I have to say, Olympia Snowe is a Republican with really good ideas.

[The Rabbi]

I don't have to, Massachussets' approach is unrelated to a "public option" or to "single payer" insurance.

Public option is a more radical version of what MA did. And what MA did failed. Single payer is a more radical option than the public option. So its an a fortiori.
Pretending that what is being proposed is somehow fundamentally different from what the states have tried is intellectually either dishonest or lazy. The basic dynamic is the same, gov't regulating insurance company policies, keeping hte price artificially below market, thus inducing rationing.

Rab cannot prove this will not work at the national leve, and he can't refute that it works well for other countries -- better health, better mortality rates, less cost.

Rab, get over yourself. You are only full of hot air. This will pass, and you will pay your fair share for it. How truly appropriate.

Another steaming pile of shit from "Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement."
I have proven it numerous times.
And it does not work well in other countries. Look at mortality rates for people who have actually gotten sick. The U.S. provides the best and fastest health care in the world.

 

[logical4u]

The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
Michael Connelly,
Ret. Constitutional Attorney
08.24.09

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.
Here is a link to the Constitution:http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/constituti on_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton , Texas

 

[Oddball]

Another steaming pile of shit from "Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement."
I have proven it numerous times.
And it does not work well in other countries. Look at mortality rates for people who have actually gotten sick. The U.S. provides the best and fastest health care in the world.

The mortality rate argument is a big fat red herring anyways.

There are lots of other possible explanations for that, other than who has socialized medicine and who doesn't.

 

[xotoxi]

I have to say, Olympia Snowe is a Republican with really good ideas.

That is because she has Maine blood pulsating through her venules.

Mainers are the smartest people in the nation.

 

[Vast LWC]

Public option is a more radical version of what MA did. And what MA did failed. Single payer is a more radical option than the public option. So its an a fortiori.
Pretending that what is being proposed is somehow fundamentally different from what the states have tried is intellectually either dishonest or lazy. The basic dynamic is the same, gov't regulating insurance company policies, keeping hte price artificially below market, thus inducing rationing.

Except that Massachussetts did not have any kind of "Public Option" at all, so it's not a "less radical version" of any kind of single payer plan, at all.

Massachussetts simply required that everyone get insurance, and made them purchase insurance from private insurers. Then they funded what the private insurers would not pay out from the taxpayer's pocket.

If anything, MA is a prime example of what the health bill will be like WITHOUT a public option.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
Michael Connelly,
Ret. Constitutional Attorney
08.24.09

Now this is a gigantic steaming pile of horseshit.

Just because the man was at some point a "Constitutional Attorney" (whatever the hell that means, did he work for the ACLU?), does not mean that he is not LYING.

Note that he makes a whole bunch of blanket statements that adhere to right-wing talking points, and then does not actually either quote or at least poiont out where in the legislation he is referring to.

 

[Vast LWC]

The mortality rate argument is a big fat red herring anyways.

There are lots of other possible explanations for that, other than who has socialized medicine and who doesn't.

Should read "lots of other rationalizations for that". LOL.

 

[The Rabbi]

Public option is a more radical version of what MA did. And what MA did failed. Single payer is a more radical option than the public option. So its an a fortiori.
Pretending that what is being proposed is somehow fundamentally different from what the states have tried is intellectually either dishonest or lazy. The basic dynamic is the same, gov't regulating insurance company policies, keeping hte price artificially below market, thus inducing rationing.

Except that Massachussetts did not have any kind of "Public Option" at all, so it's not a "less radical version" of any kind of single payer plan, at all.

Massachussetts simply required that everyone get insurance, and made them purchase insurance from private insurers. Then they funded what the private insurers would not pay out from the taxpayer's pocket.

If anything, MA is a prime example of what the health bill will be like WITHOUT a public option.

The Baucus Bill also doesn't have a public option, although watch for it to recur, like a bad hemorrhoid.
Romneycare included:
1) individual mandates
2) Employer mandates
3)Subsidies for people below a certain income level.
These are all features in the Baucus bill and every other Dem proposal.
So how did that work out?
Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare

 

[Oddball]

The mortality rate argument is a big fat red herring anyways.

There are lots of other possible explanations for that, other than who has socialized medicine and who doesn't.

Should read "lots of other rationalizations for that". LOL.

Then maybe you can post an irrefutable physical link, complete with objectively quantifiable evidence, between socialized medicine and mortality rates.

Or maybe not.

 

[Vast LWC]

The mortality rate argument is a big fat red herring anyways.

There are lots of other possible explanations for that, other than who has socialized medicine and who doesn't.

Should read "lots of other rationalizations for that". LOL.

Then maybe you can post an irrefutable physical link, complete with objectively quantifiable evidence, between socialized medicine and mortality rates.

Or maybe not.

