Dec 31, 2009

Michigan Legislature pushing a pair of useless teabagger health care resolutions

The Teabaggers have a new cause to rally for, and they have a new ally in their corporate sponsored Astroturf “tea parties:” the Michigan Legislature.

Rightwing Michigan lawmakers have introduced a pair of grandstanding resolutions aimed at much needed health care reform that means little or nothing just to play to the base. The resolutions would amend the Michigan Constitution, and they “state that no federal law shall compel any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any public or private health care system. The resolution also says “the purchase or sale of health insurance or coverage in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by federal law or rule.”

We have seen how the right will push any lie to stop health care reform to protect the huge profits of insurance companies, and it’s sad the Legislature is wasting time on this useless stuff and enabling them. They disrupted townhall meetings held last summer because they don’t want people to hear anything but their misinformation, and this is just an attempt to rev up that misgauged hate we saw at townhall meetings put on by Democratic lawmakers.

Senate Joint Resolution K was introduced by Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, on Aug. 27, 2009, and it was referred to the Health Policy Committee where it is awaiting action. Kuipers is running for the 2nd District Congressional seat that will be vacated by “Twitter” Pete Hoekstra who is running for Governor. This is just a grandstand play to the extreme righting base that is taking control of the GOP.

House Joint Resolution Z was introduced by Rep. Justin Amash, R-Kentwood, on Aug. 19, 2007, and it too was referred to the House Health Policy Committee where is awaiting action. I don’t know much about Amash. He is a freshman with no record, so I don’t know what he’s running for. But he is a teabagger and has spoken at some of the Astroturf “tea parties.” It’s sad that he endorsees the blatant racism that goes on at these “tea parties,” but that’s where the GOP is headed.Just to be to be placed on the ballot either resolution must pass both the Michigan Senate and House with two-thirds of the members in each chamber voting yes.

This is nothing but another bone to the extreme teabaggers. It resembles the 10th Amendment resolutions approved by the Michigan Legislature last summer that “affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

There is nothing in the federal health care reform bills that compel anyone to give up their private health insurance.


brad said...

Commune Guru, are there none absolutely zero democrat "teabaggerS"? so 60 something percent of all americans are against the health care, so that means 60 something percent are conservatives or republicans then? i just stumbled across this, and i will enjoy the dialogue.

Liberty1791Man said...

to quote Elf, "You sit on a throne of lies." and "You smell like beef and cheese.
To quote myself, "your blog is laughable."

Jeff Chesnut said...

I would like to see how you reached the conclusion that the tea-parties are blatantly racist. Having been at the tea-party in Grand Rapids this April, I saw no evidence of racism and saw people of different races attending.

BTW - you complain about people being hate-filled for raising objections at the town hall meetings, yet you continue to use the perjorative and obscene word, "tea-bagger". Pot, meet kettle.

There may be nothing in the health care bills that compel people to give up their private health care insurance, though we don't know yet since it has yet to go through committee, but it certainly sounds like there will be a mandate for everyone to have to purchase health insurance.

Communications guru said...

“are there none absolutely zero democrat "teabaggerS"? “ I don’t know what that means. However, the 60 percent figure you quote is incorrect. The polls I have seen say the opposite. Perhaps you will remember the poll that really counts. It was held in November of 2008, and the Americans spoke loud and clear that they wanted health care reform. Now, when you tell people the lies like “death panels” and it will away with Medicare, them you will get to that 60 percent figure you speak of. The problem is none of that is true.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, you are wrong. Plenty of right-wingers have tried to debunk what I have written, and they have failed. I simply do not lie. If my blog is “laughable” as you claim, then don’t waste your time. I notice you didn’t address the post because you can’t. Perhaps you should pull yourself away from watching Christmas movies and read some facts. However, you have made a start by reading my blog.

Jeff Chesnut said...

So since Obama was elected, anything he wants is okay, even if the majority of Americans don't want it? Is that seriously your argument? Then I guess all of George Bush's policies were okay because that was "the poll that really counts." It is a ludicrous statement. As you well know, Obama was elected because America was war-weary, weary of the Bush administration and was fooled into thinking Obama was a different type of politician.

Even if it was true that he was elected because of his stance on health care, the bills we have don't bear a resemblance to what he promised. In fact he continues to lie about them (e.g. - no funding of abortion, will reduce the deficit, etc.)

