Where are the protests?

[N4mddissent]

Repsonse to an old post:

Nearly 80% of Americans have health care - and nearly 80% of those are happy with their insurance coverage.

And the other 20% can go to hell, right?

Nice.

One question:

If Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting the "War on Terror" (including Iraq, which was never part of the WOT to begin with), and terrorism has killed maybe, what, a few thousand people in the past 50 years?

Then why would they hesitate at spending a similar about for a program that would potentially save millions of American lives?

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

If government run health care is so bad, why didn't a single Republican vote to end medicare when an amendment to do so was presented on July 30?

 

[N4mddissent]

Once health coverage is mandated and it will be, what other option is there once they make private insurance illegal. The problem here is you're only seeing one paragraph and not seeing the entire proposal. Not all insurance policies are the same and there will be a governing body who decides which coverage is adequate and which is not. You will be required to show proof of coverage every year and if you fail to provide adequate coverage or you do not have coverage, you will be fined and enrolled into the public option program. You have no choice in the matter, it will become law.

Here's an article that lays out what you're asking and it's exactly what I've been saying.

IBD: Individual Private Health Insurance Illegal Under House Bill | NewsBusters.org

The paragraph I am "seeing" as you say is one you presented as supporting your argument that the bill will force people to choose the public insurance plan. It does not support that argument.

What you are doing is presenting an argument based on your personal feelings and predictions (or paranoia), along with the right wing propoganda machine, but trying to create a facade of legitmacy by claiming the actual language of the bill is what supports your case, rather than just your imagination of the future. I call shenanigans.

What is most sad, is that it is obvious from the link you provided in your most recent post that this is the type of source from which your claim stems. They quote the exact same portion as you did, and make the exact same claim about it. They bitch and moan about how the "leftist" press did not emphasize the fact that this paragraph will end private insurance.

News Flash: The authors of the editorial and the blog are either A) functionally illiterate, or B) LYING TO YOU. I would go with B). As I have clearly demonstrated, the language they and you quoted as supporting the argument that the bill will force people to choose the public option and not allow Americans to choose private insurance, in no way supports such a claim. Taken within the context of this section of the Bill, it is obvious to anyone who reads it what it says. It's easy to take a portion out of context to make it sound like it means something different. But it's not honest. Why are they lying to you Lonestar? Why would they put up clearly bogus information? Were they trying to embarass you? No, they just don't respect you. They hope you're not smart enough to check out what they claim and just accept them at their word.

And the reason no other news agency, the AP or otherwise, reported it? Not a leftist conspiracty. But because what the article claims is bullshit.

Now, since the same quote has been taken out of context and claimed to say what it doesn't say on a variety of sources, including hannity and limbaugh, you should ask yourself, are these assholes too lazy to check out the entire section of the bill, or do they just not give a shit about the truth as long as it supports their agenda.

You're free to be as stupid as you want to be. Have you read the proposed bill?

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Yes, and I pointed out to you what the section actually says that you referred to originally. It was irrefutable. I clearly summarized the entire section that you quoted supporting your claim that it will force people to accept the public option and make private insurance illegal. It did not support what you, nor the echo chamber claimed. And anyone who reads my summary and reads the bill will see that I have accurately described the section in question and you have not. That, and the fact that you are no longer trying to support your claim, but rather are reduced to the weak playground tactic of "you're stupid" means that further attempts to make this claim on your part will only undermine your credibility and confirm anyone's suspicions that you are just a gullible dupe to right wing pundits. And in doing so, you hurt the cause of rational and thoughtful conservatives by making yourself an example of the stereotype many on the far left try to portray all conservatives.

I notice you clipped part of our exchange. It was becoming a bit long. I just want any readers to know this specifically is concerning the very first claim you made about the healthcare bill. I have not considered any other claim you made, since this very first one- that the bill makes private insurance illegal and will force people to accept public insurance if they change their policy- was not supported by your reference to page 16 of the Bill. You have just yet to admit your interpretation (or more accurately your acceptance of pundits interpretation) is not supported by the section in question.

