# General > General Chat >  Congress Approved Health Care Bill

## Ken

I don't want to say anything political. So instead, I'll just say "You've Gotta' Be Kidding Me!"  :Sneaky2: 

Democratic-Controlled Congress Approved Health Care Bill

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_...icleid=1241479

----------


## huntermj

Tommarow i will be changing my payroll exemptions to the max. i will no no longer feed this, And yes, if i have to, i will go to cash only.

----------


## BENESSE

Are you actually surprised?!
I could see it coming...in my sleep...light years away.
We'll just have to live with it like we do with anything else we don't like.
It's _still_ not the end of the world.

----------


## huntermj

No we dont have to roll over and live with it. No more
At what point are you willing to call it the end of the world?
How about the end of of a nation,
The end of our Repiblic,
Sorry for getting political.
But this is it
I didnt leave this country, This country left me

----------


## BENESSE

> Sorry for getting political.
> *But this is it*


Or what?
If THIS is it for you, what are you gonna do when TS really HTF?
Who in the world would you like to trade with? I'd certainly like to know if I'm missing out so I can haul a$$ while I still have a chance.

----------


## huntermj

I wouldnt trade lives 
with anyone.
If this is what it is, then this is what it is

----------


## huntermj

Sorry, this whole thing has my Irish up.

----------


## canid

you needn't wish to trade places with others just to want things better. its a false dilemma.

----------


## LostOutrider

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

'bout time.  I was pretty happy to see the executive order affirming language against taxpayer $ going for abortions.

----------


## crashdive123

> 'bout time.  I was pretty happy to see the executive order affirming language against taxpayer $ going for abortions.


IMO this will destroy the economy of this country, decrease the quality of health care in the United States, and is marching us more quickly toward third world status.

By the way - an executive order cannot override law.  Once this bill is signed into law, no executive order can change it.  Only repealing it or new laws modifying it can have that affect.

----------


## your_comforting_company

I, for one, have 0 options available for health care. I've been sick for 2 weeks now and can't go to the doctor because I CANT AFFORD IT. I think it's great that my grandmother can get her medicine now. I think it's great that I don't have to front $100 _that I don't have anyway_ to take ONE of my kids to the doctor. I have 3 kids, so if they all get sick, they either have to suffer, or we turn off the lights.

This economy needs to be destroyed. The American Dream is what's killing this country, not health care reform. It's the fattened button and pencil pushers that make $5m a year or the auto manufacturers paying workers $60 / hr to use an air wrench to tighten a bolt. It's the robots that replace workers and destroy job opportunities. Grab as much money as you can, claw your way to the top, and damn anyone that stands in the way of our gluttony. Wanna know why a basic vehicle costs us $35k instead of the $5k it costs to actually produce it? The american dream.
I for one work my *** off to make a little money and I STILL can't afford to go to the doctor. I can't remember the last time we ate out at a resturaunt. Complain all you want, but it will improve things or destroy the country as we know it. Either way, it will get better.
Something has to give. Throw some more straw on the camel.

----------


## LostOutrider

> IMO this will destroy the economy of this country, decrease the quality of health care in the United States, and is marching us more quickly toward third world status.
> 
> By the way - an executive order cannot override law.  Once this bill is signed into law, no executive order can change it.  Only repealing it or new laws modifying it can have that affect.


Right, crash.  This is what's gonna do us in, not the two wars we were unable to pay for, the historic pillaging of Social Security (in light of the aging Boomers), and the insane money thrown to prop up the 'too big to fail' set.




> Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution. Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority  vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.

----------


## Sarge47

As a former Insurance Agent & field underwriter I think this whole thing is nuts!  1st, lawmakers thumbed their collective noses at the voters who put them in office, 2nd, they're going to shut down an important part of the Insurance industry. 3rd, many doctors in this country who saw it coming have taken early retirement, many more are going to leave the medical profession.  Others have already quit taking Medicare payments because the Government doesn't pay!  4th, It was a one-sided project planned & executed by one side of the two main political parties.  5th, it's not over by a long shot.  6th, I'd vote minority house speaker John Hoener President without hesitation!  7th, Geraldo sucks!  I liked him better when he had a broken nose!   :Sneaky2:   :Cool2:

----------


## your_comforting_company

that is a good observation. several doctors in our town outright refuse to take medicare patients anymore because they aren't getting paid. The senior surgeon is retiring this year after 40+ years.
Everyone fears change, but it is the nature of the world.
I'm betting some legistlator with interest and investments in the insurance industry are behind the "fire safe cigarette" mumbo jumbo.
Is anyone else tired of this hidden agenda BS?

----------


## BENESSE

ycc is just one example why I am not torn up over this issue. (remember...there but for the grace of God...) SOMEthing had to be done and although this isn't ideal, it's better than nothing.

To crash's point: 

_"IMO this will destroy the economy of this country, decrease the quality of health care in the United States, and is marching us more quickly toward third world status."_

If, of ALL the things that are wrong in this country, this one issue (that can actually help so many people) has such potential to cripple us, then maybe it's time that we as citizens and human beings reexamine who we are and what we stand for.
IMHO.

----------


## BENESSE

> you needn't wish to trade places with others *just to want things better.* its a false dilemma.


You are absolutely right about the false dilemma.
But wanting things better is a relative/nebulous term. Better for whom? What's good for you may not be good for me. How about better for most? It is after all, the underpinning of democracy.

----------


## Rick

I'm with Crash on this one. I think folks failed to see the real problem here. This is not real health care reform but a health care band-aid. It does nothing to address the root causes of expensive health care. When doctor's have to pay $21,000 a month for malpractice insurance and those premiums increase 50% a year, when fraud costs Medicare $60 Billion a year then something much deeper and much worse is at the core. I think we've failed to peel the onion to get at the root of the problem. 

I don't know about you but I haven't seen very many programs the Federal government has been able to run well. You named some of the reasons, LostOutRider. Why does anyone think this program will be run any better? And how many times has Washington told us it would cost XX dollars only to find out the real cost is triple the forecast? 

This is a very bad omen for an already strained budget at a time when none of us can afford it. It will either result in increased taxes, decreased services or become a death knell for the economy overall. I'm a pretty optimistic guy when it comes to federal finances but I have to tell you, now I'm worried. This is not a good thing in the long run.

----------


## Sourdough

Old Sourdough saying, "Before Health Care Bill, fetch water, split firewood, After Health Care Bill, fetch water, split firewood".

I guess the more you are part of the system, the more you are or will be impacted, and conversely the further removed from the system the less the impact. I see this as one more wake-up call, to those tethered to the system, to extract them self with-in the next four years.

"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have "NOTHING" if you want to be FREE".

----------


## Justin Case

YCC ,  I am sorry to hear that you have been sick,,   I am in the same boat as you as far as not being able to afford to see a Doctor,  Sadly,  This Bill will Not help us at all,  at least not yet,  This bill will help the middle class some, but not the poor,   I Have discussed this with MANY Canadians on another site and we Need what They Have,  EVERYBODY get health care,,  Canadians are ALL very happy with their system,  anyway, That Said, You can still go to the Emergency Room,  They HAVE to treat you,  But be prepared for someone to try to help you get on welfare,   They still try to recover the costs of the Visit however they can.  :Smile:

----------


## Rick

> Canadians are ALL very happy with their system


I don't know about that. I guess the ones that live close to the border are. They come come to the US to be treated.......or could.

----------


## BENESSE

> This is a very bad omen for an already strained budget at a time when none of us can afford it. It will either result in increased taxes, decreased services or become a death knell for the economy overall. I'm a pretty optimistic guy when it comes to federal finances but I have to tell you, now I'm worried. *This is not a good thing in the long run.*


OK, then let's bring it down to a human level.
What specific advice would you like to give ycc and his family for the short run?
I'd also like to hear Sourdough's advice.

----------


## Justin Case

> I don't know about that. I guess the ones that live close to the border are. They come come to the US to be treated.......or could.


Only if they can afford it and that is because they do not want to wait thier turn for certain things,  At least thats how they have explained it, I spend a little time on a site that has been discussing this topic for the last 14 months, and there are quite a few Canadian Members,  They all Agree that the Canadian Health Care system is the best thing since sliced bread .

----------


## BENESSE

> I guess the more you are part of the system, the more you are or will be impacted, and conversely the further removed from the system the less the impact. I see this as one more wake-up call, to those tethered to the system, to extract them self with-in the next four years.
> 
> *"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have "NOTHING" if you want to be FREE"*.


Sourdough, anything more specific you can offer ycc since apparently he hasn't seen it clear to do more, or do with less.




> I, for one, have 0 options available for health care. I've been sick for 2 weeks now and can't go to the doctor because I CANT AFFORD IT. I think it's great that my grandmother can get her medicine now. I think it's great that I don't have to front $100 _that I don't have anyway_ to take ONE of my kids to the doctor. I have 3 kids, so if they all get sick, they either have to suffer, or we turn off the lights.
> I for one work my *** off to make a little money and I STILL can't afford to go to the doctor. I can't remember the last time we ate out at a resturaunt.

----------


## Justin Case

Well,  Now that its Law,  It can be amended,,  Its a waiting game .  Sadly,  Its the poor, like me that need it the most,  and the bill has been so watered down that the poor were completely left with nothing ?  oh,  I am getting used to having nothing,  LOL

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I, for one, have 0 options available for health care. I've been sick for 2 weeks now and can't go to the doctor because I CANT AFFORD IT. I think it's great that my grandmother can get her medicine now. I think it's great that I don't have to front $100 _that I don't have anyway_ to take ONE of my kids to the doctor. I have 3 kids, so if they all get sick, they either have to suffer, or we turn off the lights.
> 
> This economy needs to be destroyed. The American Dream is what's killing this country, not health care reform. It's the fattened button and pencil pushers that make $5m a year or the auto manufacturers paying workers $60 / hr to use an air wrench to tighten a bolt. It's the robots that replace workers and destroy job opportunities. Grab as much money as you can, claw your way to the top, and damn anyone that stands in the way of our gluttony. Wanna know why a basic vehicle costs us $35k instead of the $5k it costs to actually produce it? The american dream.
> I for one work my *** off to make a little money and I STILL can't afford to go to the doctor. I can't remember the last time we ate out at a resturaunt. Complain all you want, but it will improve things or destroy the country as we know it. Either way, it will get better.
> Something has to give. Throw some more straw on the camel.


 I think you're missing something, here. What you are against, is exactly what they just voted for more of. They used the excuse that some could not afford that $5k car (Health insurance.), and screamed that we need to help those people get that car. The problem is, they don't care about those people or those $5k cars. They just want control of the money and power.

 The bill that they passed won't get everyone that needs it, that $5k car. Most of the people that will get that $5k car, won't get it for years, and by the way...after all the BS that is in the bill, that car now cost $35K, and they are going to take that $35k from others, by force.

 Those of us that are against this thing, aren't saying that we don't want to help those who need the $5k car....we're just saying that we don't want someone taking $35k from us, so that they can control $35k, and may or may not help those who need it.

----------


## Justin Case

Excellent Post rwc !!!!

Green Thingy on its way  :Wink:

----------


## mountain mama

Our Declaration of Independence affords us the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" NOT free health insurance (of course, nothing is free, somebody has to pay for it)

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I am one without medical insurance. I am one who had medical insurance, but could not afford to use it. LOL! I am one who lost house, virtually everything I own, and in part wife, to high medical bills, insurance premiums and prescription costs we could not afford. I am in the process of losing a kid, by marriage, to this. He is simply giving up on life because he cannot afford to properly raise his child. He's so far in debt that I can't really blame him. He's a taxpayer! I'm one who lost his 42 year old father at age 5 because he lacked health insurance and forego his own health to provide for his kids best he could. He was a taxpayer. I am one who has seen my mother grow old, insuranceless, a stroke victim at a young age, living in retirement on 500 dollars a month, 100- 200 of which goes to her one prescription blood thinner, with absolutely no insurance or help from the govt of any kind ever, in her entire life.  She's a taxpayer. I am one, as ycc's kids are, that grew up without medical insurance of any kind. Too poor to afford it, and always too "wealthy?", proud, too honest, or unwilling to jump thru all the loopholes to get it for free. I'm a taxpayer, voter, and strong advocate of grass roots politics. I talk with the people in my community and become aware, an make them aware of all this hogwash and lies the politicians are stuffing down our throat via large always biased media outlets.
> 
> I always wondered how my mom did it. Now I know. By denying herself and her kids the very basic things they need to succeed and properly function in this modern world. By putting herslef and her kids at a serious disadvantage. By not letting her kids go on field trips, boyscouts, extra curricular activities, social functions, because she just plain couldn't afford to. By letting her kid grow up with a serious long term health issue that could have easily been fixed at a young age with a simple surgery, because she could not afford it.  
> 
> There is abuse from lawyers and individuals, but there is way more abuse from the businesses that currently govern this system.
> 
> I don't know if this new change will help my situation or the many I know, but it will help to restrict businesses ability to cook the books and work together, unethically, to keep costs artificially high. It will bring the cost and quality of health care overall down. It will help to balance the cost of health care more equally among our citizens. It will allow small businesses an advantage. When I say small I mean small, not large corporaations with 199 employees, but small mom and pop shops. The kind of shops we need if this country is going to stay afloat. 
> 
> If the govt and taxpayers can afford to buy out big business, give free money to medical companies annually, fight wars on foriegn soil, give aid to foriegn countries, and such they can also afford to put some of that money into the pockets of the folks that are truly keeping this country going on the most basic level.
> ...


