# Health care vote passes important stage in House



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

> A health care vote finally happened, and the health care bill passed its first hurdle. This health care vote was in the House of Representatives, and the health care vote passed by a vote of 242-192. This doesn't mean that the House health care bill passed yet though, but rather that the House has voted to send it through to debate. This is one of many obstacles that stand in the way of the House health care bill from getting approved, and this will be the first of many health care votes that take place before the bill gets place in front of the President.
> The health care vote didn't get full support though, as all 177 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the measure to try and block the debate. They were also joined by several Democrats, and the total number of voters against the House bill making it to debate was 192. They didn't really stand a chance at this point though, because it only takes a simple majority to advance the bill to the next stage, and by a vote of 242 to 192 it will make it easily into the debate stage. The next step is to debate the merits of the bill, and eventually to head into an official vote on the health care bill.
> It is probably already a done deal that the health care bill will pass through the House, if not late Saturday night then very soon. The Democrats have a strong hold on the House of Representatives, and even if all of the Republicans were to vote against the bill, it could still be approved on the House level. Just because it gets through the House doesn't mean it gets put in place right away either. The Senate also has a resolution in front of them that they need to approve in order for the two groups to sit down and hash out something for President Obama to sign. It looks like the next step in health care reform could be within grasp, but it will probably also continue to split the American people as to which side of the issue they stand.
> There is definitely a lot of work to be done on the health care situation within the United States, and these measures being forwarded by both the House and the Senate could provide sweeping reform for the system. We will continue to provide updates on where the House bill is progressing to throughout the night.
> The final vote for the House health care bill is expected to come late on the night of November 7th, and possibly in the early morning hours of November 8th.


https://www.examiner.com/x-7460-Spo...lth-care-vote-passes-important-stage-in-House


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I weep for my country.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

> WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives Saturday approved the most sweeping healthcare legislation since the creation of Medicare 44 years ago and gave an important boost to President Obama's campaign to guarantee health coverage to all Americans for the first time in history.
> 
> The gargantuan Democratic measure passed 220-215 with a single Republican vote, capping a contentious day-long debate that underscored the vast ideological divide separating the two parties over healthcare.


https://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-dc-health-house-final,0,5892705.story

We can't afford any of this and, combined with other current government activity, are setting ourselves up for economic armageddon. Hold on tight it is going to be a wild ride.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

Next years elections are going to be very interesting, I'm excited.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

I guess the President isn't as "weak" and "impotent" as some say he is.

For those weeping, weep not for long as there is always the Senate, a place guaranteed to turn the nation's interests into graft-receiving posturing, secret cash infusions, obstructionist dithering and talk-show-ready sound bites. :icon_smile:

"About all I can say for the United States Senate is that it opens with a prayer and closes with an investigation." -- Will Rogers


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

And after all that graft, 39 Democrats still voted against what is supposedly the most important legislative agenda item of the 'Messiah.'

That's pretty interesting ... I wonder why people would think he is "weak" and "impotent?"

With officially 10.2% unemployment Pelosi better kiss Biden goodbye.

No weeping here. That's 39 votes more than I thought the "good guys" would get.

2010 Change is coming!

I wonder if after having thrown another constituency group under the bus for the trial lawyers (first gay rights advocates and now abortion rights advocates) who the Democrats will be willing to sacrifice in their next power grab; and if those people will still march in lockstep? Will the Dems start having more viable 3rd party candidate problems like the GOP is started having? You have to figure there are some pro-life Latinos that can unseat some of these more opportunistic, errr progressive, candidates in Democratic districts.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> I weep for my country.


beacuse of this? ROTFLMAO


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL. Indeed, young guy, I can understand your good humor. You may eventually get your (apparent) wish of never having to work for a living. You can sit on your butt and just live the good life, having it all just handed to you!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Gosh, would y'all like some cheese with that wine?

Armageddon is predicted every time the supply-siders don't get their way, and Obama was elected by the American people not in spite of his campaign promises but because of them.

Also, where was all this yelling about affordability when our last president extorted us for $1.5 trillion on his way out of office? Where were (and are) these claims of a coming Armageddon during an invasion and occupation of a country that has lasted longer than all of World War II?

Apparently we can afford $2 trillion so mass murdering presidents can slaughter 60,000+ civilians and play war hero half a world away, but we can't afford half that amount to reform a fundamentally immoral health care system in our own country.

Do you know who already has universal health care, paid for by American tax dollars? Iraq and Afghanistan.

The hypocrisy literally turns my stomach.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL. Indeed, young guy, I can understand your good humor. You may eventually get your (apparent) wish of never having to work for a living. You can sit on your butt and just live the good life, having it all just handed to you!


what part of this bill allows a person to just sit on their butt and live the "good life" ?


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Hello Socialism. The thought of sitting on my butt all day is starting too look pretty good. Isn't this what the Nanny State is all about?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> what part of this bill allows a person to just sit on their butt and live the "good life" ?


Maybe none, but the sad thing is if he claimed it was right there on page 1,842 would anyone know any different?

When a bill has to be justified by every excuse other than the bill to me that's a problem and with the lack of information people will say stuff on both sides that isn't quite justified.

What bothers me most is the claims (as seen in this thread) of why people oppose the bill or that they never opposed big government spending by Dems or Reps before - making up stuff that is obvious BS. These own archives demonstrate that is not true.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

a4audi08 said:


> what part of this bill allows a person to just sit on their butt and live the "good life" ?


Page 405.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

I never said we could afford the war either. The government is involved in, and spending a lot of money on, a lot of things it shouldn't be. I've been reading von Mises so I am terribly pessimistic at this point in time. :crazy:


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Maybe none, but the sad thing is if he claimed it was right there on page 1,842 would anyone know any different?
> 
> When a bill has to be justified by every excuse other than the bill to me that's a problem and with the lack of information people will say stuff on both sides that isn't quite justified.
> 
> What bothers me most is the claims (as seen in this thread) of why people oppose the bill or that they never opposed big government spending by Dems or Reps before - making up stuff that is obvious BS. These own archives demonstrate that is not true.


i think we all can agree that the way laws are passed - bills being put to vote hours or a few days after they are submitted and available for reading etc, is a travesty - both parties have engaged in these sorts of games and in a perfect world it wouldnt happen.

the only "justifications" ive seen are that uninsured people cost the system way too much money, that we have a moral responsibility to ensure that as the wealthiest nation in the world that we dont have people for instance going bankrupt bc they happened to get sick, and that the health insurance industry should be stopped from continuing certain practices.

i think the opposition is making a much bigger deal out of this bill than is necessary. most of the bill is pretty uncontroversial and if passed piecemeal would probably get huge majorities of both dem and repub votes.

i have no reason to not believe anyone who says that their primary opposition to the bill is based purely on the issue of govt spending, and that it doesnt matter who is in power at the time. i guess my point is that we're already spending that money, whether it's under the guise of rising premiums or if we do it through taxation and this new health care bill.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

The _Washington Pos_t has published a very handy list showing how each member voted and how much they pocketed from the "health industry":

Of the 39 Democratic members who voted against the bill, one was one of the most Liberal and Progressive members, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. He released a statement as to why which says in part:

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system."

""This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care."

Source: https://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> *i think we all can agree that the way laws are passed - bills being put to vote hours or a few days after they are submitted and available for reading etc, is a travesty* - both parties have engaged in these sorts of games and in a perfect world it wouldnt happen.
> 
> the only "justifications" ive seen are that uninsured people cost the system way too much money, that *we have a moral responsibility to ensure that as the wealthiest nation in the world* that we dont have people for instance going bankrupt bc they happened to get sick, and that the health insurance industry should be stopped from continuing certain practices.
> 
> ...


Yes; I think we can all agree to that.

I would challenge the belief that we are even a wealthy nation, much less the wealthiest. Part of our problem is people that want to live in a past that no longer exists. The post-WW2 built-in American industrial and technological advantages are gone. They are not coming back. We have to compete now. For all the talk of America is #1 rah rah! Now we have to actually prove it in the global markets. I think the majority of Americans under 40 were raised to be "slackers", but that's just my personal view.

If I say you make a fair point, would you even consider the possibility of stopping spending "that money?" Because actually paying for abortions or for illegal immigrants to have health care is "pretty controversial" for a lot of Americans who realize that while it may be a nice thing to do in some utopian liberal fantasy we simply cannot afford it. Many Americans cannot afford the mortgage or the rent.

There is a striking difference between moral responsibility for a safety net for Americans and universal blank check welfare for anyone that can apply.

IF we have a moral responsibility to provide health care to all Americans, then what don't we have a moral responsibility to provide or even to protect our investment? Surely, it makes no sense to provide health care and not provide other necessities for all Americans; does it?

Don't we have a moral responsibility to see that Americans (particularly children) live in good homes that are clean to protect our health care investment? Many children grow up in homes that are filthy and germ ridden because the parents are busy working or pursuing selfish interests or drugs/alchohol addictions. Perhaps we need Universal Housekeeping for all Americans? 

The point is if you decide to start taking care of someone and provide for all their necessities then you do accept a moral responsibility to ensure they have everything they need in life and it never stops. Start making a list of all the things your family "needs" and you have a moral responsibility to provide. Then ask if you want to provide that for every other family out of your own pocket. And if you can afford it. And if that is not pretty controversial.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> The _Washington Pos_t has published a very handy list showing how each member voted and how much they pocketed from the "health industry":
> 
> Of the 39 Democratic members who voted against the bill, one was one of the most Liberal and Progressive members, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. He released a statement as to why which says in part:
> 
> ...


So, Yes votes averaged $485k and No votes averaged $550k? I'm sure the Yes votes more than made up for it in personal injury lawyer and union contributions. What sort of 'made up' news is this by the WP? I mean really? There were a bunch of Yes votes (including Pelosi) who had over $1M in contributions from the 'health industry'.

Kucinich, only took $370k and that makes him what; a saint or something as they don't say?

Kosmas a D from Fl-24 took ~$80k and voted "No."

What's also an interesting statistic is that of 13 that voted "Yes"; 9 received more than $1M, 3 more than $2M, and 1 more than $3M (Rangel; of course.) by my quick count. Clyburn only got $991K for his Yes vote; que pasa?  The rest of minority and junior leadership stacked the $2M contribution bracket, but only Rangel got into the 3s and he voted Yes. Sort of blows their theory right out of the water, doesn't it?

I drilled through to https://www.opensecrets.org/ which is the source cited at the bottom of the page.

Thanks for the Link to the story Quay! It's certainly interesting to see how it's being spun by the different interest groups. Wouldn't it be funny if people on the Yes and No side actually voted their conscience and no one noticed? Not that I am making that claim, but it would be hilarious...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kucinich is and has been one of the most vocal supporters of a "robust" (i.e. single-payer) public option. But it looks like we'll need to walk before we can run, and this bill is still the foot in the door we need to end the insanity known as for-profit health care.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Kucinich is and has been one of the most vocal supporters of a "robust" (i.e. single-payer) public option. But it looks like we'll need to walk before we can run, and this bill is still the foot in the door we need to end the insanity known as for-profit health care.


And then we can end for-profit housing, for-profit clothing, for-profit education, for-profit job search, and for-profit food! Just think of the prosperity that can be distributed fairly to all Americans!

Once the evil profits are illegal then there will be nothing left that is fundamentally immoral in our society; such as pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, and rapists. Right Frank?

Since you wanted them ... I'll make you a hypothetical offer ... If I could trade you the life of every pedophile in the United States (one bullet to the base of the skull) for Universal Un-limited Health Care (preventative, drugs, even abortion) complete cradle to grave walk-in unlimited services ... mental health ... drug/alcohol/tobacco rehab ... even elective surgeries ... anyone on American soil ... legal or illegal ... Are you in on that deal?