If you refuse to be intellectually honest on this first claim, I see no reason to waste time considering any other claim you have made.

 

[Navy1960]

This to me is a reflection of what the constitution in action for all to see, perhaps this is why you see more so than perhaps any other state Texas pushing back on issues that deal with the 10th Amendment as a way to remind the Federal Govt. that we are the United States and not United America.

Like what issues?

Health Care? ("Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and....")

Income Taxes? (See the 16th amendment, ratified by Texas in 1910)

Which issues does Texas have a problem with? And hey, they can take off any time they want, right after they pay the rest of the country back for defending them from the Mexicans for the last 170 years.

This to me is a reflection of what the constitution in action for all to see, perhaps this is why you see more so than perhaps any other state Texas pushing back on issues that deal with the 10th Amendment as a way to remind the Federal Govt. that we are the United States and not United America.

Like what issues?

Health Care? ("Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and....")

Income Taxes? (See the 16th amendment, ratified by Texas in 1910)

Which issues does Texas have a problem with? And hey, they can take off any time they want, right after they pay the rest of the country back for defending them from the Mexicans for the last 170 years.

Well let's see where to begin with this one, first of all the general welfare clause does not give the Federal Govt. unlimited authority. While you may think that "healthcare" may fall under that provision in fact the only people that are constitutionally entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners,

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society’s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.3 This protection is further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.”

On a side note on the the "general welfare clause I thougt you might like to see what the founding fathers had to say about it,

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Popular opinion as to the meaning of this clause has been formed around the opions odf the clause as a result of the Supreme Courts decision(s) in 1935 as it it relates to the constitutionality of Social Security which even FDR was so concerned over it that he had made the threat of packing the court with 6 more members in order to secure it's passage. I thought you might like to see what Justice Roberts had to say about their ruling on this matter in 1951.

Justice Roberts 1951- "We voted against the Constitution to save the Court."

Looking back it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge ... an insistence by the Court on holding Federal power to what seemed its appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our dual structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government.
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (301 us 548, May 24, 1937)

As far as the 10th Amendment goes , I don't think it needs to be repeated here but, in short, should this healthcare bill pass , when the 10th clearly states that rights not in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people. There is no right to healthcare stated in the constitution and therefor it is a right reserved to the people and the states. One more thing to consdier as well, if this bill should pass then you also have a problem with the 14th Amendment as it applies to cases such as roe v. wade. If the democrats wish to take roe and throw it out the window in favor of healthcare for all, then you might be able to make the case.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. …[T]he Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. … This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

So unless you willing to admit that these zone of privacy do not exist, and that states and people have no rights under the constitution and those rights are reserved to the Federal Govt. then you have no case for Federally mandated healthcare. The only case you would have is one that would advocate a constitutional amendment or a state by state installment thereof.

A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom.

For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.

The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen.

In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?

”The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.

So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.
Judge says Feds violated 10th Amendment by subverting state marijuana laws - Times-Standard Online

You mentioned the power to levy taxes, yes, the Govt. does have the power under the commerce clause to levy taxes to for any number of reasons. However this power does not extend beyond powers expressed in the constitution. What seems to be generally lost on people especially when it comes to this issue is the folllowing...

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "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." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

So in conclusion, if you believe that the "general welfare" clause the power to basically do as it pleases on any issue then you also must believe that all the other "rights" in the constitution are basically meaningless, because if this one line in the constitution does mean this according to Madison, then they would not have taken the time to include a specific mention of rights in the constitution. If this healthcare bill passes it faces a long protracted constitutional fight in several states mine included. Further, I stand by my contention that because there is no specific mention of healthcare as a right in the constitution then you have no such right and the Federal Govt. is no empowered to give it to you unless you as a citizen and many others call for a constitutional amendment giving them authority.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Repsonse to an old post:



And the other 20% can go to hell, right?

Nice.

One question:

If Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting the "War on Terror" (including Iraq, which was never part of the WOT to begin with), and terrorism has killed maybe, what, a few thousand people in the past 50 years?

Then why would they hesitate at spending a similar about for a program that would potentially save millions of American lives?