 So, does this make it Ok, to steal it from others?

----------


## mountain mama

btw, I feel the pain too.  We are in debt up to our eyeballs due to medical expenses from last year alone (to the tune of $10,000 and that is WITH insurance).  However, that does not mean that I want to give up the freedom to choose for myself.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Are you actually surprised?!
> I could see it coming...in my sleep...light years away.
> We'll just have to live with it like we do with anything else we don't like.
> It's _still_ not the end of the world.


 So, you are OK, with them taking a big crap on our founding documents?

----------


## trax

> Only if they can afford it and that is because they do not want to wait thier turn for certain things,  At least thats how they have explained it, I spend a little time on a site that has been discussing this topic for the last 14 months, and there are quite a few Canadian Members,  They all Agree that the Canadian Health Care system is the best thing since sliced bread .


I don't agree that our health care system is the best thing since sliced bread at all. In fact, I've personally seen a number of doctors especially in smaller towns in this country that leave a lot of questions about their own qualifications unanswered every time they open their mouths. There are also a lot of advanced treatments and diagnostic tests that are either unavailable here or there are waiting lists that are months long. I don't know if it's the same in other provinces or not. These are just personal observations, mostly from what friends and family members have gone through, I seldom use our health care system simply because I seldom get sick.

Having said that, I'd like to share this little anecdote with you all. When I lived way up north in the '80's I conversed with a doctor there who was originally from South Africa. It was easier for him to get into his profession in the US if he came in from Canada rather than any other country in the world. He agreed to a two year work stint in Northern Manitoba in exchange for getting all of his papers basically rubber stamped to get him in. He told me as soon as the 2 years were up on his contract he was moving to the US. I asked him if the money was really that much better and he said basically as soon as you step over the 49th parallel, it increases ten fold and keeps going up as you head south. Now, that tells us at least two things right? One, Canada's going to continue to lose it's best and brightest in health care and two, someone is paying for those doctors in the US, the end-user, the patient.

----------


## mountain mama

Well, hell, let's all just sit on our arses and collect from those with more money.  Sooner or later those bringing in the bucks are going to get tired and take their toys to play elsewhere.  Then where will we be?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> They HAVE to treat you,  But be prepared for someone to try to help you get on welfare,   They still try to recover the costs of the Visit however they can.





> or unwilling to jump thru all the loopholes to get it for free.


 This sounds like y'all are to proud, or to stubborn to admit that you need help, but you have no problem with someone taking what someone else has, and give it to you?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> They're stealing from us right now. IMO, It's not stealing, it's adding accountabilty and ethics to a machine that has been rolling down the tracks like a snow ball headed for hell. It's putting some level of balance to the stealing part you suggest.


 My point is, that the bill that they just passed, is not helping any of those problems. In fact, it will make them much worse. 

 They use the propaganda that you are repeating, to try and sell it, but that's all it is. Don't take *anyone's* word for it. Read it for yourself. The info is out there. It's a really, really bad deal.

----------


## Justin Case

> Well, hell, let's all just sit on our arses and collect from those with more money.  Sooner or later those bringing in the bucks are going to get tired and take their toys to play elsewhere.  Then where will we be?


Nonsense !   Its about a screwed up economy,  Yes there are some users,  But there are hundreds of thousands of people who would rather work than not,  EVERYONE should be entitled to health care,  This subject should have been dealt with YEARS ago. This BS of 100 dollar aspirins in hospitals HAS to Stop !

----------


## Justin Case

> This sounds like y'all are to proud, or to stubborn to admit that you need help, but you have no problem with someone taking what someone else has, and give it to you?


I never said I was Proud,  I was just stating a Fact,  Thats how it works,  I cant change that,  are people supposed to let their children die ?  or should they go on welfare ?  Everyone seems to forget,  There are a LOT of people , myself included that has worked my whole adult life until recently,  and I have Paid Taxes through the nose,  do i feel guilty getting food stamps right now,,  NOPE,  not one iota.   I have Never abused the welfare system ,  but there are many who have,  and I agree , thats not a good thing,

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Nonsense !   Its about a screwed up economy,  Yes there are some users,  But there are hundreds of thousands of people who would rather work than not,  EVERYONE should be entitled to health care,  This subject should have been dealt with YEARS ago. This BS of 100 dollar aspirins in hospitals HAS to Stop !


 No one is entitled to health care. Period.
Now you are correct about the system being screwed up, but this bill is going to screw it up much worse. If you do not understand that, then I suggest that you do some research.

 The entitlement crowd is the reason for the $100 aspirins.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> This reform has nothing to do with freedom to choose, or our constitution. that's just nazi propaganda.


 If you believe that, you are not equipped to have this conversation.

Good luck, in the future.

----------


## BENESSE

> Our Declaration of Independence affords us the right to *"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" NOT free health insurance* (of course, nothing is free, somebody has to pay for it)


Where does foreign aid and "nation building" fit in there? Does it come under the pursuit of happiness?
How about propping up failed corporations? Does that go under life or liberty?
It's been so long since someone cleared that up for me.

----------


## Justin Case

I think I will leave this subject alone now,  I have made Many good friends here and thats the way I would like to keep it,,  The Bill Passed, and is a signature away from being Law,  I guess all we can do is wait and see what happens next,  and just for the record,   I am not a Republican or Democrat either,  I consider myself a Free thinker,   :Smile:      So with a Firm Handshake to everyone here ,   Lets talk about fishing or something .


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I never said I was Proud,  I was just stating a Fact,  Thats how it works,  I cant change that,  are people supposed to let their children die ?  or should they go on welfare ?  Everyone seems to forget,  There are a LOT of people , myself included that has worked my whole adult life until recently,  and I have Paid Taxes through the nose,  do i feel guilty getting food stamps right now,,  NOPE,  not one iota.   I have Never abused the welfare system ,  but there are many who have,  and I agree , thats not a good thing,


 There are programs in place, and I agree that there should be more/better options for some people, especially people in your position. (A bridge, if you will.) What I'm saying, is that this bill does not do that. And it's gonna cost a boat load of money....and still not solve the problems.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Where does foreign aid and "nation building" fit in there? Does it come under the pursuit of happiness?
> How about propping up failed corporations? Does that go under life or liberty?
> It's been so long since someone cleared that up for me.


 Those things are wrong, too, but that's not what we're talking about.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I think I will leave this subject alone now,  I have made Many good friends here and thats the way I would like to keep it,,  The Bill Passed, and is a signature away from being Law,  I guess all we can do is wait and see what happens next,  and just for the record,   I am not a Republican or Democrat either,  I consider myself a Free thinker,       So with a Firm Handshake to everyone here ,   Lets talk about fishing or something .


 We don't have to agree on everything, to be friends.
Heck, if you can't argue with your friends, who can you argue with? LOL :Innocent: 

 Dis-agreeing is fine, as long as we still show respect towards each other.
(At least, that's how I see it.) :Tongue Smilie:

----------


## BENESSE

> No one is entitled to health care. Period.


The great 2D wizard has spoken, so there you have it. 
I too will bid you adieu, since Urinary Olympics was never my thang.

----------


## Justin Case

> Heck, if you can't argue with your friends, who can you argue with? LOL


  Its much more fun with Beer  :Smile:

----------


## mountain mama

> Nonsense !   Its about a screwed up economy,  Yes there are some users,  But there are hundreds of thousands of people who would rather work than not,  EVERYONE should be entitled to health care,  This subject should have been dealt with YEARS ago. This BS of 100 dollar aspirins in hospitals HAS to Stop !


Have you paid any attention to the economy since yesterday's bill passed? http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ad.php?t=11257
The economy and the health care situation are entertwined

And NOONE is entitled to anything under our Declaration of Independence, but "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", NOT free health care.

----------


## mountain mama

> We'll be much better off. If'n you don't like it go with them. I'm sure they'll take you along for the ride. Seein's how they are so generous with all their resources.


You have the same right to the "pursuit of happiness" as they do, so why not make your own resources?

----------


## mountain mama

> Where does foreign aid and "nation building" fit in there? Does it come under the pursuit of happiness?
> How about propping up failed corporations? Does that go under life or liberty?
> It's been so long since someone cleared that up for me.


Oh, I hear ya sister, but why keep digging the hole deeper than it already is?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Its much more fun with Beer


 Oh, heck no! You settle arguments before you start drinking beer.
Arguing, while drinking, leads to fighting.....and I'm gettin' to old for that crap! LOL (With friends, anyway.) LOL :Innocent:

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

It is just simptimatic of root cause, less being divided by more each day. They want to be the ones dividing the pie. First, it's all a LIE! There is a lot more in that 2700 pages than concern for your health. It is part of your indoctrination, continue to accept it, get used to it. The internet will be feed into the beast computers to analize and guage your discontent. Then adjustments made to bring on the next step. By the time eugenics get here you will think it acceptal. If you don't see it happening to you it is probably to late for you. For the world it is already too late, everything done now will be too little too late. Filling your head with the daily specifics of thier plan is not most productive use of your time. Grab what you can while you can! The ship is sinking and we have a community organizer at the helm.

----------


## Justin Case

> And NOONE is entitled to anything under our Declaration of Independence, but "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", NOT free health care.


Aren't "Happy" people "Healthy" people ?  

But you are right,  in one sense anyway,  Free Health care is no more a "Right" than free public education is ????   Hello  !!!    think about it,   anyway,  have a great Day,

----------


## Justin Case

> Oh, heck no! You settle arguments before you start drinking beer.
> Arguing, while drinking, leads to fighting.....and I'm gettin' to old for that crap! LOL (With friends, anyway.) LOL


LOL,,  I guess it just seems more "Worth it" when there is beer  :Smile:

----------


## Old GI

After the talking heads saying TRICARE won't be affected, Rep Ike Skelton (DO-MO) and Chair of HASC said he will introduce legislation to protect TRICARE since the Senate Bill (now House Bill too) adversely impacts TRICARE.  He better watch it, he'll be next.  

For those of you that don't understand what I'm talking about,  TRICARE is the health insurance provided to active duty dependents and military retirees and their dependents.  The promise has been - when you make it to retirement, you will have all your healthcare paid for you and your immediate family.  I know about that "promise"; when I was so fortunate to command soldiers, I was required to cover this benefit in every monthly "Commander's Call".  

That has been denied as it was never in law.  Upon learning this when Col Bud Day (USAF-Ret. attorney and MOH) brought the suit resulting in TRICARE-for-Life when we were told that was never promised by congress, I can't describe how I felt for lying to those magnificent soldiers.

Sorry for the venting. :Crying:

----------


## mountain mama

JustinCase, I have seen plenty of unhappy healthy people and vice versa, plenty of happy unhealthy people.  Happiness is a frame of mind, not a political maneuver.

----------


## Justin Case

Well Lets just say that being healthy is "MY" pursuit of Happiness !  :Wink:

----------


## mountain mama

Then I suggest you secure your own happiness.

----------


## Justin Case

> After the talking heads saying TRICARE won't be affected, Rep Ike Skelton (DO-MO) and Chair of HASC said he will introduce legislation to protect TRICARE since the Senate Bill (now House Bill too) adversely impacts TRICARE.  He better watch it, he'll be next.  
> 
> For those of you that don't understand what I'm talking about,  TRICARE is the health insurance provided to active duty dependents and military retirees and their dependents.  The promise has been - when you make it to retirement, you will have all your healthcare paid for you and your immediate family.  I know about that "promise"; when I was so fortunate to command soldiers, I was required to cover this benefit in every monthly "Commander's Call".  
> 
> That has been denied as it was never in law.  Upon learning this when Col Bud Day (USAF-Ret. attorney and MOH) brought the suit resulting in TRICARE-for-Life when we were told that was never promised by congress, I can't describe how I felt for lying to those magnificent soldiers.
> 
> Sorry for the venting.


You have Nothing to be sorry for,  You have Morals,  And thats a great thing  :Smile:

----------


## mountain mama

I think a big screen tv would make me happy, should we make that a law too?
We have the right to PURSUIT of happiness, that doesn't mean it is the government's job to make us happy.

----------


## Justin Case

> Then I suggest you secure your own happiness.


Hello !!!  the Bill PASSED !

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

There is a time for all things. This is not the time for happiness unless it is drug induced. Is there Flouride in your water? Flouride was first used in the German concentration camps to keep the Jews complacient. I'm old school and still prefer whiskey.

----------


## mountain mama

laws were made to be broken.....errrr repealed...and this one is as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as they come.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...5GKEQD9EGLNDO0
expect more to come...

----------


## Justin Case

> laws were made to be broken.....errrr repealed...and this one is as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as they come.
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...5GKEQD9EGLNDO0
> expect more to come...


You should actually READ your article,

_"Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states"._

Looks to me like more waste of YOUR tax dollars.  

BTW,  Been to Boise,  Loved that place  :Smile:  Beautiful !

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

How's this, for helping the poor and old?




> To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade and cuts more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients.


 How many people will suffer, from a $500 billion dollar cut, to medicare?