I'm not sure what polls you've been seeing that says that 60% of Americans support this health care fiasco. If you look and any of the reputable polls - Gallup, Rasmussen, and even some of the disreputable polls - CNN, Brad was correct, the majority of Americans may want some kind of health care reform, but not THIS health care reform.

Communications guru said...

That’s an easy one: because I have been to one, I can read the racist signs and white supremacist groups have been pushing them. Certainly not all the people who attend the corporate sponsored Astroturf “tea parties” are racists, but no one is speaking out against the obvious racist signs and language. To me, if you don’t condemn it you accept it.

I don’t see how calling you what you are is obscene. You call it the “tea party” movement, so you are teabaggers. There is nothing obscene about that word.

There is nothing in the health care bills that compel people to give up their private health care insurance, and we already know that. A conference committee is tasked with reconciling different versions of two bills. It can’t be reconciled if it s not in the bill, and it’s not in either version.

Jeff Chesnut said...

So you send me to a page that doesn't exist. That proves what? If there were racist signs, then yes, I condemn them, but I certainly haven't seen one. Can you give me an example?

Tea-bagger is a term for a sex act. It is used to purposely denigrate those people who are peacefully expressing an opinion. Look it up. I assume if you keep using it now that you know that it is offensive, then you intend the insult.

I already conceded that it may not be in the bills, at least explicitly. But what is in the bill, and what Sen. Kuipers and Rep. Amash's bill is in opposition to, is the compulsion to purchase health insurance. It seems that since that is the purpose of the bill about which you are blogging, you might address that.

Communications guru said...

That is correct: since Obama was elected, anything he wants is okay, especially when he is fulfilling a campaign promise like he is with health care reform. It’s the second part of your sentience that is incorrect; the part where you falsely claim “even if the majority of Americans don't want it?” That is simply not true, and the majority of Americans do want health care reform. Yes, that is my argument.

You would think that no one would advocate for a system where more than 50 million Americans are uninsured, millions more are underinsured, are denied affordable health care because of a “preexisting condition” and medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies, but that’s what you are doing.

The only lies on health care have come from the right. I don’t like the health care bill, and I prefer universal single-payer health care, but this is a small step in the right direction. It has always been against the law for public funds to be used to pay for abortions, and this bill does not change that.

Jeff Chesnut said...

The majority of Americans do want health care reform, I agree with that and I do, too. What I don't want and what the majority of Americans do NOT want is THIS health care reform (; If you can cite your polls to prove the opposite, please do.

The only lies have come from the right? Please! There has been nothing but lies from the left. As far as abortion goes, what was the Nelson compromise about except subsidizing abortion? Why is the Stupak amendment so objectionable to pro-abortion groups?

So I guess you concede that if anything Obama wants is okay, then anything that George Bush wanted during his two terms was okay, also.

Jeff Chesnut said...

BTW - medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy is another liberal myth.

Communications guru said...

The page does exist, but I’ll give it to you again.

If you want to see examples of the racist signs you ignored you can just click on the term “Boston Tea Party” on the bottom of that or this post.

My mind is not in the gutter like yours. There is no doubt I use the term teabaggers as a derogatory term because teabaggers are a fringe extremist group made up primarily of militia members, white supremacist and racists. If you don’t like the name, get rid of the tea party movement BS.

The teabagger resolutions says “the purchase or sale of health insurance or coverage in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by federal law or rule.” There is nothing in either bill that bars the purchase of private health insurance.

Jeff Chesnut said...

First, the signs in that post are not racist. There is a joker in a confederate flag t-shirt that I will agree is objectionable.

Second, it is obvious that you have no intention of discussing this issue in a civil manner. You continue to use inflammatory and derogative terminology. I will seek adult conversation elsewhere.

Communications guru said...

Really: Then why is it that all the Republicans can say is no? They say no to everything. I don’t like this bill much either, but like I said, it’s a step in the right direction.

That is correct; the only lies have come from the right. The abortion amendment goes even farther than the Hyde Amendment.

Nice try at twisting the words. Bush was never elected on a mandate, Hell, he didn’t even get the most votes in 2000.Did anyone doubt President Obama was going to reform health care when elected? I don’t recall Bush campaigning on he was going to start a useless war in Iraq or torture people.

Communications guru said...

Liberal myth? Right the facts have a liberal bias.

“Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs. Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance.

Do you know what happens to be the #1 reason for bankruptcy? Not divorce, job loss nor business failure. It’s actually ILL HEALTH.

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Communications guru said...