I mean you should be. Since you're all about fundamental morality; right?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> ...IF we have a moral responsibility to provide health care to all Americans, then what don't we have a moral responsibility to provide or even to protect our investment? Surely, it makes no sense to provide health care and not provide other necessities for all Americans; does it?
> 
> Don't we have a moral responsibility to see that Americans (particularly children) live in good homes that are clean to protect our health care investment? Many children grow up in homes that are filthy and germ ridden because the parents are busy working or pursuing selfish interests or drugs/alchohol addictions. Perhaps we need Universal Housekeeping for all Americans?
> 
> The point is if you decide to start taking care of someone and provide for all their necessities then you do accept a moral responsibility to ensure they have everything they need in life and it never stops. Start making a list of all the things your family "needs" and you have a moral responsibility to provide. Then ask if you want to provide that for every other family out of your own pocket. And if you can afford it. And if that is not pretty controversial.


This attempt at an argument rests on false analogies, the "Nirvana Fallacy" and is lightly sprinkled and finally collapses with several versions of the _reductio ad absurdum_.

Not bad for a Sunday morning. Someone switch out your Folger's for shade-grown, certified-organic decaf?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> And then we can end for-profit housing, for-profit clothing, for-profit education, for-profit job search, and for-profit food! Just think of the prosperity that can be distributed fairly to all Americans!
> 
> Once the evil profits are illegal then there will be nothing left that is fundamentally immoral in our society; such as pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, and rapists. Right Frank?
> 
> ...


LOL! Ok, it's apparently not a coffee switch-out. You're seem drunk and possibly on several kinds of drugs. Never-ending night or an early start?

At least in any state of mind you seem to make up in length what you lack in depth. :crazy:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> This attempt at an argument rests on false analogies, the "Nirvana Fallacy" and is lightly sprinkled and finally collapses with several versions of the _reductio ad absurdum_.
> 
> Not bad for a Sunday morning. Someone switch out your Folger's for shade-grown, certified-organic decaf?


Yes; that's what I am demonstrating. You grasped the method, but perhaps not the point of the demonstration. The difference? I'm doing it on purpose. Frank is not. The absurd seems like the only way to get through to some of these people. Of course, many are so dense they can neither filter the rhetorical nor answer the legitimate questions regarding the bill and the policy.

If you want to deepen the debate ... Can you or can you not answer what is a fundamentally moral necessity and what is not? Is there no list of these impeatives?! What is this a banana republic?! 

Do we not have a responsibility to protect our investment in health care with nutrition and shelter for these wards of the State? That's neither an analogy nor a fallacy; it's a question, a logical follow-up to the moral imperative that was passionately introduced by Frank as he railed against hypocrisy ... perhaps you can answer since he, as a supporter of the plan, cannot. 

If you want to criticize the lack of depth and insight introducing a false imperative brought to the thread then direct that to the source. If you wish to defend it answer the question. If not at least admit the bad intent implicit in your attacking my depth. You are not engaging your good angels, Quay. Hypocrisy?

BTW it is chocolate covered pecans ... Enjoy your day!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> At least in any state of mind you seem to make up in length what you lack in depth. :crazy:


No, but it's interesting to watch how can you make comments about depth when neither yourself nor your social engineering associates have any substantive answers or comments. It's as in your quote; I think the same about you ... Except I try to walk my talk..... And We are in awe of the depth of your own fallacies. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> ... Except I try to walk my talk....


Of course! And here that walk is, illustrated:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Quay said:


> finally collapses with several versions of the _reductio ad absurdum_


Several? Try thousands. Take a gander at the posting history.

It's SOP.

And thanks for the PM, it's appreciated. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Of course! And here that walk is, illustrated:


blah blah, attack attack, say nothing substantive, pat self on back, it's all the same


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Several? Try thousands. Take a gander at the posting history.
> 
> It's SOP.


^^ this is what is SOP. I'm sure you two can stand together in the welfare lines. I'll start putting 'FrankDC & Quay - fundamental moral imperatives' in the memo field of my estimated tax payment checks ...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> ...If not at least admit the bad intent implicit in your attacking my depth...


I admit to being vastly amused by how seriously you regard yourself and by extension the staggering amount of time you spend online arguing with strangers. Be that as it may, one cannot attack that which does not exist in any definitive way.



ksinc said:


> blah blah, attack attack, say nothing substantive, pat self on back, it's all the same


 That is a succinct summary of the Ksinc Method, yes. :icon_smile: Thousands and thousands of posts attest to its fearless, incorruptible production and as an added bonus, watching the constant, fretful and hole-digging-deeper edits of the posts is even more entertaining.

While this forum has been diverting, my health has recovered and my colleagues at Social Engineering Associates demand my presence back at work. Since I will be so busy attempting to ruin America, destroy capitalism, institute legalized marriage for aardvarks and all that rot I won't have much time to play here but I'm sure some new, well-dressed innocent will show up looking for a discussion and will encounter the KM instead. I hope they will be as amused as I have been.

Until some future time of further fun, in the immortal words of Boy George, "I know you'll miss me/ I know you'll miss me blind." 

_Exeunt. _


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> The hypocrisy literally turns my stomach.


No, the "hypcorisy" FIGURATIVELY turns your stomach - if it literally did it, you'd need a doctor. And then, of course, you'd probably be put on a waiting list and die after all this legislating is done.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Quay said:


> This attempt at an argument rests on false analogies, the "Nirvana Fallacy" and is lightly sprinkled and finally collapses with several versions of the _reductio ad absurdum_.
> 
> ...


LOL. Wait just a minute Quay. Wasn't "Reductio ad Absurdum" a curse in one of the Harry Potter novels that was used to stop the "Social Re-engineering" pukes from pursuing their dastardly pursuits to change the wizarding world for the worse. You fast talking muggle, you! 

We are all loosing our grip it seems, thereby meeting your definition of crazy! :crazy:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Once the evil profits are illegal then there will be nothing left that is fundamentally immoral in our society; such as pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, and rapists. Right Frank?


Classic right wing - jump the shark kind of logic.

If you vote to help the 33 million WORKING Americans that do not currently have health care to get some affordable health care - you are voting to decriminalize and endorse rape and pedophilia.

Are you borrowing logic from Sarah Palin again?


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

The claims that this bill is fiscally feasible in anyway are ludicrous. 250 billion dollars of the payment was put into another bill (one that was voted down), so as to allow this one to go through the finance committee. Furthermore, presuming it IS feasible, it is only till 2019. The public option comes into play 2013. What happens when we have a 1 to 1 ratio of how long we have to save up and how long we have to maintain public option. 

Then this is presuming the costs go as planned. Medicaid costs ballooned far quicker and higher than expected, and with the baby boomer generation aging, this ****'s all gonna get more expensive for everyone. 

Be realistic. This indulgent Utopian disaster must die.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

My problem with government interfering in health care is prices will rise. Health care prices used to be affordable for the masses but massive government interference has caused prices to rise along with insurance and law suits.

The government has proven in every program to be inefficient and wasteful. Another problem is if you look at health problems easily solved in America, the death rate for many problems skyrockets in nations with national health care. A lot of people from socialized medicine countries spend large amounts of money to come to America to get treatment they could not get in their nation. 

Obama talks of "competition" for insurance, then why won't he let people buy across state lines? Insurance companies have the states cornered but if you open the market up from one state to 50 you greatly increase competition. Also if we could buy medicine from other nations we could save millions each year at least. Governments love to create problems and then be the only "solution" to them by giving them more money and power.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nick.mccann said:


> Obama talks of "competition" for insurance, then why won't he let people buy across state lines? Insurance companies have the states cornered but if you open the market up from one state to 50 you greatly increase competition. *Also if we could buy medicine from other nations we could save millions each year at least*. Governments love to create problems and then be the only "solution" to them by giving them more money and power.


Apparently, Reid thinks it's harder to pass a bill with 29 co-sponsors than a bill with none.
https://washingtonindependent.com/6...action-on-prescription-drug-reimportation-ban


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

ksinc said:


> Apparently, Reid thinks it's harder to pass a bill with 29 co-sponsors than a bill with none.
> https://washingtonindependent.com/6...action-on-prescription-drug-reimportation-ban





> Indeed, despite the 30 co-sponsors lined up in support of the Dorgan-Snowe-McCain bill, Reid warned the lawmakers that passage "will not be easy."


They're in bed with the drug companies, that's who is going to win big in health care reform along with lawyers. Notice they are also against tort reform that could save millions from frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY 
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

Protestors wave signs in front of the Capitol on Thursday. 
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice-basic, enhanced and premium levels-but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

Questionable Priorities:

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.

For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Well, it's a riot watching the VRWC (which includes the supply-side whores at the WSJ) writhe in agony over this.

Guess what, it's still going to happen. Deal with it. Maybe 10 years from now, at most 20, all of us will look back in wonder and utter shame at how we valued corporate profits over human life for so long.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

thunderw21 said:


> What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Thank You for that summary.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

> The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively. Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.





> Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program. "I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today," he said.


There is still hope in the Senate.

and assorted quotes from congressmen and reps



> "This bill does not include common sense health care reforms that Oklahomans do support - such as tort reform and the establishment of tax deductions for individual purchasers. My constituents want a plan that establishes national insurance markets and association health plans that would allow small businesses to provide affordable insurance to their employees. Oklahomans rightly believe the Pelosi health care bill is a giant step backwards and it's one that I don't support."





> "With the passage of this bill, the federal government will become the dominant force behind our health care system, putting bureaucrats in Washington between patients and their doctors. I will continue to oppose any health care plan that includes a government takeover of our health care system, that burdens our states with additional fees and bureaucracy, and that saddles our future generations with trillions of dollars of debt," Lucas stated.





> "I'm personally disgusted with this entire process. Speaker Pelosi and her left wing allies in Congress resorted to twisting arms and backroom tactics to sell out the American people and put the federal government in charge of their personal healthcare decisions. This bill is bad for patients, bad for doctors, bad for small businesses and couldn't have come at a worse time for our economy - as our national unemployment rate has reached a staggering 10.2%.





> "What has been perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this health care debate is how out of touch it has revealed some of our political leaders to be. Oklahomans, and Americans everywhere, want the government to focus on job creation, growing our economy, and addressing the skyrocketing deficits that threaten this country's financial stability. Instead, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama have produced a 2,000 page bureaucratic nightmare that will increase taxes, spend more, and do nothing to alleviate the high cost of health care that is threatening family budgets and hurting small businesses.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Folks, those nincompoops trying to force/rush the healthcare plan don't care about the average American or any American besides themselves. All they want to do is make history as being the ones who created a/any healthcare bill.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Folks, those nincompoops trying to force/rush the healthcare plan don't care about the average American or any American besides themselves. All they want to do is make history as being the ones who created a/any healthcare bill.


ah yes rushing the health care issue, let see its been going on since roosevelt, how much slower can it go


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Asterix said:


> Folks, those nincompoops trying to force/rush the healthcare plan don't care about the average American or any American besides themselves. All they want to do is make history as being the ones who created a/any healthcare bill.


It is not a perfect bill, but since the right did ZERO to add to it, they cant complain about it when it passes. And when the Bill passes and actually starts to help insure more Americans, it will become more and more popular.

If you want some background, do a quick search and look at all the defamatory comments Ronald Regan made back in the early 60s about Medicare.....and juxtapose them against his comments from the 1980s when he said he would do anything and everything to protect Medicare.

Republicans will prove to be on the wrong side of history again here....it will haunt the party for generations.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> It is not a perfect bill, but since the right did ZERO to add to it, they cant complain about it when it passes. And when the Bill passes and actually starts to help insure more Americans, it will become more and more popular.


Just like how the "stimulus" bill becomes more popular as millions upon millions of Americans get new jobs!! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Just like how the "stimulus" bill becomes more popular as millions upon millions of Americans get new jobs!! :icon_smile_big:


Yeah, keep laughing. That is working out well for your side.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> Yeah, keep laughing. That is working out well for your side.


Skepticism and accountability know no "side!!"

(Shouldn't anyhow)


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Well, it's a riot watching the VRWC (which includes the supply-side whores at the WSJ) writhe in agony over this.
> 
> Guess what, it's still going to happen. Deal with it. Maybe 10 years from now, at most 20, all of us will look back in wonder and utter shame at how we valued corporate profits over human life for so long.


