BREAKING:Obama says he would veto bill letting you keep your present health care plan

[Derideo_Te]

The 'extreme right' is not speaking here. This is the majority of Americans who are doing the talking.
Of course to people like you, anything not liberal is viewed as 'the extreme right'...it's how you get through your cornflakes without throwing up.
I would be willing to wager you believe cars should no longer be equipped with right turn signals.

The extreme right does not speak for a majority of the people.

Nor does the extreme left, whats your point?

My point is that you still haven't answered my original question.

Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is somehow in control "over" the people!

 

[dblack]

Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is somehow in control "over" the people!

I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think you're making a couple of assumptions that aren't really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually. Tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simple as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is somehow in control "over" the people!

I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think your making a couple of assumptions that are really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually, tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simply as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.

If the ACA is an example then can you please be more specific? What I am looking for is exactly how this mythical "control over the people" is allegedly occurring.

As far as your 2nd point is concerned can you be specific as to how the majority is failing to protect the minority?

Are the minority not just as likely to become ill and have crippling medical bills, pre-existing conditions and be forced to pay exorbitant premiums as was the case prior to the ACA being enacted into law?

Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?

 

[jon_berzerk]

He does not want Congress to do this, Obama (the dictator) wants to issue executive orders to do this.

Hopefully the tide has turned - if enough Democrats joined the Republicans then they can override a veto.

.

Not gonna happen.

Besides, it's stupid of Upton to do this.

dimocraps got themselves into this mess and now he's giving them something to hide behind.

They can vote for it, watch it go down in flames in the Senate and then go home and lie (they ARE dimocraps) about how much they care and how they didn't know and how they voted to help their people out and.... Just fucking lie because -- That's what dimocraps do.

This is a mistake on the part of Republicans.

I think Boehner should kill the bill. RIGHT NOW!!

But he won't. He's not smart enough

They can vote for it, watch it go down in flames in the Senate and then go home and lie (they ARE dimocraps) about how much they care

dont think that will matter much

the worse obamacare gets the wider the swath will cut

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is somehow in control "over" the people!

I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think you're making a couple of assumptions that aren't really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually. Tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simple as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.

not to mention that when Congress undertakes major legislation like the ACA it should have some bipartisan support...and there should also be lots of open public discussion before voting on it.....and the vote should never be held right b4 Christmas in the 'dark of night'....

 

[Antares]

Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is somehow in control "over" the people!

I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think you're making a couple of assumptions that aren't really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually. Tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simple as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.

One is "extreme" if one doesn't worship Obama.

 

[dblack]

Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is somehow in control "over" the people!

I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think your making a couple of assumptions that are really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually, tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simply as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.

If the ACA is an example then can you please be more specific? What I am looking for is exactly how this mythical "control over the people" is allegedly occurring.

You don't see government dictating how individuals finance their health care as 'control'?

As far as your 2nd point is concerned can you be specific as to how the majority is failing to protect the minority?

The individual mandate violates the most basic right any consumer has, the right to refuse to buy a product they don't value.

Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?

No. No reason that needs to be the case.

 

[dblack]

Still waiting for the extreme right to explain how a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people is somehow in control "over" the people!

I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think you're making a couple of assumptions that aren't really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually. Tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simple as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.

not to mention that when Congress undertakes major legislation like the ACA it should have some bipartisan support...and there should also be lots of open public discussion before voting on it.....and the vote should never be held right b4 Christmas in the 'dark of night'....

Yeah... and it's not a matter of a 'higher purpose' - it's just common sense. When you pass laws that are bitterly contested on a slim partisan majority, they're sure to be attacked down the road. It just sets up pointless thrashing.

 

[paperview]

I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think your making a couple of assumptions that are really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually, tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simply as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.

If the ACA is an example then can you please be more specific? What I am looking for is exactly how this mythical "control over the people" is allegedly occurring.

You don't see government dictating how individuals finance their health care as 'control'?

As far as your 2nd point is concerned can you be specific as to how the majority is failing to protect the minority?

The individual mandate violates the most basic right any consumer has, the right to refuse to buy a product they don't value.

Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?

No. No reason that needs to be the case.

The unfunded mandate of EMTALA, signed by St. Ronnie of Raygun, brought socialized care here, making us all with insurance have to subsidized the rest. That's part of what sent our costs skyrocketing.

How did you feel about government forcing medical professionals to treat individuals who showed up in their emergency rooms?

 

[dblack]

If the ACA is an example then can you please be more specific? What I am looking for is exactly how this mythical "control over the people" is allegedly occurring.

You don't see government dictating how individuals finance their health care as 'control'?

The individual mandate violates the most basic right any consumer has, the right to refuse to buy a product they don't value.

Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?

No. No reason that needs to be the case.

The unfunded mandate of EMTALA, signed by St. Ronnie of Raygun, brought socialized care here, making us all with insurance have to subsidized the rest. That's part of what sent our costs skyrocketing.

How did you feel about government forcing medical professionals to treat individuals who showed up in their emergency rooms?

That's definitely part of the problem, and should be repealed or funded legitimately via taxes. But I think it's a bit of a ruse when it comes to the reason for the mandate. The mandate exists to reduce insurance premiums for people who have insurance - people who have too much insurance, in my view. It's forcing the preferences of the majority on everyone else merely for their convenience.

 

[Katzndogz]

The latest fix for obamacare is to get millions of illegal immigrants on subsidized plans.

