http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6364925Oh my.
The orange marmalade primitive lights this bonfire:
marmar (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:23 PM
Original message
Another Useless Republican Meatsack: U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx
Rep. Foxx Says Congress Has No Business Reforming Health Care: It’s Just A ‘Distraction’
Yesterday in a “telephone town hall,†Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) not only repeated her opposition to Democratic proposals for health care reform, but characterized all federal government incursions into health care as unconstitutional. In fact, she said that attempting reform was nothing more than a “distraction†from more important issues:
FOXX: The Constitution doesn’t grant a right to health care, and most of us are living as much by the Constitution as we can. It also doesn’t give the federal government the authority to deal with health care. As you may know, the 10th amendment, it says if it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution to be done by the federal government, it’s left to the states or the people. (...)
I think one of the problems we have in this country right now is the fact that the federal government is trying to do too much. We need to leave things to the states and the localities. … And unfortunately, we are distracting ourselves from looking after the defense of this nation because we are dealing with issues that should, by right, be the state and individual’s.
Foxx, of course, also thinks the current health care system in America is so “good†that it couldn’t really get much better. “There are no Americans who don’t have healthcare,†Foxx said last month. “Everybody in this country has access to healthcare.†(She’s wrong.)
Foxx is right that the Constitution never explicitly says the words “health care.†But as Ian Millhiser has pointed out, Article I does give Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises†and to “provide for….the general welfare of the United States.†“Rather than itemizing specific subject matters, such as health care, which Congress is allowed to spend money on,†notes Millhiser, “the framers chose instead to give Congress a broad mandate to spend money in ways that promote the ‘general welfare.’â€
Of course, Foxx doesn’t seem to have a problem with Medicare. When Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) proposed an amendment to kill this government-run program, neither Foxx nor any other Republican voted for it.
Transcript:
FOXX: The Constitution doesn’t grant a right to health care, and most of us are living as much by the Constitution as we can. It also doesn’t give the federal government the authority to deal with health care. As you may know, the 10th amendment, it says if it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution to be done by the federal government, it’s left to the states or the people.
I think one of the problems we have in this country right now is the fact that the federal government is trying to do too much. We need to leave things to the states and the localities. All of us know — I think it’s common sense — that the further away from the people you go with government and with spending, the more waste you’re going to have. Jefferson said the government that governs least, governs best, and I agree with that. I think that much of what we’re dealing with at the federal level should be done at the state level; much of it can even be done at the local level.
We have too much going on at the federal level. The number one priority of the federal government is the defense of this nation. If you stop to think about it, the federal government is the only one in our governments that can do the defense of the nation. The states and localities can do everything else, but they cannot provide for the defense. And unfortunately, we are distracting ourselves from looking after the defense of this nation because we are dealing with issues that should, by right, be the state and individual’s.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/21/foxx-health-constit... /
I dunno. I rather like this lady from North Carolina.
tosh (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yep, useless.
Foxx's stupidity is not even mildly amusing. At least, some of her fellow "stupids" cause me to laugh now and then.
vademocrat (886 posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. She's vicious and stupid - not a funny combo
gratuitous (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. Useless? I don't know about that
She makes "Mean" Jean Schmidt of Ohio look nearly subhuman by comparison. So she's got that going for her.
wryter2000 (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Not exactly
IIRC, Foxx was the one who thought hunger would be good motivation for teenagers.
Hawkeye-X (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Any chance that she can be permanently retired in '10?
Any viable challenger? I'll donate some money their way.
Promises, promises, promises, by the cross-eyed Iowa primitive, who's always promising to get this web-site or that web-site taken down, who's always promising to donate money.
One wonders how much money an ex-con can have.
The Magistrate (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. She Mistakes, Sir, the Problem Of the Federal Government: Its Problem Is People Like Her Are In It
SidneyCarton (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. A distraction from what exactly?
Oh wait, she clarifies, oh goody.
"The number one priority of the federal government is the defense of this nation."
Now translating that out of RW bullshit double-speak:
"The most important thing for Congress to be doing is funnelling money into the black hole of the DOD, to ensure perpetual war for the arms dealers who fund my campaigns."
Or for those of you at home:
Federal government killing people with million dollar bombs=good
Federal government keeping people alive with adequate healthcare=bad
What's the point of health care if we, or most of us, are all dead?
