Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: House Passes ObamaCare


CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:
House Passes ObamaCare


Well it's been a long day and night.

In the end it come down to 219 YEA and 212 NAY with the win going to the Democrats.

Not ONE Republican voted for the healthcare bill, and some 34 of the states claim they will sue the Federal Government as this bill violates the rights of Americans. I for one hope they do so, however I also feel it was important to give the Democrats this "Rope".

It's hard to say what will happen now, but we have until 2014 to sort it out.

Apparently 17,000 new jobs will be opening up for new IRS agents to enforce the healthcare bill.



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

I realize this disapoints you Rex, and I'm not going to rub any salt in your wounds this time.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

I am not bothered that much by it PowerStroker.

Besides this plan will get shot down in the courts, many states are just waiting for Obama to sign the damn thing so we can get this Grand Old Party started!

Take the time to watch this video, it explains much of what is to come-

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4119068/states-fighting-health-care-reform/?playlist_id=87185

Yes it's by Fox News, not your most favorite I am sure, but if you check my stats this may be only the 2nd time I have ever posted a Fox News video in all my years of posting here.

What really bothered me was Pigslosi's giggling in her final speech in the House or Representatives. I had just gotten done eating a good steak dinner and her giggling almost made me vomit.

Notice how she almost said the declaration of indepence says "We are all created equal"? Well she didnt get it all out, but she knows thats not true, at lest when it comes to healthcare for Americans vs. healthcare for House and Senate members. While the video cut out a lot of her giggling, "Trust Me" (LOL) when I say she was out of control with the giggling. How her husband can stand her sometimes is beyond me. Seems when the long days work was over in the House after passing the healthcare bill she about-faced and left her man in the corner once more for a photo-op. I dont think I could be as supportive of my wife under them circumstances. I tip my hat to Mr. Pelosi.

Lest we forget that old man Dingell, OMG what a pleasure it was watching his old ass try and talk his way out of the Medicare mess that this flawed Health Care bill was designed to save. People if the health care system is broken, then I think it's clear to see that this one should be no diffrent. The apple does not fall far from the tree, and in this case the same old apple was presented while the rest of the people behind him looked worried the old guy was going to expose them. As he tried and tired to act like Medicare wasnt a failed system, the fact they were all ramming this unconstitutional bill down America's throat was proof enough they are all full of $hit.



-- Edited by SELLC on Monday 22nd of March 2010 11:20:40 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

So PLEASE PowerStroker.... Dont hold back because you think my feelings are hurt!

Hell this Party is just getting started!

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:



Is it me, or does it actually look like it HURT HER to laugh that hard? The movie Bat Man comes to mind.



-- Edited by SELLC on Monday 22nd of March 2010 11:21:37 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Well, getting back to the topic at hand about the court challenge...

Massachusetts already has a mandate for citizens to purchase insurance, and it has already been upheld by the courts through several challenges. This creates a difficult precedent to overcome.

Another point you may want to consider is that Federal law trumps state law, but let's say just for the sake of argument that it did make it to the Supreme court which has a Conservative majority, and they decide the mandate is unconstitutional. This will cause one of 2 things to happen.

Possibility A
Congress does nothing and people are no longer required to purchase insurance. The court can NOT strike the clause that states people can no longer be dropped due to pre-existing conditions, which means everyone will drop their coverage and just buy it again once they have health problems. This will bankrupt EVERY private health insurance company and the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder as their insurance buddies go down in flames. This would cause people to flock toward state run plans ie - bigger government intervention.

Possibility B
Congress acts on the courts decision by enrolling everyone in Medicare and raising everyone's taxes to pay for it under the taxing authority specifically spelled out in the constitution. This also will increase the scope of government and destroy the private insurance companies by their inability to compete with a government agency that operates on a non profit basis and doesn't have to pay for advertising or shareholder dividends.