If we forget economics for a minute, do you really think the government is capable of doing this? They can't run any program well. You're not worried about what happens in other nations with socialized medicine where people can't get treatment so they have to come to the U.S.

My mom had a good point when I asked her why she didn't support a national health care system because she had an expensive rare form of cancer. She said because she'd probably would have died, there are only a few specialist in the country that could have treated her and with the government choosing it would have been free but unlikely she would have gotten to see the right doctor soon enough. I fear in trying to do good as usual the government will cause more problems and harm.



> but since the right did ZERO to add to it, they cant complain about it when it passes.


They're working on a new bill that has things like tort reform. But I'm not a big fan of the Republicans, they're democrats with different names most of the time, so I have little faith.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Skepticism and accountability know no "side!!"


how about apathy and hypocrisy?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Well, it's a riot watching the VRWC (which includes the supply-side whores at the WSJ) writhe in agony over this.
> 
> Guess what, it's still going to happen. Deal with it. Maybe 10 years from now, at most 20, all of us will look back in wonder and utter shame at how we valued corporate profits over human life for so long.


Whatever. There are a lot of people who are not )corporate" who will be severely taxed for something that does not provide care half as well as what we have now.

But because these people support your real agenda, you will toe the party line. Very predictable.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> how about apathy and hypocrisy?


Good call.

NBC/General Electric on the Healthcare Bill...

"You can look around and there's not a sign of hypocrisy. Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see!!"

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> "You can look around and there's not a sign of hypocrisy. Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see!!"
> 
> :icon_smile_big:


Reminds me of how I feel every time I hear Dick Cheney speaking.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Gosh, would y'all like some cheese with that wine?
> Obama was elected by the American people not in spite of his campaign promises but because of them.


Frank, I think Obama was elected because he was not a Republican. The real election was the Democratic primary. Voters didn't really care about his campaign promises until after he was elected. Then they started asking questions. Even reporters are starting to ask questions now.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Whatever. There are a lot of people who are not )corporate" who will be severely taxed for something that does not provide care half as well as what we have now.


Define we. What "we" have now is 45 million Americans who have no health care coverage whatsoever, and who're forced to wait until minor medical problems become major ones before our government pays for treatment. No one, Republican or Democrat has denied that this approach is absurd, ridiculously expensive and wasteful.

If by "we" you mean Rush Limbaugh being able to feed his oxycodone habit by doctor shopping, that very well might become a thing of the past. Fortunately.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

agnash said:


> Frank, I think Obama was elected because he was not a Republican. The real election was the Democratic primary. Voters didn't really care about his campaign promises until after he was elected. Then they started asking questions. Even reporters are starting to ask questions now.


You need to look at the polls. Depending on how the question is asked, somewhere between 65 and 85% of the American people support a public option for health insurance. Whether voters cared about Obama's campaign promises is a matter of conjecture: the point is he's doing what he said he would do when elected.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

For the love of God:

CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT JUST LEAVE ME ALONE?

That's all I ask.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

fenway said:


> For the love of God:
> 
> CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT JUST LEAVE ME ALONE?
> 
> That's all I ask.


yeah we can all do without the protection of the army, and theres no need for interstate highways, and protection of our food is pretty useless to, lets get rid of local government to - who needs fire departments or ambulence service or policemen, yeah lets get rid of all government


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

young guy said:


> yeah we can all do without the protection of the army, and theres no need for interstate highways, and protection of our food is pretty useless to, lets get rid of local government to - who needs fire departments or ambulence service or policemen, yeah lets get rid of all government


Heh.

What's the old saying... "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested." :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Because We need(ed) him ... Ronaldus Maximus

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

"Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."

"I'm afraid I can't use a mule. I have several hundred up on Capitol Hill." -refusing a gift of a mule


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You need to look at the polls. Depending on how the question is asked, somewhere between 65 and 85% of the American people support a public option for health insurance. Whether voters cared about Obama's campaign promises is a matter of conjecture: the point is he's doing what he said he would do when elected.


The important polls will be in 2010 and 2012. Taxes and penalties for not purchasing mandatory insurance will be in place, but most of the benefits will not be there yet. Oh, and the cuts to the Medicare Advantage programs will also be in place, and the new Medicare funding formulas. Actually, I can agree with ANY politician who agrees to cut Medicare, but I digress.

What one Congress passes by the skin of the teeth can be undone by another Congress, especiallyif the benefits haven't kicked in yet.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Define we. What "we" have now is 45 million Americans who have no health care coverage whatsoever, and who're forced to wait until minor medical problems become major ones before our government pays for treatment. No one, Republican or Democrat has denied that this approach is absurd, ridiculously expensive and wasteful.
> 
> If by "we" you mean Rush Limbaugh being able to feed his oxycodone habit by doctor shopping, that very well might become a thing of the past. Fortunately.


Right. Documenting one anecdote and extrapolating it to the entire population is poor analysis whether done by right wing or left wing fanatics.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

agnash said:


> The important polls will be in 2010 and 2012. Taxes and penalties for not purchasing mandatory insurance will be in place, but most of the benefits will not be there yet. Oh, and the cuts to the Medicare Advantage programs will also be in place, and the new Medicare funding formulas. Actually, I can agree with ANY politician who agrees to cut Medicare, but I digress.
> 
> What one Congress passes by the skin of the teeth can be undone by another Congress, especiallyif the benefits haven't kicked in yet.


 Before this bill gets passed, many of the triggers will be pushed up and the American people (who support reform and a public option in overwhelming numbers) will start to see real changes well before the 2012 election. At that point, the Republicans can get out their top hats and canes and see what kind of a soft shoe routine they can do to dance around the fact that they opposed this reform at every turn.

And in 15 years time, when every American has health coverage - you can stand up and tell your children and family why you opposed it, or better yet try to brush it under the rug as so many republicans did in the 70s and 80s - after Medicare become among the most popular programs in the history of our country.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> And in 15 years time, when every American has health coverage - you can stand up and tell your children and family why you opposed it, or better yet try to brush it under the rug as so many republicans did in the 70s and 80s - after Medicare become among the most popular programs in the history of our country.


wait - isn't medicare a single payor system, i mean isnt it really socialized medicine? why then is it so popular?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

young guy said:


> yeah we can all do without the protection of the army, and theres no need for interstate highways, and protection of our food is pretty useless to, lets get rid of local government to - who needs fire departments or ambulence service or policemen, yeah lets get rid of all government


Tell you what, Chief.

I promise to forego all of the above, if . . .

you promise to go back to school and learn how to write and spell.

Hell, I'll even pay extra taxes for it.

Deal?

How young are you, "young guy?" If it's over six, you're in a world of trouble.
​


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

fenway said:


> Tell you what, Chief.
> 
> I promise to forego all of the above, if . . .
> 
> ...


tell you what pal, i'll go back to school if you address the issues and not the grammer

are you a politician - change the subject instead of dealing with the issues?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> wait - isn't medicare a single payor system, i mean isnt it really socialized medicine? why then is it so popular?


Yes; it is a single payer system. Yes; it is socialized medicine.

"*So* popular" with which groups: government, media, retirees, advocacy groups, or younger workers?

Its popularity is not universal. It remains "*so* popular" with some of these groups becuause it justifies their existence or anything "free" to them is just fantastic!

It remains somewhat popular with many retirees (even though they have complaints about it - and what wouldn't they complain about) because there are millions of naive or uneducated old people that were thrown under the bus of dependency by a self-serving government & opportunistic employers by being told NOT to plan for their own retirement needs and now they have no other choices. Many relied on the promises of pensions, unions, social security, and medicare. Certainly we cannot "punish" them for being gullible, but we also should not pretend the truth is something noble.

This is like asking why prison lunch is "so popular."


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Who loses?*

With any transfer program, some people lose and some people win. Who loses with this bill? Well, the bill mandates that premiums cannot vary based on age. Acoording to the NIH, Americans between the ages of 19 and 35 have healthcare costs of about $1,500 per year on average. That is about half of all of the uninsured. So, if you are in that age group, and cannot find an insurance plan for under $1,500 per year, then this plan is a bad deal for you. Actually, depending on how much of a bite the 2.5% of AGI is for you, you might still be better off paying the fine and not getting insurance.

Of course there are subsidies for people making up to 400% of the poverty level, but 40% of all uninsured households are above that threshold. So they will have the privelege of purchasing health insurance that they had previously chosen not to purchase, or previously could not afford.

On the other hand, you cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. Oops, I got cancer. Better go get that insurance.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You need to look at the polls. Depending on how the question is asked, somewhere between 65 and 85% of the American people support a public option for health insurance. Whether voters cared about Obama's campaign promises is a matter of conjecture: the point is he's doing what he said he would do when elected.


Polls can be tricky things. 87% of Americans with health insurance are happy with their insurance. 77% support a public option, but 78% think that the national debt is a problem. Hmmmmm. Can't touch current health insurance benefits without pissing voters off. Also, can't do anything that raises the debt. That means taxes. Oh, and the latest polls (Rasmussen, CNN, NBC/WSJ) show a slim majority of voters opposing the House bill.

What one slim majority passes, another slim majority can repeal. They don't even have to completely repeal it, they can just pass a few ammendments that make it less than worthless.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Yes; it is a single payer system. Yes; it is socialized medicine.
> 
> "*So* popular" with which groups: government, media, retirees, advocacy groups, or younger workers?
> 
> ...


 Another fairytale post from our man Ksinc - which is flat out FALSE.

Here are the facts:

There are 37 million elderly in this United States. Of that number, *95% use Medicare as their primary health insurance *and of that remaining 5% that have private insurance, *87% of them use Medicare Supplemental* to augment their private insurance. 
()

Unlike Ksinc he would have you believe, these are not naïve, uneducated people - this is your mother, your grandmother, you uncle and father - members of the greatest generation. People that fought for our country in WWII, Korea and Vietnam - people that built the country this country and they *DESERVE* to be taken care of.

Every objective study that has been done on the popularity of Medicare, has shown it to be the most popular form of entitlement program in the United States - and miles more popular and effective than private insurance.

The National Journal (hardly a liberal leaning publication) said that in their analysis of data from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Services, they found that 56% of Medicare beneficiaries rate their coverage a 9 or 10 on a scale of 10 (only 40% for private insurance.)

More importantly, the higher scores for Medicare are based on perceptions of better access to care. More than two thirds (*70 percent*) *of traditional Medicare enrollees say they "always" get access to needed care *(appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment), *compared with* *51 percent of those with private insurance*.
()

Forty-four years ago, LBJ signed Medicare into law. At the time, 40% of the elderly did not have health insurance. A third of them also lived in poverty. Today, everyone in the country over 65 has a basic level of health security that those of us under 65 still do not enjoy.

There is no doubt that there are problems with Medicare, but it is an example of a single payer system that is wildly popular and working for the elderly of this country. In a political climate where once again we're being told government can't run anything, people are responding with fear - drummed up by politicians on the right beating the same drum Ksinc and his boys are trying to beat out here. But the reality was stated perfectly by President Obama at a recently town hall meeting&#8230;."I've received letters that say, I don't want a government-run program, I don't want socialized medicine, and by the way don't touch my Medicare."

It is amazing to me to see the lunatics on the right, in their zeal to throw the kitchen sink at President Obama and the Democrats, now even attacking the elderly in this country. I mean, really - *have you NO SHAME?*


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Good call.
> 
> NBC/General Electric on the Healthcare Bill...
> 
> ...


I must have seen _It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown_ at least 100 times this year. My three year old son viewed it for the first time this year and he absolutely loves it. We have now moved on to _A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving. 
_


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> It is amazing to me to see the lunatics on the right, in their zeal to throw the kitchen sink at President Obama and the Democrats, now even attacking the elderly in this country. I mean, really - *have you NO SHAME?*


The short answer is no. Even most wars fought under the guise of religious or political conflict have been about money. Flushing grandma down the toilet pales in comparison, morally.