----------


## mountain mama

We still have the opportunity to vote these clowns out of office and repeal the law.  The symbolism is showing what we really want as a country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orTEyYR87iI
"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it" - Santayana

Yes, Boise is beautiful, as are SunValley, McCall, and Coeur d'Alene.  It's no Texas, but I do love this state and at least our leaders know how to vote lol

And for your entertainment and viewing pleasure (to make you happy lol), I will leave you with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_tAe87ELo

----------


## Justin Case

> We still have the opportunity to vote these clowns out of office and repeal the law.  The symbolism is showing what we really want as a country.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orTEyYR87iI
> "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it" - Santayana
> 
> Yes, Boise is beautiful, as are SunValley, McCall, and Coeur d'Alene.  It's no Texas, but I do love this state and at least our leaders know how to vote lol
> 
> And for your entertainment and viewing pleasure (to make you happy lol), I will leave you with:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_tAe87ELo


LOL, Good Luck !

----------


## Justin Case

> How's this, for helping the poor and old?
> 
> 
> 
>  How many people will suffer, from a $500 billion dollar cut, to medicare?


c'mon,  Lets go fishin'   :Smile: 

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## mountain mama

Now that's the pursuit of happiness I'm talkin' about!

----------


## trax

> ...... This is not the time for happiness unless it is drug induced. ...... I'm old school and still prefer whiskey.


See! See??? I TOLD you guys I TOLD you!!! drugs and whiskey....steer ya right every time.

----------


## Sarge47

I will be starting a new thread later today to educate the membership on how Health Insurance works.  I will desperately try to keep the politics out of it.   :Cool2:

----------


## Rick

Let's get away from inflamed passions and talk real numbers for a moment. 

The new law will increase the Medicare payroll  tax by 0.9 percentage points to 2.35 percent on wages above  $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.

A new 3.8 percent tax will be imposed on  interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for  individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more  than $250,000.

When fully phased in, 94 percent of eligible non-elderly Americans would  have coverage, compared with 83 percent today. 

So those making more than $200,000 a year will, in effect, pay for for an additional 11% to have insurance. 

For all those complaining that you pay taxes....so do the folks over $200,000 a year. How is that fair? (rhetorical)

Total cost to taxpayers in the first ten years, $938 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. 

Companies with more than 50 employees with get hit with a $2000 per employee fee if the government has to provide any portion of the health care. That's a small business by anyone's standards. 

Louisiana retains a sweet heart deal in the program worth over $300 million to that state that all taxpayers will pay for. 

I would urge you to stop talking about what your heart feels and look at what your wallet will feel. Ask yourself why this legislation was pushed for so vehemently. Do you think it was pushed because the government loves you? 

Sourdough - You and the geese need to move over. I'm in your corner now.

In other news....

Authored by Senator A.G. Crowe and  pre-filed for the 2010 Legislative Session, the Louisiana Health Care Freedom Act is a proposal to  protect the freedom of Louisiana citizens from the currently proposed  national health care by rendering it null and void.

 Based on the Tenth Amendment to the  Constitution, Senator Crowe states that the proposed national health  care legislation is a violation of the US Constitution in a number of  ways and has sent a letter to Attorney General Buddy Caldwell for an  opinion.

 Nullification is the constitutional  theory that gives an individual state the right to declare null and void  any law passed by the United States Congress that the state deems  unacceptable and unconstitutional.  According to The Tenth Amendment Center, Louisiana is not alone  in its efforts, as some 30 other states have also introduced resolutions  or bills that would nullify federal laws.

 This includes the 2009 passing of SCR 2, affirming Louisiana’s sovereignty under the  Tenth Amendment, by both the House and Senate with overwhelming  majorities.

The battle may not be over. It may now be fought on a state by state basis.

----------


## mountain mama

> I do and so does my family. Big business doesn't. They get their resources from us, for free. Big business gets free money from govt, our tax dollars, to move business overseas and to charge us too much for or deny us health care we are willing to pay for.
> 
> I think it's funny how conservatives and big business cry about freeloaders when they are the biggest freeloaders of all. Anyone with common sense who can make heads and tails of what really is going on knows that.


I am conservative and am anything but a "freeloader".  Funny thing, Obama is the one who bailed out the big banks and lenders with trillions of OUR tax.....errrrr CHINA's money.

----------


## Justin Case

> I am conservative and am anything but a "freeloader".  Funny thing, Obama is the one who bailed out the big banks and lenders with trillions of OUR tax.....errrrr CHINA's money.


 :gagged:   :gagged:   :gagged:   :gagged:

----------


## your_comforting_company

> I think you're missing something, here. What you are against, is exactly what they just voted for more of. ... They just want control of the money and power.
> 
>  The bill that they passed won't get everyone that needs it, that $5k car. Most of the people that will get that $5k car, won't get it for years, and by the way...after all the BS that is in the bill, that car now cost $35K, and they are going to take that $35k from others, by force.
> 
>  Those of us that are against this thing, aren't saying that we don't want to help those who need the $5k car....we're just saying that we don't want someone taking $35k from us, so that they can control $35k, and may or may not help those who need it.


I understand exactly what you are saying and totally agree with you. you just further supported my argument that it needs to happen. Not the health care, the economic collapse. No I don't agree that the money should come from someone else. As individuals, we should all pay the same tax, i.e., pay our fair share and each should benefit equally.. but we all know it'll never happen till the bigwigs go play in someone elses sandbox.
like I said:



> This economy needs to be destroyed. The American Dream is what's killing this country, not health care reform.


Me and rwc are apparently in the same boat.. My kids do without field trips, haircuts from the barber shop, movie rentals.. we sacrifice some things to have a better way of life. I'm happy to have groceries to eat that I procured on my own through labor and hunting, and a roof over my head. Since I won't be getting any health care anyway, the rest of it doesn't even matter. There are many more viable solutions to the problem, but I don't remember even getting *the chance* to vote on this thing.. _by the people, for the people, my @$$_. Big business runs big government and I just want out. I'd die happily from whatever disease takes me out of this world if I could really be free from this economic fat-cat system.
Maybe I am too proud to ask for a handout. Maybe I was just taught different. A Charlie Daniels song comes to mind... Sure, I could sit on my butt and cry "poor me!" but instead of waiting for a handout, I go out there and do for myself. How many people on welfare are actually capable of growing their own gardens? hunting and eating squirrels and birds? Deer? Because they CAN get a handout, *they do*. Come to the slum-side of my town and look at how many able bodied people just walk the streets all day, sucking on lollipops and ice cream cones. They live better than I do and I work all day. *IT AIN'T RIGHT!!*
All I'm saying is there is something wrong, and if it takes bankrupting the government for everyone to wake-up and learn to do for themselves or do without, then so be it.
The issue for me isn't really health care at all. It's the way these morons are spending our hard earned tax dollars to bail out companies that aren't even in economic crisis. We needed health care reform a long time ago and these idiots chose to bail out companies that already have money." Got Money? Here's more! Don't worry, we took it from the folks that are poor anyway, so they won't know the difference".

It's the money, and the power to control it that is the problem. What are we gonna do when China decides it's time to repay that debt?

----------


## your_comforting_company

and for God's sake, WHY DOES EVERY SIMPLE BILL THAT GOES ACROSS THE TABLE HAVE 10 LITTLE SIDE EXPENSES TAGGED TO IT? 
baby steps... One thing at a time.

----------


## your_comforting_company

and for the record, I priced health insurance for my family a few months ago and I can't afford that either. I can't possibly be *required* to have something I can't afford. That's like telling someone they HAVE to eat at McDonalds twice a week.
2D from now on you HAVE TO pay bogus insurance companies for coverage you may or may not even use. That's why I dropped my health insurance when I worked for a real company and punched a clock. over $350 a month for coverage I might use once every two years.. Cheaper to just be sick.

I'm done with this debate now, too. the whole thing makes me sick and I don't want to think about it anymore. Might have been different if *we the people* actually got the opportunity to VOTE on this law. Seems we get denied that right every time something important comes up.
Sure, we voted for wealthy legislators to represent us, but they have no idea where I'm coming from.. they cannot possibly represent my best interests, only theirs.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

I know everyone is tired of hearing it, but the answer is at the ballot box.

 I won't say A is right, or B is right, but which one we chose doesn't matter, unless you show up and vote for it.

 Those able bodied people that are sucking on lillypops and ice cream cones, are voting for what they want.

----------


## Sarge47

> I know everyone is tired of hearing it, but the answer is at the ballot box.
> 
>  I won't say A is right, or B is right, but which one we chose doesn't matter, unless you show up and vote for it.
> 
>  Those able bodied people that are sucking on lillypops and ice cream cones, are voting for what they want.


Agreed!  Now the backlash!  

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/22...ainst-demcare/

http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/s...ad.php?t=96919
It ain't over 'till it's over!   :Sneaky2:

----------


## Rick

I've just figured this thing out. No, really, I have. Health care reform is designed to provide health care to the poor. They're going to tax us until we're all poor so we'll all qualify. It's actually quite brilliant in a sadistic, cruel sort of way.

----------


## Ken

Sarge, one should never confuse a "policy debate" with a legally sustainable challenge. Simply because something may be bad policy does not make it ripe for a challenge on Constitutional grounds.

I doubt that legal opposition to this legislation based on the Commerce Clause will fly with the Supreme Court. Here are some relevant Constitutional and Bill of Rights provisions to consider:

*Article I., Section. 8.*

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and provide for the* common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (First Clause)
.......................................
*To regulate Commerce* with foreign Nations, and *among the several States*, and with the Indian Tribes; (Third Clause - words in bold are the "Commerce Clause")


Many legal scholars interpret the "General Welfare Clause" in strict terms related only to the general welfare of the nation, insofar as it is tied to the "common defense" language. The strict interpretation would, for example, authorize the establishment of the F.B.I. among countless other federal agencies. Other scholars interpret it in far broader terms, which would include authority to establish national health care for the individual. Such has been the case in the past with the enactment of the Social Security program, Medicare/Medicaid, educational funding, etc, etc., etc. All have survived judicial review. 

The "Commerce Clause" has also been interpreted liberally, almost without exception, and could easily (and most probably will) be interpreted to include authorization for Congress to enact national health insurance simply because citizens of the various states get sick or injured and otherwise obtain medical care outside of their state of domicile. 

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide additional, although weak, grounds for further legal challenges to national health care.

*Ninth Amendment* *- Rights retained by the People*
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

*Tenth Amendment* *- States' rights*
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.

That being said, the attorneys general of the various states that will challenge this legislation in the manner suggested appear to be grasping at straws. 

My legal opinion, based solely upon substantial legal precedent, is that the National Health Care Law will be found to be a Constitutional excercise of authority by the federal government.

----------


## crashdive123

I know that this is a passionate discussion, no matter which side of the debate you are on.  For the most part I think that people have stayed within the bounds of the rules  well maybe sticking a tow or two across the line.  Maybe if we drop the democrat/republican or conservative/liberal tags we could bring those tows back.

Here are some things to consider.  It sounds as though some feel that health care is a right.  Is it?  Here is a pretty concise definition of a right.




> A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of anotherwithin this context, rights are an absolute. 
> A right is universalmeaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group. 
> A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another persons life. You do not have a right to other peoples money. You do not have the right to another persons property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn itthen you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another persons life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individualnot through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the ownernot gain it through theft.


If one were to look at the Bill of Rights (1st 10 Amendments of the Constitution), they all fit into the above definition.  Mandated healthcare however cannot be exercised unless the full force and power of the government takes the property of others to provide it.  If it is a right  then doctors must provide free health care.  I would ask those that believe it is a right this  How much is OK for the government to take from individuals (taking part of their life) in order to provide others with rights?  How much of a doctors life is it OK to confiscate in order to provide those rights.

Heres a few items that are in the health care bill that you  may not have been aware of:
Page 30, Sec 123  There will be a gov committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get
Page 42 = The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits.
Page 59  The gov will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer
Page 149  Any employer with a payroll above $401K who does not provide public option will pay an 8% tax on all payroll
Page 150  A business with payroll between $251K and $401K  who does not provide public options will pay a payroll tax between 2% and 6%.
Page 167  Any individual that does not have acceptable health care coverage will be taxed at 2.5% of total income.
Page 239  Gov will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors.
Page 253  The gov sets the value of a doctors time, profession, judgement, etc.
It goes on and on.  You can say that the arguments that say choices are taken away are propaganda.  I would urge you to read the bill.

A few other things to consider  In order to get the GAO (Government Accounting Office) to score the bill at under 1 trillion dollars over ten years  the taxes start now  the benefits start in four years.  If you add in the other bills that are going to hit  like doc fix (puts back some of the medicare reimbursements that are cut in the bill to bring the costs down) it is plain that this is well in excess of a trillion dollars  probably over 2.5 trillion.  If its so great  why is Congress exempt?  If taxing the fat cats is so great, how did the president of SEIU (Service Employees International Union) become exempt (their plans will be exempt from the cadilac tax)?  Why are only the seniors in three counties of Florida going to have their Medicare Advantage in tact, while the rest of the country does not?  I could go on, but you are probably already bored.  Remember - this legislation is not about healt care.

----------


## rebel

I'd like to put my toe next to the line for a second and say, I agree with Becks' message today.  To hang in there because, when the money runs out which side do you want to be on?  JMO, it will be survival.

----------


## Justin Case

:gagged:  :gagged:

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

I think Beck has the wrong take on the future. We now have a right to mandatory health insurance and the next shoe to drop will be your right to mandatory employment.

