Attorney general doesn’t have a case
Editor, The Times:
The Times editorializes that “McKenna has a case” [editorial, March 28] with regard to suing the federal government over the health-care bill. While I’d have preferred a more-progressive bill and one that included a strong public option, I disagree that state Attorney General Rob McKenna has a case.
Health care is unique. Every American is a consumer of health care. To date, not every American pays for health care, many due to impoverished households. This bill does not, as the Times says, “force people into the stream of commerce.” People are already in that stream regarding health care.
What is not in that stream is payment for care. This bill closes that loophole. Sure, people can opt out of insurance and pay a fine. That is simply requiring the same loophole be closed. The stream of commerce regarding health care today includes every one of us mere mortals as to expending health care. This bill balances the books on expenditure exceeding revenue.
— The Rev. Bill Kirlin-Hackett, Bellevue
Editorial on the mark
Your Sunday editorial on Attorney General Rob McKenna’s legal challenge to the health-care legislation is on the mark.
Those who have so vigorously protested might give some thought to the historic example of the National Recovery Act. When passed in 1933 it was hailed by President Roosevelt as “the most important and far-reaching [legislation] ever enacted by the American Congress.” The health-care legislation is equally far-reaching and equally open to challenge on a number of issues.
Two years after adoption, the Supreme Court, in what has been called the “Sick Chicken” case, declared the NRA unconstitutional on several counts. Everything that had been put into it — time, money and effort — was wasted.
Both proponents and opponents of the health-care act should agree that it would be prudent to make certain such a far-reaching and innovative program is on sound legal ground before the massive amounts of money involved are spent.
— Patrick C. Roe, Lopez Island
Editorial has it wrong
The newspaper has it all wrong. The federal government is not requiring anyone to buy health insurance. The law requires a fee paid to the IRS if a person does not have health insurance. This is in effect as the regulations covering all group health insurance or co-op plans: everyone eligible must subscribe, otherwise it will create adverse selection against the insurer.
Why should we, the taxpayers, pay for the use of emergency-room services for everyone who does not have insurance? The principle is the same, and any lawyer with any legal standing should know this especially the attorney general of Washington state.
Rob McKenna is joining this lawsuit for political reasons and his own drive to be the Republican nominee for governor.
This lawsuit is not in the best interest of the residents of the state of Washington. The attorney general has exceeded his authority and does not represent the majority of the people of the state of Washington. He should resign now, or face disgrace of being recalled by the same people who elected him.
— Aurnie Sutliffe, Marysville
Against the liberal tide
Bravo to the editorial board for going against the liberal tide of the governor and state legislators on the question of whether or not Attorney General Rob McKenna should join the many other states in suing the Obama administration over what many, myself included, believe is an unconstitutional power grab and massive overreach of federal powers with the new health-care bill.
Whether or not the suing states prevail or even have a case remains to be seen, but if not allowed to move forward we will never know and I for one want to know.
If this is constitutional, then we are so screwed because it would really open the door to further massive overreach. McKenna is an elected official and represents you and me and should be allowed to do so without any interference from our hapless governor.
— Scott Stoppelman, LaConer
Stigmatizing health-care reform
Being an intelligent person, Rob McKenna must know of the consensus among legal scholars that lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care program are weak and undoubtedly will fail in court.
In proceeding with his lawsuit, then, McKenna has chosen to join those Republicans who seek to garner voters’ support by scaring them with irrational claims. Whether fulminating about supposed “death panels” or smearing the reform as unconstitutional, they aim not to debate the issues squarely but to stigmatize moderate health-care reform as monstrously un-American and frightening.
Such tactics violate the spirit of civility necessary for a well-functioning democracy, in which issues must be judged based on reason rather than fear.
Growing up in the Deep South, I recall Southern leaders filing lawsuits to prevent federal attempts to racially desegregate public facilities. The plaintiffs knew they would lose in court but their actions endeared them to constituents primed by years of frightening predictions about desegregation’s consequences. These leaders’ actions further inflamed the fear and hatred, which inhibited positive responses to desegregation and spawned significant violence as well.
Sadly, I recognize the same pattern today. Mr. McKenna, shame on you. You know better.
— Daniel Burnstein, Seattle
Stay retired, Slade Gorton
Slade Gorton, who was last seen lobbing softball questions to Condeleeza Rice while on the “bipartisan” 9-11 Commission, now picks up the talking points for the Republican attorneys general, obstructionists in Congress, and the tea-bag protesters who want to kill the health-care bill and keep us on the same broken road that leaves millions of Americans without coverage and the taxpayers with their medical bills [“State AG McKenna has authority to challenge health-care mandate,” Opinion, March 27].
Sure, Slade, Rob McKenna has the right to challenge a federal law that impacts the states, just as Orvel Foubas did in Arkansas in 1956, but that doesn’t make it right to do so. Our current system is horribly costly and inefficient; we spend more than other industrialized country on health care and get far less in return.
The bill that President Obama signed into law is not much different from the plan offered by John McCain in 2008 and the one instituted by Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. The big difference of course is that Obama is not a Republican and shouldn’t be credited with an accomplishment that would bring sanity to our broken health-care system.
Slade, I remember you when you were a progressive Republican, when you viewed government as a viable tool for progress. Now that you’ve become a partisan hack, it’s best you keep retired and let a new generation of leaders lead.
— Bruce Johnson, Seattle
McKenna’s authority vs. McKenna’s discretion
I wish to thank former Sen. Slade Gorton for his opinion piece on whether or not Rob McKenna has the right to join in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain aspects of the new health-care law. There seems little doubt that McKenna does indeed have that right. But should he use it?
In our state, every adult not convicted of a felony has the right to openly carry loaded firearms in most public places. But would we be better off or worse off if all those adults decided to do so at all times? Having the right to do something and choosing whether or not to exercise that right is a matter of discretion.
McKenna’s job is to represent the interests of the state of Washington. So the question becomes is it in the interests of the state of Washington to overturn the mandates that every individual purchase health insurance or not?
The individual mandate is essential in order for the new law to work. It is disingenuous to claim no objection to the rest of the law knowing full well that without the individual mandate the rest of the law cannot stand.
This will mean that health care will continue to be denied to our most vulnerable citizens.
I submit that this outcome is not in the interests of our state and therefore ask that McKenna does not continue to pursue this case in our name.
— Marshall Dunlap, Kent
In health solidarity
I would have a lot more respect for elected officials opposing health-care reform if they would surrender their coverage paid for by taxpayers in order to stand in solidarity with those Americans who without reform would continue to have none.
— Gerald A. Peterson, Seattle