
(CBS)
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger withdrew his support for President Obama's health care plan today, making him one of the latest politicians to express displeasure with the deals and concessions Democrats have made in order to secure enough votes for the legislation.
"While I enthusiastically support health care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling while other states get sweetheart deals," Schwarzenegger said today in his State of the State address. "Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes."
The White House hailed the Republican governor's earlier support of the health care bill as an
example of bipartisan support for the Democratic package. Indeed, in October, Schwarzenegger said his state's interests aligned with President Obama's plans.
"Our principal goals, slowing the growth in costs, enhancing the quality of care delivered, improving the lives of individuals, and helping to ensure a strong economic recovery, are the same goals that [President Obama] is trying to achieve," he said. "I appreciate his partnership with the states and encourage our colleagues on both sides of the political aisle at the national level to move forward and accomplish these vital goals for the American people."
W.H. Defensive over Health Care Fast TrackCBSNews.com Special Report: Health CareNow the governor, whose state faces an out-of-control budget crisis, says the plan will simply "pile billions more [in expenses] onto California."
"California's congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator [Ben] Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State," he said. "He got the corn; we got the husk."
Before Nelson promised to vote for the bill, which passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve, he
secured a deal in which the federal government would completely pay for any expansion of Medicaid in Nebraska, leaving the state government off the hook.
Schwarzenegger isn't the only one who disapproves of Nelson's deal: A Rasmussen poll last month showed only
17 percent of Nebraska voters approved of it, while Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
said Tuesday that the deal should be removed from the bill.
OTOH, they're both up for election this year. So we have a shot at getting rid of both of them. We'll probably be able to ditch only one, but it's a start.
Article 6 of the Constitution requires that members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution". Read it. There are too many violations of our Constitution in this newly proposed "Health Care Bill". Congressmen can not vote for it in good conscience and if they do, we will hold them accountable for ignoring their oath of office.
On the surface the proposed bill masquerades as a "health care bill", but what it actually does is transfer a massive amount of power to the Executive Branch of government. Passing it will destroy major portions of our Constitution, destroying what is now a masterfully crafted balance between all three branches. Congress will end up transferring to Obama and his administration, authority over our lives and our businesses.
There is no actual authority in our Constitution granted to members of Congress to "regulate health care".
This proposed legislation provides for access by Obama appointees to all my personal health care, financial, employer, physician and hospital information, in direct violation of the 4th Amendment. That destroys my right to privacy. I would no longer be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures if this bill is passed.
If this bill is passed I will be taxed if I decide to use a private insurance company that is "not acceptable" to the Health Choices Administrator (another Obama appointee). This so-called "tax", however, is really a "fine" because of it's intent to avoid due process guaranteed in the 5th Amendment. I would not have the opportunity to contest or appeal the imposition of this "tax", thus depriving me of property without due process of the law.
It violates the 10th Amendment too. Neither the people nor the states will have rights and powers in areas that were once ours to control.
Congress should not in good conscience vote for this proposal without fully reading it and looking at it from a Constitutional viewpoint, and not just a politically correct, feel-good idealism.
Unless, of course, we could all agree on single-payer which is the sanest solution of them all and the one chosen by the majority of other western nations. A solution whose average healthcare cost per citizen is about HALF of that under the American private greed-based system.
The alternative is to fleece millions of Americans so Americans work. Given a choice of paying more so someone keeps their job or saving money, which am I more likely to choose?