditions. That will be more costly than they ever imagined. The administration is in la la land.

http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/12/20/cbo-oops-obamacare-reduces-deficit-less-than-we-thought/
JamesBond on December 22 at 5:17 p.m.
Only a very small handful of people even understand it. If you’re a partisan Democrat, you support it because it’s a Democrat thing. If you’re a partisan Republican, you oppose it because it’s a Democrat thing. Independents seem to be sensing a vibe against Democrats, so they are leaning against it. It’s all about partisan politics. The Democrats could propose a bill to require people to poop in the middle of the road, and 40% of America would immediately be for it.
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 5:19 p.m.
If Congress has the ability to regulate a non-activity, and compell a person to engage in the purchase of a health insurance policy because it has a bearing on interstate commerce, then they could require at least one person in a family purchase a new GM (government owned) car or truck no less than every five years or face a fine.

Come to think of it, Congress would also have the right to fine me if I don’t join a health club. Or donate to a government approved charity…or…..

yikes!
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 5:22 p.m.
Sis, you are a smart lawyer, could you explain where they get the authority to require me to buy health insurance from?
hmoffsuite on December 22 at 5:43 p.m.
One thing I find very disturbing about this Obama health care plan is that Reid has put in (quietly) language to ensure that if this bill passes, it cannot ever be repealed by the Senate. Very sneaky, Harry. What if it is quickly proven to be bad for the Country? A disaster? Democrats have said it is a work in progress.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp
bpoole on December 22 at 6:32 p.m.
Larry, how do they require you to buy auto insurance?
hmoffsuite on December 22 at 6:33 p.m.
Here’s one for Larry. It seems they are lining up to file legal challenges to the health reform bill.
hmoffsuite on December 22 at 6:34 p.m.
sorry, forgot the link

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 6:46 p.m.
About the health bill in the Senate version

“it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

Wow. If the don’t have it right, so what? It will be against Senate rules to change, fix amend or repeal it.

Can we all agree this is a bad idea?

“Larry, how do they require you to buy auto insurance?”

Who are you talking about, the State or the Federal Government? Nobody is required to buy auto insurance, if you want, you can put up a bond instead. Even so, a person is only required to have insurance or a bond if they want to drive. And the Federal Government has no authority in the matter, it is a state issue.
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 6:56 p.m.
So, the bill includes a clause to change a Senate rule, so portions of the bill could never be changed.

But changing a Senate rule requires 2/3 vote….

And they only have 60%….

Oh well, they don’t care, do they?

What is this, screw the rules day?
richard on December 22 at 8:33 p.m.
bpoole -

<<larry, how=”” do=”” they=”” require=”” you=”” to=”” buy=”” auto=”“ insurance?=”“>>

Very simple; when you drive you are a liability to others and to property. Have you ever heard of anyone being sued for not having health insurance?

Anyone who enjoys history ought to read the history of Italy in the early part of the last century and how the fascists came to power and what the fascist party under Mussolini stood for. You will be shocked how closely it mirrors the platform and agenda of the Democratic Party! They even had an agenda to control the climate … for their purposes.

Harry Reid included language which would prevent any future congress from repealing or modifying portions of the bill which govern the many boards and commissions which will be making health care decisions for you and for your doctors. This is positively a fascist methodology.
bpoole on December 22 at 9:08 p.m.
Then we should require those that want to use the health care system in the United States to have insurance, right! Similar to the requirement we have on those that want to drive. Sounds fair right.
bpoole on December 22 at 9:15 p.m.
The mandate is not new, in fact almost all universities require you to have insurance if your are enrolled. Well ,at least the public, which are state funded.
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 9:18 p.m.
Well, if the “health care system” was a governmental creation or was provided by the government, you might have a very weak point.

But it isn’t, so you don’t. Insurance is not required to drive unless you want to drive on public roads. If you want to drive on your own farm, you can do so without insurance.
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 9:25 p.m.
“The mandate is not new, ….”

A universities can require what it wishes, it is not forbiden to do so by the Constitution. The Constitution does, however, forbid the federal government from going beond it’s enumerated powers. And in this case, there is no basis that would give authority to Congress to require individuals to purchase insurance or face a fine.

Mandating that all private citizens enter into a contract with a private company to purchase a good or service, or be punished by a fine labeled a “tax,” is unprecedented in American history. Period.
bpoole on December 22 at 9:57 p.m.
If I understand you, than you would be suggesting that if your not using public entities or facilities than there is no need to have insurance? If I am correct in assuming such a thing, than the government should mandate insurance on publicly used facilities, such as hospitals that are receiving public dollars. Just wondering what your opinion is?
bpoole on December 22 at 10:02 p.m.
Have a Merry Christmas Larry.
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 10:05 p.m.
If a state constitution alows it, the state can mandate insurance. Some do. The federal government, on the other habd, is prohibited from mandating coverage, unless they were to fund a research hospital with the provision that each person admited is required to have insurance. Your reverse logic doesn’t hold water, but nice try.
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 10:06 p.m.
Merry Christmas to you, bpoole.
Phaedrus on December 22 at 10:48 p.m.
The Constitution does,

LarrySpencer, forgive me if I choose to ignore an explanation of the Constitution from someone who can’t tell a Lexus from a Toyota, or the truth from a lie.
LarrySpencer on December 22 at 11:03 p.m.
It might be a bit over your head, but try to read this, K?

http://edgeweb.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0049.cfm#_ftnref18

And if you still can’t understand why, we can talk some more.

;-)
spokelooneh on December 22 at 11:44 p.m.
“But the numbers we’re being given still aren’t the true cost of ObamaCare. The Weekly Standard explained that in the real first ten years (2010 through 2013 shouldn’t be counted because benefits won’t be available until 2014)”

Blatantly WRONG, all kinds of benefits kick in right away, including ones that make a dent in bending the cost curve down.

The Articles of Confederation had very specific language regarding limiting the government to certain enumerated powers, and the Founders wisely (and after considerable debate) took that out in their newly crafted Constitution and hundreds of years of SCOTUS rulings have found no strictly limited enumerated powers in the Constitution.
LarrySpencer on December 23 at 8:20 a.m.
SCOTUS struck down the law about guns near schools and the violence against women act because there was no constitutional basis in interstate commercial that would give the Congress standing to enact the law.

Got any other basis? Didn’t think so.
fortboise on December 23 at 11:51 a.m.
I’m outraged that the Republicans decided that their “participation” in health care reform was to do everything they could to obstruct ANY legislation from being passed. They forced a cloture vote right out of the chute, attempting to keep debate from even getting started. (More than a little ironic, given that the high bar for cloture was originally intended to prevent debate from being unduly shortened.)

Having failed in the obstruction, Risch’s impressive lawyerly theatrics are not so much outrageous as darkly comic.

I’m outraged that a few Senators were able to abuse the legislative process to the extent they did, and a heaping helping of blame for that falls to the Republicans. Had they had a strategy with ANY constructive elements, we’d have a better bill.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.

About this blog

D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.