"A man cannot serve two masters", and these people will stop at nothing to protect theirs.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Increases in healthcare costs*

According to the CBO, half of all increases in medical care spending in the last 20 years came from advances in technology. Who benefitted from these advances? Primarily those 65 and over. Why? Because researchers know that if you create a new device/pill/procedure that addresses any affliction of the 65+ crowd, you can run an ad on tv and everyone with that affliction will lobby Congress to have it added to Medicare. There is no need for cost-benefit analysis, just create it, total your costs, add a 10% mark-up and tell Meidcare this is what it is gona cost.

Of course Medicare is popular. Who wouldn't love to get health insurance and not have to pay for it? Oops, you are dying, but here's a nice new hip replacement, becuase it is covered and I need to make a payment on my BMW. That was not a dig at the President, I worked for Medicare and have seen the garbage that flows through it.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

agnash said:


> Of course Medicare is popular. Who wouldn't love to get health insurance and not have to pay for it?


Explain to me how someone that served two tours in the South Pacific, came home and worked as a small business owner for 57 years employing people and paying taxes the whole time did not PAY for his medicare insurance?

My grandfather EARNED IT and DESERVES IT and your comments that allude to it being some kind of free ride are disgraceful.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Explain to me how someone that served two tours in the South Pacific, came home and worked as a small business owner for 57 years employing people and paying taxes the whole time did not PAY for his medicare insurance?
> 
> My grandfather EARNED IT and DESERVES IT and your comments that allude to it being some kind of free ride are disgraceful.


Saying that someone deserves anything is a personal judgement. Health care will always be rationed; it is just a question of who does the rationing. If you think the people in power won't pervert this to take better care of their own, you are sadly naive.

At least, theoretically, you have the option of earning your money and deciding how to allocate it. I've worked in government; it's one of the best ways to waste money ever invented. People don't shepherd funds that are not their own very carefully for the most part.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Explain to me how someone that served two tours in the South Pacific, came home and worked as a small business owner for 57 years employing people and paying taxes the whole time did not PAY for his medicare insurance?
> 
> My grandfather EARNED IT and DESERVES IT and your comments that allude to it being some kind of free ride are disgraceful.


As a business owner, not only did your grandfather pay his Social Security taxes, he did so at twice the rate of people who're employed by others.

He most certainly is entitled (has the legal right to) his benefits, but those who're trying to gut the problem always refer to SS as spending, not an entitlement program. It's part of their brainwashing.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Horrific logic. The business matches that contribution with funds that would theoretically be available to pay to the employee. Both sides of the FICA contribution are really part of the cost of having the employee and thus part of the employee's compensation.

I also doubt that the contribution of anyone who contributed any substantial amount of the money before 1980 contributed anywhere near what they will take out of it. I suspect you know that.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Saying that someone deserves anything is a personal judgement.


 I don't know where judgment comes into this at all. This is a program that the elderly paid into for a many years, under the promise that they would be taken care of when they got old.

Unless you are suggesting that we renege on our promise to elderly Americans - I don't get your point

*NICE JOB ON THE EDIT BTW....lol*


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Horrific logic. The business matches that contribution with funds that would theoretically be available to pay to the employee. Both sides of the FICA contribution are really part of the cost of having the employee and thus part of the employee's compensation.
> 
> I also doubt that the contribution of anyone who contributed any substantial amount of the money before 1980 contributed anywhere near what they will take out of it. I suspect you know that.


I wasn't making any claim, beyond the fact that business owners pay double the FICA tax of those who're employed by others.

And you still seem to be missing the point that Social Security is an entitlement. It's not a matter of whether people "deserve" it. They pay into a specific fund and take the money back out again. The fact that the trust fund currently has a $2.5 trillion surplus (much of it invested at high interest) hopefully explains your apparent misunderstanding.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Elderly people have paid far less into that program than what they will get out of it. Especially now, when people are living longer. 

The contributions people made before Reagan increased the rates were a joke. Social Security has basically always been run like a Ponzi scheme. Now that baby boomers are retiring, in a few years, they will have to end the pretense that it's a retirement program and just fund it directly like a welfare program. It's a value judgement, pure and simple. 

As far as I'm concerned, if you retire while you are physically able to keep working, why should people have to spend money to keep you going. No one who is collecting Social Security put in anywhere near the money it would have taken to pay our their current benefits.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I wasn't making any claim, beyond the fact that business owners pay double the FICA tax of those who're employed by others.
> 
> And you still seem to be missing the point that Social Security is an entitlement. It's not a matter of whether people "deserve" it. They pay into a specific fund and take the money back out again. The fact that the trust fund currently has a $2.5 trillion surplus (much of it invested at high interest) hopefully explains your apparent misunderstanding.


From other posts you have made in the past, I think you are easily intelligent enough to understand that what people contributed to Social Security is far less than what was needed to fund the benefits at the level they are paid out. I could understand some posters not understanding that. I'm sure you do, but are just making a point to help out political allies.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> I don't know where judgment comes into this at all. This is a program that the elderly paid into for a many years, under the promise that they would be taken care of when they got old.
> 
> Unless you are suggesting that we renege on our promise to elderly Americans - I don't get your point
> 
> *NICE JOB ON THE EDIT BTW....lol*


I edited within a few minutes of after I made the post. If you responded before I edited, I apologize. However, I did not totally change the meaning of my post with the edit.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> From other posts you have made in the past, I think you are easily intelligent enough to understand that what people contributed to Social Security is far less than what was needed to fund the benefits at the level they are paid out. I could understand some posters not understanding that. I'm sure you do, but are just making a point to help out political allies.


I'm trying to counter the VRWC and their brainwashed teabaggers (that's not directed toward you personall), which makes getting accurate information about Social Security next to impossible.

The FACT is, retirement of the baby boom generation is a temporary burden.

The FACT is, Social Security has a $2.5 trillion surplus, and has been running surplueses for nearly all of the 75 years it's been in existence.

The FACT is, it will continue to run surpluses at least until 2016, and will continue to pay full benefits to all qualified recipients until 2037 or 2047, depending on which set of economic growth numbers one chooses to believe.

And above all else, the FACT is that the CBO has said a 4.9% increase in Social Security taxes now, will keep the program solvent indefinitely, as in far beyond the baby boom generation.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, if you retire while you are physically able to keep working, why should people have to spend money to keep you going. No one who is collecting Social Security put in anywhere near the money it would have taken to pay our their current benefits.


 Pay into this fund your entire life and after laboring for 45 or 50 years, if Forsberg doesn't think you are "sick enough" to retire you get NOTHING. If you don't like it, TOUGH **** - you didn't pay in enough anyway.

[FONT=&quot]We don't need Rep Grayson to tell us this is how Republicans think&#8230;this is Exhibit A right in front of our eyes.

[/FONT]


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't vote Republican as a party line. 

I made the point that people have not paid in enough to fund their Social Security Cash Flow stream. Social Security has worked only because there were enough young people to cover the Social Security payments to a relatively smaller group of older people for what in most cases was a few years after retirement. 

With people living longer a lot of things have changed.

I suppose that being nasty and disrespectful can substitute for thinking when people don't want to see anything except their own vision. You are assuming that I'm totally against any transfers to people who can't afford to support themselves. I don't follow the right wing party line. (I totally agree that Bush was an idiot who should never have run for president, for one example.) 

You seem to wish to ignore anything that does not fit your preconceived notion. You are free to do that, but you will not learn anything you haven't already decided that you know that way.

I have other things to do; as long as it's not infraction or ban-worthy, I won't respond to you.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Honestly, the biggest problem in our society is that both the right and the left have people who ruthlessly distort any reasonable attempt at logic and simply try to dominate our society by force instead of by persuasion. 

I'm no right-winger, MrKleen; there are plenty of the folks who post here from the right who vehemently disagree with me about a lot of things. (Bush is only one of them.)

I've infracted and suspended some of them even.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> I wasn't making any claim, beyond the fact that business owners pay double the FICA tax of those who're employed by others.
> 
> And you still seem to be missing the point that Social Security is an entitlement. It's not a matter of whether people "deserve" it. They pay into a specific fund and take the money back out again. The fact that the trust fund currently has a $2.5 trillion surplus (much of it invested at high interest) hopefully explains your apparent misunderstanding.


My age group is estimated to pay more into SS than I will get out. The people into the ponzi scheme early benefit while the ones that come in at the end lose out. I'm going to lose out on a large amount of money from SS, money I worked hard for. If people want to save for their future let them choose to have SS but the government has no right to force us.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'm trying to counter the VRWC and their brainwashed teabaggers (that's not directed toward you personall), which makes getting accurate information about Social Security next to impossible.
> 
> The FACT is, retirement of the baby boom generation is a temporary burden.
> 
> ...


This was originally about healthcare. Social Security is positively healthy compared to Medicare and Medicaid. From the CBO:

if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035 (what this report describes as the intermediate term) and to more than 17 percent by 2080 (what this report considers to be the long term). That projection means that in 2080, without changes in policy, the federal government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.

Most analysts agree that the most important factor contributing to the growth of spending for health care in recent decades has been the emergence, adoption, and widespread diffusion of new medical technologies and services. Major advances in medical science allow providers to diagnose and treat illnesses in ways that previously were impossible. Many of those innovations rely on costly new drugs, equipment, and skills. Other innovations are relatively inexpensive, but their costs add up quickly as growing numbers of patients make use of them. Although technological advances can sometimes reduce costs, in medicine such advances and the resulting changes in clinical practice have generally increased spending.

All of this as beore the recently enacted healthcare legislation.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

We've already been through the Medicare discussion. No one is debating whether massive changes in priority need to occur to fund it. Obama is trying to initiate that process.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I suppose that being nasty and disrespectful can substitute for thinking when people don't want to see anything except their own vision. You are assuming that I'm totally against any transfers to people who can't afford to support themselves. I don't follow the right wing party line. (I totally agree that Bush was an idiot who should never have run for president, for one example.)
> 
> You seem to wish to ignore anything that does not fit your preconceived notion. You are free to do that, but you will not learn anything you haven't already decided that you know that way.
> 
> I have other things to do; as long as it's not infraction or ban-worthy, I won't respond to you.


There is nothing more nasty and disrespectful than suggesting that the elderly, the people that often gave the best of themselves over the course of their lives to make this a better country, are not entitled to proper health care in their golden years. That is worse than disrespectful, that is a disgrace.

But I guess you dont know anyone in the 95% of the senior population that benefits from Medicare. Somehow I bet there are plenty of people in your family that benefit from that program....but I will assume you and your people are all independantly weathy and dont need any assistance - even if you are entitled to it as tax paying Americans.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> There is nothing more nasty and disrespectful than suggesting that the elderly, the people that often gave the best of themselves over the course of their lives to make this a better country, are not entitled to proper health care in their golden years. That is worse than disrespectful, that is a disgrace.
> 
> But I guess you dont know anyone in the 95% of the senior population that benefits from Medicare. Somehow I bet there are plenty of people in your family that benefit from that program....but I will assume you and your people are all independantly weathy and dont need any assistance - even if you are entitled to it as tax paying Americans.


Whatever. You don't see what you don't want to see, both about me as a person and about the topic. Oh well.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Whatever. You don't see what you don't want to see, both about me as a person and about the topic. Oh well.



 You're right.

When someone makes a ridiculous statement like "Saying that someone deserves anything is a personal judgment", when we are talking about money that THEY PAID IN to a system - then I just tune them out.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> You're right.
> 
> When someone makes a ridiculous statement like "Saying that someone deserves anything is a personal judgment", when we are talking about money that THEY PAID IN to a system - then I just tune them out.


just cause you pay in doesnt mean you have a right to anything - jeeze what are you a commie ! LOL !


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If you pay in a lot less than what you take out, it is a consideration.

If you want to be blinded by left or right wing ideology, you are free to do so.

It is appearing that we are simply going to go right back to ultra-conservative overreaching if the Democrats are run out anyway. That will bring its own set of ridiculous, but avoidable problems that won't be avoided because of rabid ideology from the right.

There are ways to reform health care without putting the government (which will run it poorly) in charge.