That’s far from the only photo. I certainly have discussed it in a civil manner, but nice cop out. What’s funny is a right-winger accusing someone else of using inflammatory and derogative terminology. I’m not using either, but if that’s what you want to use as an excuse to save face, that fine with me.

ReidLanza said...


Johnny C said...

It seems our friends on the right have issues with fact or truth from polls I've seen people don't support the water down version of the health care bill while people support a health care bill with a strong public option.

To the tea baggers I suspect a vast MAJORITY of these folks didn't even vote for President Obama or better don't yet vote Democratic at all. As for them being all conservative from what I hear some of these losers are from the LeRouche cult who will draw nazi logos on pictures Rachael Maddow if she was president.
But still the majority of the tea baggers are knuckle dragging right wing mouth breathers who get their marching orders from right talk radio and Fox News.

As for racist I can cite a few examples the Barack Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, the Washington Zoo has a lying African and the White House has a lying African... Heck I invite some of the right wingers to see the tea party videos I posted on my blog.

liberalshateusa said...

From The American Thinker

Orrin Hatch, Ken Blackwell, and Ken Klukowski have penned an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where they detail the unconstitutionality of health care reform:

Their reasoning with regard to the legality of the individual mandate is devastatingly clear and logical:

First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.

Well, I'm convinced. Of course, my opinion doesn't matter. It's the 9 judges of the Supreme Court who count. And while the liberals may concur that the individual mandate is perfectly legal, as the court is constituted now I would anticipate a majority rejecting it.

It all depends on how fast such a challenge would move through the lower courts. If it took so long that Obama would be able to name one or more far lefties, then the chances are pretty good that any claim that the individual mandate is unconstitutional would probably be rejected.

Read the rest of the piece for some fine legal thinking.

Communications guru said...

You must be joking, hate the USA. In a mainstream media that’s conservative, you’re offering me an opinion piece from a conservative blog commenting on opinion piece in conservative newspaper that’s even more right the mainstream conservative media.

This is just another misguided Republican attempt to say no to what a majority of Americans want. It will also fail.

As for the insurance mandate being unconstitutional, you should tell that to those of us who live in Michigan who face arrest and stiff fines for not having auto insurance.

Johnny C said...

One right wing loser recycling another right wing loser talking point that's something. I wish the right admit two things one on the Republican side they don't support health care reform because their masters in the health care industry don't want it to happen and second they will do anything to make sure President Obama don't pass anything meaningful.

And two the average right winger admits they're against health care reform is because their right wing overlords told them to be against it and the skin color of the president.

Not Anonymous said...

The argument that auto insurance is a requirement and there are stiff fines is a false one. First, you're not required to buy auto insurance. You're only required to buy auto insurance IF YOU OWN A CAR. You have the choice to buy a car. Part of buying the car is getting insurance to protect property and life.

Republicans, of which I am one, are in favor of health insurance reform. We are not in favor of the government takeover of the insurance industry. Socialist Democrats have taken over two auto companies, many banks, and now are taking over the housing market along with other businesses. Government has never successfully run a business. On top of that, Obama has never owned a business.

The Republicans have a health reform bill out there. It puts requirements on the insurance industry, not on the American people. There is tort reform in it where the Socialist Democrats don't have that. They are pandering to the lawyers.

I guess if these moronic socialist Democrats are going to claim Republicans are racist because they don't like Obama's plans or way of governing just due to his skin color, then the Socialist Democrats descriminated against old people for not choosing McCain and they descriminated against women for not choosing Palin.

I wonder why there has been no comment on this blog about the guy that hung himself in Kentucky. The Socialist Democrats accused "extremist right wingers" of hanging the guy because he worked for the government, but it's now been determined that the guy hung himself.

These Socialist Democrats have so much hate in them, they can't logically debate the other position. They only spew hatred. It reminds of the Bush years. Calling him silly names. Putting out a movie advocating his assassination and so on.

Little Johnny, you really need to learn the English language.

Communications guru said...

That may be true about auto insurance, little anonymous, but the fact remains a mandate is not unconstitutional.

“Republicans are in favor of health insurance reform?” Of all the lies you have told here, little anonymous, that may be the biggest. The Republicans only plan is no; No to everything. Where were the Republicans for the last 100 years on health care reform?

There is no “government takeover of the insurance industry,” and there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democrat in this country, and that’s just another false fascist Republican talking point.

There has been “comment on this blog about the guy that hung himself in Kentucky,” and you know it.