In a much anticipated interview of Sen. Tim Johnson by Ben Dunsmoor of Keloland news today, Johnson clearly cited where his priorities are:
Senator Johnson says it was a bit of a compromise to vote for the Senate bill because he would have liked to see health care reform that included that public option.
Instead, the Senate bill includes non-profit private plans that would be overseen by the government
Yes, they do not need a public option as long as the government still has control over the insurance companies and can mandate/regulate what they charge for those so called private plans, what they must pay our for and when payments can be made. This is just another backdoor, cleverly disguised way of passing the public option and I can’t believe he thinks so little of the intelligence of his constituents as to think we would fall for this disgusting piece of garbage.
And he obviously also doesn’t feel he needs to follow what he advertises on his Senate webpage. Nope, Nada, it’s all about the fictional power he believes he has to rule over us.
Sen. Johnson then concludes by citing his requirements for ANY legislation thta he predicts will pass by February:
the final bill must make health care more affordable, decrease the deficit, and eliminate higher costs for patients with pre-existing medical conditions
If this is his true stance then why did he vote on Dec 24, 2009 to pass a bill that does none of the above. In fact, according to the CBO, the Senate bill is worse than the House bill that passed and in fact, the Senate bill will increase deficits, increase medical/health care costs, and it most certainly will increase the cost of health insurance for ALL whom are mandated to buy it.
So, it is all about redistribution in Johnson’s eyes and controlling the lowly little constituents at home while making himself exempt from the mandates.
Have no fear though, it wasn’t all for naught. I hear there is some disguised relief/exemption for SD in the bill for the increases in medicaid that state would have to pick up. A ‘yes’ vote for Obama nominating his son to a US Attorney’s position with a just announced new chairmanship position in a brand new division of the US Attorney’s Office?
I’ll let you judge that one for yourself.
Constitutionally Speaking 
The insurance mandate in the health care bill has been brought under Contitutional scrutiny by many. They have concluded that the mandate is not Contitutional.
Putting aside for the moment that the entire health care bill is uncontitutional because it does not fall under any of the enumerated powers granted to Congress, I have a question about another provision of the bill.
The bill dictates what kind of health plans the insurance companies can offer. Since when can the government tell someone what kind of product they may sell? I recognize that the government can regulate products for safety, but does not telling the insurance companies what the content of their policies may be cross a Contstitutional line?
[patlin: neil, they can’t. They do not have the authority to do so and as of thus far, lawsuits to come forth have mentioned atleast 8 points in the Constitution that forbids Congress from doing such things. They are leaving no stone unturned in fighting this monstrosity.]