The real problem is that too many people listen to Al Sharpton and to Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> There are ways to reform health care without putting the government (which will run it poorly) in charge.


Sensible regulation doesn't cost a lot either and it's what the Government is supposed to be doing!!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Sensible regulation doesn't cost a lot either and it's what the Government is supposed to be doing!!


Once politics get involved, there is no guarantee that any regulation will be "sensible."

I work for a land developer and even local government can be interesting with power plays, etc.

I do worry that totally unfettered capitalism can result in some really nasty stuff.

An observation I made to my pastor the other day though that if all of these conservative religious folks would really practice all of the religion (Liberals tend to forget about the 10 commandments, conservatives tend to forget "Love thy neighbor as thyself") a lot of the liberal selling points would not be necessary. Christians are supposed to care about the poor at least as much as they are supposed to care about making self-righteous judgements about people they don't like.

I do worry about government being anywhere it does not need to be. (This includes marijuana laws as well as business over-regulation. I'm an accountant and the time needed to dot i's and cross t's just on payroll reporting is ridiculous. But it's the law and has to be done. Sigh.)

We get the government we deserve. We don't feel that education is really important (and we don't - if we spent half the effort we spend developing athletes on actually educating people we would be far better off.) But the real problem with education is not what we spend on it, the real problem is making sure that children see its importance and actively participate in it. (And if that means providing breakfast and lunch so they are not hungry, etc. so be it.)

Poorly educated people who don't take time to learn about issues for themselves are easy prey for left and right wing ideologues.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> just cause you pay in doesnt mean you have a right to anything - jeeze what are you a commie ! LOL !


Contrary to what some here would tell you - the FACT is, it's an entitlement specifically because it is *NOT* your own money. You can only GIVE a claim to something that is not already yours. If you don't EARN 40 credits you lose a claim to SS and any money you paid in SS taxes. Your rights to things you already own are natural rights/private property rights and are *NOT* entitlements. You are entitled to SS when you are eligible. Eligibility for SS is based on earning 40 credits and age.

*entitlement* - right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits)

*en·ti·tle - *To *give* a name or title to; To furnish with a right or claim to something



> *How many credits do I need to receive benefits?*
> Everyone born in 1929 or later needs 40 Social Security credits (sometimes referred to as a "Quarter of coverage") to be eligible for retirement benefits. You can earn up to four credits per year, so you will need to work in at least 10 years to become eligible for retirement benefits. During your working years, earnings covered by Social Security are posted to your Social Security record, and you earn credits based on those earnings. Each year the amount of earnings needed for a credit rises as average earnings levels rise.
> In 2009, you receive one credit for each $1,090 of earnings, up to the maximum of four credits per year. For 2008, you receive one credit for each $1050 of earnings. If you become disabled or die before age 62, the number of credits needed depends on your age at the time you die or become disabled. A minimum of 6 is required regardless of your age.





> *I need 40 credits for retirement benefits, but I only have 32. Can I just pay in to buy the other 8 credits I need?*
> 
> *No, you cannot "buy" credits. The only way that you earn credits is through working* for wages in a job that is covered by Social Security or having net income from self-employment. You don't get credits for unearned income such as your pensions or interest or dividends from your savings and investments. You don't pay Social Security taxes on that kind of income even though you may have to pay income tax. If you work for a federal, state or local government agency that is not covered by Social Security, you don't pay Social Security tax and you don't earn credits for monthly benefits based on those earnings. If you pay Medicare tax on those earnings, you do earn credits toward qualifying for Medicare protection at age 65.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Contrary to what some here would tell you - the FACT is, it's an entitlement specifically because it is *NOT* your own money. You can only GIVE a claim to something that is not already yours. If you don't EARN 40 credits you lose a claim to SS and any money you paid in SS taxes. Your rights to things you already own are natural rights/private property rights and are *NOT* entitlements. You are entitled to SS when you are eligible. Eligibility for SS is based on earning 40 credits and age.
> 
> *entitlement* - right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits)
> 
> *en·ti·tle - *To *give* a name or title to; To furnish with a right or claim to something


 Yet another post of DOUBLE TALK from the king of twisted posts out here.

First of all, why Ksinc is quoting from Social Security rules, when we are talking about Medicare is beyond me. Sure they are both administered by the SSA, but they are two totally different programs, with different rules. 

You most certainly CAN make up for any deficiencies in your Medicare credits by paying for them&#8230;.that is common knowledge, but again - either Ksinc knows this and is playing dumb, or well you get the picture.

Taken directly from the MEDICARE (not the social security) FAQ section:

*Why would I want to pay the Medicare tax?*

Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people age 65 and over, and certain disabled persons. It has two parts: Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical Insurance). Part A is free to anyone who has at least 40 credits. In order to get credits, *you must pay the tax as a payroll deduction* (or be eligible under someone else's record). *In the event that you have not paid 40 credits, you may receive Part A benefits by paying a monthly premium.* There is a monthly premium for anyone who chooses Part B. 

*How do I earn the 40 credits?*
In the current calendar year a worker receives one credit for every $1090 he/she earns. You cannot earn more than four credits in one year; therefore, *it takes approximately ten years to receive your 40 quarters/credits for Medicare.*

That means that in order to qualify for the bare minimum of Medicare coverage, you have to have paid into the system for 10 years AT A MINIMUM. Of course most of the elderly in this country, have paid into the system for a long longer than 10 years - but even still, how in the world is this not something you are entitled to? 

If I put money in a savings account for 10 years - how am I not ENTITLED to that money if and when I need it? 

Ksinc is wrong on so many levels here - factually wrong (yes you CAN buy Medicare insurance, whether you have earned 40 credits or not) and morally wrong (playing tough guy with the health of our grandparents and parents.)

Disgraceful.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

Why can't I just opt out and manage my own money? Because they need my money to pay out to other people who contribute less. 

I think what Forsberg was saying is that you are obviously not giving people back JUST the money that they contributed. Many people contribute much less than they are paid out and where does this money come from? It is a redistribution/welfare type system. If you were ONLY giving people what they paid in plus interest then you would be correct in your "they paid it in, they deserve to get it back"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MarkfromMD said:


> Why can't I just opt out and manage my own money? Because they need my money to pay out to other people who contribute less.
> 
> I think what Forsberg was saying is that you are obviously not giving people back JUST the money that they contributed. Many people contribute much less than they are paid out and where does this money come from? It is a redistribution/welfare type system. If you were ONLY giving people what they paid in plus interest then you would be correct in your "they paid it in, they deserve to get it back"


Exactly! It wouldn't be an entitlement as getting back your own stuff is already part of the law. I wasn't trying to disagree with Forsberg - if I gave that impression.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

MarkfromMD said:


> Why can't I just opt out and manage my own money? Because they need my money to pay out to other people who contribute less.
> 
> I think what Forsberg was saying is that you are obviously not giving people back JUST the money that they contributed. Many people contribute much less than they are paid out and where does this money come from? It is a redistribution/welfare type system. If you were ONLY giving people what they paid in plus interest then you would be correct in your "they paid it in, they deserve to get it back"


should we be able to op out of everything we dont use or dont want, i dont drive yet i pay tax to keep up the interstate highways, lets make it so only people who drive on the interstates pay taxes for their upkeep. or maybe border controll, i live inland away from any boarders why should i pay for border controll, let put everything up for opt out or a vote and we can have government like they have in california


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Poorly educated people who don't take time to learn about issues for themselves are easy prey for left and right wing ideologues.


And well educated people who don't learn about issues for themselves too! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

young guy said:


> should we be able to op out of everything we dont use or dont want, i dont drive yet i pay tax to keep up the interstate highways, lets make it so only people who drive on the interstates pay taxes for their upkeep. or maybe border controll, i live inland away from any boarders why should i pay for border controll, let put everything up for opt out or a vote and we can have government like they have in california


There is an obvious difference between shared public goods and redistributing money.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> should we be able to op out of everything we dont use or dont want, i dont drive yet i pay tax to keep up the interstate highways, lets make it so only people who drive on the interstates pay taxes for their upkeep. or maybe border controll, i live inland away from any boarders why should i pay for border controll, let put everything up for opt out or a vote and we can have government like they have in california


No. We should only be able to opt out of things that are purported to have only a direct benefit. Which would be hard to argue of anything. Our lives are interconnected.

You benefit indirectly from an interstate highway system by having greater access and lower prices for goods, for example.

This is why we should be able to get an honest discussion that everyone is not just getting their own money back or even that the indirect benefits of SS we recieve. But we don't get that from the "Leftwing Loons."

It's just part of the cost of living without purges. J/K


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MarkfromMD said:


> There is an obvious difference between shared public goods and redistributing money.


Yes; and this difference is why the honest discussion referenced above is feared and avoided because the whole area of "social goods" would be on the table.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MarkfromMD said:


> There is an obvious difference between shared public goods and redistributing money.


Careful how you use the word "obvious" around here!!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No. We should only be able to opt out of things that are purported to have only a direct benefit. Which would be hard to argue of anything. Our lives are interconnected.
> 
> You benefit indirectly from an interstate highway system by having greater access and lower prices for goods, for example.
> 
> ...


The current state of technology has rendered our House of Representatives all but obsolete. Imagine if House members simply proposed bills and amendments, and the American people (via voting terminals installed in homes and businesses) voted directly on them. We could specify exactly where we want our tax dollars to go.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Unfortuneately, what we vote on would easily be distorted by lawyers and others who feel they have a stake in reinventing and distorting what people think the law says. Writing the laws in incomprehensible legalese can minimize but not totally eliminate this possibility.

Writing the laws in legalese would make it impossible for at least 75% of the American population to know what they are voting on.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Unfortuneately, what we vote on would easily be distorted by lawyers and others who feel they have a stake in reinventing and distorting what people think the law says. Writing the laws in incomprehensible legalese can minimize but not totally eliminate this possibility.
> 
> Writing the laws in legalese would make it impossible for at least 75% of the American population to know what they are voting on.


We're to the point where even our elected representatives don't bother to read, or aren't given an opportunity to read what they're voting on. Obviously a set of timing rules would have to be established.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The current state of technology has rendered our House of Representatives all but obsolete.Imagine if House members simply proposed bills and amendments, and the American people (via voting terminals installed in homes and businesses) voted directly on them. We could specify exactly where we want our tax dollars to go.


I can imagine that_ someone_ will have a problem with that.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> This is why we should be able to get an honest discussion that everyone is not just getting their own money back or even that the indirect benefits of SS we recieve. But we don't get that from the "Leftwing Loons."


 Again, a bunch of people - all patting each other on the back as they continue to spread falsehoods passed off as facts. 

The problem with Social Security isnt that people are drawing out more than they have paid. The problem is that the government over the last 30 years - has played games with and mismanaged this money.

Since its inception, Social Security has *taken in more money than it has paid out*; but instead of saving these surpluses, the government has been spending them and writing the Trust Fund an IOU, a special-issue government bond. Since most of those bonds are no longer worth the paper they are printed on - the program is in trouble.

It was poor investments and poor planning on the part of the government - plus this receission that started 2 years ago and resulted in less people being employed and thus, less paying into the system that caused this problem, not your grandmother taking out more than she paid in. 

But again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story boys.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> We're to the point where even our elected representatives don't bother to read, or aren't given an opportunity to read what they're voting on. Obviously a set of timing rules would have to be established.


Is it impossible? I don't know. But is what we have working to the pleasure of most Americans? I don't think so. And something is worth a try. When a high percentage of Americans want some kind of health insurance and health care reforms, but a majority of Americans oppose the current proposals that tells us the system is broken IMHO.

Are there enough honest brokers to do it? I think not. I have heard, "But 85% support health care reform" as an answer to "these are socialists proposals" enough times to believe it's beyond ignorance and pure deception. Maybe I am wrong.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Exactly! It wouldn't be an entitlement as getting back your own stuff is already part of the law. I wasn't trying to disagree with Forsberg - if I gave that impression.


