Don't hold your breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trabitha
People care, but not that much.
Printable View
Don't hold your breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trabitha
People care, but not that much.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/op...ml?ref=opinion
This is one of the most cogently written articles on the subject elevating it above party lines. (It's pretty much how I feel.)
A highlight/conclusion:
" Nobody knows how this bill will work out. It is an undertaking exponentially more complex than the Iraq war, for example. But to me, it feels like the end of something, not the beginning of something. It feels like the noble completion of the great liberal project to build a comprehensive welfare system.
The task ahead is to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin. We know what it will take. We will have to raise a consumption tax. We will have to preserve benefits for the poor and cut them for the middle and upper classes. We will have to invest more in innovation and human capital.
The Democratic Party, as it revealed of itself over the past year, does not seem to be up to that coming challenge (neither is the Republican Party). This country is in the position of a free-spending family careening toward bankruptcy that at the last moment announced that it was giving a gigantic new gift to charity. You admire the act of generosity, but you wish they had sold a few of the Mercedes to pay for it."
Trabitha - I had seen the student lone issue a few months back so I knew it was included in the bill. Or, at least, an earlier version of it. I had heard the intent was to forgive student loans at some point but the language had not been worked out when last I saw anything on it.
With the Senate debate underway there could be any number of changes in the law. Whatever they decide in the Reconciliation Act will be passed on for signature so I'm not too crazy over the details at this juncture because I know they could change.
But they sure took a shot at Sallie Mae and other private providers. I suppose when all is said and done we'll be drinking USA Cola and eating USA Pizza on our USA dinnerware at our USA table and watching the USA News on our USA TV....if they let us.
First - why can't you post without the Democrat/Republican lables. That's not what this is about. Please refrain - as that is where we are crossing the line that we are attempting to delicatly walk in this discussion. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by LostOutrider
Second - Although you did not say it directly, your post insinuated that a particular news source was not accurate. Some of your posts in the past have thrown that same jab, or taken that same tone. Sarge posted a link that said in part:So where is the misleading or inaccurate information? The EO was not signed on Tuesday, and you and I were not privy to the "set no specific date" comment. Furthermore, the same website had these two stories:Quote:
A White House official told Fox, Obama will not sign the Executive Order Tuesday and has set no specific date to do so.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...rder-abortion/
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/...-proclimation/
So where is this misinformation that concerns you?
I don't know that one trumps the other. More like an apples and oranges thing to me. Think about this. If you decide that you do not want to pay for health insurance (how many of us made that decision when we were younger), you do not have that option. To do so will potentially make you a criminal. If you can be forced to buy health insurance, what else can you be forced to buy? If this is such a good plan (I realize that you never said that) why is Congress exempt? Why are the staff members that wrote the legislation exempt? There is so much bad about this law that will adversely affect the lives of so many (IMO) and the economy of this country that I truly have grave concerns. As I've said - this is not about health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Did y'all see that after all the bragging about saving the kids with pre-existing condition, right away...it turns out that they are not covered until 2014?
Oops!
A business plan for health care? http://www.taxdebtrelief-usa.com/
A 10% tax took effect today on tanning salons. Admitedly, I never understood the desire to lay on a bed with a bunch of light bulbs, but there are a lot of people making a living working at those businesses. I wonder if a 10% increase in the cost vanity will cause a decrease in business to the point where people lose their jobs?
I heard some people talking about that tax, on the radio today.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
They kept refering to it, as the tax on white people. LOL:tongue_smilie:
I thought it was pretty funny, but I'm sure that some don't see the humor, like I do. LOL
House Democrats Face Violent Threats After Health Care Vote
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house...ry?id=10193618
We're going to be gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed into law by a president who also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. What on earth could go wrong?
Those tanning beds are much more dangerous (causing melanoma) than just baking in the sun. Most salons also offer other services such as spray-on tans, etc. so I don't believe they'll be going out of business any time soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Perhaps they'll be smart enough to get rid of those cancer nests, reinvent themselves and change their name.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Trans fats
salt
sugar
tanning beds
cigarettes
alcohol
red meat
They're from the government, and they're here to help.:innocent:
They sure are working fast on the new health care reform. I received a letter from the government this afternoon advising me that my employer coverage has been eliminated and I will need to see my new government sponsored physician. I’m a bit skeptical but I have an appointment next month. That’s the soonest the government run plan could get me in. My new plan covers prescriptions for chicken heads?!
I couldn't care less about how people choose to hasten their demise...just don't want to pay for any stays of execution.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Well, if you ever needed a better incentive to stay healthy, this is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
I agree completely, but isn't that what we are doing with the new laws? You cannot legislate morality, but we will all certainly be paying for the adverse results of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BENESSE
Not sure which laws you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
(In general I am vehemently opposed to legislating morality?
Has anyone seen this?
No Obamacare for Obama:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...one-but-obama/
If that's true, it's of no surprise. I knew Congress was exempted but didn't think about the Pres. About par for the course.
In addition to the POTUS and Congress being exempt, so too are the staff members of Congress.
Sounds a little like.... "let them eat cake"!:innocent:Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Beware the ‘jobs killer’
http://www.bostonherald.com/business...ome&position=0
"Gov.Deval Patrick shot back at Timothy Cahill yesterday, saying the state treasurer never warned him about the escalating cost of Massachusetts’ universal health-care program."
http://www.bostonherald.com/business...th-care_costs/
So good to know that the current health care reform law was modeled after Massachusetts. What is is that MA called it? Oh, yeah. Unsustainable.
News: Pres. Signs H-Care Insurance Mandate-212 Years Ago!
A Lesson in American History, Healthcare and the Constitution for 14 State Attorneys General
Let’s begin today’s history lesson with the following news:
(CNN) -- Officials from 14 states have gone to court to block the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, arguing the law's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.
Thirteen of those officials filed suit in a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, minutes after Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The complaint calls the act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.
The history lesson
In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.
This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.
This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”
Perhaps these somewhat incompetent attorneys general might wish to amend their lawsuits to conform to the 1798 precedent, and demand that the mandate and fines be linked to implementing a federal single payer healthcare insurance plan.
The other option is to name Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al. in the lawsuits. However, it might be difficult to convince a judge, or the public, that those men didn't know the limits of the Constitution.
Because the attorneys general research is obviously lacking a comprehensive review of history and the Constitution, I’m providing a copy of the 5th Congress’ 1798 legislation.
CHAP. LXXVII – An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled -
That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship
or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any
port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be
admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the
number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel
since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall
pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every
seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out
of the wages of such seamen.
SEC2. . And be it further enacted, That from and after the first day
of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose
enrolment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a
new enrolment or license before the master of such ship or vessel shall
first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen,
and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or
vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and
pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such
seamen have been severally employed, as aforesaid; which sum the said
master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.
And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is
herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.
SEC3. . And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the
several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sums collected by
them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the Secretary of the Treasury;
and the President of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or
disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established
in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no
such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:
Provided, that the monies collected in any one district, shall be expended
within the same.
SEC. 4. .And be it further enacted, That if any surplus shall remain
of the monies to be collected by virtue of this act, after defraying the
expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together ,
with such private donations as may be made for that purpose (which the
President is hereby authorized to receive) shall be invested in the stock
of the United States, under the direction of the President; and when,
in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby
authorized to purchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or
provision for buildings, in the name of the United States, and to cause buildings,
when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.
SEC5. . And be it further enacted, That the President of the United
States be, and he is hereby authorized to nominate and appoint, in
such ports of the United States, as he may think proper, one or more
persons, to be called directors of the marine hospital of the United
States, whose duty it shall be to direct the expenditure of the fund
assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of this
act; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen,
under such general instructions as shall be given by, the President of
the United States, for that purpose, and also subject to the like general
instructions, to direct and govern such hospitals as the President may
direct to be built in the respective ports: and that the said directors
shall hold their offices during the pleasure of the President, who is
authorized to fill up all vacancies that may be occasioned by the death
or removal of any of the persons so to be appointed. And the said
directors shall render an account of the monies received and expended
by them, once in every quarter of a year, to the Secretary of the Treasury,
or such other person as the President shall direct; but no other
allowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except
the payment of such expenses as they may incur in the actual discharge
of the duties required by this act.
APPROVED July 16, 1798
http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_or...-212_years_ago
Didn't get through the entire thing, however let me make it very clear. What the federal government does with federal employees, (military personnel work for the federal government) can not be used as acceptable treatment of the masses and is in no way an argument FOR fining civilians for not obtaining healthcare.
You're confusing driving a car and auto insurance with health insurance. Let me explain to you the difference between the two:
Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege which is governed by those who license the driver. The regulations are in place, not to protect YOU, but to protect citizens that may be harmed or obtain property damage from your lack of skill.
That's why auto insurance is necessary. When you're driving a car that has a loan on it, the insurance is there to protect the interest of the bank. When you crash into a house or another car, the insurance is there to protect the victim. These measures are reasonable.
When you decide that you do not incur enough medical expenses to warrant purchasing healthcare insurance for yourself, the government does not have the right to tell you're wrong. Healthcare insurance for YOU, does not protect anyone else. This is the land of the free and you are free to succeed or fail and I'm free to watch you fail. If you choose not to protect your financial future that's YOUR choice. When the government makes a YOU problem a ME problem I have every right to be upset about it.
Not so fast, cowboy. Read todays news. Seems in their haste to push this illegal bill through, they broke some rules. Now they have to fix the rules and must vote on it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
ha! You have the boots and hat to match?!
You're correct, but it's the law to protect the other drivers insurance from paying your extensive medical bills when you go flying through the windshield. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
Ah...so you DON'T know what this bill is all about. LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Case
This bill will actually screw insurance companies. Forcing them to take more financial risk than they receive in premiums.
If you get sick and have no insurance, insurance companies don't fail. If you pay for your policy when you're healthy and THEN you get sick, they pay out, but still make a profit. If they accept your risk, knowing you're ill, you do not pay a sufficient premium (or this bill will prevent that from happening) to pay for your draw.
If this bill were to have passed in it's current state our private insurance companies would fail in less than 5 years.
Gotta run though...talk to you in a bit.
I don't know the current status of that Maritime law. It may have been overturned or repealed. It may still be law.
We've seen similar acts regarding health insurance for Native Americans, VA, Medicare, and a host of state laws on mental health. I fail to see the connection to today's legislation.
I'll say it directly - that news article was inaccurate. That is why I posted two accurate links. Deliberate delay of information is misinformation. Other news sources updated with the AP release, that one did not. Perhaps because it turned a positive light on the situation? Surely not. If that makes a cheeseburger out of anyone's sacred cow, then perhaps less faith should be put in media.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Right, which is why the post's original title made certain to point out Democrat-led Congress. From where I'm reading, it is only political when one speaks against the flow here. As long as all the replies to a blatantly one-sided political post are in support, then it is just peachy. I'm not going to get into an argument with a mod, though, so whatever you say boss. I'll just lurk these political . . I mean, non-political threads from now on.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
If it is such a great thing, why won't Obama and Congress be implementing it personally???
Which is why I edited it and had a discussion with the poster. Would you like me to just edit your posts as is needed to keep the politics out of it?Quote:
the post's original title made certain to point out Democrat-led Congress
Quiet on the set.
Queue patriot background music.
And.....take one.
Politicians know what a burden the American taxpayer is strapped with. Increased taxes, a slow economy, and so many Americans out of work. Adding to that burden by asking for America to pay for Congressional health care would be unconscionable....
Cut! Don't they already pay for it? It's just a different program, right?
Maybe we should say we deserve something better.
Uh, no. I don't think that will work either.
Nah, when a mod decides to step into the ring the fight is over. Save the mod-hammer for the next chump.
Uncle.
You've been tricked into believing a lie of the incremental adgenda. They started with cars and driving. Calling it a privilege when it is indeed a right. Just as owning and riding a horse was. You have the right to transport yourself anywhere and in anyway you want. A right is something that someone has to do that has a coresponding responsibilty and inpeeds no one else in its exercise. You have the right to drive, you have the responsibility to do so soberly with care and in order to keep your liability to a reasonable level you'd be doing yourself a favor to be insured. That is how it should be anyway. They took that right and made us all believe it was a privilege. So now the only unregulated and taxed transportation method, for the most part, is walking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trabitha
This Health Care Law is more about controling the People of the United States that insuring us. All that has happened over the past decades about so called health and safety, political correctness, welfare, affirmative action, just about everything out of Washigton is meant more to control us and make us dependent on Washington from cradle to grave. Thus empowering the elected to overlordship of the the governed.