----------


## Rick

I just heard on the local news that the Attorneys General in 13 states are considering a challenge on constitutional grounds, including Indiana. We already have a health program in place for the poor (HIP) and the governor is p@#$# because the federal law will do away with the program.

----------


## crashdive123

The AG of Florida is bringing the case, and has 12 co-signers (I think).  There are going to be so many lawsuits about this.

----------


## Ken

The Supreme Court would have to make a stunning departure from precedent in order to throw it out.  Maybe they will, maybe they won't.   :Innocent:

----------


## Trabitha

> I don't want to say anything political. So instead, I'll just say "You've Gotta' Be Kidding Me!" 
> 
> Democratic-Controlled Congress Approved Health Care Bill
> 
> http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_...icleid=1241479


*sigh*  I'm with ya, Ken.  I'm with ya.   :Sneaky2:

----------


## Trabitha

> and for the record, I priced health insurance for my family a few months ago and I can't afford that either. I can't possibly be *required* to have something I can't afford. .


However, this bill is forcing people to do just that.  Get insurance or get fined. 
There are now 38 states that are suing over this bill being unconstitutional...this thing is far from over...

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> The Supreme Court would have to make a stunning departure from precedent in order to throw it out.  Maybe they will, maybe they won't.


 What if the states get together, and request a whatchamacallit...to make a new amendment to the constitution?

----------


## Trabitha

That's the thing...the states don't want this either.  In the end your state taxes will be what pays for this bill...and many states simply can't pay it.  Not to mention they know that the government has no rights under the constitution to force us to purchase something like that.  They don't want to change the constitution to allow for it...they just don't like it.

----------


## crashdive123

> What if the states get together, and request a whatchamacallit...to make a new amendment to the constitution?


No need for a Constitutional Convention (you really don't want one - they open up the whole thing) because it is already not in there - forcing citizens to buy something.

----------


## Ken

Wonder how many young folks will loose their homes because they have to purchase insurance with the money they now use to pay their mortgage.

I guess it's a good thing that our government is setting our personal priorities and making our personal choices for us!   :Smile:   Now if they would only decide if I should order "original recipe" or "extra crispy."   :Blushing:   I have a really tough time with THAT choice.   :Innocent:

----------


## Sarge47

> I just heard on the local news that the Attorneys General in 13 states are considering a challenge on constitutional grounds, including Indiana. We already have a health program in place for the poor (HIP) and the governor is p@#$# because the federal law will do away with the program.


Back up a bit to post #86.   :Cool2:

----------


## your_comforting_company

> ... Those able bodied people that are sucking on lillypops and ice cream cones, are voting for what they want.


... and getting it.

----------


## Justin Case

Ya gotta buy auto ins to drive,,    just sayin'

----------


## crashdive123

> Ya gotta buy auto ins to drive,,    just sayin'


But if you *choose* not to own a car, you are not required to buy auto insurance.  With health care you will have no choice.  That's kind of one of the points.  Just sayin'.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Ya gotta buy auto ins to drive,,    just sayin'





> But if you *choose* not to own a car, you are not required to buy auto insurance.  With health care you will have no choice.  That's kind of one of the points.  Just sayin'.


 And it's insurance for damage/injury to *others*.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

> Ya gotta buy auto ins to drive,,    just sayin'


"Two wrongs don't make a right" but along the same kind of thinking as "Bush did it"

----------


## FVR

I'm conflicted on this issue.  My children are both adopted through the state foster care system.  Along with my children came medicaid/medicare for them until they turn 18 at no cost to us.

For the first few years I put them on my policy.  When the rates continued to rise, I took the state healthcare up on their policy full time instead of part time.  My daughter is CP and there is no way in hell that we could have ever paid for her medical through my policy or what I make.  Example, specialist doctors who charge $250.00 an hour.  Now, not taking anything away from the docs, they are good.  So good that my daughter is living a great life under their care.

With this new healthcare, my daughter will never have to worry about getting coverage when she gets older.  She is also legally blind.  But on the other hand, if anyone thinks that their premiums are not going to go up, WAKE UP.  Not to mention we now have a gov. that is forcing you to purchase something that some may not want to buy.

I think this is a step backwards and could have been handled completely different.  Unfortunately, the Repo's are as much to blame as the Dem's.  The Repo's will keep it in the lime light in hopes to get control in November, not even addressing why under an 8 year rule, they did nothing.  The perscription drug policy they pushed through, they did it just like the Dems did this healthcare policy.  Backroom deals.

I think Al Sharpton said it best when they asked him if Obama was a socialist with his programs, he said "If the people did not want socialism, then they would not have voted Obama in as president."

It's going to take alot to bounce back from this one as it not just affects healthcare.  It sets precidents on gov. and it's future control.

----------


## Justin Case

Ya know what,,   This whole thing started out to be like Canada,  it has been so watered down it aint worth a squat anyway,   You guys complain about the rich having to pay for it,  well guess what,  If we had universal health care there would be less people claiming disability and welfare because they got sick,,   Nothing you do or say will stop this government from taxing everybody for every cent it can.   Thats my story and I'm sticking to it !    :Wink:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Someone do some quick math. They are going to spend $1.5 trillion, (estimated, and we know what gov't estimates are like.) to insure 10 million people for 6 years or less. How much does that work out to be...per person, per month?

----------


## crashdive123

> Ya know what,,   This whole thing started out to be like Canada,  it has been so watered down it aint worth a squat anyway,   You guys complain about the rich having to pay for it,  well guess what,  If we had universal health care there would be less people claiming disability and welfare because they got sick,,   Nothing you do or say will stop this government from taxing everybody for every cent it can.   Thats my story and I'm sticking to it !


You really should tak a look at the legislation.  If you think it's about the rich vs poor, you are way off base.  When you say "you guys complain ....."  Who is saying that?  If you think that's what it is about, you truly do not understand it.  Taxes on most of it start immediately.  Because of your work situation you may say that it won't affect you.  Think again.  In my first post in this thread I alluded to it, but this bill is a jobs killer!  IMO intentionally so to get more people to the single payer system and do away with private insurance.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Someone do some quick math. They are going to spend $1.5 trillion, (estimated, and we know what gov't estimates are like.) to insure 10 million people for 6 years or less. How much does that work out to be...per person, per year?


 Isn't that a little over $2,000 per month, per person, for minimal health insurance?
 With that big a group, I bet you could insure them for less than $500 per person per month. Where is the other $1,500 per person, per month going???

----------


## Ken

If your starting figures are correct, that number seems darn close, 2dumb.

----------


## Ken

Actually, I believe the reported figures ar about 33,000,000 additional people would be covered.  About $600/person/month

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> If your starting figures are correct, that number seems darn close, 2dumb.


 Granted, I did "assume" a couple of things.
1. Number of people covered.
The info that I have seen, says that the number of people who don't have health ins. that can't afford it, and aren't eligable for schip, medicare etc., is around 10 million. 

2. They are calling it just shy of a trillion dollars, but that includes stealing .5 trillion from medicare. I don't think they will pull that off. I call that 1.5 trillion. (But I expect at least 5 times that.)

3. They really aren't covering anyone for the first 4 or more years, of that 10 year time frame, so I'll call that 6 years.

----------


## SARKY

I have to make a correction here.... It is the progressive held congress not the democrats. the democrat party is now officially dead. There is a reason our founders created a Republic and not a democracy, and this is it!

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Actually, I believe the reported figures ar about 33,000,000 additional people would be covered.  About $600/person/month


 That figure is BS, in my book.
They are claiming way more people than they should, and they are not claiming cost that in the plan, they will steal from other places.

(See post 115.)

----------


## BENESSE

*Now what?*
After it's all said and done, more has been said than can actually be done by any of us.
I think continuing in this vain is just fanning the flames under the guise of "education". What are people supposed to _do_ with that knowledge anyway? 
In light of everything, does anyone have any advice or is it just about misery loves company, we're all going down?

----------


## Sourdough

So just WHAT are you going to do different in your life. There is a lot of stuff to be thinking about. If taxes are going to escalate, do you want to close your 401K today or wait and close it when the taxes are higher. What about Unearned income, or passive income. If you think taxes over-all are going up, do you take Long term Capital gains now or wait till it is taxed as regular income. If you could sell your house and take the one time tax free $500,000.00 profit, or wait till it is repealed. Buy the small farm now or wait till inflation makes it three times as expensive.

You can do something........or do nothing. Some don't have any options, but a lot of you'all do have options. As the large cities go bankrupt and can't sell bonds, and reduce Law Enforcement, do you stay in the big city, or move more rural. For example some of you have money, but need to stay in the city. You could buy a farm, and have another member here caretake, or run the farm for you, (Nell comes to mind), hypothetically.

I have my place for sale and if it sold I would buy (or maybe lease for 15 years) a place in America where there is lots of food and few people, Nebraska or Iowa or Kansas. And buy a houseboat in South-East Alaska.

My point is DO SOMETHING, Take affirmative action.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> *Now what?*
> After it's all said and done, more has been said than can actually be done by any of us.
> I think continuing in this vain is just fanning the flames under the guise of "education". What are people supposed to _do_ with that knowledge anyway? 
> In light of everything, does anyone have any advice or is it just about misery loves company, we're all going down?


 I'd say educating people to the details of what this means, and what it will do, will help people be better prepared for the future, and help cause them to hold their representatives accountable.

 I think that is very worthwhile.

----------


## COWBOYSURVIVAL

> I'd say educating people to the details of what this means, and what it will do, will help people be better prepared for the future, and help cause them to hold their representatives accountable.
> 
>  I think that is very worthwhile.


Yes it is...somewhere there is a dumb cowboy that doesn't understand any of this crud! OK so we are going to slap a 10% tax on tanning salons to pay for people who cannot afford health insurance???? What has a tanning salon got to do with health insurance?

----------


## hoosierarcher

This might seem political but it's just common sense....
This law and everything about this administration in cahoots with the legislature is financially unsustainable. We will pay for this for 4 years before anything with it other than the tax increases happening. Yet it won't be enough. They have increased spending to be above GDP. You can't do that. Yes it is that simple. They HAVE bankrupted the country.

----------


## BENESSE

> I'd say educating people to the details of what this means, and what it will do, will help people be better prepared for the future, and *help cause them to hold their representatives accountable.*
> 
>  I think that is very worthwhile.


That's about all people can do if they disagree with how things were done.
Come to think of it, that's EXACTLY how we got here. What more proof does one need that the system works?

----------


## Justin Case

> You really should tak a look at the legislation.  If you think it's about the rich vs poor, you are way off base.  When you say "you guys complain ....."  Who is saying that?  If you think that's what it is about, you truly do not understand it.  Taxes on most of it start immediately.  Because of your work situation you may say that it won't affect you.  Think again.  In my first post in this thread I alluded to it, but this bill is a jobs killer!  IMO intentionally so to get more people to the single payer system and do away with private insurance.


my comments were tongue in cheek  :Smile:

----------


## LowKey

> Companies with more than 50 employees with get hit with a $2000 per employee fee if the government has to provide any portion of the health care. That's a small business by anyone's standards.


Now I know why the company lawyer was on the phone all day.
I have nothing to say about this other than some people somewhere voted themselves a free lunch. Now someone else has gotta make it for em and serve it too.

Sourdough makes a good point. I've been considering what to do with the 401k. I don't like the idea of deferred taxes. Or paying into something that has a tendency to lose money (though I didn't get hit too hard with most in interest bearing rather than stocks. Slow I know, but safer). and I do think my long term plans have just accelerated.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

> This might seem political but it's just common sense....
> This law and everything about this administration in cahoots with the legislature is financially unsustainable. We will pay for this for 4 years before anything with it other than the tax increases happening. Yet it won't be enough. They have increased spending to be above GDP. You can't do that. Yes it is that simple. They HAVE bankrupted the country.


I may be simple minded, but makes sense to me. Basic arithmetic really.

----------


## Rick

What do you mean, "what to do with the 401K"? I hope you aren't considering cashing it in. That's not only taxable income but also penalized at 10% for early withdrawal. You'll never make your money back if you do that.

----------


## Sourdough

> What do you mean, "what to do with the 401K"? I hope you aren't considering cashing it in. That's not only taxable income but also penalized at 10% for early withdrawal. You'll never make your money back if you do that.



No penalty if your over 59, also you assume it will be escalating in a period of inflation, also if taxes go up 40% maybe you might wish you had extracted it sooner than later. I am not saying do it, I am saying plan, plan, think. If you think taxes are going DOWN over the next 20 years, you should wait. Like that will happen.

----------


## Boker

I'm not real political.  Dem vs Rep, Con vs Lib,  whatever...we are all going to the same goal.  Question is do you want to be pushed or pulled.


 That said, we do need changes in the health care system.  A lot of good folks die, that can't afford to live.  Health care should never be withdrew or terminated based on the ability to pay, to an extent.

 But then I'm an oddball and believe that its every humans right to choose how they die and when they die.

 A 2 tiered system has its advantages.