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

If government run health care is so bad, why didn't a single Republican vote to end medicare when an amendment to do so was presented on July 30?

Because they didn't want to cut off their nose to spite their face. Those old folks votes are gold next year. Duh.

Dems need to put up or shut up about this; if they think it's so great they need to agree to drop their private insurance and sign on the dotted line. Not holding my breath.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If America wants this health care "reform" so badly, why arent people protesting these politicians to get them to pass it. Instead we see the exact opposite.

If there are protests against, and none for, why do our politicians think its such a good idea to push this through Congress?

As if this was ever about what the people wanted or what's best for the country for them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If America wants this health care "reform" so badly, why arent people protesting these politicians to get them to pass it. Instead we see the exact opposite.

If there are protests against, and none for, why do our politicians think its such a good idea to push this through Congress?

That is because only 35% of americans, according to rasmussen, want govt run health care.

Yes its true the majority of us want some kind of reform, but it is also true that the majority of us dissaprove of HR 3200 which is the current proposed health care reform bill.

Thats why there aren't many/any pro-govt health care protests.

I can think of lots of healthcare reforms I would like to have, and oddly, none of them involve more government interference.

 

[Cecilie1200]

there are no protests for healthcare because the good guys are in charge and its assumed healthcare will get done, the only protesting being done is by the ignorant dupes who fall for the corporate propaganda given to them by their radio show hosts and fox news, if i lived in a trailer and made $8 an hour working at walmart i would favor healthcare passing but these rubes buy everything sold to them by the right wing propaganda machine.

Have you read any part of the proposed legislation?

On page 16 of the House bill: private insurance will become illegal. Insurance companies cannot write new policies, people will lose their existing policy if they change jobs, if they change coverage, or if they change prices. Once any aspect of your private health insurance changes after this bill goes into effect, you can't renew it. You have to go public option.

On page 29 of the House bill, it is admitted that our health care will be rationed.

On page 42, the health choices commissioner will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice.

Page 58, every person will be issued a national ID health card.

Page 59 the federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer to pay.

On page 72, all private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in a health care exchange. Any individual who doesn't have acceptable health care defined by the government will be taxed two-and-a-half percent of their income each year.

Officers and employees of government health care bureaucracy will have access to all American financial and personal records, page 195.

Page 203, the tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as a tax.

You oughta do yourself a favor and find a tall oak tree and put that noose to some use.

perhaps you should read it instead of letting some right wing whacko interpret it for you:

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Perhaps YOU should read it and then tell us how it's being "misinterpreted".

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many people are protesting against healthcare reform?

Apparently quite a lot, since Democrats are in the news running scared from their own townhall forums because of irate constituents.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where are the protests?

Now that word is getting out about the tactics being used by the right maybe there will be some.

The tactics used by the right? You mean telling people the truth and confronting their Congressional representatives? Those underhanded, sneaky dastards!

 

[Cecilie1200]

GOP = Angry Mobs

The Democratic National Committee will amplify its charge that Republicans are responsible for “inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists … to disrupt” town hall meetings in a new 65 second Web video that will release Wednesday morning.
​

I have to ask. Was that picture intentionally humorous, or just made so by that guy's inability to spell?

 

[veritas]

I can think of lots of healthcare reforms I would like to have, and oddly, none of them involve more government interference.

Oh do tell, don't be such a tease.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But what if you don't want it? I'm not currently nor have I ever been covered by health insurance. The govt. going to force to me to have it?

Then you'll have to take your chances at the emergency room that they'll mend your broken body for free after you crash your pickup driving drunk.

I don't drink and I have a family doctor, but if i do need emergency medical attention(again) I'll do as I've always done and pay the bill!! Isn't that what's supposed to be done?