...and alas, what about us Federal retirees (under CSRS), whose Federal retirement offset, will pretty much eliminate any future Social Security payments, regardless of the number of years we worked private sector jobs, contributing to the social security fund?  Its not always simple (in fact it can get pretty complicated) and it's not always perfectly fair but, it could be a lot worse! LOL, I'll be happy if they can just avoid giving any of my money to young guy!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

ksinc said:


> When a high percentage of Americans want some kind of health insurance and health care reforms, but a majority of Americans oppose the current proposals that tells us the system is broken IMHO.
> QUOTE]
> 
> for those of us who need to look things up, what are your sources tha a majority of americans oppose the current proposals?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Is it impossible? I don't know. But is what we have working to the pleasure of most Americans? I don't think so. And something is worth a try. When a high percentage of Americans want some kind of health insurance and health care reforms, but a majority of Americans oppose the current proposals that tells us the system is broken IMHO.
> 
> Are there enough honest brokers to do it? I think not. I have heard, "But 85% support health care reform" as an answer to "these are socialists proposals" enough times to believe it's beyond ignorance and pure deception. Maybe I am wrong.


Congress has become such a cesspool of special interests, bribery etc. I don't see how this system could be any worse.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Again, a bunch of people - all patting each other on the back as they continue to spread falsehoods passed off as facts.
> 
> The problem with Social Security isnt that people are drawing out more than they have paid. The problem is that the government over the last 30 years - has played games with and mismanaged this money.
> 
> ...


Just do an anaylysis of what most people have paid in. Apply a reasonable interest rate to those deposits - say 5 or 6%. Now see what people take out. People who live more than a few years past the retirement age take out vastly more than what their contributions would have accumulated even with interest.

It's just basic math.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> The problem with Social Security isnt that people are drawing out more than they have paid. The problem is that the government over the last 30 years - has played games with and mismanaged this money.
> 
> Since its inception, Social Security has *taken in more money than it has paid out*; but instead of saving these surpluses, the government has been spending them and writing the Trust Fund an IOU, a special-issue government bond. Since most of those bonds are no longer worth the paper they are printed on - the program is in trouble.
> 
> It was poor investments and poor planning on the part of the government


This is one of the best examples of why anyone should oppose Government Care I've heard yet!!


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> The current state of technology has rendered our House of Representatives all but obsolete. Imagine if House members simply proposed bills and amendments, and the American people (via voting terminals installed in homes and businesses) voted directly on them. We could specify exactly where we want our tax dollars to go.


This is actually kind of scary, as it would mean blind allegiance to majority vote. Any group able to scare up 51% of the vote would be free to tax the other 49% to death.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Just do an anaylysis of what most people have paid in. Apply a reasonable interest rate to those deposits - say 5 or 6%. Now see what people take out. People who live more than a few years past the retirement age take out vastly more than what their contributions would have accumulated even with interest.
> 
> It's just basic math.


 So why don't we all just refuse to pay taxes and instead put it in our mattresses?

There is a cost to running a civilized society. I don't drive to work, I take the train - but I have to pay for the roads you drive on to and fro&#8230;.just as you have to subsidize the cost of repairing rails and signals on my train route. It is called living in a democracy. 

Your so called "basic math", is so basic - it leaves out many of the most important parts of the equation. Like compassion, common decency and respect for those that have given big chunks of their lives to protect your right to sit there and type this kind of insensitive BS.

93% of the elderly in the United States collect Social Security and 97% have Medicare - what a bunch of freeloaders.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

harvey_birdman said:


> This is actually kind of scary, as it would mean blind allegiance to majority vote. Any group able to scare up 51% of the vote would be free to tax the other 49% to death.


That's far more true for 435 House members than the entire U.S. electorate.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> This is one of the best examples of why anyone should oppose Government Care I've heard yet!!


 
Hate to break it to you, but the waste and mismanagement in Private Care is MILES worse.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> So why don't we all just refuse to pay taxes and instead put it in our mattresses?
> 
> There is a cost to running a civilized society. I don't drive to work, I take the train - but I have to pay for the roads you drive on to and fro&#8230;.just as you have to subsidize the cost of repairing rails and signals on my train route. It is called living in a democracy.
> 
> ...


Given that there are only finite resources that can be spent, the discussion should begin with an accurate assessment of the dollars and cents involved.

At that point, you can discuss how to allocate whats available and set priorities. Blind rage helps only to make the discussion irrational. You are just as blinded by your ideology as are the Rush Limbaugh fans who would take no responsibility for anyone except themselves.

By the way, I contribute roughly 15% (after taxes) of an income that would be considered astonishingly low for a full-time person in my profession with my experience to my church and also send about $150 to $200 per year to the local food bank. I donate my time playing music for elderly people in nursing homes about five to seven hours per month. I would probably charge about $500 to $700 if I did not volunteer.

What do you and the other liberal folks contribute to anyone? You are assuming I'm totally selfish. I realize that you have no independent corroboration of my statistics. (I can assure you that at least 15 posters on this board have heard me play and know I'm not fudging the ability to do so.)

Can you respond with anything but ideologically blurred anger?? Frank DC appears senatorial compared to you while making a lot of the same points.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

young guy said:


> for those of us who need to look things up, what are your sources tha a majority of americans oppose the current proposals?


https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Careful how you use the word "obvious" around here!!


Priceless! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ...and alas, what about us Federal retirees (under CSRS), whose Federal retirement offset, will pretty much eliminate any future Social Security payments, regardless of the number of years we worked private sector jobs, contributing to the social security fund?  Its not always simple (in fact it can get pretty complicated) and it's not always perfectly fair but, it could be a lot worse! LOL, I'll be happy if they can just avoid giving any of my money to young guy!


Is the question are Federal Employees suckers?!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform


Keep this in context: look at polls regarding inclusion of a public option in health care reform.

A large chunk of people oppose the current plan because it doesn't include a robust public option, not because they're opposed to nationalized medicine.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Congress has become such a cesspool of special interests, bribery etc. I don't see how this system could be any worse.


:stupid:

November 10, 2009. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Keep this in context: look at polls regarding inclusion of a public option in health care reform.
> 
> A large chunk of people oppose the current plan because it doesn't include a robust public option, not because they're opposed to nationalized medicine.


Did you read the entire article? It more than explains the context. It is not IMHO as you describe it; and even if it was, "robust" is not quantifiable. Just saying.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Did you read the entire article? It more than explains the context. It is not IMHO as you describe it; and even if it was, "robust" is not quantifiable. Just saying.


I did read it, and had the authors contorted themselves any harder to dance around the issue, they would have pulled a muscle.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I did read it, and had the authors contorted themselves any harder to dance around the issue, they would have pulled a muscle.


Where did you read about the "robust" public option in there? For context.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Where did you read about the "robust" public option in there?


Precisely.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Precisely.


So, precision in language is enhanced by the use of unquantifiable qualifiers?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Given that there are only finite resources that can be spent, the discussion should begin with an accurate assessment of the dollars and cents involved.


 I have offered facts and sources for a number of my assertions. Go right ahead and do some of your own research and let us know what you come up with.




forsbergacct2000 said:


> By the way, I contribute roughly 15% (after taxes) of an income that would be considered astonishingly low for a full-time person in my profession with my experience to my church and also send about $150 to $200 per year to the local food bank. I donate my time playing music for elderly people in nursing homes about five to seven hours per month. I would probably charge about $500 to $700 if I did not volunteer.
> 
> What do you and the other liberal folks contribute to anyone? You are assuming I'm totally selfish. I realize that you have no independent corroboration of my statistics. (I can assure you that at least 15 posters on this board have heard me play and know I'm not fudging the ability to do so.)


 Don't know where anyone said or assumed that you were "selfish", maybe its your conscience speaking out loud. I am glad to hear that your "real life" persona is different than your online one. You sound like a decent person and I am glad you give generously to charities that you see fit to give to. 

What and who I give money to is really none of your concern, but for the record I give money to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and volunteer several times a month at Community Servings, a group here in Boston that feeds terminally ill patients.




forsbergacct2000 said:


> Can you respond with anything but ideologically blurred anger?? Frank DC appears senatorial compared to you while making a lot of the same points.


 I usually just respond with one liners out here&#8230;.as shoveling crap against the tide is only fun for so long

But when it comes to issues like this, yes - I get heated. Several people here are intentionally distorting the facts and trying to demonize the poor, elderly and uninsured - and frankly, it is reprehensible. I have trouble reconciling people that call themselves charitable Christians in one breath, and try and then refer to senior citizens as dead beats with the next.

As for Frank, he has just recently returned - give him some time. The drone of the right wing drum beat that pervades this site will get under his skin soon enough.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> As for Frank, he has just recently returned - give him some time. The drone of the right wing drum beat that pervades this site will get under his skin soon enough.


Actually this site has been pretty friendly, compared to a few years ago.

Also, any privately run forum runs at the pleasure of its owners and moderators. I'm not saying this site doesn't have a right wing beat, but if you (not you personally) can't stand the heat etc.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Actually this site has been pretty friendly, compared to a few years ago.
> 
> Also, any privately run forum runs at the pleasure of its owners and moderators. I'm not saying this site doesn't have a right wing beat, but if you (not you personally) can't stand the heat etc.


 
I am just fine with the "heat" but thanks for your concern.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> But when it comes to issues like this, yes - I get heated. Several people here are intentionally distorting the facts and trying to demonize the poor, elderly and uninsured - and frankly, it is reprehensible.


I don't want to demonize the poor, the elderly or the uninsured, just the Democrats and Republicans who have failed them, and I include the recently passed piece of healthcare sausage in that failure.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> I have offered facts and sources for a number of my assertions. Go right ahead and do some of your own research and let us know what you come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whatever. Go ahead and assume I'm a total right-winger who doesn't want anyone except rich people (and I'm not one of them.) to have rights.

I'm just leery about the government doing anything well. If we stepped up to the plate as individuals like at least Christianity directs us to (and that especially includes rich people) we would not have desparately poor people.

On another side of it, though, I'm worried about the government deciding who gets medical care and who does not. What if Sarah Palin became president? Would you want her making those decisions? (I certainly would not; I can't see how she's any more qualified to be president than Bush was.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> I am just fine with the "heat" but thanks for your concern.


My point was, don't waste much effort beating your head against a brick wall, like I did my first time around.

And never, ever attempt to get the last word in on any thread in which ksinc is participating. That alone will save you hundreds or thousands of posts.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> The current state of technology has rendered our House of Representatives all but obsolete. Imagine if House members simply proposed bills and amendments, and the American people (via voting terminals installed in homes and businesses) voted directly on them. We could specify exactly where we want our tax dollars to go.


Lets do this. But your vote is weighted by how many tax dollars you actually contributed.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

MarkfromMD said:


> Lets do this. But your vote is weighted by how many tax dollars you actually contributed.



 Great idea. How about I just buy your vote for X amount of dollars, then I can have two votes. 

Better yet, why don't you sell a couple of your kids to the rich guy down the street. They will come in handy out in the backyard - and when they hit 18, he can vote 3 times on every important issue.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Actually this site has been pretty friendly, compared to a few years ago.
> 
> Also, any privately run forum runs at the pleasure of its owners and moderators. I'm not saying this site doesn't have a right wing beat, but if you (not you personally) can't stand the heat etc.


While past comments about "being shouted down by the right" on this site were nothing more than victimhood tactics... It is now certainly true that the Interchange has more of a right wing beat. And that it is generally more friendly. Coincidence? Who can know?!

It's definitely disappointing to be skewed one way or the other. Honestly, I wish there were more sharing the left's perspective here that could make substantive comments and persuade others to their viewpoint.

Instead we hear a constant drumbeat of accusations and attempts at marginalizing Conservatives by association: Limbaugh, Beck, Walmart, VRWC, GWB, GOP; and personal attacks/insults which really expose only themselves and their limited understanding of the issues and the opposing perspectives.

Frank, perhaps you can be the last of the 'Mohicans'; if you learn to DYOH?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> I don't want to demonize the poor, the elderly or the uninsured, just the Democrats and Republicans who have failed them, and I include the recently passed piece of healthcare sausage in that failure.


