If we must talk about 2013…EconomicsPolicyPoliticsVirginia

It took less than 24 hours (I think) before Virginia Republicans tried to distract themselves from the disaster of 2012 by…falling on each other like wolves regarding 2013.

Bolling slangs Cuccinelli; Ken’s supporters slang back; Bill’s backers counter-slang (or is it counter-counter-slang?); etc.

So, as I’m staying neutral, I drifted away from the argument, and stumbled into an issue that for Virginians is critical.

One of the next steps in Robertscare is the founding of state health insurance exchanges. Michael Cannon (National Review Online) notes how these exchanges are the next political battle over Robertscare, and cited none other than Bob McDonnell, who has refuse to implement the exchange or the Medicaid expansion (which could bankrupt the Commonwealth in the long run).

So, if Bill and Ken can take enough time away from circling each other warily…perhaps they can answer this question:

Do you or do you not intend to maintain Governor McDonnell’s policy of resistance to Robertscare?

If we must talk about 2013, let’s talk about issues, shall we?

@deejaymcguire | facebook.com/people/Dj-McGuire | DJ’s posts

  • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

    Justice Roberts didn’t write this law. It’s still Obamacare.

    • http://www.facebook.com/shaunkenney Shaun Kenney

      Justice Roberts had it within his powers to call it what it was — unconstitutional. He did not. Robertscare it is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

        It’s not unconstitutional. Roberts and the majority of the court found that it was a constitutional tax. Thus, it’s constitutional. It’s not Robertscare, because he didn’t write it. It’s still Obamacare. Blaming it on the Supreme Court is pointless.

        • EricMcGrane

          Here we go again. The courts deciding that you don’t have the right to petition the government or that you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms does not make those positions “Constitutional”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

            They have never done that, so your argument is moot. The Supreme Court has held that Obamacare is constitutional, so it is. You can say it’s bad policy, or it should be repealed, but making the argument that it’s unconstitutional is not factual. As I have said before, you cheapen the charge when you claim things that have been found to be constitutional aren’t.

          • Andrew Schwartz

            The Affordable Care Act is Constitutional in the same way Great Britain had determined the Stamp Act was constitutional. Just because GB said so, didn’t mean the colonists had to accept it. And they didn’t, until there was a total repeal of the Act.

      • http://www.facebook.com/josephwknowles Joseph Knowles

        I’m with you Shaun: the Constitution is the the Constitution regardless of how the Supreme Court tries to pervert it. The Supreme Court has also held that it was “constitutional” to deny slaves the same rights as everyone else and that the government could haul off all the Japanese people into concentration camps simply because they were Japanese. In other words, some times the Court gets the Constitution very obviously wrong. Obamacare is one of those obvious cases.

        Furthermore, the Governor takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the Supreme Court’s perversion of the Constitution. The Affordable Care Act is plainly not authorized by the Constitution. Therefore, for any Governor of Virginia to go along with it in spite of the violation of the Constitution is a direct violation of his oath of office.

  • http://www.southsidecentral.com/ Bruce Hedrick

    Let’s go ahead and make up the ultimate pejorative name for it… Obamarobertscaregate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/PaPrados Paul Prados

    DJ’s original question was:

    “Do you or do you not intend to maintain Governor McDonnell’s policy of
    resistance to Robertscare?”

    Fine call it Obamacare but still answer the question.

    We are in one heck of a mess. An exchange is coming. For those states who
    refuse to implement their own plans, they will be forced into the one-size-fits-all
    federal exchange. The parameters of the federal exchange are being worked out
    now. If we do not implement an exchange at the state level we essentially
    relinquish all control over the terms of an exchange to the federal government. In order to set our own terms we have to
    implement an exchange.

    As a counterpoint: The constitutionality
    of a national exchange imposed on the states has not been litigated. There is a small chance at invalidating this separate
    key provision of the PPACA, but only if Virginia
    refuses to implement an exchange. The
    risk is extremely high, but the reward, if successful, is also very high.

    I really want to know the answers (and reasoning) from the candidates to the
    initial question.