 Just my .02

 -Boker

----------


## LostOutrider

One of the most grievous con-jobs inflicted upon American voters is the false and unwavering dichotomy of our two-party labels.  You are Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, Red or Blue and if you have one belief that falls on one side of the line then you are now branded as such and subject to dismissal due to responsibility for the wildest element from that side of the line.  Lord help you if you believe that your taxes should pay for certain basic assistance to folks in need because now you are in support of welfare queens getting bonus pay for factory-wombs only as long as they refuse to work and agree to eat only ice cream and lollipops.  A thousand other rampant exaggerations apply, but only if they serve to confuse the issue at hand and polarize, polarize, polarize.   That gets the generally apathetic and ignorant voter off the LayZboy to smear his Cheeto-dusted fingers onto the voting machine so that the pols, regardless of party affiliation, will have another term to do whatever the hell they wanted to do anyway and still call it a representative democracy.  

The car insurance analogy is good.  Yes, there is no requirement for everyone to have a car - but there is a requirement for hospitals to care for anyone who walks in the door, whether or not they have insurance.  That cost is already passed onto you in the form of your $100 aspirin and is one reason behind the horribly out of control health-care costs.  Because I do not want to live in a country that makes it okay to turn sick children away from an ER because Daddy lost his job and can't afford insurance - I would prefer there be a better way than those two extremes.  The point of disagreement is if this is a better way or not - and I don't expect to convince anyone here of that.  I haven't seen yet what other crap they'll slip into this bill that has nothing at all to do with health care - or exactly how this will play out - but something is better than the continuous 'no' shouted from the pols who benefit most from the status quo.

----------


## Rick

Sourdough - You are correct on the 59 1/2 age rule. My comment was to Lowkey. I don't think he's that old. That's why I referenced early withdrawal. 

Lowkey - Your 401K is the best tax deferred vehicle you can invest in especially if your company is providing matching dollars at any level. That's free money. Also, consider this. There is a common rule called the value of money. In short, it means the value of a dollar is worth more today than it will be tomorrow. There is a lot that goes into that but the easy way to think about it is inflation. So you are deferring paying taxes with today's dollar so you can pay taxes tomorrow with a dollar that is worth less. Make sense? It's puts more real money in your pocket today and let's you pay the government with less money tomorrow. How can you not like that idea?

----------


## BENESSE

> Sourdough - You are correct on the 59 1/2 age rule. My comment was to Lowkey. I don't think he's that old. That's why I referenced early withdrawal. 
> 
> Lowkey - Your 401K is the best tax deferred vehicle you can invest in especially if your company is providing matching dollars at any level. That's free money. Also, consider this. There is a common rule called the value of money. In short, it means the value of a dollar is worth more today than it will be tomorrow. *There is a lot that goes into that but the easy way to think about it is inflation. So you are deferring paying taxes with today's dollar so you can pay taxes tomorrow with a dollar that is worth less. Make sense? It's puts more real money in your pocket today and let's you pay the government with less money tomorrow. How can you not like that idea?*


Right on the money Rick!
If there's ONE thing to remember, this is it.

----------


## Sourdough

> Lowkey - Your 401K is the best tax deferred vehicle you can invest in especially if your company is providing matching dollars at any level. That's free money. Also, consider this. There is a common rule called the value of money. In short, it means the value of a dollar is worth more today than it will be tomorrow. There is a lot that goes into that but the easy way to think about it is inflation. So you are deferring paying taxes with today's dollar so you can pay taxes tomorrow with a dollar that is worth less. Make sense? It's puts more real money in your pocket today and let's you pay the government with less money tomorrow. How can you not like that idea?



Rick, I agree if the Company is matching the dollars, but I think VERY few companies are matching today.

I still think investing is not for everyone. And for many the peace of mind and quality of life that comes from owning a farm, homestead, ranch, is priceless.

----------


## Rick

I can't disagree with that at all. Everyone needs to invest in whatever they are comfortable investing in and at whatever level of risk they are comfortable at. For some it will be land for others gold. It's all good if you do it right and understand how to do it. You just need to educate yourself as completely as possible on the subject. 

An awful lot of companies still match 401Ks because they receive some decent tax benefits from doing so. There are actually different kinds of plans an employer can offer; traditional, safe harbor and simple and each one offers different tax advantages.

However, if you are already in one it's not to your advantage to cash it in because of the exorbitant tax penalties.

----------


## dscrick

Rick you are correct. Our nation has been bankrupted by those we elect to "Represent" us. I was thinking about the national debt, which is 12.5 TRILLION dollars at this point, and I'm amazed how easily those kinds of numbers get thrown around. People have no comprehension of how huge a number that is; $12,500,000,000,000

So I did some research, and found some startling examples:

If you had ten trillion dollars (I'm using ten instead of 12.5 to make the math simpler) in one dollar bills, and you laid one flat (a dollar bill is .0043 inches thick according to the Treasury dept) and started a stack, you could make a stack 678,660 MILES HIGH. A stack that could go from earth completely around the moon and back, with about 50,000 miles left over!

If you had ten trillion dollars, and spent ONE MILLION dollars a day every day. it would take you 27,390 years and 8 months to spend it!

If you had ten trillion dollars, and you gave ONE MILLION dollars to someone every minute 24 hours a day seven days a week, It would take you over 3 years to give it away, and you would create TEN MILLION new millionaires.

If you had ten trillion dollars you could give all 227 million adults in the U.S $44,000 each. Cool, then we could all pay off the government debt we owe, which happens to be $44,000 each! Deficit erased! Oops, sorry, I was thinking like a congressman for a second

----------


## Trabitha

> And it's insurance for damage/injury to *others*.


Not to mention Justin, Auto Insurance is regulated by the State for the right to operate a vehicle.  Forced Healthcare insurance would then turn into "the right to obtain healthcare".  What happens if you can't afford insurance?  You get a fine.  What happens if you can't pay that fine?  You get slapped with a BIGGER fine.  What happens when you can't pay THAT? Jail time.  
Care WILL be refused under this bill, unlike now.  You can and DO get care even if you don't have insurance now, with this bill you will NOT get care if you do not have insurance.

See how that little circle went?  This bill did not help us.  In short it made the small 50 million minority and the administration feel good at OUR expense.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> One of the most grievous con-jobs inflicted upon American voters is the false and unwavering dichotomy of our two-party labels.  You are Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, Red or Blue and if you have one belief that falls on one side of the line then you are now branded as such and subject to dismissal due to responsibility for the wildest element from that side of the line.  Lord help you if you believe that your taxes should pay for certain basic assistance to folks in need because now you are in support of welfare queens getting bonus pay for factory-wombs only as long as they refuse to work and agree to eat only ice cream and lollipops.  A thousand other rampant exaggerations apply, but only if they serve to confuse the issue at hand and polarize, polarize, polarize.   That gets the generally apathetic and ignorant voter off the LayZboy to smear his Cheeto-dusted fingers onto the voting machine so that the pols, regardless of party affiliation, will have another term to do whatever the hell they wanted to do anyway and still call it a representative democracy.  
> 
> The car insurance analogy is good.  Yes, there is no requirement for everyone to have a car - but there is a requirement for hospitals to care for anyone who walks in the door, whether or not they have insurance.  That cost is already passed onto you in the form of your $100 aspirin and is one reason behind the horribly out of control health-care costs.  Because I do not want to live in a country that makes it okay to turn sick children away from an ER because Daddy lost his job and can't afford insurance - I would prefer there be a better way than those two extremes.  The point of disagreement is if this is a better way or not - and I don't expect to convince anyone here of that.  I haven't seen yet what other crap they'll slip into this bill that has nothing at all to do with health care - or exactly how this will play out - but something is better than the continuous 'no' shouted from the pols who benefit most from the status quo.


 That's one heck of a job, you did there, Lost. Not only did your second paragraph hit most of the talking points used to try and sell that bill to the public, but it also did exactly what your first paragraph complained about! :clap:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Can someone please tell me how they are going to expand medicare, to have better coverage, and cover more people, all while cutting it's funding by half a trillion dollars?

----------


## rebel

> Can someone please tell me how they are going to expand medicare, to have better coverage, and cover more people, all while cutting it's funding by half a trillion dollars?


I guess the IRS will help you figure that out.

----------


## rebel

Did I hear correctly, this was going to cost about $ 1200. per month?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Did I hear correctly, this was going to cost about $ 1200. per month?


 At this point, I think it just depends who's numbers you believe.

 I personally think it will be higher, than that.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Don't forget the cost of this thing that is not covered by the bill. The ways and means committee, says that we will need to give the IRS an extra 10 billion, to hire over 16,000 more people to police the mandates of this bill.

 That's right.....companies and individuals will have to show on their tax forms that they have bought health insurance that meets minimum requirements. The IRS will also impose the fines, if you don't have health insurance.

 Next you might ask what the minimum health insurance is.....well, that is to be decided at a later date. That's right....they just passed a law that says that you have to buy something, and they will decide later how much of it you have to buy. 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63181

----------


## Rick

$1200 per month? That won't be individual cost. I haven't seen any numbers on what the premiums will be but I wouldn't be surprised. The plan is based on the Massachusetts plan and from what I've read, it has experienced double digit increases and more are expected prior to the roll out of this new plan. 

I haven't heard anyone talk about the doc fix either. That's another $210 billion over ten years. That has yet to be voted on but will be coming up shortly. That helps support doctor reimbursement from medicare. 

Nor have I heard anyone squawk about the fact that Medicare savings are going to be used to fund the plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, those two add ons will erase any deficit savings that were projected. Why does that not surprise me? 

@ DSRICK - Sen. Everett Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." 
*
*

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Someone do some quick math. They are going to spend $1.5 trillion, (estimated, and we know what gov't estimates are like.) to insure 10 million people for 6 years or less. How much does that work out to be...per person, per month?





> Isn't that a little over $2,000 per month, per person, for minimal health insurance?
>  With that big a group, I bet you could insure them for less than $500 per person per month. Where is the other $1,500 per person, per month going???





> Granted, I did "assume" a couple of things.
> 1. Number of people covered.
> The info that I have seen, says that the number of people who don't have health ins. that can't afford it, and aren't eligable for schip, medicare etc., is around 10 million. 
> 
> 2. They are calling it just shy of a trillion dollars, but that includes stealing .5 trillion from medicare. I don't think they will pull that off. I call that 1.5 trillion. (But I expect at least 5 times that.)
> 
> 3. They really aren't covering anyone for the first 4 or more years, of that 10 year time frame, so I'll call that 6 years.


 Rick...do I get extra credit, for including medicare in my math??? LOL :Innocent:

----------


## Trabitha

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/repealthebill/

petition to repeal, but the video to the right is rather interesting to watch too.

Oh,  and I went off on just a couple of issues that I have with this bill today in my blog.  Would have written a book about it, but the numbers got me depressed so I cut it short.  LOL!

----------


## crashdive123

> $1200 per month? That won't be individual cost. I haven't seen any numbers on what the premiums will be but I wouldn't be surprised. The plan is based on the Massachusetts plan and from what I've read, it has experienced double digit increases and more are expected prior to the roll out of this new plan. 
> 
> I haven't heard anyone talk about the doc fix either. That's another $210 billion over ten years. That has yet to be voted on but will be coming up shortly. That helps support doctor reimbursement from medicare. 
> 
> Nor have I heard anyone squawk about the fact that Medicare savings are going to be used to fund the plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, those two add ons will erase any deficit savings that were projected. Why does that not surprise me? 
> 
> @ DSRICK - Sen. Everett Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." 
> *
> *


I did talk about the doc fix in a previous post.  The Medicare savings are a joke.  Cut 500 billion from Medicare and save 500 billion in total costs.  Take that 500 billion and add it into the HC plan - yep - saved another 500 billion.  

Some other job losses are going to come from the banking industry.  Why?  Well, the health care law now has the government being the only issuer of student loans (they call that savings).  I'm not sure how many regular folks at banks will lose their jobs, but I'd guess the numbers will be high.

Another dirty little factoid - insurance companies are now forced to raise premiums.  Why?  The gov has mandated whom they have to cover.  They have to raise prices to cover many of the pre-existing conditions that they must now cover.  (kind of like buying auto insurance after the accident and expecting your car to be fixed).

Those rates will go up around policy renewal time - January 2010 for many.  Leading up to November expect both sides to be playing to this.  One side saying your premiums are going up and the other saying those are scare tactics - nothing has changed.

----------


## crashdive123

I would urge you to do some independent research, and not rely on those that have foisted this monstrosity upon us.

*Edit:*  JIC - you must have deleted your post while I was typing.

----------


## Rick

On to the Senate!!!!!

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> On to the Senate!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2cFEHM9yMw

 Oh, wait....you said "senate"...... :Blushing: 

(The link is Beethovens Moonlight Sonata.)

----------


## Justin Case

So ,,  everybody say Bon Voage to Rush,, he said he would move to Costa Rica if the bill passed ,,  lol,

----------


## crashdive123

> So ,,  everybody say Bon Voage to Rush,, he said he would move to Costa Rica if the bill passed ,,  lol,


Ya might want to listen to him every now and then.  He said no such thing.  He said that he would travel to Costa Rica for his medical care.  He went on to say that he would never move out of the United States.  Media Matters has a little trouble with facts - as do the outlets that use their talking points.

----------


## Trabitha

> So ,,  everybody say Bon Voage to Rush,, he said he would move to Costa Rica if the bill passed ,,  lol,


No...he said he would go to costa rica for care if the healthcare bill passed here because they would have better care.

With all due respect...I really hate it when people who don't even LISTEN to him pass crap around that's not true.  People even went so far as to post an edited YOUTUBE video out there.  Funny thing?  I listened to the show!  LOL!