My point is this Rex: The only issue that you may have any grounds upon which to mount a Constitutional challenge would only piss you off more if you actually win it, and the Dems would be laughing all the way to the bank. Your only recourse is to have the Republicans repeal the legislation, but that would require picking up a VETO PROOF majority in BOTH houses of congress in the November elections. Which means The Republicans would have to pick up 36 senate seats and over 120 house seats - A swing that has NEVER happened.

You're actually better off finding a different issue to get pissed off about because this one is a little out of reach for you now.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Another point you may want to consider is that Federal law trumps state law, but let's say just for the sake of argument that it did make it to the Supreme court which has a Conservative majority, and they decide the mandate is unconstitutional. This will cause one of 2 things to happen.




Hey PowerStroker... A lot of people said a Republican winning in Massachusetts was never going to happen too...

How long did a Democrat hold the seat in Massachusetts?

Let us not forget that close to 34 states already have plans to sue. That's something that never happend before either.

People are pissed... Poll's show 70%+

 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Like I said, the only thing you may have a case against is the individual mandate to purchase insurance. This isn't something the Dems really had a hard on about ever, but back when we thought Republicans were actually negotiating in good faith it was what THEY said was the only way to prevent the private insurance companies from going under if they could no longer descrimiate against pre-existing conditions. I don't give a flying fuck if the mandate goes away, I'd be more than happy to see the private insurance companies fail.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Like I said, the only thing you may have a case against is the individual mandate to purchase insurance. This isn't something the Dems really had a hard on about ever, but back when we thought Republicans were actually negotiating in good faith it was what THEY said was the only way to prevent the private insurance companies from going under if they could no longer descrimiate against pre-existing conditions. I don't give a flying fuck if the mandate goes away, I'd be more than happy to see the private insurance companies fail.



POWERSTROKER I want to see some PROOF of your claims above! It was not the Republicans whom voted for this bill, and it was not the Republicans who wanted the mandate! Get a grip already! The Republicans are the ones fighting to have it shot down!

Already 13 states have filed suit and 14 more including MICHIGAN are on the way! The idea of charging someone a fine for not purchasing a product or service is WRONG! Not only that, even once you pay the fine, you still wont have insurance! I dont want my kids strapped with this BULLSHIT law! I dont even want YOU to be strapped with this law! People will still go bankrupt from medical expences, the only diffrence is they wont be able to go bankrupt on the fines! TOTAL BULLSHIT!

The Insurance companies wont fail PowerStroker! What you FAIL TO REALIZE is ObamaCare IS NOT EXTENDING INSURANCE TO PEOPLE! It is mandating that you BUY INSURANCE OR PAY A FINE! The people that choose not to buy insurance and get stuck with the fine still wont have insurance! And if you think the $800 fine they have to pay will cover 2 hours in the emergency room YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! Besides the fine money does not go to the insurance pool! It goes to the government!

Do you realize that the Democrats passed a flawed health care bill, then the same day, within an hour they also passed another bill to change it!? What kind of shit is that PowerStroker? I myself dont do something unless its done right, I get the impression you are the same way! So why can Democrats get away with it? They shouldnt be hacking law in the name of "It's better than nothing".

 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Ok then, we'll just see how enthusiastic the Republicans and insurance companies will be if this part of the bill is actually tested in court. I don't care either way, I got the part of the bill that I wanted (no more refusing people with pre-existing conditions). Now I can just sit back and eat popcorn while you guys have your lawsuits.

Lawsuits can't repeal the whole bill, only strike parts that are unconstitutional. As I said, the only part that may be unconstitutional is the mandate to purchase, which isn't something the Dems care about anyway.

Your best bet is to repeal the entire bill, but that can only be done in congress which would require the Repubicans to make bigger gains in the midterms than have ever been made in our countries history.

Good luck with that :)

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

PowerStroker I have never said there werent some good parts in the bill. Taking the good with the bad is one thing, losing my freedom of choice is another.