I'll give you a little insight on something. Afriend of mine, a fellow bullrider (back in my bullriding days) and I both got hurt after a show in Houston and we both had to recieve medical treatment in the ER. Now, he had insurance and I did not.. well tomake a long story short his bill was almost double what mine was and I had worse injuries than he. So I automatically assumed that his bill was padded because he had insurance. I'd like to go on with other examples but I have to go feed.


later

It's very possible. I went to my doctor with what turned out to be a urinary tract infection as a self-pay patient. He told me straight out that if I had insurance, he'd do extra diagnostic tests to be sure (aka cover his ass), but since I was paying out-of-pocket, he was going to skip them and just go ahead and prescribe the meds.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Repsonse to an old post:

Nearly 80% of Americans have health care - and nearly 80% of those are happy with their insurance coverage.

And the other 20% can go to hell, right
Nice.

They can do what the other 80% did and fix their lives so that they're happy with it, instead of expecting everyone else to join them in their freakin' misery.

One question:

If Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting the "War on Terror" (including Iraq, which was never part of the WOT to begin with), and terrorism has killed maybe, what, a few thousand people in the past 50 years?

Then why would they hesitate at spending a similar about for a program that would potentially save millions of American lives?

Because it won't save any lives, and because national defense is properly the job of the federal government, while healthcare is not.

By the way, what is the magic number of dead Americans needed in an act of war against the United States before you'll think it's okay for us to fight back? How many people were killed at Pearl Harbor? How many Americans had the Japanese killed before we declared war on them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

What amendment was this? Who proposed it, and who shot it down?

And more importantly, what other provisions were included in said amendment?

It wasn't an amendment. It's House Resolution 615, proposed by Representative Fleming of Louisiana. It has been signed by all of the House Repubican leadership, if I recall correctly, and not a single Democrat. They all prefer to keep their private insurance.

 

[Immanuel]

They all prefer to keep their private insurance.

Wouldn't you?

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

Repsonse to an old post:



And the other 20% can go to hell, right?

Nice.

One question:

If Republicans are willing to spend trillions of dollars fighting the "War on Terror" (including Iraq, which was never part of the WOT to begin with), and terrorism has killed maybe, what, a few thousand people in the past 50 years?

Then why would they hesitate at spending a similar about for a program that would potentially save millions of American lives?

Question, if gov't run health care is so great why won't congress sign an amendment requiring those who vote yes on it to have it as their health care?

If government run health care is so bad, why didn't a single Republican vote to end medicare when an amendment to do so was presented on July 30?

Maybe because 95% of seniors have already been herded onto Medicare at this point, and it's not feasible to simply dump them out in the cold after having taken away all their other options. That doesn't mean we want to make the same mistake with everyone else in the country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They all prefer to keep their private insurance.

Wouldn't you?

Immie

Of course. Unfortunately, I don't belong to the Imperial Congress, so I'm among those forced to live with what Their Majesties decide is good enough for the rabble (aka everyone who isn't them).

 

[Immanuel]

They all prefer to keep their private insurance.

Wouldn't you?

Immie

Of course. Unfortunately, I don't belong to the Imperial Congress, so I'm among those forced to live with what Their Majesties decide is good enough for the rabble (aka everyone who isn't them).

What I want to know is that if this is mandatory and they are basically eliminating private insurance how are they going to avoid falling into their own trap? I would not be surprised if they add an amendment excluding them from the requirement and setting up their own "private insurance" policy to protect themselves from life. Part of their pension for life.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wouldn't you?

Immie

Of course. Unfortunately, I don't belong to the Imperial Congress, so I'm among those forced to live with what Their Majesties decide is good enough for the rabble (aka everyone who isn't them).

What I want to know is that if this is mandatory and they are basically eliminating private insurance how are they going to avoid falling into their own trap? I would not be surprised if they add an amendment excluding them from the requirement and setting up their own "private insurance" policy to protect themselves from life. Part of their pension for life.

Immie

Most likely, yes, they will set up some sort of separate provision for themselves once private insurance dies out. Probably something where they're the only people in the country with the ability to purchase health care "a la carte", with the government picking up the check.

 

[Immanuel]

Most likely, yes, they will set up some sort of separate provision for themselves once private insurance dies out. Probably something where they're the only people in the country with the ability to purchase health care "a la carte", with the government picking up the check.

They did it for Social Security later amended requiring them to participate. Why wouldn't they do it here?

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

Immie