----------


## Trabitha

> Ya might want to listen to him every now and then.  He said no such thing.  He said that he would travel to Costa Rica for his medical care.  He went on to say that he would never move out of the United States.  Media Matters has a little trouble with facts - as do the outlets that use their talking points.


Oh.  LOL!!  Crash got it before me. LOL!

----------


## Sourdough

The way I see it.........this is not going to effect me much. My income is so low I rarely pay taxes. I don't get sick, and when I do I go to a clinic that charges me $16.50 for Very Good service. The waiting room people are mostly drug addicts, but the doctors are good. Maybe if more people were healthy and poor, they would have fewer worries. 
I think I'll start a new jingle, "Don't Worry Man, just be Poor, Healthy, and Happy".

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> The way I see it.........this is not going to effect me much. My income is so low I rarely pay taxes. I don't get sick, and when I do I go to a clinic that charges me $16.50 for Very Good service. The waiting room people are mostly drug addicts, but the doctors are good. Maybe if more people were healthy and poor, they would have fewer worries. 
> I think I'll start a new jingle, "Don't Worry Man, just be Poor, Healthy, and Happy".


 People get upset when I say this, but the fastest way to bring down the cost of health care, would be to outlaw health insurance. :Innocent:

----------


## Rick

Sourdough - I just hope that clinic is still there for you and they will continue to treat you. Actually, I hope you don't get sick, first. Then the rest of the stuff.

----------


## BENESSE

> People get upset when I say this, but *the fastest way to bring down the cost of health care, would be to outlaw health insurance*.


Now here's some of your own reasoning thrown back at ya:
_That's like saying the fastest way to cut down on car accidents is to outlaw car insurance._

Am I catching on?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Now here's some of your own reasoning thrown back at ya:
> _That's like saying the fastest way to cut down on car accidents is to outlaw car insurance._
> 
> Am I catching on?


 That was pretty good.....but I didn't say it would cut down on people getting sick, just that the _cost_ would come down. :Tongue Smilie:  LOL

----------


## BENESSE

> That was pretty good.....but I didn't say it would cut down on people getting sick, just that the _cost_ would come down. LOL


*Exactly!!!!!* (thank you baby jesus, point made!)
You always miss the finer points when it's the other way around.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Now here's some of your own reasoning thrown back at ya:
> _That's like saying the fastest way to cut down on car accidents is to outlaw car insurance._
> 
> Am I catching on?


 I just think that if people paid for health care out of pocket, people would quickly weed out the problems that waste money, and get things under control.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> *Exactly!!!!!* (thank you baby jesus, point made!)
> You always miss the finer points when it's the other way around.


 Actually, the point that was made, is that if you payed closer attention to what I say, you might actually understand. :Innocent: 

(HeHeHe....love ya, B!)

----------


## Rick

You are not going to drive down the cost of pharmaceuticals. You are not going to drive down the cost of malpractice insurance. You are not going to drive down the cost of diagnostic equipment. How would I impact that if I paid for it myself? Folks are self pay today and they haven't touched it.

----------


## Rick

He actually said that that Congress should go XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. But I can't print that. I'm surprised he got away with it on the air. What? He did. He did, too say it. Well then he was thinking it.

----------


## LostOutrider

> That's one heck of a job, you did there, Lost. Not only did your second paragraph hit most of the talking points used to try and sell that bill to the public, but it also did exactly what your first paragraph complained about!


I think you missed my point with that example, brother.  I'm seeing this as a happy medium between the two extremes.  One part of the broken system is that we don't require folks to be insured but we do require hospitals to care for them.  You're paying for that part already.  Since I'm personally not cool with turning folks away who aren't insured, then the next step is making sure they are insured.       

Besides, this didn't have to be sold to the public.  Public hasn't voted on this.    That is where the whole representative democracy part comes in.  If the vocal minority turns the tide (and history shows it has to turn at some point), then they'll roll it over again.  This is going to seriously hurt one party.   Time will tell which one.

----------


## BENESSE

> I just think that if people paid for health care out of pocket, people would quickly weed out the problems that waste money, and get things under control.


That's just not based on reality.
What about people who have cancer or kids that with diabetes, or any number of things that take longer to develop but when caught early are quite manageable and less expensive to treat?

Majority of the people _delay_ seeking medical attention until the condition gets acute. THAT'S our problem--lack of interest in preventive medicine & early intervention.
How many people do you know who go for regular check-ups and do most of what they're supposed to do to preserve their health? I don't know that many and I am supposedly in the "aware" crowd.
Let's take a pole on this and at least anecdotally find out?

----------


## BENESSE

> Actually, the point that was made, is that if you payed closer attention to what I say, you might actually understand.
> 
> (HeHeHe....love ya, B!)


I understand...but it still don't make sense.
It's like idiot without the savant part.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> You are not going to drive down the cost of pharmaceuticals. You are not going to drive down the cost of malpractice insurance. You are not going to drive down the cost of diagnostic equipment. How would I impact that if I paid for it myself? Folks are self pay today and they haven't touched it.


 My point was that if *everyone* paid out of pocket, then they would ask why malpractice insurance cost so much. They would not be happy about why, and find a solution to lower the cost of it. Etc., etc....get my point?

 Maybe the doctor that would want you to have a $5,000 test, to confirm what he was 99% sure of if ins. was paying for it, might think twice about it, if his patient/friend had to pay for it himself.

----------


## BENESSE

> My point was that if *everyone* paid out of pocket, then they would ask why malpractice insurance cost so much. *They would not be happy about why, and find a solution to lower the cost of it. Etc., etc..*..get my point?
> 
>  Maybe the doctor that would want you to have a $5,000 test, to confirm what he was 99% sure of if ins. was paying for it, might think twice about it, if his patient/friend had to pay for it himself.


Cumbaya my lord.
Another problem solved right here.

----------


## Rick

I told my Representative, I'm all for health care. But not on top of a mountain of debt. First, let's resolve the deficit issue so we can afford to do the right thing. Next, address real reform. Tackle the core problems that are driving health care costs. Third, stop Medicare and Medicaid abuse. That's $30 billion a year. Once that's complete then we can afford to insure everyone across the board. 

I wonder what the cost of abuse with be with this new plan?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I think you missed my point with that example, brother.  I'm seeing this as a happy medium between the two extremes.  One part of the broken system is that we don't require folks to be insured but we do require hospitals to care for them.  You're paying for that part already.  Since I'm personally not cool with turning folks away who aren't insured, then the next step is making sure they are insured.       
> 
> Besides, this didn't have to be sold to the public.  Public hasn't voted on this.    That is where the whole representative democracy part comes in.  If the vocal minority turns the tide (and history shows it has to turn at some point), then they'll roll it over again.  This is going to seriously hurt one party.   Time will tell which one.


 I have to dis-agree with you, on this. I think this bill is the worst of both extremes with other bad things added.

 And it does have to be sold to the people. Not for it to be law, but for the politicians to keep their jobs, after voting for it.

----------


## Rick

> Maybe the doctor that would want you to have a $5,000 test, to confirm  what he was 99% sure of if ins. was paying for it, might think twice  about it, if his patient/friend had to pay for it himself.


I'm not a doctor. If my doctor thinks that $5,000 test will confirm what he THINKS my problem is then I want that danged test. I sure don't want him withholding some test because of the cost. Then I might have to spend several grand on my funeral. No thanks.

----------


## Rick

> next step is making sure they are insured.


So I should pay for MORE so someone else can have health care? Uh, no. I don't buy the principle. Did you buy me a car? Did you buy me a house? Then why should you pay for my health care?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I told my Representative, I'm all for health care. But not on top of a mountain of debt. First, let's resolve the deficit issue so we can afford to do the right thing. Next, address real reform. Tackle the core problems that are driving health care costs. Third, stop Medicare and Medicaid abuse. That's $30 billion a year. Once that's complete then we can afford to insure everyone across the board. *BINGO!*
> 
> 
> I wonder what the cost of abuse with be with this new plan?


 I think the fact that they are saying, that over 16,000 more IRS agents are going to be needed to police who is paying what, is a clue! And that's just to police who buys insurance.

----------


## LostOutrider

> I have to dis-agree with you, on this. I think this bill is the worst of both extremes with other bad things added.
> 
>  And it does have to be sold to the people. Not for it to be law, but for the politicians to keep their jobs, after voting for it.


You keep changing tense on me.  Was sold, does have to be sold.  Pick one.  Like I said, this is going to cost a whole stinking party their job.  Even NPR was pointing that one out.  If it turns out to be unpopular, then the Dems are out.  If it works, then the Repubs . . oh, wait, they already got voted out.  Well, they'll stay out.





> So I should pay for MORE so someone else can have health care? Uh, no. I don't buy the principle. Did you buy me a car? Did you buy me a house? Then why should you pay for my health care?


You already are paying more because someone does not have health care.  Unless you are handling your own medicine with snake oil and prayer, then you're getting stuck already.

----------


## BENESSE

> I told my Representative, I'm all for health care. But not on top of a mountain of debt. First, let's resolve the deficit issue so we can afford to do the right thing. Next, address real reform. Tackle the core problems that are driving health care costs. Third, stop Medicare and Medicaid abuse. That's $30 billion a year. Once that's complete then we can afford to insure everyone across the board.


You are right, of course.
What's really frustrating to me is that we had plenty of opportunities in the past to do this and do it right.
Nixon tried it, Clinton tried it.
So now that we've had a far from perfect solution shoved down our throats we just woke up?
Always a day late and a dollar short.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I think you missed my point with that example, brother.  I'm seeing this as a happy medium between the two extremes.  One part of the broken system is that we don't require folks to be insured but we do require hospitals to care for them. * You're paying for that part already.  Since I'm personally not cool with turning folks away who aren't insured, then the next step is making sure they are insured.   *  
> 
> Besides, this didn't have to be sold to the public.  Public hasn't voted on this.    That is where the whole representative democracy part comes in.  If the vocal minority turns the tide (and history shows it has to turn at some point), then they'll roll it over again.  This is going to seriously hurt one party.   Time will tell which one.


 We are paying that guys $500 doctor bill, so you think we should give the gov't $2,500 so that they will pay his bill, instead of us paying for it?

----------


## LostOutrider

Do you wipe those numbers off when you get done pulling them out?

----------


## crashdive123

If you want to continue debating the merits of the law and how it may impact us - fine.  Please leave the politics out of the discussion.  I know it's tough on this one, but you are all intelligent enough to do it.  I have confidence in you.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> You keep changing tense on me.  Was sold, does have to be sold.  Pick one.  Like I said, this is going to cost a whole stinking party their job.  Even NPR was pointing that one out.  If it turns out to be unpopular, then the Dems are out.  If it works, then the Repubs . . oh, wait, they already got voted out.  Well, they'll stay out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already are paying more because someone does not have health care.  Unless you are handling your own medicine with snake oil and prayer, then you're getting stuck already.


 Was being sold, is being sold, and will continue to be sold for years to come.

----------


## LostOutrider

> Was being sold, is being sold, and will continue to be sold for years to come.


Truth, there.

----------


## Rick

Pssst. Come 'ere. Closer. Closer. I say we start a third part. We'll call it the Free American Revisionist Thinkers or F.A.R.T. for short. The FART team needs a PAC anyway.

----------


## Ken

> Do you wipe those numbers off when you get done pulling them out?


LMAO - Score one point for the opposing view for being witty!     :clap: 

At least you guys finally got on the scoreboard.   :Sneaky2:

----------


## crashdive123

> You are right, of course.
> What's really frustrating to me is that we had plenty of opportunities in the past to do this and do it right.
> Nixon tried it, Clinton tried it.
> So now that we've had a far from perfect solution shoved down our throats we just woke up?
> Always a day late and a dollar short.


I agree that there have been attempts to improve the system in the past that either were thwarted, or did not have all that much enthusiasm behind them.  The ability to buy insurance across state lines (real competition), tort reform, medical savings accounts, the same tax breaks that employers get, and on and on.  Many ideas have been floated about that I think would have dramatically improved access and affordability.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Do you wipe those numbers off when you get done pulling them out?


 It's just an example, but in the long run I'd bet that my percentages are pretty close.

----------


## LostOutrider

> Pssst. Come 'ere. Closer. Closer. I say we start a third part. We'll call it the Free American Revisionist Thinkers or F.A.R.T. for short. The FART team needs a PAC anyway.




Only if the secret handshake involves the pulling of fingers.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Pssst. Come 'ere. Closer. Closer. I say we start a third part. We'll call it the Free American Revisionist Thinkers or F.A.R.T. for short. The FART team needs a PAC anyway.


 ...and don't forget the research grant. :Tongue Smilie:

----------


## BENESSE

> I agree that there have been attempts to improve the system in the past that either were thwarted, or did not have all that much enthusiasm behind them.  The ability to buy insurance across state lines (real competition), tort reform, medical savings accounts, the same tax breaks that employers get, and on and on.  Many ideas have been floated about that I think would have dramatically improved access and affordability.


That just confirms to me what I've always suspected. That regardless of who "owned" the WH, it has always been about politics and nothing else.
When it suits us we call it something else but we know better.

----------


## Rick

A FART PAC that requires pulling your finger. Oh, I like the sound of that. It's the smell that bothers me.

----------


## crashdive123

> That just confirms to me what I've always suspected. That regardless of who "owned" the WH, it has always been about politics and nothing else.
> When it suits us we call it something else but we know better.


I believe that opposition toward those proposals was fierce because it would give individuals too much power.  Harder to buy votes that way.

----------


## Ken

> It's the smell that bothers me.


I had an early dinner after court today.  First course was chourico and black bean soup.  C'mon over, Rick!   :Smile:

----------


## Batch

Would it help clear the politics of the topic if we compared the health care bill to other existing large government programs?

Like everyone deserves to own a house. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... Uhmmm no!

How, about a good retirement plan for everyone? Social Security... uhmmm no!

----------


## BENESSE

> Would it help clear the politics of the topic if we compared the health care bill to other existing large government programs?
> 
> Like everyone deserves to own a house. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... Uhmmm no!
> 
> How, about a good retirement plan for everyone? Social Security... uhmmm no!


How about EDUCATION?

----------


## Camp10

> That just confirms to me what I've always suspected. That regardless of who "owned" the WH, it has always been about politics and nothing else.
> When it suits us we call it something else but we know better.



It is still and will always be about politics!  If it was about health than the people who made this up wouldnt have exempted themselves from it.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Would it help clear the politics of the topic if we compared the health care bill to other existing large government programs?
> 
> Like everyone deserves to own a house. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... Uhmmm no!
> 
> How, about a good retirement plan for everyone? Social Security... uhmmm no!


 Don't forget that big gov't programs have *always* ended up costing at least 6 times what was projected.

 Do the math on this bill......we're in deep do-do!

----------


## BENESSE

> I had an early dinner after court today.  First course was chourico and black bean soup.  C'mon over, Rick!


Condolences to the girlfriend.

----------


## BENESSE

> Don't forget that big gov't programs have *always* ended up costing at least 6 times what was projected.
> 
> And even more on unnecessary wars!
> 
>  Do the math on this bill......we're in deep do-do!


Yeah, I've been doing the math for a little longer than a year.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Condolences to the girlfriend.


...and the dogs. :Blushing:

----------


## Rick

> That just confirms to me what I've always suspected. That regardless of  who "owned" the WH, it has always been about politics and nothing else.


Well, hot diggity. Of course it is. It's about mega dollars, too. Now, ya'll know I'm a sheeple and not one to conjure up government conspiracies. Although I could easily do that with a simple incantation. I asked many posts ago, why was this pushed so hard? What was the driving push behind health care reform? Over $400 million was spent on lobbying the health care reform bill. That was spent by the health care sector. Another $120 billion was spent lobbying by the insurance industry. (numbers from The Center for Responsive Politics). Need some examples? Re-importation of drugs (drugs made here and shipped out of the country at low prices and re-imported at still low prices) were excluded in the bill courtesy of....the pharmaceutical lobby. How about the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society that lobbied Washington for and got the inclusion of as much as $36.5 billion in spending to create a  nationwide network of electronic health records. See my point? Baaaaaaaaa.

----------


## Ken

> ...and the dogs.


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> And even more on unnecessary wars!





> Yeah, I've been doing the math for a little longer than a year.


 That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.....and if it did, it would still fall under "two wrongs, don't make a right".

----------


## Rick

I forgot to mention the reason the pharmaceutical lobby said re-importation is not a good thing. The meds aren't safe. Yeah.

----------


## BENESSE

> ...and the dogs.


ESPECIALLY the dogs. For they don't get the jewelry. :Sneaky2:

----------


## LostOutrider

> I forgot to mention the reason the pharmaceutical lobby said re-importation is not a good thing. The meds aren't safe. Yeah.


Hm... considering we can't even get Thomas the Train imported safely, I'm not entirely certain I want to outsource my meds to China.  

2d, pull us out some numbers to show how much we'd spend in excess medical bills by taking Made In China lead-pills.

----------


## BENESSE

> That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.....and if it did, *it would still fall under "two wrongs, don't make a right*".


But two lefts do. :Innocent:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Well, hot diggity. Of course it is. It's about mega dollars, too. Now, ya'll know I'm a sheeple and not one to conjure up government conspiracies. Although I could easily do that with a simple incantation. I asked many posts ago, why was this pushed so hard? What was the driving push behind health care reform? Over $400 million was spent on lobbying the health care reform bill. That was spent by the health care sector. Another $120 billion was spent lobbying by the insurance industry. (numbers from The Center for Responsive Politics). Need some examples? Re-importation of drugs (drugs made here and shipped out of the country at low prices and re-imported at still low prices) were excluded in the bill courtesy of....the pharmaceutical lobby. How about the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society that lobbied Washington for and got the inclusion of as much as $36.5 billion in spending to create a  nationwide network of electronic health records. See my point? Baaaaaaaaa.


 No, no, no Rick! You're supposed to keep people looking at the guy supposedly being saved from death on a cold sidewalk, because he doesn't have insurance. Then they yell save this guy...and don't notice all those things that you are talking about.

 Sheeez......Do we have to draw you a picture??? :Innocent:  LOL

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Hm... considering we can't even get Thomas the Train imported safely, I'm not entirely certain I want to outsource my meds to China.  
> 
> 2d, pull us out some numbers to show how much we'd spend in excess medical bills by taking Made In China lead-pills.



 Once again, you're acting on emotion and missing the details. :Innocent: 




> Re-importation of drugs (drugs made here and shipped out of the country at low prices and re-imported at still low prices)

----------


## LostOutrider

> How about the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society that lobbied Washington for and got the inclusion of as much as $36.5 billion in spending to create a  nationwide network of electronic health records.


Just out of curiosity, why is a nationwide network of electronic health records a bad thing?  I have an anecdote, which isn't significant data of course, but where the reliance on paper records nearly cost my oldest his life.  Had they been electronic, then it would have saved some very precious hours.




> Once again, you're acting on emotion and missing the details.


The details is that things don't become magically cheaper just because you ship them across the world and then back.  I'd be real curious to know why this unregulated pill that just got shipped back to me from a country with much, much looser standards is all of a sudden such a bargain.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> But two lefts do.


 Pffft! Silly girl.......it takes three lefts. :Innocent:  LOL

----------


## crashdive123

> Would it help clear the politics of the topic if we compared the health care bill to other existing large government programs?
> 
> Like everyone deserves to own a house. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... Uhmmm no!
> 
> How, about a good retirement plan for everyone? Social Security... uhmmm no!





> How about EDUCATION?


Uhmmmm no!

----------


## BENESSE

> Pffft! Silly girl.......it takes three lefts. LOL


That's just what my old man told me.
I guess this from guys who are not afraid to ask for directions.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> The details is that things don't become magically cheaper just because you ship them across the world and then back.  I'd be real curious to know why this unregulated pill that just got shipped back to me from a country with much, much looser standards is all of a sudden such a bargain.


 Do you not know that the same products get sold in different countries for different prices? It's called selling for what the market will bear...bare...dang it, you know what I mean. LOL :Innocent:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> That's just what my old man told me.
> I guess this from guys who are not afraid to ask for directions.


 I race cars, on dirt ovals....turning left. LOL :Tongue Smilie:

----------


## LostOutrider

> Do you not know that the same products get sold in different countries for different prices? It's called selling for what the market will bear...bare...dang it, you know what I mean. LOL


Plus double-cost of shipping it back and forth.   Not that anyone would ever take Grandpa's heart meds, cut 'em with something that doubles the volume, and then sell 'em back repackaged.   Pfeh.  Regulation is for the sheep.

----------


## Rick

> Just out of curiosity, why is a nationwide network of electronic health  records a bad thing?  I have an anecdote, which isn't significant data  of course, but where the reliance on paper records nearly cost my oldest  his life.  Had they been electronic, then it would have saved some very  precious hours.


It's a fabulous idea. But we don't need just one company to do the job. And we sure don't need the government trying to do it. They've been working on a nationwide network of intelligence systems that has never come to fruition and the prototype that the FBI is using will have to be discarded. So......

We can standardize on a language and let free commerce build it. One hospital might score a deal with Sony the next one with HP. As long as they can all talk to each other there won't be an issue. But these guys are lobbying for their own deal. 

To the drugs...The pharmaceutical companies might sell you an antibiotic for $12. That same pill might be exported to the Sudan for .20 cents and could be re-imported for $1.00. I'm making the numbers up because I don't know what they are but you see my point. As 2D said the price varies country to country based on what the population can afford to pay. Well, heeeey!

----------


## BENESSE

> Uhmmmm no!


The right to Public Healthcare is on par with the right to Public Education IMO.
At least people can home-school whereas they can't perform surgery at home even if they wanted to.

What am I missing?

----------


## Rick

I did that last year on a neighbor. I'm still looking for my pocket knife.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> That's just what my old man told me.
> I guess this from guys who are not afraid to ask for directions.





> I race cars, on dirt ovals....turning left. LOL


...and yes, sometimes you have to turn right, to go left. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y8-0XHWA2I

----------


## Ken

> Just out of curiosity, why is a nationwide network of electronic health records a bad thing?


Because I, for one, want my records kept private and on a strictly need to know (FOR MY BENEFIT) basis only.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> The right to Public Healthcare is on par with the right to Public Education IMO.
> At least people can home-school whereas they can't perform surgery at home even if they wanted to.
> 
> What am I missing?


 The federal gov't has no business in education. It's a state issue. :Innocent:  LOL

----------


## Rick

Not me, brother. Chip in the forehead. Scan me and can me.

----------


## LostOutrider

> Because I, for one, want my records kept private and on a strictly need to know (FOR MY BENEFIT) basis only.


So . . . what does that have to do with having an electronic database?  This isn't like they're going to put your colonoscopy on youtube.

----------


## BENESSE

> ...and yes, sometimes you have to turn right, to go left. LOL
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y8-0XHWA2I


Now I'm relieved that you know the diff..
At least you're not saying _right_ and _the other right_.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> The right to Public Healthcare is on par with the right to Public Education IMO.
> At least people can home-school whereas they can't perform surgery at home even if they wanted to.
> 
> What am I missing?


 BTW...did you know that in the beginning, the govt was worried about people being too educated? They wanted to educate people just enough that they would be better workers, in the "new" industrial age. They were afraid that if they educated people too much, they wouldn't want to work in the factories.

----------


## crashdive123

> The right to Public Healthcare is on par with the right to Public Education IMO.
> At least people can home-school whereas they can't perform surgery at home even if they wanted to.
> 
> What am I missing?


Because you have a choice.  You have a choice to move to a school district of your choosing (happens all the time).  You have the choice to send your children to private school.  You have the choice to home school.  I don't believe it is analogous because with the new law, your choices are gone.  Also, looking at public education - there are some great schools and great teachers, many of which are unsung heroes.  Sadly, as in any industry, there are bad ones too.  Unfortunately, it has been proven difficult with the government run system to get rid of the bad ones.  No necessarily impossible, but difficult.  How would that work with a government run health care system?  Additionally - when a school system is failing - what is the answer we usually see?  Throw more mone at it.  I haven't looked at the numbers for a while, but some of the worst performing school districts in the country are spending the highest dollar amount per student.  Those are a few things that come to mind.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> So . . . what does that have to do with having an electronic database?  This isn't like they're going to put your colonoscopy on youtube.


 Are you sure? They are computers....with people using them...and there are hackers out there.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Are you sure? They are computers....with people using them...and there are hackers out there.


 Oh, oh, oh...and evil corps., (companies, not zombies.) that want you information!

----------


## LostOutrider

Same could be said about your IRS records, couldn't it?  I mean, if you paid your taxes and such this year.  What about your bank account information?   The RFID chip in your passport?

----------


## Ken

> So . . . what does that have to do with having an electronic database? This isn't like they're going to put your colonoscopy on youtube.


Okay, let me rephrase my post.  "My health records ain't nobody's F'n business except me and my Doc's."  That better?   :Smile:

----------


## BENESSE

> Are you sure? They are computers....with people using them...and there are hackers out there.


Just like with on line banking, shopping with cred. cards, filing taxes electronically, etc., etc.
Welcome to the 21st century, bud.

----------


## Rick

> if you paid your taxes and such this year


Taxes! I knew I forgot something!

----------


## Sarge47

Remember that "Exec. order?"
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/...-proclimation/

White House official told Fox, Obama will not sign the Executive Order Tuesday and has set no specific date to do so. Stupak predicted Obama would sign the order later this week. The White House said only that Obama would sign the order "soon."<<<
Also, (not verified) I'm hearing that
Stupak got a nice bribe to change his vote:  approx $750,000 in
airport renovation money and the promise of an Obama EO that has NO
weight as law. 

Good luck with your political future STUPE!  :Sneaky2:   :Innocent:   :Cool2:

----------


## LostOutrider

> White House official told Fox, Obama will not sign the Executive Order Tuesday and has set no specific date to do so.


Oh, to be fair and balanced - 

Obama to sign promised executive order on abortion

(AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order Wednesday reaffirming long-standing restrictions on federal funding of abortion.

The order is part of an agreement with Democratic abortion opponents in the House that brought them over to Obama's side and pushed the health care bill over the top.

Obama has invited members of the Democrats' anti-abortion bloc, including its leader, Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, to the private afternoon signing at the White House.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


also:

CNN's LIVE Blog

(CNN) – President Obama will sign an executive order Wednesday that ensures that existing limits on the federal funding of abortion remain in place under the new health care overhaul law.

Unlike the signing of the health care bill into law Tuesday, which was conducted under the glare of media cameras, the event Wednesday will be closed to the news media.