I am sorry PowerStroker... This is just the tip of the iceburg with these clowns. Next thing you know they will make a mandate to have the flu shot. Next will be a mandate to require all Americans to purchase something else, or be fined.

It is like a chunk of cheese on a mouse trap. Sure the cheese is a good part, but how about the spring loaded trap that will come down on you?

All of these GOOD things could have been made into law without all the kickbacks and mandates. There were MANY other ways to go about this.

If you give Government a cookie, they will be back for a glass of milk. Mark my words friend!

-- Edited by SELLC on Tuesday 23rd of March 2010 03:36:30 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

SELLC wrote:


POWERSTROKER I want to see some PROOF of your claims above! It was not the Republicans whom voted for this bill, and it was not the Republicans who wanted the mandate! Get a grip already! The Republicans are the ones fighting to have it shot down!

Already 13 states have filed suit and 14 more including MICHIGAN are on the way! The idea of charging someone a fine for not purchasing a product or service is WRONG!



Here is your proof then Rex, read carefully:

Health bill included big Republican idea: individual mandate
McClatchy Newspapers 
 AP  Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announces at a news conference that he has filed a lawsuit against 

The lawsuit against the health care overhaul filed Tuesday by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is focused on a provision that has long been advocated by conservatives, big business and the insurance industry.

The lawsuit by McCollum, a candidate for governor, and 12 other attorneys general, focuses on the provision that virtually all Americans will need to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

The lawsuit calls this an "unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals." It states the Constitution doesn't authorize such a mandate, the proposed tax penalty is unlawful and is an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states."

"The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick , president of the South Florida Hospital and Health care Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain , a conservative Republican from Arizona , to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.

McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson , secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush .

Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008 , Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance."

Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney , who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."

Romney was referring to the federal law that requires everyone to be treated in emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay.

During his presidential election campaign, Barack Obama was opposed to an individual mandate, preferring instead strong requirements that employers be required to provide coverage. "I'm not sure how ready the country is politically to accept the overall mandate," Irwin Redlener , a Columbia University physician and adviser to Obama, told The Miami Herald during the campaign.

Still, the concept was gathering a strong momentum. The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of America's largest companies, supported it in the summer of 2008, thinking it much better than a broad requirement to force businesses of all sizes to offer coverage something that could increase business costs and make them less competitive.

Others joined the bandwagon, including the liberal Service Employees International Union and the Commonwealth Fund , a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies American health care problems.

In November 2008 , just days after Obama's landslide victory, America's Health Insurance Plans , a trade group, made a stunning announcement, saying it favored universal coverage and supported a law that would stop insurers from rejecting applicants because of preexisting conditions.

"Universal coverage is within reach," the group said in a historic press release.

After being adamantly opposed to reform during the Clinton years, AHIP said it had changed its mind based on one condition: Any reform plan had to require that all individuals have insurance or pay stiff penalties.

AHIP's reasoning was simple: Many of the uninsured are healthy and under age 35. They either have jobs that don't offer insurance or they didn't pay for insurance because they were certain they wouldn't get sick.

Having this group in an insurance pool spreads risk. Without an individual mandate requiring them to get insurance, Americans could wait until they got sick and then sign up for insurance a trend that would mean only sick people would be paying premiums while running up huge bills. In this scenario, healthy people would have no need to buy insurance a financially disastrous situation for insurance companies.

The Obama administration saw that the mandate was the only way to get a reform package passed and it became a foundation of the legislation, along with subsidies for those who couldn't afford coverage.

On Monday, the day after it was passed, McCollum was ready with a press release: "The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty."

Read more of this story at MiamiHerald.com

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Experts say heath care lawsuits don't stand a chance



__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

The Obama administration saw that the mandate was the only way to get a reform package passed and it became a foundation of the legislation, along with subsidies for those who couldn't afford coverage.

