WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Tuesday he was open to four new Republican proposals on health care legislation, in a gesture of bipartisanship meant to jump-start his stalled drive to overhaul the system.
The proposals Obama listed are: sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste; expanding medical malpractice reform pilot programs; increasing payments to Medicaid providers and expanding the use of health savings accounts.
He rejected the GOP's preferred approach of scrapping the existing sweeping overhaul bills and starting afresh with step-by-step changes.
At its core the Democrats' legislation would extend coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans over 10 years with a first-time mandate for nearly everyone to buy insurance and a host of new requirements on insurers and employers.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who attended the summit, said adding a few GOP ideas won't sway Republicans.
"This is not a car that can be recalled and fixed," he said.
Democrats argue that the GOP calls to scrap the existing legislation and start anew further their argument that Republicans have been unreasonably opposed to almost any compromise, justifying the White House decision to push for passage with no GOP help at all.
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Four 'shake and bake' meth labs discovered in Ridgeland
A search warrant Madison County deputies and Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics agents served at a Ridgeland man’s residence last Thursdaym turned up four “shake and bake” methamphetamine labs, according to MBN Director Marshall Fisher.
Madison County Herald
Madison County Herald
Reports that HB 1282 to extend deer season has died in committee at the hands of Senator Tommy Gollott
The bill had the full support of MS Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks and would have featured and additional 3 full weeks of rifle hunting for the state's young hunters under the age of 16.
Ya'll Politics
Ya'll Politics
Supreme Courts Gun ruling will have repercussions beyond Second Amendment
Are you a "state's rights" believer? A Second Amendment advocate? Ever think you would have to choose between the two?
The Supreme Courts hearing today of McDonald v. Chicago could effectively gut many gun control laws, while empowering the Federal Government. Any future federal rulings that favor gay marriage or other groups could then bind the states.
In other words, are states bound by the Bill of Rights, or do they simply bind the Federal Government. If it is the former, then future rulings can virtually wipe out state rights and end the argument once and for all in favor of a powerful Federal Goverment. If it is the latter, then Second Amendment advocates must allow that some states and local governments have the authority to implement gun control laws.
George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley prognosticates the possibilities in a Roll Call opinion piece today.
Turley says, "Since most rules affecting gun ownership are municipal and state laws, the decision could make it difficult to ban outright possession of handguns and other types of weapons. However, there is an even more significant constitutional question in the case that could have ramifications far beyond gun rights — an issue that has divided both the liberal and conservative alliances in the case."
The Washington Post argues, "It would seem incongruous at best and legally indefensible at worst to deny to those beyond the nation's capital a right that the justices have ruled is embedded in the federal Constitution.
"That is not to say, however, that a recognition of individual rights should foreclose the possibility of regulation. Writing for the five-justice majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Indeed, even First Amendment rights of free speech and association have been subject to restrictions when the government proves it has a compelling reason. The court should rearticulate this important principle."
The Supreme Courts hearing today of McDonald v. Chicago could effectively gut many gun control laws, while empowering the Federal Government. Any future federal rulings that favor gay marriage or other groups could then bind the states.
In other words, are states bound by the Bill of Rights, or do they simply bind the Federal Government. If it is the former, then future rulings can virtually wipe out state rights and end the argument once and for all in favor of a powerful Federal Goverment. If it is the latter, then Second Amendment advocates must allow that some states and local governments have the authority to implement gun control laws.
George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley prognosticates the possibilities in a Roll Call opinion piece today.
Turley says, "Since most rules affecting gun ownership are municipal and state laws, the decision could make it difficult to ban outright possession of handguns and other types of weapons. However, there is an even more significant constitutional question in the case that could have ramifications far beyond gun rights — an issue that has divided both the liberal and conservative alliances in the case."
The Washington Post argues, "It would seem incongruous at best and legally indefensible at worst to deny to those beyond the nation's capital a right that the justices have ruled is embedded in the federal Constitution.
"That is not to say, however, that a recognition of individual rights should foreclose the possibility of regulation. Writing for the five-justice majority in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Indeed, even First Amendment rights of free speech and association have been subject to restrictions when the government proves it has a compelling reason. The court should rearticulate this important principle."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)