R.I.P.

[Tom]

1. The constitution
2. Freedom in America
3. The morality and integrity of the blue dog dems who sold out their faith and beliefs to a terrorist president making false promises about abortion

All victims of the March Massacre.

This is indeed the saddest day in our recent history.
We have become Venezuela.

[ceejay]

Constitutionally, wouldn't the interstate commerce clause trump the 10th amendment?

[Tom]

Huh?

[ArlJim78]

Yesterday, March 21st 2010, a day that will live in infamy...

[Tom]

One good thing - Bart Stupak will burn in Hell. Deservedly so.

[Leonard]

Constitutionally, wouldn't the interstate commerce clause trump the 10th amendment?

No. Not even close. First we have to understand what the interstate commerce clause is and what it means.

What is it?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; "

What does it mean? Let's look at what the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, had to say about it.

"...A very material object of this power [to regulate commerce] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former…"

Basically, the federal government had the power to prevent/regulate states from taxing goods/services that were passing through one state on its way to another -- interstate commerce. As an example, it would prevent a product originating in Pennsylvania, destined for Virginia, being taxed 10,000% by Maryland simply because passed through Maryland.

That's pretty much it. Nothing more, nothing less. It has been bastardized to the extreme by the federal government in never ending power grabs.

The 10th Amendment is very clear. Only specifically enumerated powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution are the domain of the federal government. Anything else is to remain with the states or the people. If anything, I would say you have it backwards. The 10th Amendment trumps the Interstate Commerce Clause because 1) the Amendments supercede the actual Constitution (the actual Constitution is being changed by the Amendments) and 2) unless specific powers under that Clause are granted to the federal government (they are not in the case of healthcare) those powers are not the domain of the federal governemnt.

[Robert Goren]

I know that people(on both the left and the right) like to throw around the 10th amendment for laws they don't like. I could be wrong (and probably am), but I can not remember it ever being used to declare a law unconstitutional. Maybe someone could actually cite a case.JMO

[BenDiesel26]

Constitutionally, wouldn't the interstate commerce clause trump the 10th amendment?

Only if you think that "regulating" interstate commerce amongst people includes the right of the government to "require" people to partake in a particular type of interstate commerce. If you do believe this, then you also believe that it is OK for the government to require that all Americans buy a Chevrolet vehicle or be fined, or any other product produced by a private industry. That in a nutshell is the equivalent of what they are doing.

[46zilzal]

1. The constitution
2. Freedom in America
3. The morality and integrity of the blue dog dems who sold out their faith and beliefs to a terrorist president making false promises about abortion

All victims of the March Massacre.

This is indeed the saddest day in our recent history.
We have become Venezuela.
This is ridiculous as it is about saving lives not killing more like the debacle of Iraq.

[Tom]

No it is not, 46.
Is not about HC at all.

[Robert Goren]

Yes it is, if it wasn't the people who opposed this would have done something about all the problems long ago. It is all about a bunch of rich people who have health care and don't want to share. It is to bad that so many people fell for the trash the health care insurance companies have putting out. Every major power in the world has a government run health system far more extensive than this. You have to go some real backwater third world country to find something like we had up to yesterday.

[rastajenk]

Name one.

[Marshall Bennett]

A new war is underway .

[hazzardm]

One good thing - Bart Stupak will burn in Hell. Deservedly so.


Do you think the sodomizing priests and preachers will save some room for him?

[rastajenk]

I don't think that would be their call.

[Robert Goren]

Name one.UK, France , Canada, Russia, China. The list goes on and on. Name one one that doesn't.

[BenDiesel26]

Yes it is, if it wasn't the people who opposed this would have done something about all the problems long ago. It is all about a bunch of rich people who have health care and don't want to share. It is to bad that so many people fell for the trash the health care insurance companies have putting out. Every major power in the world has a government run health system far more extensive than this. You have to go some real backwater third world country to find something like we had up to yesterday.

I'm not rich at all Rob, and I have awesome health care and dental insurance, as well as optical. Going to have to throw the bullshit flag on that statement. When sick, I've never had a problem getting into the doctor THAT DAY under my insurance. And I think the most I payed out of pocket was $75, which goes to zero once you meet your deductible.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... It is all about a bunch of rich people who have health care and don't want to share...

I am living, dying proof that this declaration is hogwash.

[ArlJim78]

Yes it is, if it wasn't the people who opposed this would have done something about all the problems long ago. It is all about a bunch of rich people who have health care and don't want to share. It is to bad that so many people fell for the trash the health care insurance companies have putting out. Every major power in the world has a government run health system far more extensive than this. You have to go some real backwater third world country to find something like we had up to yesterday.
it's statements like this that make it hard to take anything you say seriously.
you are comparing our current healthcare to a backwater third world nation?

[Leonard]

I know that people(on both the left and the right) like to throw around the 10th amendment for laws they don't like. I could be wrong (and probably am), but I can not remember it ever being used to declare a law unconstitutional. Maybe someone could actually cite a case.JMO

It is used mainly in regulatory proceedings by states but here are a few where fed laws were overturned as unconstitutional in actual court cases -

Printz v United States
New York v United States (92)505 U.S. 144
Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida
United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549

[DJofSD]

A new war is underway .
So, when does the shooting start and where?

[Robert Goren]

I'm not rich at all Rob, and I have awesome health care and dental insurance, as well as optical. Going to have to throw the bullshit flag on that statement. When sick, I've never had a problem getting into the doctor THAT DAY under my insurance. And I think the most I payed out of pocket was $75, which goes to zero once you meet your deductible. You certainly have had a better experience than I had with a health insurance company or maybe you haven't a bill large enough for them to take notice. I never a had problem either until I spent a month in the hospital and the bills started pushing 250k. Then things changed in a hurry in a big way.

[Robert Goren]

It is used mainly in regulatory proceedings by states but here are a few where fed laws were overturned as unconstitutional in actual court cases -

Printz v United States
New York v United States (92)505 U.S. 144
Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida
United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549Thank you.

[Leonard]

[QUOTE=Robert Goren]It is all about a bunch of rich people who have health care and don't want to share. QUOTE]

I have to agree with this statement, even though I am by no means rich.

I am a responsible adult. I have a job and I have health insurance. I have a family and I have made sure that my family too is covered by health insurance. I have lived up to my personal and familial responsibilities and have taken care of those I wish to take care of in the manner I believe I should take care of them.

Everyone else? Maybe they should exercise a little personal responsibility as well. No, I do not want to "share" what I work for. I work for my money. You do not work for my money and neither does anyone else.

[Tom]

Do you think the sodomizing priests and preachers will save some room for him?

What does that have to do with anything?
That the best you can come up with?

[Tom]

So, when does the shooting start and where?
The Queen Bitch Slaughter had a brick thrown through her office window, and the local democrat headquarters had the same thing. Unfortunately, no one was hurt.

[Secretariat]

1. The constitution
2. Freedom in America
3. The morality and integrity of the blue dog dems who sold out their faith and beliefs to a terrorist president making false promises about abortion

All victims of the March Massacre.

This is indeed the saddest day in our recent history.
We have become Venezuela.

Tom,

I never pegged you for a whiner, but this is absurd. "The saddest day in recent history". What the heck was 9-11? Put it in perspective man. Good lord.

The constitution? For crying out loud. The genral welfare clause of the Constitution has already passed the Supreme Court for Social Security and Medicare as being constitutional. This is not even close to a constitutional issue and will doubtfully ven be heard by the court despite the activist judges appointed by Bush.

Freedom in America? Hey guess what Tom. You're still free. You can actually select any insurance company you want. Are you that brainwashed you bought that fear tool?

A terrorist president? My God Tom. I think you have Obama mixed up with Osama. Perhaps you did not realize there is a letter difference in the first name. This kind of vitriole illustrates the insanity of the far right nutcases. Hopefully, you've not lost it so much you're a dittohead of the wingnuts and birther idiots.

Bluedogs sold out their faith? Actually, Tom it took tremendous courage for a blue dog to vote for this bill because most blue dogs are from conservative or centrist districts. It would have been much easier for their elections to simply apply a fiscal argument and say the bill is too costly, but they voted their conscience.