STOP! If you destroy his ideological template he'll have nothing left to hate. :devil:


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Great idea. How about I just buy your vote for X amount of dollars, then I can have two votes.
> 
> Better yet, why don't you sell a couple of your kids to the rich guy down the street. They will come in handy out in the backyard - and when they hit 18, he can vote 3 times on every important issue.


No, my proposal solved this because the votes of the kids would be almost worthless. The rich guy would have one vote that would count 10x as much as both kids combined.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MarkfromMD said:


> No, my proposal solved this because the votes of the kids would be almost worthless. The rich guy would have one vote that would count 10x as much as both kids combined.


You probably didn't realize that when you proposed weighting votes by tax dollars contributed you were also calling for the re-institution of slavery; did you?! :aportnoy:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/10/warner-obama-misplayed-health-care-debate/print/



> Freshman Sen. Mark Warner, Virginia Democrat, said Tuesday that President Obama has misplayed his attempt to reform U.S. heath care by focusing on insurance coverage instead of explaining that the current system is headed toward a financial meltdown.
> 
> "I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade," Mr. Warner said. "Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate."
> 
> ...


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*WHAT?*



FrankDC said:


> Define we. What "we" have now is 45 million Americans who have no health care coverage whatsoever, and who're forced to wait until minor medical problems become major ones before our government pays for treatment. No one, Republican or Democrat has denied that this approach is absurd, ridiculously expensive and wasteful.
> 
> If by "we" you mean Rush Limbaugh being able to feed his oxycodone habit by doctor shopping, that very well might become a thing of the past. Fortunately.


For your information, there are exactly ZERO people in this country who have no health care coverage. So stop saying that. Oh, and get a real job.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PetroLandman said:


> For your information, there are exactly ZERO people in this country who have no health care coverage. So stop saying that. Oh, and get a real job.


Claiming uninsured people have health coverage is like claiming uninsured motorists are covered against auto accidents. Nearly all of the waste in our current health care system is resulting from how we handle uninsured Americans.

I'll ignore your ad hominem sideswipe, other than tell you the truth: there's an excellent probability I earn more money in one year than you'll see in your entire lifetime.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Apology*



FrankDC said:


> Claiming uninsured people have health coverage is like claiming uninsured motorists are covered against auto accidents. Nearly all of the waste in our current health care system is resulting from how we handle uninsured Americans.
> 
> I'll ignore your ad hominem sideswipe, other than tell you the truth: there's an excellent probability I earn more money in one year than you'll see in your entire lifetime.


The last part of my post was a reference to how much time you (and others) spend on this site. And, not that it matters, but I doubt the last part of your post. I apologize for using job in place of spare time.

As to 'uninsured' persons, I still maintain that they are well insured in our country. I will not repeat the story of my sister-in-law, but will remind all that she is getting - at no cost to her - GREAT treatment. If the purpose of insurance is to prevent major expense, she has great insurance. Can we as a society find a better way? Of course, but this bill is NOT the answer. I have read most of it and the main theme is one of amending the tax code. And I maintain that there are no government programs that lower cost to me and to you or that do a good job of what they are intended to do. Even Mr Obama stuck his foot in his mouth comparing the USPS to FedEx and UPS, saying that the problems are in the post office, not the private sector. That was a speech that was pulled off the networks with amazing speed.

Again, my apology for sinking below what I consider a civil standard.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

MarkfromMD said:


> No, my proposal solved this because the votes of the kids would be almost worthless. The rich guy would have one vote that would count 10x as much as both kids combined.





ksinc said:


> You probably didn't realize that when you proposed weighting votes by tax dollars contributed you were also calling for the re-institution of slavery; did you?! :aportnoy:


Rather than granting the right to vote or the weight of ones vote on the tax dollars paid, perhaps a better qualifier would be two to four years of (voluntary) military or humanitarian service to the Republic. We each should offer something more substantial than "hot air", to earn our right to vote!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

PetroLandman said:


> The last part of my post was a reference to how much time you (and others) spend on this site.
> 
> Again, my apology for sinking below what I consider a civil standard.


Accepted, and for what it's worth, aside from the last few weeks I haven't been on this site at all for nearly two years.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I'll ignore your ad hominem sideswipe, other than tell you the truth: there's an excellent probability I earn more money in one year than you'll see in your entire lifetime.


In that case, have you ever considered how piano and/or keyboard music and/or singing can enhance the next social (or other) event you host or organize??


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> In that case, have you ever considered how piano and/or keyboard music and/or singing can enhance the next social (or other) event you host or organize??


God no. I play guitar, but my singing voice has been arrested several times for inciting riots.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

"As for the actual content of the House healthcare bill, horrors! Where to begin? That there are serious deficiencies and injustices in the U.S. healthcare system has been obvious for decades. To bring the poor and vulnerable into the fold has been a high ideal and an urgent goal for most Democrats. But this rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill is a nightmare. Holy Hygeia, why can't my fellow Democrats see that the creation of another huge, inefficient federal bureaucracy would slow and disrupt the delivery of basic healthcare and subject us all to a labyrinthine mass of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators? Massively expanding the number of healthcare consumers without making due provision for the production of more healthcare providers means that we're hurtling toward a staggering logjam of de facto rationing. Steel yourself for the deafening screams from the careerist professional class of limousine liberals when they get stranded for hours in the jammed, jostling anterooms of doctors' offices. They'll probably try to hire Caribbean nannies as ringers to do the waiting for them."

That is my idea of what a Democrat or Republican should be like. Honest enough to admit the failings in your party's BS.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> "As for the actual content of the House healthcare bill, horrors! Where to begin? That there are serious deficiencies and injustices in the U.S. healthcare system has been obvious for decades. To bring the poor and vulnerable into the fold has been a high ideal and an urgent goal for most Democrats. But this rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill is a nightmare. Holy Hygeia, why can't my fellow Democrats see that the creation of another huge, inefficient federal bureaucracy would slow and disrupt the delivery of basic healthcare and subject us all to a labyrinthine mass of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators? Massively expanding the number of healthcare consumers without making due provision for the production of more healthcare providers means that we're hurtling toward a staggering logjam of de facto rationing. Steel yourself for the deafening screams from the careerist professional class of limousine liberals when they get stranded for hours in the jammed, jostling anterooms of doctors' offices. They'll probably try to hire Caribbean nannies as ringers to do the waiting for them."
> 
> That is my idea of what a Democrat or Republican should be like. Honest enough to admit the failings in your party's BS.


Yep! Love her articles! One of the things I read as soon as it is released.

The next paragraph was a killer too.



> A second issue souring me on this bill is its failure to include the most common-sense clause to increase competition and drive down prices: portability of health insurance across state lines. What covert business interests is the Democratic leadership protecting by stopping consumers from shopping for policies nationwide? Finally, no healthcare bill is worth the paper it's printed on when the authors ostentatiously exempt themselves from its rules. The solipsistic members of Congress want us peons to be ground up in the communal machine, while they themselves gambol on in the flowering meadow of their own lavish federal health plan. Hypocrites!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> God no. I play guitar, but my singing voice has been arrested several times for inciting riots.


Mine hasn't, and I'm available for hire!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yep! Love her articles! One of the things I read as soon as it is released.
> 
> The next paragraph was a killer too.


ksinc, one of the unknowns with this reform bill is whether the federal government has constitutional authority to mandate the American people purchase any particular good or service. This is far from a settled question, and I look forward to reading opinions when it reaches our courts.

My point is, there's a distinct possibility you'll be very glad interstate shopping wasn't permitted in this bill.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> ksinc, one of the unknowns with this reform bill is whether the federal government has constitutional authority to mandate the American people purchase any particular good or service. This is far from a settled question, and I look forward to reading opinions when it reaches our courts.
> 
> My point is, there's a distinct possibility you'll be very glad interstate shopping wasn't permitted in this bill.


As far as I know it's unconstitutional, but we forgot about the Constitution a long time ago. Both sides seem to hate it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

nick.mccann said:


> As far as I know it's unconstitutional, but we forgot about the Constitution a long time ago. Both sides seem to hate it.


From what I've read, the best "inroad" for the bill is the same justification the SCOTUS used to claim federal jurisdiction over medical marijuana: via the interstate commerce clause. I think by now most people agree that decision was an absurd stretch: cannabis that is planted, grown, harvested, sold and consumed in a single state does not qualify as interstate commerce.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> From what I've read, the best "inroad" for the bill is the same justification the SCOTUS used to claim federal jurisdiction over medical marijuana: via the interstate commerce clause. I think by now most people agree that decision was an absurd stretch: cannabis that is planted, grown, harvested, sold and consumed in a single state does not qualify as interstate commerce.


Frank, what you say may make sense in the abstract, but the Supremes decided to the contrary a long time ago. Unless you think wheat is different than cannabis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
The main difference IMO is that the statute at issue in W v F was grounded in national economic concerns whereas the national regulation of marijuana smacks of using the commerce clause to exercise police powers, which powers are normally the province of states. But federal courts long ago decided to allow Congress to exercise police powers as long as the legislation gave at least a plausible hat tip to affects on interstate commerce or the national economy. See the Civil Rights cases for instance.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Frank, what you say may make sense in the abstract, but the Supremes decided to the contrary a long time ago. Unless you think wheat is different than cannabis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
> The main difference IMO is that the statute at issue in W v F was grounded in national economic concerns whereas the national regulation of marijuana smacks of using the commerce clause to exercise police powers, which powers are normally the province of states. But federal courts long ago decided to allow Congress to exercise police powers as long as the legislation gave at least a plausible hat tip to affects on interstate commerce or the national economy. See the Civil Rights cases for instance.


Thanks for the info, Mike. So you're saying legally it's a done deal, and the interstate shopping issue is moot. Correct?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Some posts in this thread are better than an episode of Benny Hill...and have half the reality.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Thanks for the info, Mike. So you're saying legally it's a done deal, and the interstate shopping issue is moot. Correct?


I think so, Frank, at least if I understand you correctly. Basically, Congress has the power to permit or prohibit "interstate shopping," whichever it prefers. As far as whether it has the power to mandate that individuals buy coverage, I suspect it does, even if I'm not sure. Congress's argument would be that by enacting such a mandate it is addressing a very important national economic issue, something the commerce clause was intended to embrace. It is hard to see how it is different, really, from minimum wage legislation for instance. Indeed, one might argue that it is very much like minimum wage legislation -- bad policy but perfectly constitutional. Some people seem to think any legislation they don't care for must be unconstitutional, but it just isn't so. For better or worse, federal courts have given Congress wide latitude under the commerce clause. Many conservatives lament this and assert that it is not consonant with the Framer's intentions, and they are likely right. On the other hand, one can argue that an expansive understanding of the reach of that clause is more faithful to its actual language, even if perhaps not its intent. In the end reasonable people can differ, but I just don't see the Court retreating from its broad understanding of the scope of powers granted to Congress under the commerce clause.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I think so, Frank, at least if I understand you correctly. Basically, Congress has the power to permit or prohibit "interstate shopping," whichever it prefers. As far as whether it has the power to mandate that individuals buy coverage, I suspect it does, even if I'm not sure. Congress's argument would be that by enacting such a mandate it is addressing a very important national economic issue, something the commerce clause was intended to embrace. It is hard to see how it is different, really, from minimum wage legislation for instance. Indeed, one might argue that it is very much like minimum wage legislation -- bad policy but perfectly constitutional. Some people seem to think any legislation they don't care for must be unconstitutional, but it just isn't so. For better or worse, federal courts have given Congress wide latitude under the commerce clause. Many conservatives lament this and assert that it is not consonant with the Framer's intentions, and they are likely right. On the other hand, one can argue that an expansive understanding of the reach of that clause is more faithful to its actual language, even if perhaps not its intent. In the end reasonable people can differ, but I just don't see the Court retreating from its broad understanding of the scope of powers granted to Congress under the commerce clause.


Have there been previous examples of federal law mandating the purchase of a specific good or service by all (or almost all) Americans? Minimum wage laws fall under our labor laws and apply only to employers.

