'Tea party' conservatives just want a health-care system that can work

(PNI) The news media and the Democratic Party have done an excellent job portraying the Republicans and especially the "tea party" conservatives as being stingy and selfish.

The tea party's main goal is for the federal government to start acting fiscally responsible. We spend too much on welfare. We were a stronger country back in the early 1960s before welfare got out of control with LBJ's Great Society program.

Social Security funds were spent in the 1960s and both parties pushed program expansions over the years to make it unsustainable for the long run. The tea party does not want to end Social Security. It wants the program to operate more fiscally responsibly so it lasts longer for those who really need it.

Tea-party conservatives are willing to make sacrifices for future fiscal success. They do not want to defund the $1.7trillion "Obamacare" and throw grandma off the cliff. They want a health-care program that actually works for grandma -- not a train wreck that is now on the horizon.

--Ken Wade, Scottsdale

Ariz. attitudes need to change

The Republic editorial board's "New Arizona" series has some surprising revelations. We border Mexico. We live in a desert (Arid Zone-a).

We have industries that depend on dry, clear skies, warm weather and federal government spending including aerospace/military, agriculture/ranching, hospitality/tourism, retirement living and health care.

We have a long history of actively offending our Mexican neighbors and local Latinos. Most of our leaders don't accept the reality of climate change and our special desert vulnerability.

Our support for education ranks near the bottom both financially and intellectually as we parasitize other states for much of our educated workforce. Transportation is limited pretty much to more freeways.

Even to provide basic health care requires semi-heroic efforts to accept billions of federal dollars.

Until these attitudes change, New Arizona, same as Old Arizona.

--Andrew March, Phoenix

Secure border is humane border

I completely agree with the premise in the editorial "Put humanity in border policy" (Opinions, Tuesday). I couldn't disagree more with the incorrect statement, "Enforcement alone doesn't work. It kills."

The opposite is true: The tighter the border, the less chance you have of someone being able to cross it and endangering themselves.

A secure border is a humane border, one which we obviously don't have yet or we wouldn't have more than 11million people in the U.S. currently seeking a solution for their illegal-immigrant status.

--Rusty Childress, Phoenix

Gun violence is the new normal

The latest shooting spree in Chicago drives home one chilling point: As long as we, as a country, embrace our firearms and neglect the sad state of mental-health care, refusing to do anything about either issue, then we should not be surprised to see more incidents of mass murder.

The hysterical news reporting and anguished hand-wringing can stop; it will have become as commonplace as the tens of thousands of gun-related homicides and suicides that occur every year in this country.

So, if we're not going to do anything about it, then we're just going to have to get used to it. What a sick thought.

--Ed Coleman, Tempe

Health insurance not in budget

It looks like I'll be one of those who will be fined for not having health insurance.

I can barely pay my expenses. I don't get assistance with food nor do I have a cellphone. I live with antenna TV. I cook all meals at home and don't go to movies. I have Internet service for bill pay instead of paying for checks and stamps.

I make less than $1,500 a month, but I make it work. I'm on the verge of becoming a vegetarian because of meat prices.

The expense of health care isn't in my budget, and I don't expect the taxpayers to pay for me to have AHCCCS. I go to the store and get what's cheap and stand in line behind someone that has every form of welfare known and has a hair weave and manicure. Not to mention the designer clothes.

Mr. President, if you fine me, I have no choice but to steal a shopping cart to live out of.

--Merry Lindquist, Glendale

Dodgers deserved pool time

A note to the Arizona Diamondbacks:

The No.1 way to keep the L.A. Dodgers out of your pool -- win the final game.

I lost a little respect for my D-Backs hearing them complain about the Dodgers celebrating their division championship by jumping into our pool -- by the way, in basically an empty stadium when there were no fans or D-Back players around.

What's that saying from "Field of Dreams"? To paraphrase, if you build it, they will come. Well, what do you expect if you want to have a clever marketing idea by putting a pool in your stadium?

--Michael Shoff, Gilbert

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Both Dems, GOP pleased: Supreme Court taking up Obama health-care law (The Christian Science Monitor)

There isn’t much these days that can spread unanimity across party lines in Washington. But that’s what happened following the US Supreme Court’s announcement on Monday that it will examine the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care reform law.

The news was greeted across the ideological spectrum as a positive development – but for different reasons.

“We are pleased the court has agreed to hear this case,” Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director, said in a statement. “We know the Affordable Care Act [ACA] is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi echoed the sentiments. “Today’s announcement places the Affordable Care Act before the highest court in our country,” she said. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will find the law constitutional.”

Others are equally confident that the law is unconstitutional, and they’re looking forward to the Supreme Court saying so.

“Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans have argued that this misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Most Americans agree,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

“In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same,â€

“The American people did not support this law when it was rushed through Congress and they do not support it now that they’ve seen what’s in it,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “This government takeover of health care is threatening jobs, increasing costs, and jeopardizing coverage for millions of Americans, and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it.”

Rep. Pete Stark (D) of California had a different take. “I’m looking forward to a Supreme Court ruling that will force Republicans to join Democrats in governing instead of continuing their political grandstanding,” he said.

In announcing that they will take up the issue, the justices set aside an extraordinary 5-1/2 hours for oral argument. They have agreed to examine the ACA’s controversial independent mandate, the requirement that all Americans must purchase a government-approved level of health insurance or pay a penalty.

The court has also agreed to hear an appeal by Florida and 24 other states that the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid is overly coercive of state government, forcing the states to either adopt the federal reforms or lose federal health-care funding.

Beyond the fate of the ACA, the high court’s decision could establish new boundaries for federal power under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“The Supreme Court has set the stage for the most significant case since Roe v. Wade,” said Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. “Indeed, this litigation implicates the future of the Republic as Roe never did.”

Randy Barnett, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, was among the first legal scholars to raise serious questions about the constitutionality of the health-care reform law. When most other legal analysts scoffed, Professor Barnett argued that the ACA’s individual mandate represented a sizable expansion of federal power.

“Upholding the individual mandate would end the notion that Congress is one of limited and enumerated powers, and fundamentally transform the relationship of Americans to their doctors and their government,” he said in a statement Monday. “It is high time for the high court to strike down this unconstitutional, unworkable, and unpopular law.”

Elizabeth Wydra, general counsel of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington, noted that two highly regarded conservative jurists have voted in lower court cases to uphold the ACA. Conservative members of the high court may follow the same path, she said.

“Observers should note the very real possibility that the tea party’s basic constitutional vision could be rejected by the Supreme Court – particularly its most conservative members,” she said. A high court endorsement of the ACA, Ms. Wydra added, “could deal a devastating blow to tea partiers’ ability to have their constitutional theories taken seriously by the American public in the future.”

Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif., says he’s hopeful the Supreme Court case sparks even more discussion, not less.

“The Supreme Court’s announcement marks an historic opportunity for a nationwide debate over the Constitution and its continued significance in our lives – the kind of debate this nation has not had since the 1930s,” Mr. Sandefur said. “The founding fathers made it clear that they were designing a federal government of limited powers. But since the 1930s, Congress has pushed its authority further and further, and courts have refused to enforce the constitutional limits.”

Sandefur added: “Today’s announcement means the justices will be faced with the question of whether the federal government is still bound by constitutional limits, or whether we will persist in our decades-long habit of ignoring the letter and spirit of our nation’s supreme law.”

Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, offered a different perspective. “I am confident the law will be upheld in its entirety,” she said.

Ms. Tanden called the lawsuits challenging the ACA “nothing more than an attempt to rewrite the Constitution to thwart national solutions to national problems.”

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) said he is confident the high court will invalidate the ACA. “Each day that these cases remain unresolved means that states must spend more time and money to prepare for the expensive and burdensome requirements of the health care law, while uncertainty looms over its constitutionality,” he said.

“Today’s news that the Supreme Court will hear arguments,” the governor said, “is reassuring news that we will soon reach finality on this critically important issue.”

The National Federation of Independent Business is a party to one of the appeals challenging the ACA’s constitutionality. The high court’s decision to hear its case is welcome news, said NFIB president Dan Danner.

“Only 18 months after its passage, the new health care law has been brought to the steps of the Supreme Court,” Mr. Danner said. “The health care law has not lived up to its promise of reducing costs, allowing citizens to keep their coverage or improving a cumbersome system that has long been a burden to small-business owners and employees.”

He added, “The small-business community can now have hope; their voices are going to be heard in the nation’s highest court.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here