Hey man, I always say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

Sure, it may be something else, but chances are, it's a duck.

Saying it's something else, and coming up with unlikely reasons as to why it's not a duck, is rationalizing.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Baucus Bill also doesn't have a public option, although watch for it to recur, like a bad hemorrhoid.
Romneycare included:
1) individual mandates
2) Employer mandates
3)Subsidies for people below a certain income level.
These are all features in the Baucus bill and every other Dem proposal.
So how did that work out?
Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare

Which means that RomneyCare is an example of why there should be a public option...

If there was a public option in Massachusetts, private insurers couldn't dictate the price or the scope of their coverage, they would have to compete with a public option.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Baucus Bill also doesn't have a public option, although watch for it to recur, like a bad hemorrhoid.
Romneycare included:
1) individual mandates
2) Employer mandates
3)Subsidies for people below a certain income level.
These are all features in the Baucus bill and every other Dem proposal.
So how did that work out?
Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare

Which means that RomneyCare is an example of why there should be a public option...

If there was a public option in Massachusetts, private insurers couldn't dictate the price or the scope of their coverage, they would have to compete with a public option.

No, you don't get it.
Private insurers didn't dictate dick in Romneycare. The gov't mandated what they had to cover. That was a big part of the issue, or didn't you read the link?
The public option is nothing but socialized medicine. If it is cheaper than private care, everyone will go to it or employers will dump people on it. And the only way it will be cheaper is by taking gov't subsidies, which will get bigger and bigger.
In order to assume the public option will be both cheaper AND not take subsidies you would have to assume gov't bureaucrats will be able to assess and price risk better than insurance professionals. I find such an assumption laughable.
If the public option is comparable to private insurance, then why have it to begin with?

 

[Oddball]

Should read "lots of other rationalizations for that". LOL.

Then maybe you can post an irrefutable physical link, complete with objectively quantifiable evidence, between socialized medicine and mortality rates.

Or maybe not.

Hey man, I always say, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

Sure, it may be something else, but chances are, it's a duck.

Saying it's something else, and coming up with unlikely reasons as to why it's not a duck, is rationalizing.

"I got nothing" is much more pithy.

 

[logical4u]

The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
Michael Connelly,
Ret. Constitutional Attorney
08.24.09

Now this is a gigantic steaming pile of horseshit.

Just because the man was at some point a "Constitutional Attorney" (whatever the hell that means, did he work for the ACLU?), does not mean that he is not LYING.

Note that he makes a whole bunch of blanket statements that adhere to right-wing talking points, and then does not actually either quote or at least poiont out where in the legislation he is referring to.

How about quoting some of the bill that shows he is wrong? How about demonstrating anywhere in the bill, where it mentions citizens/patients rights?

 

[Vast LWC]

How about quoting some of the bill that shows he is wrong? How about demonstrating anywhere in the bill, where it mentions citizens/patients rights?

I'm sorry, you post a quote from a "Constitutional Attorney" that makes wild accusations, without providing any proof or citing any quotes at all, and then you want me to do the work proving he's wrong?


Perhaps you need to understand how this works. If you want to make stupid, insane accusations, you need to be able to back it up.

And if someone were a "Constitutional Lawyer" they would sure as hell know better than to not use direct quotes, a bibliography, links, or footnotes.

 

[Oddball]

Her latest idea of going against Grubby Harry's stupid "opt out" scam was a good one.

Gotta give credit where it's due.

 

[Meister]

Her latest idea of going against Grubby Harry's stupid "opt out" scam was a good one.

Gotta give credit where it's due.

It is a scam...the wording 'Opt Out" makes it sound a whole lot better than what it will be.
Can you imagine the criteria that it will take for a state to "Opt Out"? I really doubt when it is in writing that there will be any wiggle room for a state to be able to opt out of this bill.
Again....smoke and mirrors.

 

[Vast LWC]

I have to admit, I like her proposal better than the "Opt Out" deal.

Though, the "Opt Out" deal does raise the question:

Why not allow the individual states themselves to form a multi-state public plan of their own?

That way all the Liberal states could combine their resources and make a public option without any need for the federal government to get involved.

It would also draw business to those states like nobody's business, as companies could use the state run insurance plan.

 

[Oddball]

The "opt out" deal is a scam through-and-through.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have to admit, I like her proposal better than the "Opt Out" deal.

Though, the "Opt Out" deal does raise the question:

Why not allow the individual states themselves to form a multi-state public plan of their own?

That way all the Liberal states could combine their resources and make a public option without any need for the federal government to get involved.

It would also draw business to those states like nobody's business, as companies could use the state run insurance plan.

Better yet, why not allow private companies to pool together and form plans of their own? What good is served by making government an active partner?

I have asked this question numerous times and no one on the lib side has an answer. And for good reason.