On Monday, the day after it was passed, McCollum was ready with a press release: "The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty."



PowerStroker you know that entire article is BULLSHIT! Just because someone writes a story and takes another persons words out of context does not make it true!

I have highlighted above in RED that statement that PROVES this article is BS. Obama did not have to include the mandate! Obama did not get ONE REPUBLICAN vote for this flawed healthcare bill! NOT ONE! 

In no way shape or form can you pin this on the Republicans! This sham of a heathcare bill can only be pinned to the tails of the donkey (Democrats). 

30 some Democrats voted "NAY" for this bill. ZERO Republicans voted "YAY" for this bill.

Your claims are BS and you should stop posting outright lies!

THE DEMOCRATS ADDED THE MANDATE FOR THEIR OWN REASONS! NOT FOR THE REPUBLICANS! THE DEMOCRATS NEVER HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE REPUBLICANS FOR ANY OF THIS BILL! THIS BILL IS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SINGLE REPUBLICAN! NOT ONE!!!!!

STOP LYING! 

 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

I don't disagree with your accounting of how the votes were tallied, I'm only stating the Democrat preference was an Employer Mandate, but that was changed to the Individual mandate early in the process back when we thought Republicans were actually negotiating in good faith. How silly of us :)

It makes sense why the Republicans would have wanted the individual mandate... Aren't the Republicans the ones always talking about "personal responsibility?" Well, here you go Rex, now you are personally responsible for getting coverage otherwise you will owe an extra $800 on your income taxes. But if it makes you feel better, the Republicans did succeed in preventing you (As an employer) from being required to provide insurance to your employees. Congratulations!!!



__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

I just love how the Democrats consider negotiating a usable term when they held the majority at that time. I guess locking the Republicans out of the offices was the Democrats way of negotiating huh?

Personal responsibility and MANDATE are two diffrent things. Just like Extend and PROVIDE are two diffrent things.

Perhaps I should extend you a Steak dinner PowerStroker... However I will reguire that you PURCHASE it from me or pay a fine. If you decide not to purchase my Steak dinner that is fine, but you must pay a FINE, plus you dont get the Steak... Sound like a winner to you PowerStroker? Because I am all for it!

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Well, I've got to eat anyway, I may as well pay for it.

And yes, the Dems were looking for a bipartisan compromise for a year.  When it became evident the Repubicans were just pretending for the sake of dragging out the process, that's when Obama bent you guys over and shoved the broom handle up your collective asses.

Next time play nice and he won't have to discipline you. 

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Thursday 25th of March 2010 11:50:28 PM

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

Well that is great PowerStroker! But since you can afford to pay for your steak dinner the government feels you should also buy 10 more steak dinners for people who otherwise might have to eat Taco Bell. The total you must pay is $280 for that steak dinner! Enjoy your ObamaSteak!

Obama did not shove a broom handle up any Republicans ass. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you might lose the stick up your own ass. What Obama did was screw all you Democrars! Republicans are aware that Obama is not doing his job up to par, thats why he didnt get so much as ONE vote from the Republicans, yet we got 32 votes from your side! I guess when November rolls around you will have at least 32 of your brother Democrats that might still have a chance. 

The only people in line for discipline are Democrats come this November. Americans are not going to tolerate Obama's bait and switch game.

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

I enjoy our little talks Rex

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Yahoo! News
Brought to you by Yahoo! Finance

New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea

AP
Mitt RomneyAP  Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney acknowledging the crowd before speaking at the Chase Auditorium 

WASHINGTON Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Romney's success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

"Hillary Clinton believed strongly in universal coverage," said Neera Tanden, her top health care adviser in the 2008 Democratic campaign. "I said to her, 'You are not going to be able to say it's universal coverage unless you have a mandate.' She said, 'I don't want to run unless it's universal coverage.'"

Obama was not prepared to go that far. His health care proposal in the campaign required coverage for children, not adults. Clinton hammered him because his plan didn't guarantee coverage for all. He shot back that health insurance is too expensive to force people to buy it.

Obama remained cool to an individual requirement even once in office. But Tanden, who went on to serve in the Obama administration, said the first sign of a shift came in a letter to congressional leaders last summer in which Obama said he'd be open to the idea if it included a hardship waiver. Obama openly endorsed a mandate in his speech to a joint session of Congress in September.

It remains one of the most unpopular parts of his plan. Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products and providing subsidies worth billions insurers don't think the penalties are high enough.

Tanden, now at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says she's confident the mandate will work. In Massachusetts, coverage has gone up and only a tiny fraction of residents have been hit with fines.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama's plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal overreach on a matter that should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker.

"In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care," Brown said.



__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

 

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR,

Such an American name!

People can write whatever they wish now days. It is called free speech. One thing you or your buddy Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar can not argue with is FACTS. The FACT still remains that-

NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THIS HEALTHCARE LAW


-- Edited by SELLC on Saturday 27th of March 2010 01:50:35 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

But you got what you guys wanted anyway!!!


Careful what you wish for.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

SELLC wrote:
 

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR,

Such an American name!



 Actually Hispanics will be the American majority in our lifetime Rex



__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

Maybe in California, Texas and Florida.... Most of them here illegally, having kids that folks like you will be paying for. I myself am going to be downsizing even more, taking time to smell the roses leaving people like you to carry more of the load. In the end the middle class will be gone, taxed out of existence.

Besides, once Obama bankrupts the nation and we have no more free rides for them, they will all go back home. Same is true when the next world war breaks out, you will see these scabs running for the border to avoid having to sacrifice for the good of our nation.

I bet you thought your remark would piss me off didnt you? Sorry to bust your bubble PowerStroker, but the only people who will suffer are people like yourself who are not self made, living pay-check to pay-check one disaster away from losing it all.

So while you live upside down, just remember there are folks who arent. Ill let these overachievers make their money that wont be worth the paper its printed on; just like I watched many people over-finance their homes and live high on the hog for many years. It brings me pleasure watching these people pay the piper. Most of them stressed to the max, on drugs and drinking heavily. Meanwhile I just continue to do ONLY the bare minimum that is needed to survive and stay out of debt. 

Oh how I look forward to these people that are living here becoming a majority in my lifetime! Were about due for another World War soon. Maybe it will be them who shed the blood for a nation this time around?


 

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

But you got what you guys wanted anyway!!!


Careful what you wish for.




We always get what we want PowerStroker, but we will let YOU take the credit for it this time buddy!


__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Well Rex you're not going to believe this... I'm a little surprised myself as I just found out.  There is  NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM in the language for the Individual Mandate aspect of the new Healthcare law.  In fact it actually states the secretary shall NOT penalize people who refuse to purchase health insurance and fail to pay the fine.  It's probably the only non-enforceable part of our entire tax code. 

Holy Balz Batman!!!  It really is a perfect law - unless you own stock in a for profit health insurance company.


Even the Right wing blogs are starting to figure it out:
______________________________________________________________________

View from the Right
The passing scene and what it's about viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect Right.


What the absence of an enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate may mean

Is it a simple foul-up, or part of a conspiracy of devilish complexity?

(Comments begin here.)

Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse is just as puzzled as I am by the news that there is no enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate in the health care "law." She raises the interesting possibility that this omission was a deliberate move aimed at destroying the insurance companies, and thus pushing the country into a single payer system. I explain her underlying reasoning as follows. The individual mandate is needed to make everyone buy insurance, which will give the insurance companies the funds to pay for the health care costs of the people with pre-existing conditions whom the companies are required under our new national dictatorial fiat (a.k.a. "law") to cover. But if there is no enforcement mechanism for the mandate, then young and healthy people, knowing that they can buy health insurance as soon as they get sick, will not buy health insurance, and the insurance companies will lack the premium payments from healthy people to enable the companies to pay for the costs of unhealthy people. The insurance companies would thus be transformed from a risk pool (correction: under the health care "law" an insurance company is no longer a risk pool but a fully state-controlled instrumentality for the coercive transfer of funds from healthy to unhealthy people) into a fountain without a water source (i.e., an instrumentality forced by the state to transfer all its existing funds to unhealthy people while it is deprived of income to cover these payments). The fountain will soon run dry, the insurance companies will close their doors, and in response to the resulting national emergency the government will take over health care.

Unfortunately, the scenario I've outlined will occur even if the "law" has an enforcement mechanism, as Althouse herself acknowledges (and as was also explained by Kristor in an earlier VFR post), since the low amount of the penalty will make it preferable for healthy individuals to pay the penalty than to buy insurance. Why, then, the absence of the penalty? Was it just carelessness on the part of the "lawmakers," or was there a purpose behind it? As I speculated the other day, the seeming flaw in the bill may be part of a deviously clever plan to ensure that the mandate--the most constitutionally objectionable aspect of the "law"--passes constitutional muster. If the mandate has no enforcement mechanism, the Supreme Court will see the mandate as being null and void, which would mean that the mandate does not give Congress unconstitutional powers, which would mean that the state attorney generals' suit against the individual mandate will fail, which would mean that only way to stop Obamacare would be by congressional repeal, which will be much more difficult to achieve than a simple Supreme Court decision finding the law unconstitutional.

However, even if the Court did find the mandate unconstitutional, that would not prevent Obamacare from fulfilling its true purpose. As I've indicated, whether or not the mandate has an enforcement mechanism, Obamacare will drive the insurance companies out of business. Why, then, was the individual mandate to purchase health insurance included in the "law" at all? Answer: it had to be included in order to make people believe that the system to be created by Obamacare would be sustainable, whereas in reality the true purpose of Obamacare was not to create a new system of government-controlled private insurance companies, but to destroy the private insurance companies and force the country into a single payer system. The individual mandate was a false front to make Obamacare's more naive supporters believe it was viable, and to distract Obamacare's opponents with the idea that Obamacare had a constitutional vulnerability whereby it could be killed. By leaving out the enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate, the "lawmakers" ensured that the bill will survive long enough to fulfill its purpose, which is to rid America of private health insurance.



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Friday 2nd of April 2010 06:04:37 PM

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

Oh sure... The 15,000 new IRS dudes are now donating their time?

What kind of BS are you on today PowerStroker?

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

That myth about 15000 more irs agents is only a myth. There are only 16000 agents total right now. making 1 change in the tax code doesn't require doubling the IRS agent force


__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

We will see about that...

If it doesnt work like you say, it's your guys fault! We knew it was bullshit all along.

And that article you added looks like a bunch of fabricated left wing journalisim. Nothing but what appears to be hear-say.

How about Obama sending out every American their new insurance contract like the private companies have to? That way we can ALL develop our own conclusions as to what can or will happen. Why should we all believe this persons conclusions?

-- Edited by SELLC on Friday 2nd of April 2010 06:15:38 PM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

This very well could lead to the demise of all sleazy for -profit health insurance companies and everyone being added to Medicare and paid for by our tax dollars as you previously suggested would be a good idea Rex.

Looks like Obama was playing Chess while your side was playing Checkers. biggrin 

how's it feel to get PWNED again, but in such a way that we may all be better for it?


-- Edited by PowerStroker on Friday 2nd of April 2010 06:21:22 PM

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

SELLC wrote:


How about Obama sending out every American their new insurance contract like the private companies have to? That way we can ALL develop our own conclusions as to what can or will happen. Why should we all believe this persons conclusions?




 If there were a public option, then those who choose it would have gotten information on their coverage.  Since that provision was stripped from the law prior to passage you will continue to deal with your current company.  In all likelihood your company will send you something in the mail explaining how the new law affects your coverage.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that persons conclusions.  I just wanted to see what the right was saying about this.

I'm just curious what your feelings are now that you face no penalty for not buying insurance?



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Friday 2nd of April 2010 06:53:20 PM

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

I thought I was clear on my feelings, but Ill say it again...

I dont effing beleive it!

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

What part don't you believe?

That it's actually law now?

That there is no enforcement of mandate to purchase insurance?

That Obama plays Chess when Republicans play Checkers?

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

Alex, Ill take "What is all of the above" for $500 please.



The American people are not so stupid they can't tell the difference between the men on the chess board and the chess players that are directing them.


__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Rex, please watch this in it's entirety, it's very relevant to this discussion:



__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

I'm wondering what your thoughts are about that^^^^^ Rex

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

Okay, so I allowed that dude to shrink my brain for 5 and a half minutes.

His claims sound pretty certian. Time will tell, and if I am wrong about healthcare I'll be the first to admit it. Right now I think that guy is full of $hit. If he is wrong the video link will cease to exist like many others I go looking for that have all but vanished.

I think there is still many changes set to take place, you cant say that what he quotes and what will be are one in the same. Hearing that guy go on is a lot like someone trying to tell you a snow is black. His statements about Republicans trying to scare people showed his bias. Then again he is working for MSNBC, and we all know Bill Gates doesnt want to see Microsoft turn into the dinner roll.

We will see PowerStroker. If you end up being wrong, will YOU admit it?


__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

Oh yeah... Thats right PowerStroker... If your wrong were all just fucked. If I am wrong we will be given a free ride for nothing...

Oh my, once more I hope I am wrong!

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Yeah, If i'm wrong i'll admit it. Problem is you'll have to remind me because this all doesn't really go into effect for about 4 more years.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

PowerStroker I am pretty sure that when all this takes effect there will be no need to remind you. It will either be a huge success or people are going to be pissed. Either way it's not a good sign if Obama is hessitant to implement it until well after his re-election. From listening to your guy above he makes it sound like were ready now. Dont you agree?

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Some of the new regulations go in to effect this year ie: children can't be denied coverage ect. It will still take a while to set up the insurance exchange where people can go to a single website and have several insurance companies competing for their business and selling policies that meat a minimum coverage level and have government oversight to prevent abuses.

One of the main reasons it doesn't take effect immediately is because the bill is revenue neutral and thus can't start paying out subsidies untill it has the funding to do so. The funding for innitial start up is budgeted over a 10 year plan and it will take about 4 before we will have enough and can start using it.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

If they are not enforcing fines where is this money coming from? confuse

If they did enforce fines, or gawd forbid someone actually paid it, what would this fine money be spent on? Some how this hopey-changy thing isn't working for me. Perhaps I should just vote Republican this November and see how all the chips fall. Regardless what you say PowerStroker, there is a mandate in this new law and several plans to change it. Bassed on the Democrats track record of raming things thru I would wager to say most people feel it was an incomplete job and should be sent back and graded accordingly. Sort of like me not taking the time to spell check.

 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Most of the money is already being spent by the government - badly... Things like Medicare part D for example which was nothing more than a Republican sloppy wet kiss to the insurance companies in the form of taxpayer dollars being spent on having private companies administer Medicare and act as a very expensive middle man. There are also changes to the corporate tax code that will penalize large corporations who don't provide health insurance to their employees causing them to mooch off of state tax dollars (Wal Mart). Surely most people don't know the mandate isn't enforceable, so they will just pay the fine without a second thought which will also generate an income stream for the government to pay subsidies.

These are some of the ways the program will be self-supporting, but thats not all the new law does. It will also decrease the cost of insurance in the long term both for individuals and the government by implementing some common sense rules and coverage minimums like preventative care and routine checkups which will allow doctors to diagnose and treat conditions early before they worsen and become exponentially more expensive to deal with.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

LOL, you got an answer for everything. What flavor is the Kool-Aid this week? I been busy and havent been able to keep up with the Hollywood.... Er... I mean Washington players lately.