It will be attended by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and 12 of his anti-abortion Democratic House colleagues, without whose help the landmark overhaul bill would not have passed, political observers say.

The White House said the executive order reaffirms longstanding restrictions on the federal funding of abortion in the new law.

----------


## crashdive123

> Oh, to be fair and balanced - 
> 
> Obama to sign promised executive order on abortion
> 
> (AP) – 1 hour ago
> 
> WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order Wednesday reaffirming long-standing restrictions on federal funding of abortion.
> 
> The order is part of an agreement with Democratic abortion opponents in the House that brought them over to Obama's side and pushed the health care bill over the top.
> ...


Cute, the way you continue with comments like "fair & balanced".  Very transparent, but none the less ........  Since you quoted some Wiki in response to my comment that a Presidential Executive Order cannot override law....




> *Here's some Wiki back atcha:*  Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an Executive Order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new Executive Orders.


Since it has been ruled that the EO cannot be used to make law, wouldn't it stand to reason that it cannot be used to change (in effect making) law?

----------


## LostOutrider

> Cute, the way you continue with comments like "fair & balanced".


Your partiality is showing, crash.  Fox is a well-known heavily right-leaning source of information as evidenced by their slow response time in updating anything that could be seen as a positive take on the situation - thus misleading our good Sarge.  

Executive orders get things done without the necessity of it being a law first.  I personally don't like it - but that doesn't change their effectiveness.

----------


## Sarge47

Know how you can tell when a politician is lying?(this includes presidents!)  Their lips are moving!   :Sneaky2: 

Hey STUPE!  I gotta watch I wanna sell ya!  BTW, does the name:  "Nevile Chamberlain" mean anything to ya?   :Innocent: 

Can somebody say "Political Suicide?"   :Drool:

----------


## Sarge47

> ....thus misleading our good Sarge.


I prefer Fox over MSNBC & CNN, they lean the other way!   :Cool2:

----------


## LostOutrider

> I prefer Fox over MSNBC & CNN, they lean the other way!


There's always a lean, no matter where you get your information.  Where it bothers me is when it leads to misinformation (or tactically delayed information).  That is why I don't trust NPR as my primary news source . . . or, really, any one spot as my primary news source.

----------


## crashdive123

> Your partiality is showing, crash.  Fox is a well-known heavily right-leaning source of information as evidenced by their slow response time in updating anything that could be seen as a positive take on the situation - thus misleading our good Sarge.  
> 
> Executive orders get things done without the necessity of it being a law first.  I personally don't like it - but that doesn't change their effectiveness.


I find the criticisms against Fox News to be humorous.  By fair and balanced, I take it to mean that they show both sides of an issue in their news reporting.  Yes, I am a regular viewer.  Regarding the health care debate, both sides were presented.  The slant that has everybody's knickers in a bunch is from some of their opinion show hosts.  I also watch CNN and MSNBC.  No bias in their opinion reporting is there?

You are correct in that EO's can get things done without the necessity of it being a law first.  However, and EO cannot be used to strike down a law.  Since the health care bill was signed into law, an EO cannot be used to over turn a portion of it.  Would you like to make a friendly wager of a contribution to DOC on whether or not the EO, once signed and challenged in the courts, gets over turned?

----------


## LostOutrider

I'd not make any wager that any law is immune from being challenged and overturned.  The court hasn't overturned Roe v. Wade yet, so I can imagine how they'd act on this.  The tables will turn again and the Repubs will take back control, eventually, and in the same way the Dems tried to clean house after Dubya - the Repubs will try to clean house after Obama.  

There is a loud enough anti-abortion voice in America, though, in both Democrat-leaning and Republican-leaning voters that I trust the voters to put in lawmakers who will find another way to get something done that they feel is necessary.  

Just like they did this last election.

----------


## BENESSE

> BTW...did you know that in the beginning, the govt was worried about people being too educated? They wanted to educate people just enough that they would be better workers, in the "new" industrial age. They were afraid that if they educated people too much, they wouldn't want to work in the factories.


Well, they got their wish in spades. The worst of both worlds. 
The worst educated kids in the civilized world who grow into adults with self inflated worth and little marketable skills 
for ANY age--agricultural, industrial or otherwise.
Seems the only thing left to keep us the BMOC in the world is the military.

----------


## LostOutrider

> I find the criticisms against Fox News to be humorous.  By fair and balanced, I take it to mean


Address where my post was incorrect and I'll concede that I misinterpreted their balance and fairness and admit that I should've just let that article stand for a few more pages of 'bama bashin'.   Or, if you're just pointing out that I amuse you then I am glad to have brightened your day.   I'm like a fresh cup of coffee that way.

----------


## BENESSE

> Because you have a choice.  You have a choice to move to a school district of your choosing (happens all the time).  You have the choice to send your children to private school.  You have the choice to home school. * I don't believe it is analogous because with the new law, your choices are gone*.  Also, looking at public education - there are some great schools and great teachers, many of which are unsung heroes.  Sadly, as in any industry, there are bad ones too.  Unfortunately, it has been proven difficult with the government run system to get rid of the bad ones.  No necessarily impossible, but difficult.  How would that work with a government run health care system?  Additionally - when a school system is failing - what is the answer we usually see?  Throw more mone at it.  I haven't looked at the numbers for a while, but some of the worst performing school districts in the country are spending the highest dollar amount per student.  Those are a few things that come to mind.


I was merely arguing that the two are analogous as rights in broad terms, not this particular Healtcare bill vs. Public Education. 
The fact that I don't like anything about this bill doesn't negate the need for _some form_ of Public Healthcare.
And as an aside...not everyone has children but everyone _will_ at some point in their lives have health issues.
So why wouldn't Public Healthcare trump Public Education?

----------


## Rick

Why is it one or the other? 

The last time the WHO did a world health care ranking was in 2000. At that time, they ranked the U.S. 37th. That's out of 191 members countries. We were the most expensive, however. The reason costs were so high, according to them, is: 

1. Cost of medical technology
2. Cost of prescription drugs
3. Cost of administration brought about by the multiple payer system we have. 

They estimated that between 19% and 24% went directly to administrative costs. 

Another driver, although less contributory, is the move to income generating hospitals. For-profit hospitals increased 34%. 

On education, UNICEF ranked the U.S. at number 18 for 15 year olds. That was back in 2002. Canada was #4 and Britain was #7. So I guess that makes Red Lake smarter than me. Oh, wait. I'm not 15. Never mind, he's not.

----------


## Ken

> I'm like a fresh cup of coffee that way.


I'll stick to the things I know I can rely on.  :Smile: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7EtW9tnB8g

----------


## roar-k

I tried looking through this thread and a few others for this video, but I might have missed it.  If it has been posted pardon me for re-posting it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8

Those of you that have already done research on the matter may know what is covered in the video, but I for one am trying to read more up on it and found this video to be quite disturbing.

I am more or less trying to verify what is being stated in the video.  If another would be so inclined as to verify as well I would appreciate it.

----------


## Ken

Good link.  Thanks!

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

It sure is nice to have a variety of news so everybody can hear what the kind of news want. I wish it was as simple as just changing channels.

----------


## Rick

I just read that the bill was signed with 22 pens that would go, mostly, the the Demo leadership. 

VP to Pres - "That's a lot of @#$#$ pens." 

Okay, that last part was a parody. Really. I think.

----------


## Trabitha

> I tried looking through this thread and a few others for this video, but I might have missed it.  If it has been posted pardon me for re-posting it.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8
> 
> Those of you that have already done research on the matter may know what is covered in the video, but I for one am trying to read more up on it and found this video to be quite disturbing.
> 
> I am more or less trying to verify what is being stated in the video.  If another would be so inclined as to verify as well I would appreciate it.


I've had that on my favorites list for some time now and have gone through the bill when I have the time to verify.  I'm not finished going through the video yet, but I've yet to find a discrepancy.

I wonder if anyone here has brought this up though...Did you know that this bill will eliminate student loans from the private sector?  All private sector student loans will now shift to the Federal government.  I've paid off all my private sector student loans because they all worked with me to bring my rates down when I was having issues with paying them back.  I've been paying my one and only Government student loan for more than 12 years now because they REFUSE to lower my 9+% interest rate.  If this happens, I don't know about you, but there will be no way my child will ever be able to afford to pay back his loans when he goes to college!  

In short they took over 1/7th of the US economy by taking over healthcare, and billions of dollars from the private banking system on TOP of what they did to Medicare and Medicaid.  

I don't know about you guys...but it's beginning to feel like we're all living in a pressure cooker and SOMEONE is going to snap, setting off what could turn into another revolution if this bill isn't changed and changed quick.

----------


## BENESSE

> I don't know about you guys...but it's beginning to feel like we're all living in a pressure cooker and SOMEONE is going to snap, setting off what could turn into another revolution if this bill isn't changed and changed quick.


Don't hold your breath.
People care, but not _that_ much.

----------


## BENESSE

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."

----------


## Rick

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.

----------


## crashdive123

> Address where my post was incorrect and I'll concede that I misinterpreted their balance and fairness and admit that I should've just let that article stand for a few more pages of 'bama bashin'.   Or, if you're just pointing out that I amuse you then I am glad to have brightened your day.   I'm like a fresh cup of coffee that way.


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.

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:  


> A White House official told Fox, Obama will not sign the Executive Order Tuesday and has set no specific date to do so.


  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:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...rder-abortion/

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/...-proclimation/

So where is this misinformation that concerns you?

----------


## crashdive123

> I was merely arguing that the two are analogous as rights in broad terms, not this particular Healtcare bill vs. Public Education. 
> The fact that I don't like anything about this bill doesn't negate the need for _some form_ of Public Healthcare.
> And as an aside...not everyone has children but everyone _will_ at some point in their lives have health issues.
> So why wouldn't Public Healthcare trump Public Education?


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.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

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!

----------


## rebel

A business plan for health care? http://www.taxdebtrelief-usa.com/

----------


## crashdive123

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?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> 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.

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

----------


## Rick

*House Democrats Face Violent Threats After Health Care Vote

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house...ry?id=10193618
*

----------


## Rick

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? *
*

----------


## BENESSE

> 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*?


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.
Perhaps they'll be smart enough to get rid of those cancer nests, reinvent themselves and change their name.

----------


## Rick

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## crashdive123

> 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.
> Perhaps they'll be smart enough to get rid of those cancer nests, reinvent themselves and change their name.


Yep.

Trans fats
salt
sugar
tanning beds
cigarettes
alcohol
red meat

They're from the government, and they're here to help. :Innocent:

----------


## Rick

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?!

----------


## BENESSE

> Yep.
> 
> Trans fats
> salt
> sugar
> tanning beds
> cigarettes
> alcohol
> red meat
> ...


I couldn't care less about how people choose to hasten their demise...just don't want to pay for any stays of execution.

----------


## BENESSE

> 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?!


Well, if you ever needed a better incentive to stay healthy, this is it.

----------


## crashdive123

> I couldn't care less about how people choose to hasten their demise...just don't want to pay for any stays of execution.


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.

----------


## BENESSE

> 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.


Not sure which laws you meant.
(In general I am vehemently opposed to legislating morality?

----------


## roar-k

Has anyone seen this?

No Obamacare for Obama:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...one-but-obama/

----------


## Rick

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.

----------


## crashdive123

In addition to the POTUS and Congress being exempt, so too are the staff members of Congress.

----------


## Camp10

> 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:

----------


## Ken

*Beware the jobs killer*

http://www.bostonherald.com/business...ome&position=0

----------


## Ken

_"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/

----------


## Rick

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.

----------


## Justin Case

*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

----------


## Trabitha

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.

----------


## Trabitha

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.

----------


## Trabitha

> Now let Me make this perfectly clear,   The Bill Passed !   Its is the Law Now,


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.

----------


## Trabitha

ha!  You have the boots and hat to match?!

----------


## Trabitha

> No,  I think the seat belt law is to protect you ,   Insurance or not,  Its the Law that you must wear a seat belt,


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.   :Wink:

----------


## Trabitha

> And,  Health care is going to persuade you to get health care insurance to protect the insurance companies from you getting REALLY sick,,  Ya know,  an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure


Ah...so you DON'T know what this bill is all about. LOL!  
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.

----------


## Rick

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.

----------


## 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.


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.     





> 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.


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.

----------


## mountain mama

If it is such a great thing, why won't Obama and Congress be implementing it personally???

----------


## crashdive123

> the post's original title made certain to point out Democrat-led Congress


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?

----------


## Rick

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.

----------


## LostOutrider

Nah, when a mod decides to step into the ring the fight is over.  Save the mod-hammer for the next chump.

Uncle.

----------


## hoosierarcher

> 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.


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. 
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.

----------


## BENESSE

> You've been tricked into believing a lie of the incremental Leftist 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. 
> 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.


At least you recognize that all this hasn't happened in the last year and a half but was steadily creeping up on us for quite a while. Reminds me of a story about the frog who gets boiled to death because it didn't notice a slow steady rise in temperature and when it did, it was too late.

----------


## crashdive123

HA - I must disagree with your assesment about driving being a right.  While that might hold true on private property, it does not on public highways.  You must be licensed by the state in order to have the privledge of using the roads that you payed for with your taxes.  Ironic ain't it.  Rights are not licensed, nor do they require the actions or contributions from another in order for you to freely exercise them.

----------