As for Stupak, there is nothing in this bill that overrode the Hyde amendment and there never was. If Obama were to issue an executive order it'd simply duplicate something already as part of the law of the land.

The saddest day in recent history? Tom, you dishonor the memory of those victims of 9-11 when you equate the simple passing of a pretty centrist health care bill designed to protect people with limited funds for health care, with those for pre-existing conditions, to prevent insurance companies from kicking people off the roles when they get sick.

With that said Tom, I agree on one thing. I'm not jumping up and down the bill was passed. It doesn't remotely go far enough such as single payer, or a public option woud have done. It's fairly lukewarm and not nearly far enough.

The saddest day in recent history? Venezuela? Tom, maybe I'm wrong and you're just being satiric. I hope so. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Robert Goren]

[QUOTE=Robert Goren]It is all about a bunch of rich people who have health care and don't want to share. QUOTE]

I have to agree with this statement, even though I am by no means rich.

I am a responsible adult. I have a job and I have health insurance. I have a family and I have made sure that my family too is covered by health insurance. I have lived up to my personal and familial responsibilities and have taken care of those I wish to take care of in the manner I believe I should take care of them.

Everyone else? Maybe they should exercise a little personal responsibility as well. No, I do not want to "share" what I work for. I work for my money. You do not work for my money and neither does anyone else. Just wait til you get hit by a bill for more than you will make in the next 15 years before taxes and your insurance company not only decides not to pay, but pressures your boss to fire you. This is going on while you are doing dialysis three times a week and still trying to work. That what happened to me. I try to live up to my responsibilities, I just wish the insurance company would have lived up to theirs.

[boxcar]

Yes it is, if it wasn't the people who opposed this would have done something about all the problems long ago. It is all about a bunch of rich people who have health care and don't want to share. It is to bad that so many people fell for the trash the health care insurance companies have putting out. Every major power in the world has a government run health system far more extensive than this. You have to go some real backwater third world country to find something like we had up to yesterday.

"Every major power"? :rolleyes: You mean the "civilized" world. Socialist countries have second rate economies, at best. Canada, for example, is going to experience (or may be already) an 8% tax increase. Nothing like building prosperity and a robust economy with fewer of the people's dollars. :rolleyes:

Goren, if "backwater third world" have just as good health care as we do, why do so many fly here to get care!? How many Iraqis (now that's third world!) were flown here to receive medical treatment since the war started?

Boxcar

[Tom]

A terrorist president? My God Tom. I think you have Obama mixed up with Osama.

The only difference is that Obama has the potential to do far more harm than Osama does.

[Secretariat]

[QUOTE=Robert Goren]It is all about a bunch of rich people who have health care and don't want to share. QUOTE]

I have to agree with this statement, even though I am by no means rich.

I am a responsible adult. I have a job and I have health insurance. I have a family and I have made sure that my family too is covered by health insurance. I have lived up to my personal and familial responsibilities and have taken care of those I wish to take care of in the manner I believe I should take care of them.

Everyone else? Maybe they should exercise a little personal responsibility as well. No, I do not want to "share" what I work for. I work for my money. You do not work for my money and neither does anyone else.

What if you were to lose your job? What if you were to develop cancer and your insurance company dropped you from their roles? What if your child was unable to get health insurance when they could no longer be covered under your plan? What if more and more people kept losing their insurance do to skyrocketing premiums until your premium was so high you could no longer afford it? Those are just some of the questions related to the "you" syndrome. Now what about "others" What about the child through no fault of his own develops leukemia and his parents are out of work? What about the healthy child whose hard working father develops parkinsons and whose insurance dropps his from their rolls? What about the young girl who is raped and becomes pregnant to a man who gave her AIDS, and is too old to be covered by her family's plan?

Leonard, you have tunnel vision directed towards the "me". Lots of "I's" in your paragraph. Be careful, at some time you may be surprised that at some time you may be a part of the "others."

.................................................. .................................................

``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''

``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.

``It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''

[NJ Stinks]

I was going to bring up Medicare and Social Security not being overturned by the Supreme Court too, Secretariat. :ThmbUp:

[BenDiesel26]

Tom,
Freedom in America? Hey guess what Tom. You're still free. You can actually select any insurance company you want. Are you that brainwashed you bought that fear tool?


1. What about people who have no problem paying out of pocket and incur no expenses on the taxpayer? Are they free to continue doing what they are doing and choose not to buy insurance? Will they be fined despite their non-existent health care cost because they didn't do what the government ordered them to do and buy an insurance plan?

2. You can select any insurance company you want? I suppose, but only if the plan is approved by the IRS.

NJ Stinks, don't forget to bring up how they are bankrupting the country by themselves as well.

[lsbets]

I was going to bring up Medicare and Social Security not being overturned by the Supreme Court too, Secretariat. :ThmbUp:

Neither one is anything like the federal government mandating that a private citizen spend his or her money in a certain way or face penalties or jail time. I know you like the idea of government run health care, but this has little to do with that. This is tyranny plain and simple. It is 219 house members going way past the Constitutional power granted to it. If you support them in this, you support tyranny. The oath I took was defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The bunch in charge are enemies of the Constitution and enemies of freedom, and they need to be removed from power.

And to those of you who think the insurance companies were against the Senate bill - man you guys are dumb. 31 million new customers who have to do business with you or go to jail. Yeah, they're against it. You guys are fools falling for the line of bull. I know you don't like being called fools and you are rather sensitive to it, but I can't think of a better description. If I hurt your feelings, sorry, maybe the government will mandate I be nice to you in the future.

[Secretariat]

1. What about people who have no problem paying out of pocket and incur no expenses on the taxpayer? Are they free to continue doing what they are doing and choose not to buy insurance? Will they be fined despite their non-existent health care cost because they didn't do what the government ordered them to do and buy an insurance plan?

Wow, there are so many people who "choose" not to have health care in the event of catastrophic illness. I certainly choose not to have my taxpayer funds go to a bogus war in Iraq, but am I free to choose not to have my taxes go to it. No I'm not. So has freedom died because of that? Of course not. If I go over the speed limit is my freedom threatened because I can't go as fast as I choose on the interstate. Hey, I may choose to do go over the speed limit, but I'll be fined because it threatens the safety of everyone on the road if I violate the speed. If I choose NOT to pay for health care, most likely at some point I'll end up in the emergency room, and passing those health care costs onto the rest of us who paid for insurance. So, yeah, you'll be fined so it brings down those costs on society, just as fining speeders attempts to bring down accidents. Gotta tell you, the amount of people choosing not to buy health care vs the ones who'd like to have health care but simply can't afford it - isn't even close.

2. You can select any insurance company you want? I suppose, but only if the plan is approved by the IRS.


Yes you can. I don't think the IRS is approving the insurance company, however right now there are state regulators who already require specific regulatory and licensing requirements of any insurance you already have.


NJ Stinks, don't forget to bring up how they are bankrupting the country by themselves as well.

Bankrupting the country? You mean when Bushco and the Republican Congress passed a Medicare prescription drug plan that had no increased revenues to pay for the cost - in fact actually cutting taxes while increasing the budget at the same time?

[Secretariat]

Neither one is anything like the federal government mandating that a private citizen spend his or her money in a certain way or face penalties or jail time.

Try not paying your social security or medicare taxes. That is your private money. You'll eventually face penalties or jail time.

[boxcar]

Tom,

I never pegged you for a whiner, but this is absurd. "The saddest day in recent history". What the heck was 9-11? Put it in perspective man. Good lord.

Bad analogy which also betrays how superficial you really are. Tom is spot on. 9-11, as tragic as that was, was "merely" a physical attack that took human lives from which it is easier to recover over time, as most of us are capable of doing when we lose loved ones. But with this Marxist in office, while he is launching an all-out assault on our lives also, it differs in that it's an attack on our WAY of LIFE -- on capitalism, on freedom on individual liberties. And as if this isn't bad enough, in the process, he's promoting and encouraging wickedness and destructive human behavior, among his supporters with his ongoing class warfare that can only produce, envy, jealousy, slothfulness, hate -- and all this comes at the high price of low self-esteem, little or no self-worth, little or no self-actualization goals or personal growth and maturity due to constant dependence upon others. From all these tragic and destructive consequences, America may never recover from all this Marxist-oriented public policy because it impacts more than just the loss of physical lives -- it affects us to the very core of our beings -- our souls. Healing may never happen from this kind of sickness.

BO promised his supporters that he would "fundamentally transform the face of America". He's starting to make good on that promise, which can only be bad for freedom-loving Americans. Of course, for socialists, Marxists and others of your ilk, this would be great news. The "progressives" are regressing this great country to a third worldish, banana republic. Maybe a year or two from now, in order to save the planet, we'll all be dining by candlelight -- not by our choice either. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Bad analogy which also betrays how superficial you really are. Tom is spot on. 9-11, as tragic as that was, was "merely" a physical attack that took human lives from which it is easier to recover over time, as most of us are capable of doing when we lose loved ones. ...

Whew...you got me. I'm actually speechless. According to you, Tom and the wingnuts, 9-11 is now trumped by a centrist health care plan. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[46zilzal]

The way of life is eclectic as isits perception.....There is no ONE way of life

[46zilzal]

Neither one is anything like the federal government mandating that a private citizen spend his or her money in a certain way or face penalties or jail time.
Agreed the penalties are not a good idea.

[horses4courses]

Fascinates me how all these god-fearing, communist-hating, Fox News-absorbing, Tea Party members (or wannabes), are so in love with the democratic process, or so they say, UNTIL something just doesn't go their way.

When that day happens, it's time to pick up the pitch forks and raise hell!

Reminds me of trying to discipline children.......and teaching them that everything just can't go your way all of the time.

[bigmack]

The way of life is eclectic as isits perception.....There is no ONE way of life
Step right up - Put a dime in Pseudo Buddha and he'll spit out a useless homily

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/belly.gif

[johnhannibalsmith]

Agreed the penalties are not a good idea.

The coercion is worse.

[boxcar]

The way of life is eclectic as isits perception.....There is no ONE way of life

Tell that to the Marxist in the WH.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Whew...you got me. I'm actually speechless. According to you, Tom and the wingnuts, 9-11 is now trumped by a centrist health care plan. :bang: :bang: :bang:

What in the world is a "centrist" plan? :bang: :bang: :bang: How centrist can it be when it's packed with fines and penalties for non-compliance? How "centrist" can it be when it forces everyone to buy a product?

You're as shallow as a mud puddle if you really believe your own nonsense.

Boxcar

[Leonard]

[QUOTE=Leonard]

``It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''

Can't argue against that -- it makes perfectly good sense to me.

[rastajenk]

UK, France , Canada, Russia, China. The list goes on and on. Name one one that doesn't. I meant name a third world country that has what we have, or had.

[hazzardm]

Tea baggers opinion on health care reform. It starts getting good around 2:00 min in.

An O'Keefe-esque take on Tea Bag protesters. Too Funny....

pilG7PCV448

[bigmack]

What in the world is a "centrist" plan? :bang:
Same schtick as Large Ed Shultz & Co tout. It was heard repeatedly on PMSNBC. The only people rightfully upset about this bill are those that feel it didn't go far enough. If you start with the position of way left, you have this bill being 'centrist'. Poof & voila.

Watch 'em pull a rabbit outta their....

[rastajenk]

Actually, I thought he meant statist when he used centrist, but I could be wrong.

[Tom]

The constitution? For crying out loud. The genral welfare clause of the Constitution has already passed the Supreme Court for Social Security and Medicare as being constitutional.

What are all citizens required to purchase under SS or MC?
Answer - nothing.

That is why it is unconstitutional.

[lsbets]

Try not paying your social security or medicare taxes. That is your private money. You'll eventually face penalties or jail time.

SS and medicare are taxes. Taxes are legal under the constitution. Surely even someone as dim as you can tell the difference.

[Tom]

Apparently not.

[BenDiesel26]

Wow, there are so many people who "choose" not to have health care in the event of catastrophic illness. I certainly choose not to have my taxpayer funds go to a bogus war in Iraq, but am I free to choose not to have my taxes go to it.

These aren't taxpayer funds. The government is forcing you to take money out of your pocket and buy something whether you want to or not. This is part of the income you take home. This isn't income tax.

If I choose NOT to pay for health care, most likely at some point I'll end up in the emergency room, and passing those health care costs onto the rest of us who paid for insurance.

Bulls---. Define most likely with a probability. I haven't been to the emergency room since I was 12 years old. And there are plenty people that do choose to pay for the emergency room and don't cost the taxpayer a dime do to the extremely rare events that they do go to the emergency room.

So, yeah, you'll be fined so it brings down those costs on society, just as fining speeders attempts to bring down accidents.

I'm sure you support government funded abortions. Shouldn't all women then pay an additional fine on abortion? They all have a uterus, and there's a chance that they can get pregnant and that they might get an abortion. You agree with this additional fine on women right? Like I said before, this is no different then the government forcing you to purchase a vehicle from Chevrolet and being fined if you don't. They are the same thing. Don't forget also that the same society that pays for the previously uninsured will still pay for the newly insured. Nothing has changed except now the new guy can say he has insurance.

Gotta tell you, the amount of people choosing not to buy health care vs the ones who'd like to have health care but simply can't afford it - isn't even close.

The amount of people actually denied health care because they don't have insurance isn't close to the amount of uninsured. 43% of the uninsured make more than 2.5 times the poverty level, or $55,000 dollars. They choose not to buy in for various reasons.

Yes you can. I don't think the IRS is approving the insurance company, however right now there are state regulators who already require specific regulatory and licensing requirements of any insurance you already have.

Yes, according to the bill your health insurance plan must be satisfactory according to standards that will be monitored by the IRS. If it's not, you must change or face the fine.

Bankrupting the country? You mean when Bushco and the Republican Congress passed a Medicare prescription drug plan that had no increased revenues to pay for the cost - in fact actually cutting taxes while increasing the budget at the same time?

Yes, Bush added more to the deficit. Obama=Bush on Steroids. Not sure how you missed this, but FDR passed social security and LBJ passed medicare. Obama's budget according to his own numbers will spend more as a percentage of GDP than Bush did on average even if you give all of Obama's 2009 spending to Bush. The Bush medicare plan is only a small part of the $107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that exist as a result of the foresight of these "great social accomplishments."

[Tom]

Fascinates me how all these god-fearing, communist-hating, Fox News-absorbing, Tea Party members (or wannabes), are so in love with the democratic process, or so they say, UNTIL something just doesn't go their way.

When that day happens, it's time to pick up the pitch forks and raise hell!

Reminds me of trying to discipline children.......and teaching them that everything just can't go your way all of the time.

Do you read all the posts?
This was not the democratic process - it violates the constitution, and by mandating tax payer money pay for abortions, it violates the beliefs of millions of people.

[bigmack]

This from the viewing public of MSNBC :lol:


http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/3_22_10_12_19_27.png

[Tom]

The cost of this bill is mis-represented by Obama - in other words, he is lying.
They double counted the Medicare dollars, so instead of saving trillion over 10 years, it will add about 800 billion to the deficit.

As far as the COB analysis, they HAVE to base it on what they are told will take place. That never happens.

[ArlJim78]

This from the viewing public of MSNBC :lol:


http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/3_22_10_12_19_27.png
wow, that should open their eyes if only 22% of the messnbc clickers are excited.

is this what Obama was talking about when he said "this is what change looks like"

of course I think I saw last week that the messnbc TV ratings had fallen behind The Hallmark channel and/or the Cartoon network where people responded that the characters were more believable.

[DJofSD]

Hey! Leave the Cartoon Network of this. Adventures of Flapjack deserves respect!

[boxcar]

This from the viewing public of MSNBC :lol:


http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/3_22_10_12_19_27.png

There's nothing quite like being under the rule of the consent of the government. Is this what freedom has [d]evolved into? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[ceejay]

No. Not even close. First we have to understand what the interstate commerce clause is and what it means.

What is it?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; "

What does it mean? Let's look at what the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, had to say about it.

"...A very material object of this power [to regulate commerce] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former…"

Basically, the federal government had the power to prevent/regulate states from taxing goods/services that were passing through one state on its way to another -- interstate commerce. As an example, it would prevent a product originating in Pennsylvania, destined for Virginia, being taxed 10,000% by Maryland simply because passed through Maryland.

