Tribune:
A conservative legislator wants to give Utah a way to avoid swallowing any federal medicine for health-care reform.
"Even if the feds come out with a wonderful plan that is market driven, if it's a federal mandate, I'm opposed," Rep. Carl Wimmer said Monday. "Basically they should keep their hands off -- it's not within their purview."
So the Herriman Republican plans to introduce a bill in the 2010 Legislature that would pave the way to amend the Utah Constitution and allow the state to opt out of federal health-care reform.
Wimmer's goal is lofty -- to amend the Utah Constitution would require two-thirds approval in the state House and Senate and a majority vote of the people.
Let ne get this straight:
"Even if the feds come out with a wonderful plan that is market driven, if it's a federal mandate, [you're] opposed[?]"
And, opting out doesn't mean that Utahn's won;t be paying for this program anyway. So we'll be paying for programs and receive no benefit.
That makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Carl Wimmer: The Vice-idiot of Utah.
-Bob
9 comments:
I'm still trying to decide if I should run against him. I am in his district. The only trouble is that I'm torn on this particular problem. I would prefer to say no to all federal money so we have a leg to stand on when we say "Stop taxing us so much".
Come on, Bob, I thought you were above name calling. You're stooping to the level of the people you ridicule, or even below.
As for Wimmer's position, he supports the idea of federalism (division of power between national and state governments) embodied in our constitution. Millions and millions of scholars and U.S. citizens support this principle; it's nothing new.
Shaun,
Please do run against him! If you file as a Democrat, or even a Reublican, it does not matter, either party will help raise you money! Let's get him out.
If anything Wimmer heading this will get him more votes than ever. The people want their power over government back; and they will not stop till they get it now. We the Peeps and our state leaders are on it big time. Do you see what I see?
My question is this: what's the real difference in who takes away our liberties? Wimmer is opposed to it coming from Washington because he (and his cronies at the Utah Legislature) want to do it themselves. They just don't want to share in the joy of oppressing Utah's people.
Bob Henline: I think your comment just helped me make my decision. He does support states rights, but he definitely does not understand liberty.
I want to live in a place where my government plays as small a role as possible in my life. At the moment, the state of utah has far too much of an interest in too many parts of my life.
All he is saying is, if the gov did come up with such a plan, they should hand it over to the state to run it. It simply shouldn't be run at the Federal level. That's all - nothing more. He is not an idiot or a lunatic or any of the other of the names you call him (name calling is a sign of ignorance/lack of understanding).
Why not the Feds? Just look at the TSA. Per the federal mandate of TSA we now have radiation machines at the airports that cost $150K each. The people pushing for the machines are also associated with the company that makes them. Soon we'll be paying that company billions of dollars and they will become rich off our taxes. Yet in Iraq, they tried machines and they didn't work- they use bomb sniffing dogs. Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself. They don't use machines in Iraq, they use bomb sniffing dogs.
When you give power to the federal government and they become corrupted, they corrupt the whole nation. At least if you keep things at the state level, if the people of the state allow their government to become corrupt it doesn't have to hurt the whole nation.
Proof positive? More power than ever is being allocated to the Federal government and today we have more corruption than ever- and it is killing our nation!
Carl Wimmer is a hero- at least to those who understand the constitution and what it means to be an American.
After reading some of the other comments...
Arguing the power should be kept at the state level does not mean state run health care or education or whatever else, because that state can choose to allow the market to work where it wants to. But for some, they do want state health care and so the people in those states can have state health care if they want it- it just shouldn't be decided by the Feds.
Run against him if you want, but the fact that he was elected indicates that his district supports him. I get sick of hearing that so-and-so is an "idiot," etc. when they were elected by a majority. You're basically calling everyone who voted for him an idiot too.
Post a Comment