Jump to content

Rob McKenna is da man


Recommended Posts

Before this gets moved to TS, he da man!!!! ๐Ÿ‘:thumbsup:๐Ÿคฃ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ™‚:applause::jawdrop:

He stood up to Queen Christine. It may be a political move for him but at least he's got the ballz to say that we shouldn't hafta buy a privately ran medical insurance policy if we don't wanna.

:cheers:

Speaking to reporters before a bill-signing ceremony, Gregoire said McKenna hadn't consulted her or Democratic legislative leaders before making his announcement.
Although McKenna is independently elected, Gregoire said she believes he had a "duty" to consult with other top state officials before agreeing to sue the U.S. government.

:crazy:

McKenna says he has the authority to challenge the law without the governor's approval.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2011412329_mckenna_says_hell_sue_to_block.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, apparently the governor (and Inslee, et al) is not concerned with little matters such as the constitution of the United States of America.

McKenna is the one that is standing up for our rights as American citizens...Gregoire is more than happy taking us one step closer to socialism.

Way to go Rob McKenna!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand this argument correctly, McKenna believes that the Federal Government cannot impose a requirement to purchase private health insurance, but the State could. I make this assumption because the State imposes that we purchase private liability insurance in order to drive in this State.

I'd love to support this to tweak the Democratic State "government" but I can't buy the logic. I believe our friend McKenna is grandstanding for the Tea Party in preparation for a challenge to Gregoire next election year. Too bad he can't campaign on something tangible and viable like a balanced and sensible State budget. Politics in America today is all about polarization. Flame on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McKenna's argument is essentially that under law, a state has the right to protect the freedoms of it's citizens more than allowed under federal law (i.e., the federal law could allow intrusion into personal civil liberties, but the states can reject that intrusion). What kills me is the hypocritical nature of our state's liberals. When it comes to search and seizure by police, they are quick to cry foul if the state doesn't step in to further restrict those searches as allowed by the federal courts, saying that the state has the ability to further protect its citizens. But when the liberals agree with the efforts of the federal system, they suddenly forget that the states have the ability to restrict those efforts. I'm not surprised, but I continue to be amazed at the ability of the liberals to make right and wrong something that should be decided by them, when convenient for them.๐Ÿ‘

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I have to say is support him. Write him letter's to support his decision, ask if there is anything us citizens can do to help him protect our freedoms. I have already written this letter and believe we all need to help spread the true american value of save and take care of yourself. Don't wait for the handout as it's not a Right to have health insurance it's a privilege and responsibility each individual and family needs to budget for.๐Ÿ‘:thumbsup:๐Ÿคฃ๐Ÿ‘

And we can help support him during election time. Vote out those that are in office to get representatives that truely look out for the needs of the citizens they represent.

Edited by Volxport
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard his interview today on the radio, he says he did talk to the governor and informed the legislator via email. She also made it sound like what he had done was illegal and threatened to cut his budget off. He claimed it was not illegal to act on his own, and could have the courts stop her attempts to kill it, citing a previous similar case.

So the big slam for me is: One of them is a liar, hope someone calls her on it. Arrogant btch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand this argument correctly, McKenna believes that the Federal Government cannot impose a requirement to purchase private health insurance, but the State could. I make this assumption because the State imposes that we purchase private liability insurance in order to drive in this State.

the flaw in your argument is that you dont HAVE to purchase liability insurance at all...you cant drive then but you are not required to purchase it. with the healthcare plan...you CANNOT not buy it....you are required to buy it and cannot opt out ( like not driving). BIG difference:busted:

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't wait for the handout as it's not a Right to have health insurance it's a privilege and responsibility each individual and family needs to budget for.

This statement really pisses me off.

I don't think you'll find somebody who leans much farther right than me. I believe in an armed populace who are fearfully served by the powers that be, not the other way around. However, health care in this country needs to be seriously fixed.

I lost my job last year. Although our three kids were covered through the state, my wife and I went 11 months with no health insurance. I cut my riding back, played everything as safe as I could, and luckily made it through the whole time without having to see a doctor or dentist. My wife suffers from migraine headaches and we had to foot her $200 prescriptions out-of-pocket. For me to enroll my family in the COBRA plan offered by my employer would have basically been another mortgage payment ($1600).

Fortunately, we had enough savings to last us the entire 11 months, combined with my unemployment checks, to eke out the basics. We were able to stay in our house through a program my bank had and come out on the other side with a highly depleted savings account, but no debt. We saved our money and budgeted just in case an event like this happened.

Before you pop off with some ignorant statement about health insurance being a "privilege", consider how those of us who played by the rules and got sucked under live without seeing a doctor when it's needed most. Had I slipped down the stairs some night going to get a drink of water and hurt my back/knee/etcetera, there's a good chance I wouldn't be in my house trying to pay medical bills out of pocket.

I have insurance now, but I can greatly understand the plight of those who don't. Something needs to be done to close the gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the flaw in your argument is that you dont HAVE to purchase liability insurance at all...you cant drive then but you are not required to purchase it. with the healthcare plan...you CANNOT not buy it....you are required to buy it and cannot opt out ( like not driving). BIG difference:busted:

Joe

yeah, not only that but the ins we are forced to buy covers the other guy. this is different because they are forcing us to buy ins because we breath. In other words we where turned back into serfs owned by goverment. Thats why people are so livid about this HC bill. Now goverment owns you. HC needs a fixing for sure nobody can argue it doesnt...but what they did today wont stand. An uprising is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement really pisses me off.

I don't think you'll find somebody who leans much farther right than me. I believe in an armed populace who are fearfully served by the powers that be, not the other way around. However, health care in this country needs to be seriously fixed.

I lost my job last year. Although our three kids were covered through the state, my wife and I went 11 months with no health insurance. I cut my riding back, played everything as safe as I could, and luckily made it through the whole time without having to see a doctor or dentist. My wife suffers from migraine headaches and we had to foot her $200 prescriptions out-of-pocket. For me to enroll my family in the COBRA plan offered by my employer would have basically been another mortgage payment ($1600).

Fortunately, we had enough savings to last us the entire 11 months, combined with my unemployment checks, to eke out the basics. We were able to stay in our house through a program my bank had and come out on the other side with a highly depleted savings account, but no debt. We saved our money and budgeted just in case an event like this happened.

Before you pop off with some ignorant statement about health insurance being a "privilege", consider how those of us who played by the rules and got sucked under live without seeing a doctor when it's needed most. Had I slipped down the stairs some night going to get a drink of water and hurt my back/knee/etcetera, there's a good chance I wouldn't be in my house trying to pay medical bills out of pocket.

I have insurance now, but I can greatly understand the plight of those who don't. Something needs to be done to close the gap.

The gap would be closed if the insurance companies could compete across state lines. The present "crisis" was created when congress enacting laws that removed insurance companies from the free enterprise system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something needs to be done to close the gap.

I agree but the something that was done in this case is not better than nothing. The forced purchase of this plan and then prosecution and/or collection by the IRS man in case you don't pay is intimidation/coercion. Something is fundamentally messed up about that IMO. ๐Ÿ‘

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree but the something that was done in this case is not better than nothing. The forced purchase of this plan and then prosecution and/or collection by the IRS man in case you don't pay is intimidation/coercion. Something is fundamentally messed up about that IMO.๐Ÿคฃ

I agree 100%, and I support Rob McKenna in his lawsuit. Anything that pisses off Queenie is ok in my book. ๐Ÿ‘ There are a multitude of things wrong with the system that need to be fixed, and this law doesn't do it. It pushes the country to a dangerous precedent.

What spun me was the inference that those who don't have it are irresponsible with their finances. That's total horseshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What spun me was the inference that those who don't have it are irresponsible with their finances. That's total horseshit.

I agree because I (like you) am employed by an at-will employer. Here today, gone tomorrow. Given this economy you have no idea what will come along and sink you tomorrow. Luckily I remain busy at work but the carnage continues with layoffs being dealt to quality people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand this argument correctly, McKenna believes that the Federal Government cannot impose a requirement to purchase private health insurance, but the State could. I make this assumption because the State imposes that we purchase private liability insurance in order to drive in this State.

I'd love to support this to tweak the Democratic State "government" but I can't buy the logic. I believe our friend McKenna is grandstanding for the Tea Party in preparation for a challenge to Gregoire next election year. Too bad he can't campaign on something tangible and viable like a balanced and sensible State budget. Politics in America today is all about polarization. Flame on.

Its simple. Car insurance is part of using a privledge. Driving isnt a right. Mandated health insurance is forced just because you have a pulse. Basically its a tax for being alive. Ok, you say its not a tax. Look up tax, a tax is any imposed expense from the government. So techncially, its a tax for being alive. Living is a right. Does this put it more into perspective. Then we can get into the 10th amendment. Obama is tyrying to use the commerce clause to get around this, but the only way you engage in commerce is when they force you to buy it (force into commerce) so that isnt even going to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

ร—
ร—
  • Create New...