That's pretty much it. Nothing more, nothing less. It has been bastardized to the extreme by the federal government in never ending power grabs.

The 10th Amendment is very clear. Only specifically enumerated powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution are the domain of the federal government. Anything else is to remain with the states or the people. If anything, I would say you have it backwards. The 10th Amendment trumps the Interstate Commerce Clause because 1) the Amendments supercede the actual Constitution (the actual Constitution is being changed by the Amendments) and 2) unless specific powers under that Clause are granted to the federal government (they are not in the case of healthcare) those powers are not the domain of the federal governemnt.
I may be wrong, as I am just a stupid geologist, but wasn't the commerce clause used to justify the Civil Rights Act of 1964? If so, was that a constitutional overreach.

[skate]

Do you think the sodomizing priests and preachers will save some room for him?

OH oh oh , ok, now i see, "It's fine and dandy to snuff out a kid" because we have Sodomizing people in the world, Ok ok ok , fine.
You fit real nice...

[ezrabrooks]

I may be wrong, as I am just a stupid geologist, but wasn't the commerce clause used to justify the Civil Rights Act of 1964? If so, was that a constitutional overreach.

You can try to use the Commerce Clause to justify every act of Congress...doesn't mean it will pass muster each time.

[Robert Goren]

I meant name a third world country that has what we have, or had.Most of them have what we had, the rich get health care, the poor fend for themselves, we just have more rich people. You may think you have coverage, but how do you know until you have a major medical bill. I know I did. I had even spent 4 days in the hospital a couple of times and never had a problem. Then out of the blue, I spent a month there and my health insurance company took notice. That when I started having problems. I would not wish this off on anyone, but don't think but for the grace of God you couldn't have it happen to you.

[boxcar]

Most of them have what we had, the rich get health care, the poor fend for themselves, we just have more rich people. You may think you have coverage, but how do you know until you have a major medical bill. I know I did. I had even spent 4 days in the hospital a couple of times and never had a problem. Then out of the blue, I spent a month there and my health insurance company took notice. That when I started having problems. I would not wish this off on anyone, but don't think but for the grace of God you couldn't have it happen to you.

Typical "rich" vs. "poor", class warfare drivel. About 65% of Americans want no part of this disaster that was passed last night. Does this mean, then, that 65% of Americans are rich and the other 35% are poor? Also, I take it that you don't know any "middle class" Americans who are covered privately?

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Typical "rich" vs. "poor", class warfare drivel. About 65% of Americans want no part of this disaster that was passed last night. Does this mean, then, that 65% of Americans are rich and the other 35% are poor? Also, I take it that you don't know any "middle class" Americans who are covered privately?

Boxcar
more simplistic black and white ideology without ever evaluating the specifics...|Sounds a lot like a database handicapper.

[mostpost]

Constitutionally, wouldn't the interstate commerce clause trump the 10th amendment?
It definitely would and here is why.
This is the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the powers delegated to to the federal government.
Articl 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To:
regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
In # 6 Leonard said,
Basically, the federal government had the power to prevent/regulate states from taxing goods/services that were passing through one state on its way to another -- interstate commerce. As an example, it would prevent a product originating in Pennsylvania, destined for Virginia, being taxed 10,000% by Maryland simply because passed through Maryland.

That's pretty much it. Nothing more, nothing less. It has been bastardized to the extreme by the federal government in never ending power grabs.
That is a very narrow interpretation of the Commerce clause. Congress has passed laws relating to aspects of interstate commerce that are not tax based and the courts have upheld them.

[Robert Goren]

Typical "rich" vs. "poor", class warfare drivel. About 65% of Americans want no part of this disaster that was passed last night. Does this mean, then, that 65% of Americans are rich and the other 35% are poor? Also, I take it that you don't know any "middle class" Americans who are covered privately?

Boxcar I know a lot of "middle class" Americans who think they are covered privately(actually through my employer), I used to be one. I was wrong and they could be too. You just never know until you need it. I am not any more happy with what passed night than you are, but for different reasons than you. I think it did not even come close to going far enough soon enough. But it is lot better than what we had.

[Robert Goren]

I am sure this thing will end up in court. I am also sure nobody knows how it will turn out. A old college friend who is a lawyer once told me that you always try to settle before you go to court because you just never know how things are going to end up. Judges come up with reasons for their rulings that nobody on either side ever thought of.

[bigmack]

I think it did not even come close to going far enough soon enough. But it is lot better than what we had.
You want some government cheese too? Your cloak of this helping out the little guy is balderdash.

pIkksi344cM

[BenDiesel26]

It definitely would and here is why.
This is the tenth amendment:

The power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the powers delegated to to the federal government.
Articl 1 Section 8

In # 6 Leonard said,

That is a very narrow interpretation of the Commerce clause. Congress has passed laws relating to aspects of interstate commerce that are not tax based and the courts have upheld them.

First, did the bill include the provision to purchase health care across state lines? No. Second, "regulate" and "require" are not the same thing. Serious question mostpost, does the US government have the constitutional authority to force you to buy a Chevy Silverado, or otherwise face a fine? According to you and some others here, they do.

[Secretariat]

What are all citizens required to purchase under SS or MC?
Answer - nothing.

That is why it is unconstitutional.

Ask a senior if they feel they get nothing out of social security and medicare? And it's already been declared constitutional.

[Robert Goren]

You want some government cheese too? Your cloak of this helping out the little guy is balderdash. I want my old insurance company to do what they were supposed to do. Cover me when I need it. But that didn't happen. I just want what my employer and I paid for. Your cloak of the fear of big government is nothing more than giving them a smoke screen to rip off their costumers.

[boxcar]

I know a lot of "middle class" Americans who think they are covered privately(actually through my employer), I used to be one. I was wrong and they could be too. You just never know until you need it. I am not any more happy with what passed night than you are, but for different reasons than you. I think it did not even come close to going far enough soon enough. But it is lot better than what we had.

Just because of your own personal experience (albeit as poor as it may been), you should refrain from projecting that unto the rest of Americans who were, evidently, a lot happier with their PERSONAL situations (whatever that may have been) than they are now with the crap that has passed. Therefore, to say that only the "rich" have coverage is an outright falsehood - either that or 2/3 of Americans are in fact "rich".

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I want my old insurance company to do what they were supposed to do. Cover me when I need it. But that didn't happen.You've probably gone into painful detail about this elsewhere (if you have the link handy, that would suffice), but you could you provide a brief synopsis as to the reasoning your ins. co. used to deny you benefits? I'm curious to learn of the details (without getting too personal of course).

[boxcar]

Ask a senior if they feel they get nothing out of social security and medicare? And it's already been declared constitutional.

But...the fact remains, they're NOT required to accept either! Therein is the difference. The "entitlement" is there, but no law says they have to file for it.
Steer clear of analogies, Sec, because you're no good at either.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Your cloak of the fear of big government is nothing more than giving them a smoke screen to rip off their costumers.
Yeah, this bill will show those insurance jerks a thing or two.

Wait, this just in....

HEALTH-CARE STOCKS WERE mostly up in midday trading Monday in the wake of the House of Representatives' passage of historic health-care reform legislation

The S&P Health Care Index was up 0.45%, in midday trading, led by big gains from hospitals stocks. But drug makers and medical device makers were also up in midday trading.

All three health-care sectors have been viewed as winners under legislation which should add about 32 million Americans to the health-insurance rolls.

"Most of the industry wins from this legislation," says Les Funtleyder, a health-care strategist at Miller Tabak & Co.,"But circumspect investors realize that it will take time for the legislation's provisions to kick in. Individual company fundamentals are what will drive share performance."

Among the hospital companies, shares of Tenet Healthcare (THC) rose 7% to $6.15 a share, while Health Management Associates (HMA) rose 7.5% to $8.74 a share.

Medical device giant Medtronic (MDT) gained 2.9%, while St. Jude Medical (STJ), a competitor, rose 2.3% to $40.25 a share.

[Secretariat]

SS and medicare are taxes. Taxes are legal under the constitution. Surely even someone as dim as you can tell the difference.

Taxes are how the money is raised for SS and medicare, and those programs are mandated. The program itself is a retirement program and a health care program for the elderly. The constitutionality was allowed under the General Welfare clause of the consitution.

Now, if your argument is not the validity of the program under the General Welfare clause, but the failure of the govt. to mandate it via direct taxation rather than require individuals to purchase insurance privately like they are required to do to purchase car insurance in state govt's to operate a car. In some ways I wish it had been a single payer taxation rather than this way. But I'd be surprised if any court overruled it.

[bigmack]

mandate it via direct taxation rather than require individuals to purchase insurance privately like they are required to do to purchase car insurance in state govt's to operate a car.
Darn shame this is like mandating people who don't own a car to get auto insurance. Sounds kinda nutty huh?

Govment: It's for the greater good. You MUST participate. :eek:

[Robert Goren]

You've probably gone into painful detail about this elsewhere (if you have the link handy, that would suffice), but you could you provide a brief synopsis as to the reasoning your ins. co. used to deny you benefits? I'm curious to learn of the details (without getting too personal of course). I will try to make this short. In sept of 2006 every gland in my body shut down. No one has ever come up with a reason for it. I spent sept in the hospital and another two months on Dialysis while my kidneys came back. I started get bills from the hosp. and the DRs saying my insurance wasn't paying. Tried contacting the insurance company to find out why. I got the run around and passed back forth from one person to the next. I never did get an answer. I then went to talk with my boss. He told me that the corporate head quarters had talked to him yesterday and told him to fire me. He was try to work up the nerve to tell me when I called him. After much ado and with the help of the city with whom my employer had a contract, I got a small severance package and their help in getting SS disability. The insurance company eventually paid about a third of my bills. I cashed in my 401ks and paid most of the rest. I never a got anyone to tell me why they would not pay anymore than they did. A person I knew at corporate told me off the record that the insurance co. had pressured them to fire me. The whole thing has been straight from the Twilight Zone.

[ArlJim78]

one thing is for certain, the lawsuits on this thing are going to run rampant. as soon as the signing is over, America's Captain Queeg wants to go on a tour to convince people why they shouldn't hate it. Meanwhile there will be nightly stories for weeks and months on the various lawsuits. Its a story that won't go away for the remainder of his presidency.

[toetoe]

1. The constitution
2. Freedom in America
3. The morality and integrity of the blue dog dems who sold out their faith and beliefs to a terrorist president making false promises about abortion

All victims of the March Massacre.

This is indeed the saddest day in our recent history.
We have become Venezuela.



I agree. Also, Rest in Peace, Mr. Alex Chilton. :( .

[boxcar]

Taxes are how the money is raised for SS and medicare, and those programs are mandated. The program itself is a retirement program and a health care program for the elderly. The constitutionality was allowed under the General Welfare clause of the consitution.

Now, if your argument is not the validity of the program under the General Welfare clause, but the failure of the govt. to mandate it via direct taxation rather than require individuals to purchase insurance privately like they are required to do to purchase car insurance in state govt's to operate a car. In some ways I wish it had been a single payer taxation rather than this way. But I'd be surprised if any court overruled it.

LIBS: SPARE US, PLEASE, OF YOUR DUMB, IGNORANT ANALOGIES :bang: :bang: :bang:

Two things about your ill-conceived, lame analogy: People know beforehand that if they choose to own add drive a car, they will be required to purchase insurance. Therefore, this is part 'n' parcel of car ownership. This is very similar to laws that actually mandates that you have homeowner's insurance if your home is not paid off. Again, home buyers know this before hand, so that they can make an intelligent, informed decision as to whether to buy or not to buy.

Secondly, the requirement in both cases is to protect other parties. It's a liability issue. Other people who share the road with you, for example, should not have to assume any financial burdens if you should cause an accident and cannot afford or simply don't want to pick up their expenses. Likewise, banks or mortgage companies should not have to assume any financial burden if your home burns to the ground, or is blown away in a man-made global warming-caused hurricane ( :rolleyes: ), or is destroyed by any act of God, or if the homeowner is grossly negligent and allows his home to run down and depreciate in value, etc., etc., etc. Therefore, there are no true parallels because health coverage (which really isn't "insurance" by the way) because only the policyholder is protected. Only the one receiving care is liable for his or her own bills. No one else is or should be held responsible for picking up your health care tabs! No more than I should be liable to pick up your dinner tab because you happen to be dining in the same restaurant as me!

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

I will try to make this short. In sept of 2006 every gland in my body shut down. No one has ever come up with a reason for it. I spent sept in the hospital and another two months on Dialysis while my kidneys came back. I started get bills from the hosp. and the DRs saying my insurance wasn't paying. Tried contacting the insurance company to find out why. I got the run around and passed back forth from one person to the next. I never did get an answer. I then went to talk with my boss. He told me that the corporate head quarters had talked to him yesterday and told him to fire me. He was try to work up the nerve to tell me when I called him. After much ado and with the help of the city with whom my employer had a contract, I got a small severance package and their help in getting SS disability. The insurance company eventually paid about a third of my bills. I cashed in my 401ks and paid most of the rest. I never a got anyone to tell me why they would not pay anymore than they did. A person I knew at corporate told me off the record that the insurance co. had pressured them to fire me. The whole thing has been straight from the Twilight Zone.

That's terrible. My gut intuition tells me that you should have walked straight to a lawyers office and talked "wrongful dismissal." I'm not a lawyer but taking a severance buyout might hurt your case now. I'd still look into it. I can understand how that would be extremely upsetting. All the best.

[Relwob Owner]

I will try to make this short. In sept of 2006 every gland in my body shut down. No one has ever come up with a reason for it. I spent sept in the hospital and another two months on Dialysis while my kidneys came back. I started get bills from the hosp. and the DRs saying my insurance wasn't paying. Tried contacting the insurance company to find out why. I got the run around and passed back forth from one person to the next. I never did get an answer. I then went to talk with my boss. He told me that the corporate head quarters had talked to him yesterday and told him to fire me. He was try to work up the nerve to tell me when I called him. After much ado and with the help of the city with whom my employer had a contract, I got a small severance package and their help in getting SS disability. The insurance company eventually paid about a third of my bills. I cashed in my 401ks and paid most of the rest. I never a got anyone to tell me why they would not pay anymore than they did. A person I knew at corporate told me off the record that the insurance co. had pressured them to fire me. The whole thing has been straight from the Twilight Zone.


RG,

I dont post here much and just read because frankly, I dont know all that much about politics.....after reading your post, though, I just wanted to send you my best thoughts because that sounds atrocious....I never like to tell anyone what to do but as GF suggested, maybe at least talk to a lawyer....like more and more people these days, they are not as busy as they once were and could be more anxious to take on cases....best of luck to you

[PaceAdvantage]

I will try to make this short. In sept of 2006 every gland in my body shut down. No one has ever come up with a reason for it. I spent sept in the hospital and another two months on Dialysis while my kidneys came back. I started get bills from the hosp. and the DRs saying my insurance wasn't paying. Tried contacting the insurance company to find out why. I got the run around and passed back forth from one person to the next. I never did get an answer. I then went to talk with my boss. He told me that the corporate head quarters had talked to him yesterday and told him to fire me. He was try to work up the nerve to tell me when I called him. After much ado and with the help of the city with whom my employer had a contract, I got a small severance package and their help in getting SS disability. The insurance company eventually paid about a third of my bills. I cashed in my 401ks and paid most of the rest. I never a got anyone to tell me why they would not pay anymore than they did. A person I knew at corporate told me off the record that the insurance co. had pressured them to fire me. The whole thing has been straight from the Twilight Zone.It really does sound like you have the makings of a pretty reasonable lawsuit, if not against the ins. co., then definitely against your employer for firing you...

I still don't understand how the ins. co. could get around paying what they owed you (unless of course you were fired and therefore not covered any longer....but it sounds as though you incurred all of these medical bills WHILE you were still employed). They must have had some reason...as others have stated, perhaps you could still talk to a lawyer about this, depending upon how long ago this happened. But I'm sure you've thought about going this route already...

[mostpost]

First, did the bill include the provision to purchase health care across state lines? No. Second, "regulate" and "require" are not the same thing. Serious question mostpost, does the US government have the constitutional authority to force you to buy a Chevy Silverado, or otherwise face a fine? According to you and some others here, they do.
Purchasing health care across state lines is not the only way in which the bill could effect interstate commerce. An uninsured person goes to the hospital and receives treament, perhaps has an operation. Many hospitals are owned by corporations, and have facilities in multiple states. The inability of that uninsured person to pay has an effect over several states. One person may not make a difference, but multiply by millions and their is a definite effect.
Regulate and require are not the same, but "regulating" can make it necesary to require something. Regulating the food service industry would require restaurants to submit to inspections and it would require them to take whatever actions were necesary to pass those inspections.

Your serious question makes no sense. First of all why would the US government have any interest in whether I buy a Chevy Silverado? The kind of car I have effects no other person. The fact that I don't have health insurance effects many people. It effects people with insurance who have to pay more for their premiums because I am paying nothing and still receving care. It effects people in the emergency room whose care is diluted because I am there for a treatment that could have been handled at a doctor's office. It effects emergency room health care providers who must work harder in order to provide care to so many extra people

[mostpost]

Tea baggers opinion on health care reform. It starts getting good around 2:00 min in.

An O'Keefe-esque take on Tea Bag protesters. Too Funny....

pilG7PCV448
I'm not going to say it. I'm not going to say it. I'm not going to say it. I...........can't help it. I've got say it. THOSE PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!!!!!!
I've seen the young fellow conducting the interviews before. He is very good. He let's people talk and show their lack of knowledge. He doesn't say they are misinformed, he just asks questions that prove they are.

[JustRalph]

I want my old insurance company to do what they were supposed to do. Cover me when I need it. But that didn't happen. I just want what my employer and I paid for. Your cloak of the fear of big government is nothing more than giving them a smoke screen to rip off their costumers.

Get in line for some of that Obama Money.......... you and her are exactly the same. You signed a contract for coverage when you got your insurance. If you think you needed more, you should have bought supplemental insurance. Nope, not you.....you needed more insurance and you blame the Insurance Co.

You should blame the employer and you should have gotten a lawyer

[JustRalph]

Taxes are how the money is raised for SS and medicare, and those programs are mandated. The program itself is a retirement program and a health care program for the elderly. The constitutionality was allowed under the General Welfare clause of the consitution.

Now, if your argument is not the validity of the program under the General Welfare clause, but the failure of the govt. to mandate it via direct taxation rather than require individuals to purchase insurance privately like they are required to do to purchase car insurance in state govt's to operate a car. In some ways I wish it had been a single payer taxation rather than this way. But I'd be surprised if any court overruled it.

How can you be so legally stupid? Car insurance is not compulsory. You can refuse to buy it, and take public transportation. And you do not receive a fine. In the Healthcare bill you are required to buy it, or pay a fine, with no further recourse. It is a mandate to force a person to buy something. You can regulate commerce that is naturally occurring, but this bill is trying to create the commerce and then regulate it. Blatantly outside the bounds of the Commerce clause.

[mostpost]

one thing is for certain, the lawsuits on this thing are going to run rampant. as soon as the signing is over, America's Captain Queeg wants to go on a tour to convince people why they shouldn't hate it. Meanwhile there will be nightly stories for weeks and months on the various lawsuits. Its a story that won't go away for the remainder of his presidency.
The lawsuits will go nowhere. As Ceejay said "The Commerce Clause trumps the 10th amendment" And the Commerce Clause does apply here.
The only thing that worries me is if this gets to the Supreme Court. The conservatives will find a wayto rule against this; Constitution be damned.
Alito, Roberts, Scalia, an Thomas are the activist judges that Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas have warned you about.

[BenDiesel26]

Purchasing health care across state lines is not the only way in which the bill could effect interstate commerce. An uninsured person goes to the hospital and receives treament, perhaps has an operation. Many hospitals are owned by corporations, and have facilities in multiple states. The inability of that uninsured person to pay has an effect over several states. One person may not make a difference, but multiply by millions and their is a definite effect.
Regulate and require are not the same, but "regulating" can make it necesary to require something. Regulating the food service industry would require restaurants to submit to inspections and it would require them to take whatever actions were necesary to pass those inspections.

Your serious question makes no sense. First of all why would the US government have any interest in whether I buy a Chevy Silverado? The kind of car I have effects no other person. The fact that I don't have health insurance effects many people. It effects people with insurance who have to pay more for their premiums because I am paying nothing and still receving care. It effects people in the emergency room whose care is diluted because I am there for a treatment that could have been handled at a doctor's office. It effects emergency room health care providers who must work harder in order to provide care to so many extra people

Bulls--- answer mostpost. If you can't pay for your own health insurance, then it will effect the people that do pay and the premiums whether or not you have health insurance or not. That's a fact. The subsidy that the poor will get for health insurance still comes out of the pockets of the insured and taxpaying citizens whether they can say "I have health insurance" or not. And my question makes perfect sense. It's a simple question, does the government have the authority to force you to buy a Chevrolet, and fine you if you don't? That's a YES or NO question. I didn't ask whether the government was interested in doing so. Does the constitution give the government power to require citizens to buy a product from a private industry? By the way, health care providers are going to work much harder now than they ever have. Another just absolutely meaningless answer. Finally, not everybody that is uninsured cannot afford medical bills. Another inconvenient fact. As I posted earlier, 43% of the uninsured make 55,000 or more, yet choose on their own not to buy insurance. Why should they be forced to buy insurance when their probability of one of experiencing one of these incidents you describe is very minute?

And that's great about restaurants, but the restaurant owners you speak of aren't required to own their restaurants. They choose to do so.

[Valuist]

What is the point of insurance? Its to protect against the potential huge loss. It really isn't difficult to find. Go google healthcare plans and see how many come up. Will it cover a chiropractic adjustment or cough medicine? Of course not, but so what? Those of us who have been laid off have had to look at other options and THEY ARE OUT THERE. There was no need to overhaul the entire system. Too many irresponsible people are looking for a handout and free lunch.

[johnhannibalsmith]

What goes around comes around. These same people that are today supporting individual mandates because it suits their fancy in this social issue will be screaming holy hell when an administration in the future builds off of this precedent on another issue.

[Valuist]

The left loves to scream "discrimination", but isn't mandating everyone to have insurance discriminatory? If you are in good health and take care of yourself, why should you have to foot the bill at the same rate as those who don't?

Once again, the system looking out for the incompetent and lazy.

[ArlJim78]

The lawsuits will go nowhere. As Ceejay said "The Commerce Clause trumps the 10th amendment" And the Commerce Clause does apply here.
The only thing that worries me is if this gets to the Supreme Court. The conservatives will find a wayto rule against this; Constitution be damned.
Alito, Roberts, Scalia, an Thomas are the activist judges that Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas have warned you about.
don't bet the ranch on these lawsuits going nowhere, they have broken new ground here and there are several things that raise serious questions.
on the contrary, the supreme court is the only hope we have in this country of sticking within the constitutional framework. this congress and president has made a mockery of it.

[boxcar]

Your serious question makes no sense. First of all why would the US government have any interest in whether I buy a Chevy Silverado? The kind of car I have effects no other person. The fact that I don't have health insurance effects many people. It effects people with insurance who have to pay more for their premiums because I am paying nothing and still receving care. It effects people in the emergency room whose care is diluted because I am there for a treatment that could have been handled at a doctor's office. It effects emergency room health care providers who must work harder in order to provide care to so many extra people

His explanation makes a heck of a lot more sense than does your explanation!
Unless you personally, live in a vacuum (which actually could be the case with you :rolleyes: ), everything we do in society affects others to some degree. Your explanation above is absurd on the face of it.

First of all, if you don't have health coverage, this is YOUR personal problem. You really need to look into that.

Then you try to justify a mandated purchase of a product by telling us that your irresponsible actions for not owning coverage would essentially put a drain on society. Guess what? So does such a "trivial" crime as shoplifting! Dishonest people stealing from retailers is the number one cause for "shrinkage" in the retail industry. Billions are lost annually due to shoplifters. And who pays for that ultimately? The honest shoppers! Is that fair? Why should the honest consumer pay extra money at the cash register to help offset losses caused by a dishonest one? According, then, to your way of thinking, shouldn't the U.S. government mandate that all retailers buy Shrinkage Insurance to cover this problem? Why should honest consumers be held liable for the dishonest ones, right?

Oh...but wait...on the other hand, if this idea was mandated by a law, this would increase businesses' expenses, right? And wouldn't that new business expense be factored into the retailers' costs for goods and services and, therefore, passed along anyway to consumers? Looks like we'd still be strapped with the "fairness" issue, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

And since you're a huge fan of "fairness" :rolleyes:, explain to me how it's fair for a responsible, conscientious American to pay for his own insurance and then penalized for it by having his benefits taxed --- something BO said, during his campaign he would not do!?

And then how is it fair to be taxed further to pay for someone else's insurance? You already stated that insured Americans are doing that anyhow by paying higher premiums, so why does the government have to get into the act? Oh, yeah....I got that figured out already: It's because the government wanted to muscle in on those higher premiums. They wanted in on the action! The thieving government wants its cut. It's only "fair", right? :rolleyes:

And explain to me, sir, how it's fair for the government to force me to pay for other people's expenses? How is that fair? You see, if I don't like the cost of my coverage premium, I can choose to NOT buy it any longer, can't I? And I venture to say that I went with a cash-on-completion-of-services arrangement with doctors hospitals, etc., I'd pay less than my former insurance would! Therefore, I could pretty much opt out of that vicious, unfair pay-for-others loop, couldn't I?

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

what would be wrong with the next Republican president and congress mandating that every American shall buy a rifle from a list of government approved sources. if you don't buy the rifle you're fined. why not? It could be part of a domestic security policy. the IRS will check up on you to make sure you own a rifle. I mean if there is nothing in the constitution protecting us from this kind of government mandate, lets do it.

[bigmack]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1-1.gif

Good news to report for all those who were hoping to see a bipartisan effort on this bill. 34 Democrats against!

Crack out the bubbly.

[ElKabong]

What goes around comes around. These same people that are today supporting individual mandates because it suits their fancy in this social issue will be screaming holy hell when an administration in the future builds off of this precedent on another issue.

My thought exactly. The country is clearly divided in half. In order to pass much of anything of major import, this circus will repeat itself. Many times.

The system is effectively broken. The next administration now has a get out of jail free card on backroom dealings, bribes, bullying their way to legislative passage. What a corrupt system this administration has fed on.

[JustRalph]

what would be wrong with the next Republican president and congress mandating that every American shall buy a rifle from a list of government approved sources. if you don't buy the rifle you're fined. why not? It could be part of a domestic security policy. the IRS will check up on you to make sure you own a rifle. I mean if there is nothing in the constitution protecting us from this kind of government mandate, lets do it.

Already got that one covered a few times over............

[Tom]

Read Saul Alinsky......read Obama's campaign speeches.
He has laid it all out, just like Hiter did in Mein Kampf.
Find his speech about reparations.

Chicago politics at work here - lies, threats, closed door meetings, bribes....you libs can surely be proud today. You president is scum!

[BenDiesel26]

what would be wrong with the next Republican president and congress mandating that every American shall buy a rifle from a list of government approved sources. if you don't buy the rifle you're fined. why not? It could be part of a domestic security policy. the IRS will check up on you to make sure you own a rifle. I mean if there is nothing in the constitution protecting us from this kind of government mandate, lets do it.

There also needs to be mandated alcohol insurance and a fine that goes along with it for all adults of legal drinking age. More than 10,000 a year are killed by drunk drivers, and more than a 100,000 more are seriously injured, sexually assaulted, etc. Because of the few irresponsible that have an effect on others people's lives and cause debt to society, cause health care workers to work much harder, etc., mostpost feels that the government has the right to mandate that all individuals of drinking age purchase alcohol insurance just in case they might cause harm to others while drinking. Doesn't matter if you are a healthy, responsible individual, or even if you rarely or never drink, you might drink just once and act out of character and hurt somebody. Better yet, just bring back prohibition.

[ArlJim78]

There also needs to be mandated alcohol insurance and a fine that goes along with it for all adults of legal drinking age. More than 10,000 a year are killed by drunk drivers, and more than a 100,000 more are seriously injured, sexually assaulted, etc. Because of the few irresponsible that have an effect on others people's lives and cause debt to society, cause health care workers to work much harder, etc., mostpost feels that the government has the right to mandate that all individuals of drinking age purchase alcohol insurance just in case they might cause harm to others while drinking. Doesn't matter if you are a healthy, responsible individual, or even if you rarely or never drink, you might drink just once and act out of character and hurt somebody. Better yet, just bring back prohibition.
excellent idea.
while we're busy reorganizing society, we might want to mandate life insurance also, just to be safe.

[Tom]

Does this bill cover liberalism?
I think mandatory inoculations should be required.

[mostpost]

First of all, if you don't have health coverage, this is YOUR personal problem. You really need to look into that.
I have health coverage. I was speaking hypothetically, but thank you for your concern. And people say you have no heart. :rolleyes: Wait a minute. Are those crocadille tears? And here I was thinking....... :(

[Robert Goren]

For those who want to know, I talk to 2 different law firms. Neither had much hope for me. Nebraska law make it hard to sue an insurance company. 3 of our former governors use to work for Mutual of Omaha (not my health insurance co.), so they got the laws here pretty much loaded in favor of the insurance industry. Nebraska is a right to work to state which means they pretty much they can fire as they please unless you are a protected group(minorities, etc) which I am not. I had already resigned from my low level management position and was semi-retired working in a entry level no stress position because of another unrelated health condition (crohn's). I had developed some friends at the city when I was in management. I was in charge of a city owned parking site that tripled its revenue per space in the 3 years that I ran it. It went from the worst revenue producer to the best beating the second site by 35%. There were some people at city who noticed. If I had not had those friends at the city, they would have just dropped me and there would have been nothing I could have done. I am now on SS disability with Medicare. I am very lucky that I am not on the street. Heck, I am lucky I am not dead. So now between the several post I have made here, you have my whole sad story( or at least last 10 years of it). I thank God every day the blessings I have. I could be much worse off. Now you know why support the health care bill. I am not bitter anymore over the way I was treated. I believe that bitterness will kill you. I just want to make sure no one else has to go through what I endured.

[bigmack]

For those who want to know, I talk to 2 different law firms. Neither had much hope for me.
I've dug around a bit since seeing your earlier post RG and it's not very likely you'll find a resolution to your satisfaction.

http://www.insurancecompanyrules.org/pages/nebraska_rules/

http://www.doi.ne.gov/

[johnhannibalsmith]

... I just want to make sure no one else has to go through what I endured.

Understandable position to say the least. I'm glad that you are here to lend your perspective.

[Robert Goren]

I've dug around a bit since seeing your earlier post RG and it's not very likely you'll find a resolution to your satisfaction.

http://www.insurancecompanyrules.org/pages/nebraska_rules/

http://www.doi.ne.gov/ That is what the lawyers told me. I am just....out of luck. I am moving on the rest of my life. Making a few small bets on the horses, playing a little online poker and arguing with you, Boxcar and Tom on this site. ;) I am alive and life is good. :ThmbUp: Thank-you for taking the time look.

[bigmack]

That is what the lawyers told me. I am just....out of luck
FWIW - Did you weigh the possibility of not paying the outstanding from your 401 and going Chapter 7/13 or paying nothing at all?

Many folk walk away from med bills with little repercussion.

The undocumented amongst us do it everyday throughout the country with little thanks and little affect to their lives.

[lsbets]

The lawsuits will go nowhere. As Ceejay said "The Commerce Clause trumps the 10th amendment" And the Commerce Clause does apply here.
The only thing that worries me is if this gets to the Supreme Court. The conservatives will find a wayto rule against this; Constitution be damned.
Alito, Roberts, Scalia, an Thomas are the activist judges that Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas have warned you about.

The Commerce Clause does nothing to justify an individual mandate. That is clearly beyond the scope of the powers authorized to the federal government in the Constitution. That being said, I am not certain the court will overturn it, because they might see it as a political matter best handled in Congress. But if you support the mandate at the federal level, among other parts of the bill, then you do not believe in the federal system that our nation is supposed to work under. It is sad that people like you are so willing to throw liberty under the bus to give 31 million new customers to the insurance companies. That is fascism, and if the next Congress and then the courts will not fix it, it is up to however many brave, freedom loving people there actually are in this country to fix it.

[Robert Goren]

FWIW - Did you weigh the possibility of not paying the outstanding from your 401 and going Chapter 7/13 or paying nothing at all?

Many folk walk away from med bills with little repercussion.

The undocumented amongst us do it everyday throughout the country with little thanks and little affect to their lives.Not really, I just did not it was right to stiff the people who saved my life.

[Tom]

Refreshingly good attitude. :ThmbUp:
You can't be a democrat! :rolleyes:;)

[Tom]

We need to get these out there......

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/tombr/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.jpg http://www.zazzle.com/if_we_lose_freedom_here_bumper_sticker-128476833731359976





(http://www.zazzle.com/if_we_lose_freedom_here_bumper_sticker-128476833731359976)

[ceejay]

The Commerce Clause does nothing to justify an individual mandate. That is clearly beyond the scope of the powers authorized to the federal government in the Constitution.
The mandate would have a much stronger case (IMHO) if conservatives get their way and allow interstate sale of insurance contracts.

[Tom]

The constitution is clear that all laws must apply equally among the states and individuals. This bill fails that - the bribe to various states for votes and the exempting of unions in penalties - this is a slam dunk if you REALLY intend to be legal and follow the constitution.

Where are those who cried and screamed about Bush violating the constitution when he narrowly identified suspected terrorist phone calls, and not a one of them could name a single person who was harmed by that?

[Leonard]

Where are those who cried and screamed about Bush violating the constitution when he narrowly identified suspected terrorist phone calls, and not a one of them could name a single person who was harmed by that?

Now that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have extended those evil Bush era provisions of the Patriot Act they have all agreed it was a great idea.

[Robert Goren]

A lesson that never seems to be learned. If you start something no matter how pure motives,sooner or later the people who opposed you will change their minds and use it in a way that you will consider not so pure. It is almost always better to leave Pandora's box unopened. The short term gain is almost never worth the long term pain. JMO

[JustRalph]

Now that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have extended those evil Bush era provisions of the Patriot Act they have all agreed it was a great idea.


excellent point and one that is ignored by the Obama cheerleaders on the left.

Reminds me of those who screamed about Bush and "rendition"

They forget that Clinton Started Rendition and defended it

[Tom]

Small minds have short attention spans.

[boxcar]

I have health coverage. I was speaking hypothetically, but thank you for your concern. And people say you have no heart. :rolleyes: Wait a minute. Are those crocadille tears? And here I was thinking....... :(

And I was being sarcastic. What were you saying again about you actually "thinking"? :rolleyes:

Btw, since Shelter is more fundamental to human existence than health care, you should write Pelosi and Reid and tell them to pass the Universal Homeowner's Insurance Act. (The government might as well control all insurance.) This way everyone in the country, no matter what they live in (if anything at all) can chip in to help pay for homeowners' very expensive HO insurance policies. I have to think that would bring cost of those pricey policies down. What sayest thou? On you on board with this?

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Hey, Boxie, if they throw in free golf, I'll go to the other side. Just kidding. :rolleyes:

[jonnielu]

What are all citizens required to purchase under SS or MC?
Answer - nothing.

That is why it is unconstitutional.

Nothing is required of citizens under any act of Congress, that is what makes all of the these taxing acts Constitutional.

Congress legislates only for those within its Constitutional jurisdiction.

jdl

[mostpost]

Nothing is required of citizens under any act of Congress, that is what makes all of the these taxing acts Constitutional.

Congress legislates only for those within its Constitutional jurisdiction.

jdl
Nothing you say ever makes any sense. Ever.

[JustRalph]

Nothing is required of citizens under any act of Congress, that is what makes all of the these taxing acts Constitutional.

Congress legislates only for those within its Constitutional jurisdiction.

jdl


Nothing you say ever makes any sense. Ever.

He is talking to himself again.

He is asserting his "non taxpayer" creed again............

[skate]

The constitution is clear that all laws must apply equally among the states and individuals. This bill fails that - the bribe to various states for votes and the exempting of unions in penalties - this is a slam dunk if you REALLY intend to be legal and follow the constitution.

Where are those who cried and screamed about Bush violating the constitution when he narrowly identified suspected terrorist phone calls, and not a one of them could name a single person who was harmed by that?

Absotively, i believe they made zemptions for some religions also, yep.

[Warren Henry]

I will try to make this short. In sept of 2006 every gland in my body shut down. No one has ever come up with a reason for it. I spent sept in the hospital and another two months on Dialysis while my kidneys came back. I started get bills from the hosp. and the DRs saying my insurance wasn't paying. Tried contacting the insurance company to find out why. I got the run around and passed back forth from one person to the next. I never did get an answer. I then went to talk with my boss. He told me that the corporate head quarters had talked to him yesterday and told him to fire me. He was try to work up the nerve to tell me when I called him. After much ado and with the help of the city with whom my employer had a contract, I got a small severance package and their help in getting SS disability. The insurance company eventually paid about a third of my bills. I cashed in my 401ks and paid most of the rest. I never a got anyone to tell me why they would not pay anymore than they did. A person I knew at corporate told me off the record that the insurance co. had pressured them to fire me. The whole thing has been straight from the Twilight Zone.


If all this happened as you say, you should have no problem finding an attorney who will represent you against the perps and eventually make himself and you wealthier than you are today. I would guess that you wouldn't have to pay up front either. Why aren't you pursuing this?

[Warren Henry]

If all this happened as you say, you should have no problem finding an attorney who will represent you against the perps and eventually make himself and you wealthier than you are today. I would guess that you wouldn't have to pay up front either. Why aren't you pursuing this?
Sorry, I quoted and replied to an earlier post without having read the posts that came after -- this has been covered. MY BAD.

[Tom]

Absotively, i believe they made zemptions for some religions also, yep.


Obama' church?
The Church of Hate and Racism?

[skate]

Yes, Bush added more to the deficit. Obama=Bush on Steroids. Not sure how you missed this, but FDR passed social security and LBJ passed medicare. Obama's budget according to his own numbers will spend more as a percentage of GDP than Bush did on average even if you give all of Obama's 2009 spending to Bush. The Bush medicare plan is only a small part of the $107 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that exist as a result of the foresight of these "great social accomplishments."


OK ok already, UncleGeorge added more to the deficit, but the increase in GDP, which allowed a SMALLER % of our taxes, due to increase in tax collected, this smaller % of our tax came to 5%.
Resulted in 5% less of our tax money needed to pay off our debt.

Debt=growth, only way to go, growth from debt.

just don't go all out crankshaft craaaarazy.

hey, thanks for letting me get that one in there.

[skate]

Obama' church?
The Church of Hate and Racism?

Actually, i'm thinking, Menindanite or meninites (?) and, er, a ,whats the religion (a few i think) from the Penn and Ohio ares?

Yep, a few of them just flat out do not par take and are therefore exempt, which in turn brings about a Constitution Conflictualitude.:eek:

[46zilzal]

Mennonites you mean?

The Mennonites took their name from Menno Simons, a Dutch priest who converted to the Anabaptist faith and helped lead it to prominence in Holland by the mid-16th century.

[skate]

If all this happened as you say, you should have no problem finding an attorney who will represent you against the perps and eventually make himself and you wealthier than you are today. I would guess that you wouldn't have to pay up front either. Why aren't you pursuing this?


i understand where you are coming from, but 'the way it should be' and 'what actually happens' are NOW Very much apart.

Especially when it comes to an older person, it a No go.,..

[skate]

Mennonites you mean?

The Mennonites took their name from Menno Simons, a Dutch priest who converted to the Anabaptist faith and helped lead it to prominence in Holland by the mid-16th century.

Oh, ok, now just look at that will ya, is that why the Meninthenite met the chicken by the Windmill?

[46zilzal]

Oh, ok, now just look at that will ya, is that why the Meninthenite met the chicken by the Windmill?
AS usual you continue to speak in jibberish

[Tom]

And makes more sense than you do! :D

What do Amish girls like?
Two mennonite.

[johnhannibalsmith]

AS usual you continue to speak in jibberish

But he sure does punctuate well... hook, right?

[Robert Goren]

And makes more sense than you do! :D

What do Amish girls like?
Two mennonite.:lol: