« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Let the PEOPLE Vote on Health-Care Reform!

By: David123 (Diary)  |  December 6th, 2009 at 01:14 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The American people should be able to vote DIRECTLY on election day November 2010 on whether health-care reform legislation becomes permanent law.

 

The most important amendment that could be attached to health-care reform legislation in Congress is an amendment that would sunset all health-care reform legislation provisions and changes on December 31, 2010 unless a majority of the voters in November 2010 voted in favor of making the Health-Care Reform legislation changes permanent.  Who could be against such an amendment?  Shouldn’t the people have a direct say in such a far-reaching change to America?

 

If such an amendment is added to the final health-care reform legislation, it gives opponents one last chance to stop it, if health-care reform legislation passes both houses of Congress and is signed by President Obama.  Rasmussen reports that a majority of Americans are opposed to changing health care: 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

 

Such an amendment would have several other benefits.  It could be an issue in the 2010 and 2012 elections.  Any congressman who voted against such an amendment could be criticized in the next election for refusing to let the PEOPLE decide the future of health care.  If President Obama does not pledge to veto any health-care reform legislation that will not be voted on by the PEOPLE directly, he can also be criticized in 2012 for refusing to let the PEOPLE decide the future of health care. 

 

If health-care reform legislation is on the ballot in the 2010 election, it will increase turn-out of conservative people who want to stop healthcare rationing.  This turn-out will help to elect conservative candidates.

 

Such an amendment would stiffen the spines of Republicans.  Any Republican who was considering voting for any sort of health-care reform legislation could make it clear that they will vote against any legislation that is not conditional upon a favorable vote by the PEOPLE in November 2010.  

 

If the leftists strong-arm health-care legislation through Congress that does not allow for a direct vote by the PEOPLE it will be easier to repeal.  It can be pointed out that this legislation was done to spite the will of the PEOPLE.  It will also justify using extraordinary methods to repeal such legislation. 

 

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • reddog53

    Your suggestion might temporarily halt the progress of health care legislation, but it has two significant drawbacks:

    1) It perpetuates the idea that health insurance and government intrusion into health care delivery is appropriate

    2) It creates a precedent that any significant decision has to be made “by the people” through something like a national referendum. The Founders obviously felt there was no place for this direct input in our Constitution.

    We created a legislative and executive branch to create the laws and administer them. Rather than sub optimize their Constitutional roles through direct referendum votes as you suggest, let’s just ensure that this IS an issue in 2010 and 2012, along with a more cogent discussion of the role and extent of our government.

    Let us elect those that support the Constitutional framework we have, and hold them accountable at each and every turn when they stray from it.

  • David123

    IF, a bill passes, I’d like to be able to derail it at the ballot box in November.

    If demanding the bill be voted on by the people in November causes the bill to die, that’s fine with me.

    If Pelosi & Reid say they know better than the American people what’s good for them, so the American people don’t get to vote on healthcare directly, well let them come out and say it. Let Reid & Pelosi call all the voters ignorant.

    Your points would have more weight if:
    1. we did not have an extreme leftist Dem president and a Dem super-majority in Congress
    2. all the congressmen were seriously studying the bill before they vote on it, instead of being forced to vote on it before they even have a chance to read the $%#&* thing.
    3. the checks and balances were working better

    The founders didn’t think the American people should directly elect senators and they certainly didn’t think that the federal government should get to tax/fine people for choosing not to buy health insurance. Why should conservatives “play nice” about what the founders intents were when the leftists clearly are not abiding by what the founders intended?
    So I think your points have merit in a strict constitutional sense, but from a public-relations sense, not so much.

    The man on the street cares more about keeping Reid and Pelosi from shoving death panels and rationing down his throat than he cares about constitutional intracacies.

  • JadedByPolitics

    ….

  • janis

    happen. Didn’t you know that we’re all too stupid to know what’s good for us? Left to our own devices, we might do stuff like severely limiting the fed government’s reach into our lives and our pockets, not to mention booting them out of our doctors’ offices.

    And, God forbid, we might even do something really drastic like electing leaders who actually represent their constituents as they promised while campaigning. Not to mention the possibility that we might elect someone such as Sa……… ahem, well, you get the picture.

  • mbecker908

    The states have the ability to legislate by ballot, and with very few exceptions it’s a freaking disaster. Yes, there was Prop 13 in CA, but that’s been more than offset by the number of bond issues the state has put on their ballot and passed. Those bonds are the major reason the CA legislature has been able to pass the buck on cutting the state budget. They’ve got a “balanced budget amendment” but they bypass it routinely with bond issues.

    The end product of the mess is that legislatures simply refuse to legislate. They just sit around and wait for ballot initiatives, and damn near every one of them expands the role of government in our lives and costs a fortune.

  • JadedByPolitics

    of our economy I will take anarchy over the tools in Congress. I understand what you are saying but I am so sick of this over-reaching government and their TAKING that which does NOT belong to them that I am up for any new ideas to subvert them. THEY SUCK!

  • mbecker908

    it would most likely pass as a single payer, government run package. We’ve got a much better probability of beating it in Congress than at the ballot box.

  • JadedByPolitics

    minute. I keep seeing these diaries that its dead and yet it keeps coming back alive. There is no way that Obamacare doesn’t pass, I don’t believe and refuse to get excited that it is dead. They WANT it to badly, they have lived for this moment for 50 years and they are on the precipice of victory and this is a victory they will have.

  • David123

    and enough Senators want healthcare reform on the ballot in November, then it dies in Congress by fillibuster.

    If Reid and Pelosi agree to let the people vote on it, AND there are not enough Senators willing to fillibuster it for other reasons – then it will pass Congress, but it might be defeated at the polls in November.

    If there are not enough Senators willing to fillibuster it for other reasons, and the people don’t get a chance to vote it down in November, then we’re stuck with it.

    Most people don’t want health care rationing, death panels, or higher healthcare/insurance costs, so given a chance to vote on it directly, I think the majority of American voters would vote Pelosi-care down.

  • reddog53

    because letting us make the decision cuts out their source of power.

    This isn’t really about health care reform, so you can’t expect the leadership in the House and Senate to act like it is.

    This is all about them controlling vast amounts of money and controlling the amount of money we are allowed to keep.

    Don’t expect them to let go of the issue by surrendering to a referendum.

  • David123

    .. a tough re-election campaign. An amendment that will lessen the wrath of tea-partiers …

    Would Harry Reid rather get re-elected and see Pelosi-care get flushed or would he rather force Pelosi-care on America and become ex-senator Reid??

    As for Pelosi … if at least 218 other house members want the PEOPLE to get to vote on healthcare reform in November, it doesn’t matter what she wants.