There is a reason it's Medicate part "D"emocrat. You guys couldnt even get it right in parts A-C so whats the big fuss?

Hey PowerStroker... How do you feel about NAFTA?

-- Edited by SELLC on Sunday 11th of April 2010 12:01:52 AM

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Nafta sucks but it's not the first trade program I'd axe. I'd rather walk away from GATT and the WTO first. Nafta mostly deals with our neighbors Canada and Mexico. Canada is a perfect trading partner because they have high standards for environmental protection and worker safety ect. Mexico is not as great a trading partner, but if we don't trade with them they will make money other ways ie:drug trafficking which costs us more in tax dollars to deal with anyway.

GATT and WTO on the other hand have allowed China to rape us. I hope President Obama walks away from those treaties, though it wont likely happen till his second term.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

What second term?



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Your side had better come up with a worthy challenger then. I have yet to see one from your team who could beat Obama in a debate.

__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

It will be interesting to see how Obama runs for re-election. If he tries to use the same rhetoric as his did last time he will look more like a Masterbaiter than a mastor debator.

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6263
Date:

Foes of health care law lose key court ruling

By ED WHITE, Associated Press Writer Ed White, Associated Press Writer 12 mins ago
DETROIT A federal judge on Thursday upheld the authority of the federal government to require everyone to have health insurance, dealing a setback to groups seeking to block the new national health care plan.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution's commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade.

But Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.

"Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times," the judge said.

"As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it," Steeh said. "In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums."

Julian Davis Mortenson, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, said the decision affects only the parties in the lawsuit and is not binding on any other federal judges hearing challenges to the law.

Nonetheless, the Justice Department hailed Steeh's opinion as the first time a "court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law."

"The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system," spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation."

Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which filed the case, said he would take it to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati.

The four individual plaintiffs said they do not have private insurance and object to being forced to buy it. They also fear that any financial penalty paid to the government would be used to pay for abortions.

In Florida, a federal judge is overseeing a lawsuit filed by 20 states. They, too, say the law is unconstitutional and claim it would force states to absorb higher Medicaid costs.

A decision on whether to dismiss the case is expected by Oct. 14, though the judge said last month that he would probably dismiss only parts of the complaint while letting others go to trial.

There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia.

Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said Steeh's ruling could be cited by lawyers trying to persuade other judges.

"This is one judge's opinion. They'll read it," Barnett said. Steeh "accepted the government's argument, the same argument that's being made in front of other judges."


__________________

ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 15908
Date:

It is unfortunate that the Judge felt the way that he did. I wonder if deep down inside he knew it was wrong, but didn't want to be the first one to rock the boat. It is unfortunate things like this, where as this forcing of people to purchase insurance is clearly a violation of everyones constitutional right to make a choice. It is the first time in history the government is forcing every American to purchase something.

The fact that this Judge is a Michigan judge does reflect poorly on our State, and I am very frustrated to hear this. I sure hope the law firm in Ann Arbor Michigan will see this one thru to the Supreme court and have this Judge's ruling overturned.

I hate having to diss a noble effort like heathcare reform. I feel heathcare should be funded in diffrent ways and avaliable to ALL PEOPLE. This new law is not going to make people feel better having to worry about all the BS. Basic care should be afforded to every American, and I have already mentioned several ways it could be paid for.

What we have now is for shit. It won't cover people because getting a voucher is much like a hand out, many self respecting Americans will have too much pride to ask for it. The Government will however be more than happy to fine this person. They will need care later down the road and be in the SAME EXACT MESS, but instead they will have fines to the government in addition.

PowerStroker, I shit you not man, this new healthcare law is making me sick the more I hear about it.

__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 

1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard