ObamaCare

[Diehard]

That does nothing to elaborate upon your strange and incoherent point.

[elganned]

Allow me to interpret:

One of the axioms of the Church of Objectivism--as preached by the Rev. Ccbatson--is that all Democrats are liberal by definition.

Therefore, since Democrats are the majority in both the House and Senate. lawmakers are ipso facto overwhelmingly liberal.

Q.E.D.

[ccbatson]

Well done Elganned...there may be hope for you yet.

[Detroitej72]

Democrat=liberal.

No public option = conservative lawmakers, aka,tools of big insurance lobbyists have won the battle, = Joe Public gets screwed once again...

Thank you Republicans and pysudo-Democrats.[[i.e. Republicans in Democrat clothing, or DINOs)

[elganned]

Well done Elganned...there may be hope for you yet.

Just because I've read the Holy Book of Rand doesn't mean I buy it. I still think it's crap.

I've read the Bible, the Quran, and the Vedas too, but I'm not a Christian, a Muslim, nor a Hindu.

[Diehard]

Democrat=liberal.

ccbatson=king of sweeping generalizations.

Never mind that this extremely non-liberal, insurance industry-friendly "reform" bill came from a Democrat... let's not make our brains hurt thinking about any pesky facts that get in the way of cc's foolproof theories.

[ccbatson]

We know, from his own words, that Obama intends to gradually undermine and shut down the industry. A 1000 page bill that is deceptively made to appear to do the opposite, is just that ...pure deception.

[elganned]

We know, from his own words, that Obama intends to gradually undermine and shut down the industry. A 1000 page bill that is deceptively made to appear to do the opposite, is just that ...pure deception.

Shut down what industry, specifically? The health care industry? The insurance industry?

[[I know I'm gonna hate myself for this question, but I gotta ask...)

Care to elaborate?

[ejames01]

He is either trolling or just delusional. No serious person would make such a strong statement without ANY evidence. Why do some people think that their opinions should be accepted as fact?

Shut down what industry, specifically? The health care industry? The insurance industry?

[[I know I'm gonna hate myself for this question, but I gotta ask...)

Care to elaborate?

[elganned]

He is either trolling or just delusional.

The one does not ipso facto exclude the other.

No serious person would make such a strong statement without ANY evidence. Why do some people think that their opinions should be accepted as fact?

Because he is an Apostle of the Church of Objectivism. As such, he has been shown The Truth, which he deigns to share with us poor, benighted mortals. You should be grateful.

[Detroitej72]

We know, from his own words, that Obama intends to gradually undermine and shut down the industry. A 1000 page bill that is deceptively made to appear to do the opposite, is just that ...pure deception.

The fact that this current bill has been embraced by big insurance should tell you that is heavily favors the companies that got us in the mess to begin with.

Put down the Fox News kool aid.

[ccbatson]

Yes, they put things in there to attract/sucker in the second handers.

[rb336]

like people who have to read what their opinion should be on Heritage Foundation websites?

[Detroitej72]

Yes, they put things in there to attract/sucker in the second handers.

Sigh.

Some people just can't face reality, all they see is if a politician has an R or a D after their name.

[oladub]

I don't know if this has been covered elsewhere.

An Obama administration agency has abridged of the freedom of speech to promote the health care plan. Some publications are using the term "gag order". So much for the transparency the President promised.

"Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus [[D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt "millions of seniors and disabled individuals" who "could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable." The letter was sent in envelopes marked "important information about your Medicare Advantage plan -- open today!"

HHS wrote to Humana last week instructing it to stop the mailings"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092201849.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33669

There are many other reports of this 'gag order' or whatever you choose to call this attack on free speech and transparency. Free speech is one of the first fatalities of marketing the health care bill it seems. It might be a good idea to throttle the 'Medicare Advantage Plans'. However, interfering with free speech is not the correct way to achieve that end.

Did someone mention Joe Wilson?

[jiminnm]

The comparison of health insurance to auto insurance is a total red herring and completely inappropriate [[as our former consitutional law professor Prez should know). The US Constitution delegates specific powers to the federal government and vests all other powers to the states. As a result, states can do many things [[such as require auto insurance) that the feds cannot do.

[elganned]

So if the states imposed mandatory health insurance, you'd be okay with that?

[ghettopalmetto]

The comparison of health insurance to auto insurance is a total red herring and completely inappropriate [[as our former consitutional law professor Prez should know).

You're right. People don't lose their houses if they don't have automobile insurance.

[jiminnm]

So if the states imposed mandatory health insurance, you'd be okay with that?

Massachusetts has done so, and the costs in only a couple of years have far exceeded estimates. If it was attempted here in NM, I would oppose it. Each state should evaluate its own requirements, unless you want to further eviscerate the US Constitution.

GP - "You're right. People don't lose their houses if they don't have automobile insurance."

Maybe not, maybe so. But your point is not relevant as to whether it is constitutional for the feds to require health insurance.

[ghettopalmetto]

Massachusetts has done so, and the costs in only a couple of years have far exceeded estimates. If it was attempted here in NM, I would oppose it. Each state should evaluate its own requirements, unless you want to further eviscerate the US Constitution.

GP - "You're right. People don't lose their houses if they don't have automobile insurance."

Maybe not, maybe so. But your point is not relevant as to whether it is constitutional for the feds to require health insurance.

People like you are flat-out unbelievable. Nearly a quarter of the people in your own state can't see a doctor if their life depended on it, and you'd rather sit on your ass and do nothing because "it's too expensive". Maybe your employer should drop you from health insurance because, frankly, it's just too damn expensive to keep you enrolled, and the costs keep rising higher than anticipated.

It's no wonder the Europeans think we're an uncivilized nation of hypocritical rednecks.

I'm sure, being the Constitutional scholar you are, you're aware of the historically broad interpretation of the "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" clauses of Article I.

[elganned]

You are aware, of course, that once the insurance industry succeeds in eliminating the barriers to selling across state lines the Feds can regulate it as interstate commerce...

[oladub]

You are aware, of course, that once the insurance industry succeeds in eliminating the barriers to selling across state lines the Feds can regulate it as interstate commerce...

I think you are correct. One problem has been that so many policies are state specific and are not allowed to be sold across state lines. This, I believe, is the doing of the federal government. A good place to start would be to eliminate some of these federal provisions so more insurance products could be sold across state lines to allow more choices and affordability.

ghettopalmetto, the reference to the general welfare is mentioned in the preface to the Constitution. It does not override the specifics found in the Constitution. If it did, there would not have been a need to have written the rest of it. You can always add an amendment to change that though. Take comfort in the 10th Amendment giving you broad discretion at the state level to do such things as have a state based health care system like Massachusetts or, better yet, an affordable one like Ontario's. You also error in not recognizing how expensive the federal government has made medicine. Your belief that Master will provide for you is touching, all evidence to the contary, but don't you sometimes wonder how all those laws got into place that take money from your pocket and put it into Master's pocket? Banker's bailout, taxes for cap and trade credits manipulated by Goldman-Sachs, required purchase of Obamacare insurance...

[ghettopalmetto]

I think you are correct. One problem has been that so many policies are state specific and are not allowed to be sold across state lines. This, I believe, is the doing of the federal government. A good place to start would be to eliminate some of these federal provisions so more insurance products could be sold across state lines to allow more choices and affordability.

ghettopalmetto, the reference to the general welfare is mentioned in the preface to the Constitution. It does not override the specifics found in the Constitution. If it did, there would not have been a need to have written the rest of it. You can always add an amendment to change that though. Take comfort in the 10th Amendment giving you broad discretion at the state level to do such things as have a state based health care system like Massachusetts or, better yet, an affordable one like Ontario's. You also error in not recognizing how expensive the federal government has made medicine. Your belief that Master will provide for you is touching, all evidence to the contary, but don't you sometimes wonder how all those laws got into place that take money from your pocket and put it into Master's pocket? Banker's bailout, taxes for cap and trade credits manipulated by Goldman-Sachs, required purchase of Obamacare insurance...

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;

I, for one, am sick and God damned tired of this country being run by scared children. When are going to get some balls and start acting like men?

"Oh, we can't do this! It's too expensive! We're too afraid! No one's ever done that before! Guys 200 years ago didn't explicitly let us adapt to modern conditions!"

No, health care isn't in the Constitution. But neither is education, or cars, or going to the moon. The Founding Fathers literally risked their necks so you wouldn't be a subject of the United Kingdom. They assumed, however, that our nation wouldn't consist of a bunch of greedy, whining brats who can't do anything to help themselves, or their fellow man, and that we'd be able to make some of our own decisions for ourselves.

If you want to be a wuss, stop hiding behind the flag of my country. Men died so your sorry ass could piss and moan about how shitless you're scared. The least you can do is let people with principles, gumption, and a respect for humanity do what's best to improve the lot for all of us--even those who quiver in their bath slippers at the thought of facing another tortuous day as an American.

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto, Good quote. Congress isn't paying down the debt with our taxes. Special interests such as Goldman-Sachs are being lavished with our wealth instead of providing for the general welfare in ways specified in the Constitution. I'm not convinced that invading Iraq or bombing Pakistan even helps defend us.

I didn't say it was too expensive. I said it was a matter for state government if that should be the pleasure of its people. Massachusetts already has a health care plan that covers everyone in the state. As jiminnm pointed out, Massachusetts plan is a lot more expensive than promised. So what's new? But if you want a universal plan, your failure is in Lansing or whatever your state capital is. If you want an affordable state plan, just adopt Ontario's plan and change the place names. Of course the lawyers and insurance companies wouldn't like that because they would be stripped out of the plan.

The oath that soldier's take requires them to defend the Constitution rather than the President or flimsy feel good ideas. Incidentely, were the Constitution followed, they wouldn't have been sent to Korea, Vietnam, or the Middle East without acts of Congress to do fools' errands for corporate America. Those are the same special interest mega-corporations that now have you wimpering for their proposed national health car plan.

I also agree that education, or cars, or going to the moon aren't in the Constitution. That would be a good reason to get rid of the redundant Federal Departmnet of Education. Each state already has a DOE anyways. Establishing postal roads is mentioned but not what passes over them. Congress does have the power to 'promote the progress of science.' Between the latter power and its requirement to provide for defense, there are grounds for a space program.

[jiminnm]

GP, we have nothing in this country if we don't adhere to a system of laws based on our constitution. We can't twist, manipulate oe eviscerate the US constitution to meet our perceived needs of the day, however important one might think such those needs to be. There is a system for amending it if the states demand it.

I fail to understand why so many people are quite ready to hand over such an important part of our lives to the federal government. The idea behind giving such powers to the states was because the representatives in state government are closer to the people and the people can control their actions much easier than those in Washington. As oladub stated, if you want government controlled health care, go to your state government. There are innumerable differences between states, and this is just another one.