According to the CRS:

"Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the commerce clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service."

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-overhaul-constitutional/

OTOH, the article also quotes Mark Hall as saying "there is no constitutional right to be uninsured", but he admits a challenge under the takings clause of the 5th Amendment might succeed.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Have there been previous examples of federal law mandating the purchase of a specific good or service by all (or almost all) Americans? Minimum wage laws fall under our labor laws and apply only to employers.
> 
> According to the CRS:
> 
> ...


Frank, I agree that there is no similar precedent, but I don't think that the fact that minimun wage laws are labor laws is relevent. Labor laws require individual employers to pay certain wages, and these laws were upheld as constitutional. Why individuals cannot be required to pay insurance companies is not clear to me. That said, I don't disagree with the Hall quote, but it would be interesting to see how the federal courts would identify and articulate a *principled* distinction.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Maybe none, but the sad thing is if he claimed it was right there on page 1,842 would anyone know any different?
> 
> When a bill has to be justified by every excuse other than the bill to me that's a problem and with the lack of information people will say stuff on both sides that isn't quite justified.
> 
> What bothers me most is the claims (as seen in this thread) of why people oppose the bill or that they never opposed big government spending by Dems or Reps before - making up stuff that is obvious BS. These own archives demonstrate that is not true.


The country has never been 12 trillion in debt before. the country has never seen Amtrak, the Post Office, the FDIC, Social Security, medicare, medicaid, and Fannie and Freddie all bankrupt and insolvent before. The country has never been faced with a gaggle of fools so mind numbingly incompetent that destroying wealth to the tune of 12 trillion dollars and counting sounds like a good idea to get the country back on it's staggering legs. They've never been faced with with a dollar dropping like a rock, gold soaring, the Fed with 2.85 trillion on its books and 2.45 trillion of it being toxic debt, they've never been faced with a 120% expansion of the money supply and NO WAY POSSIBLE of clawing it back, while at the same time also being faced with the prospect of having to raise interest rates while we still have 1.8 trillion in adjustable rate mortgages resetting from now through 2011, AND an artificially inflated (yes still) housing bubble that has simply been ruptured NOT burst. They've never been faced with Fannie and Freddie asking for 31 billion dollars and counting in the span of 8 months. They've never been faced with the banks having an open invitation to cooking the books to fake profits. They've never been faced with 3 trillion in "at risk" credit card debt while at the same time the interest of those still paying is being jacked into the usury zone. All this and we still have a crumbling housing sector with 40% of the homes still not having been marked to market, rising commodity prices, falling wages, and 10.2% unemployment, and China, Brazil, and Russia threatening to toss the dollar to the wolves at the same time our illustrious government is seeking to inflate its way out of debt. They've never seen the markets rise simply because people are dumping the crumbling dollar and they're trying to protect themselves against the kleptocrats, they've never seen JP Morgan short 190 million ounces of silver at the behest of the government, and while all this is going they are now wondering just why these bozo's are trying to foist another moronic bill that covers 10 years but only provides 5 years of HC and that is projected to cost a trillion dollars. Everyone knows the government has never forecast anything right in their lives so how many trillions it will cost in the end is anyone's guess. Top that off with the fact that this is simply another way for Uncle Hussein to control everyone and you've got people who are pissed, AND THEY SHOULD BE. This country is in economic trouble and it CANNOT afford this garbage. Especially with the unfunded liabilities standing at a little north of 100 TRILLION dollars. Something has to give. In the case of the government a lot of somethings are going to have to give. This ridiculous health bill is one of them we simply can't afford it.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

OMG its the end of the world !


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

young guy said:


> OMG its the end of the world !


Idiots and lunatics see only their own wit.--Francois de la Rochefoucauld


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Nicesuit said:


> Idiots and lunatics see only their own wit.--Francois de la Rochefoucauld


not wit im sure, try sarcasm


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Not wit, or nitwit...you make the call!  Try not to victimize yourself, with your own words. :teacha:


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Not wit, or nitwit...you make the call!  Try not to victimize yourself, with your own words. :teacha:


my apologies, i didnt realize that 'what' a person said was less important than 'how' they said it, i'll try to improve


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Eagle, is there still an assumption of impartiality among mods here on AAAC? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just asking if the ground rules have changed.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^There have been no changes in the ground rules. If you should have a concern, please PM me. Thanks.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Quay said:


> I guess the President isn't as "weak" and "impotent" as some say he is.
> 
> For those weeping, weep not for long as there is always the Senate, a place guaranteed to turn the nation's interests into graft-receiving posturing, secret cash infusions, obstructionist dithering and talk-show-ready sound bites. :icon_smile:
> 
> "About all I can say for the United States Senate is that it opens with a prayer and closes with an investigation." -- Will Rogers


Oh, he is weak for sure, but I won't comment on his sex life. LOL


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Eagle, is there still an assumption of impartiality among mods here on AAAC?


That assumption and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Somehow I have a difficult time imagining you doing it better. A pretense of civility can go a long way.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Somehow I have a difficult time imagining you doing it better. A pretense of civility can go a long way.


 Moderators are often people who were originally posters to a message board - so to expect them to give up their ability to add their two cents and contribute, just because they have been made moderators - is unfair.

If you are a moderator, you have every right to also be a participating member of the board - and to engage in debate and express your own opinion on things. You can even choose to chime in with a snide, insulting remark from time to time (as Eagle did just a few posts prior to this one) - but when you do, you do so as a regular board member and should not be allowed to hide behind your "moderator" status.

The problem with this board is many of the moderators like to have it both ways.

They want to come into a thread, insult someone - and when that person responds, they threaten them with some BS rule about "no questioning the moderators in public" - and that is where some of the confusion and animosity stems from. 

Either you post as Eagle or Forsbergacct2000 the board members - and you take your lumps and criticism like the rest of us - or you don't. But trying to double dip is patently unfair.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
mrkleen: Speaking as a member of these fora and not as a moderator, I don't see anyone trying to have it both ways. When members, who are also mods, participate in ongoing debates, it is my belief that we may be treated with the same respect (or lack thereof) as other members. However, when it is necessary for us to act as moderators to maintain some semblance of compliance with the rules of use we all agreed to when we applied for membership in these fora, those actions may not be debated in public discussions and are handled through PMs. Seems pretty straightforward to me!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> mrkleen: Speaking as a member of these fora and not as a moderator, I don't see anyone trying to have it both ways. When members, who are also mods, participate in ongoing debates, it is my belief that we may be treated with the same respect (or lack thereof) as other members. However, when it is necessary for us to act as moderators to maintain some semblance of compliance with the rules of use we all agreed to when we applied for membership in these fora, those actions may not be debated in public discussions and are handled through PMs. Seems pretty straightforward to me!


AAAC Rule #1:
"1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators."

I believe calling someone a nitwit qualifies. Unless of course you yourself judge that to be civil.

See the point?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> mrkleen: Speaking as a member of these fora and not as a moderator, I don't see anyone trying to have it both ways. When members, who are also mods, participate in ongoing debates, it is my belief that we may be treated with the same respect (or lack thereof) as other members. However, when it is necessary for us to act as moderators to maintain some semblance of compliance with the rules of use we all agreed to when we applied for membership in these fora, those actions may not be debated in public discussions and are handled through PMs. Seems pretty straightforward to me!


Reminds me of that scene in Vacation, when the Mechanic overcharges Clark - and when he says he will go to the police about, he shows him his Sheriffs badge.

The judge and the jury should not be the same person...sorry.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Gosh, would y'all like some cheese with that wine?
> 
> Armageddon is predicted every time the supply-siders don't get their way, and Obama was elected by the American people not in spite of his campaign promises but because of them.
> 
> ...


Obama should be put on trial for killing innocent civilian in Afghanistan with drones


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

TBOWES said:


> Obama should be put on trial for killing innocent civilian in Afghanistan with drones


your sarcasm need a little work


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

young guy said:


> your sarcasm need a little work


I think you mean "NEEDS". Your spelling needs a little work.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> AAAC Rule #1:
> "1. No flames. Keep all debates clean and civil. This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults. Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators."
> 
> I believe calling someone a nitwit qualifies. Unless of course you yourself judge that to be civil.
> ...


As a member of AAAC, I have the utmost respect for the rules for participation in these fora. Having said that, I will point out that the vast majority of posts within the Interchange would certainly press the limits, if not stand in patent violation of, of the provisions of Rule 1, quoted by FrankDC. However, acting in a gentlemanly and civil manner is high on my list of important personality traits I aspire to practice. Therefore, if my earlier response to young guy, offered somewhat tongue in cheek (note the !), caused offense to anyone, mrkleen and FrankDC, etc;

............young man, I am sorry if my use of the term nitwit caused you any pain or embarrassment. You are certainly not deserving of such!

I can only hope that all of us will maintain such a close focus on civility as we participate in the Interchange, as well as in other areas of these fora (offered as a member, not as a moderator!).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Reminds me of that scene in Vacation, when the Mechanic overcharges Clark - and when he says he will go to the police about, he shows him his Sheriffs badge.
> 
> The judge and the jury should not be the same person...sorry.


This is a clothing message board; nothing more or less. It's not a court of law.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> AAAC Rule #1:
> "1. No flames. *Keep all debates clean and civil.* This is a gentleman's (and ladies) Forum. Everyone is expected to behave accordingly. What constitutes *flaming and incivility should be clear to all: no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, slurs, swearing, or personal insults.* Individual instances of flaming and/or incivility will be judged by the moderators."
> 
> I believe calling someone a nitwit qualifies. Unless of course you yourself judge that to be civil.
> ...


Frank, are you really sure you want to bring attention to Rule #1 on Mrkleen's behalf? Having it both ways has new meaning if you are going to claim to be a victim. I did my 5 infraction points for making an editorial comment about a post by a Mod where it was inferred. Yet, they are tolerating outright discussion from you two. The only person I know of here that was an actual regular that did "time" was Karl and he did so without complaining. You two and others on the Left get your share of looks the other way. And you know it. Careful asking how close you want the rules called.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> As a member of AAAC, I have the utmost respect for the rules for participation in these fora. Having said that, I will point out that the vast majority of posts within the Interchange would certainly press the limits, if not stand in patent violation of, of the provisions of Rule 1, quoted by FrankDC. However, acting in a gentlemanly and civil manner is high on my list of important personality traits I aspire to practice. Therefore, if my earlier response to young guy, offered somewhat tongue in cheek (note the !), caused offense to anyone, mrkleen and FrankDC, etc;
> 
> ............young man, I am sorry if my use of the term nitwit caused you any pain or embarrassment. You are certainly not deserving of such!
> 
> I can only hope that all of us will maintain such a close focus on civility as we participate in the Interchange, as well as in other areas of these fora (offered as a member, not as a moderator!).


you're ok by me, no offense taken, lord knows ive said my share of stupid or mean spirited things neither of which i've received from you, now i just put people on the ignore list which i learned from Frank, in some small way this will help me really keep from making an ass of myself, thanks for the kind words


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Frank, are you really sure you want to bring attention to Rule #1 on Mrkleen's behalf? Having it both ways has new meaning if you are going to claim to be a victim. I did my 5 infraction points for indirectly making an editorial comment about the Mods. The only person I know of here that was an actual regular that did "time" was Karl and he did so without complaining. You two and others on the Left get your share of looks the other way. And you know it.


And as it relates to Ksinc, he better watch out for Rule #12 - its right up his alley.
_
*12. Odious members may be removed for cause without notice or recourse. *_


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> And as it relates to Ksinc, he better watch out for Rule #12 - its right up his alley.
> _
> *12. Odious members may be removed for cause without notice or recourse. *_


We let a lot slide in the interchange. However, neither you nor Ksinc gets to decide who is odious.

I think this thread has seen enough.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Gentlemen, you are pushing beyond the point of reason. Rules for participation in these fora are not up for debate, mocking or otherwise. Let us move on with the discussion of other issues, perhaps the "Health care vote passing an important stage in the House!"


----------