Legalizing illegal immigrants is the solution to Obamacare: Democrat - Washington Times

I sincerely hope that Americans can see through this nonsense.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The latest fix for obamacare is to get millions of illegal immigrants on subsidized plans.

Legalizing illegal immigrants is the solution to Obamacare: Democrat - Washington Times

I sincerely hope that Americans can see through this nonsense.

Americans are already paying through the nose for illegals.....this would just add millions more to the Medicaid welfare program...

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm not sure what 'extreme right' means in your view, but it's a good question and well worth discussing. I think your making a couple of assumptions that are really valid. First, is the idea that government elected by the majority can't possibly act against the interests of the majority. Clearly that's not the case, and many of us believe ACA is an example of that. Second, even if the actions of government honestly represent the desires of a majority of 'we the people', they can still be abusive to the minority of 'we the people'.

I think that's a key point actually, tasking the government with serving the interests of "we the people" isn't as simply as catering to the majority. It also involves protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority.

If the ACA is an example then can you please be more specific? What I am looking for is exactly how this mythical "control over the people" is allegedly occurring.

You don't see government dictating how individuals finance their health care as 'control'?

No more so than the government "dictating" that cars must have seat belts and airbags. If you perceive that as "control" then it has been around for a very long time and no one has complained about it before.

As far as your 2nd point is concerned can you be specific as to how the majority is failing to protect the minority?

The individual mandate violates the most basic right any consumer has, the right to refuse to buy a product they don't value.

The government mandates that if you don't put down a 20% deposit on a home you are required to buy insurance that has no value to yourself since it only covers the lender. You cannot refuse to buy that insurance either.

Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?

No. No reason that needs to be the case.

That is the argument that the extreme right is making though. Their "right" to purchase worthless "health insurance", or none at all for that matter, must be preserved over the will of the majority to not have to cover the exorbitant expenses of the minority's lack of insurance and/or under insurance.

By refusing to be insured and/or adequately insured the extreme right minority is exposing the majority to having to pick up the tab when the minority ends up in the ER and doesn't have the funds to cover their charges. In this instance the majority does have a right to mandate that the extreme right minority must pay their own way. Because that was the original intent of the Heritage Foundation's healthcare proposal that was the basis for the ACA all along. This is a conservative mandate. It makes fiscal conservative sense.

 

[dblack]

If the ACA is an example then can you please be more specific? What I am looking for is exactly how this mythical "control over the people" is allegedly occurring.

You don't see government dictating how individuals finance their health care as 'control'?

No more so than the government "dictating" that cars must have seat belts and airbags. If you perceive that as "control" then it has been around for a very long time and no one has complained about it before.

The argument isn't over the general concept of 'control'. It's whether the new power to control introduced by ACA is justified or not.

Must the right of the minority to be ripped off by the HMO's be preserved at the expense of the majority?

No. No reason that needs to be the case.

That is the argument that the extreme right is making though. Their "right" to purchase worthless "health insurance", or none at all for that matter, must be preserved over the will of the majority to not have to cover the exorbitant expenses of the minority's lack of insurance and/or under insurance.

By refusing to be insured and/or adequately insured the extreme right minority is exposing the majority to having to pick up the tab when the minority ends up in the ER and doesn't have the funds to cover their charges. In this instance the majority does have a right to mandate that the extreme right minority must pay their own way. Because that was the original intent of the Heritage Foundation's healthcare proposal that was the basis for the ACA all along. This is a conservative mandate. It makes fiscal conservative sense.

I addressed this in another post. If EMTALA is the bugbear, then we need to fix EMTALA. The solution to dealing with a poorly conceived, unfunded mandate isn't another unfunded mandate.

 

[paperview]

You don't see government dictating how individuals finance their health care as 'control'?

No more so than the government "dictating" that cars must have seat belts and airbags. If you perceive that as "control" then it has been around for a very long time and no one has complained about it before.

The argument isn't over the general concept of 'control'. It's whether the new power to control introduced by ACA is justified or not.

No. No reason that needs to be the case.

That is the argument that the extreme right is making though. Their "right" to purchase worthless "health insurance", or none at all for that matter, must be preserved over the will of the majority to not have to cover the exorbitant expenses of the minority's lack of insurance and/or under insurance.

By refusing to be insured and/or adequately insured the extreme right minority is exposing the majority to having to pick up the tab when the minority ends up in the ER and doesn't have the funds to cover their charges. In this instance the majority does have a right to mandate that the extreme right minority must pay their own way. Because that was the original intent of the Heritage Foundation's healthcare proposal that was the basis for the ACA all along. This is a conservative mandate. It makes fiscal conservative sense.

I addressed this in another post. If EMTALA is the bugbear, then we need to fix EMTALA. The solution to dealing with a poorly conceived, unfunded mandate isn't another unfunded mandate.

EMTALA is over 25 years old. It's still the law.

A "fix" back then was what prompted the Clintons once in office to change the system. Then the pubs responded with what is now the framework for Obamacare. In 1993.

Nothing much happened in the following 15 years, until people agreed: SOMETHING had to be done (with pubs proudly announcing "hey, they uninsured have emergency rooms!" Great fix.)

So, tell me grasshopper - It most definitely was the bugaboo - and just HOW would you propose to fix it?

Going back to patient dumping?

 

[dblack]

No more so than the government "dictating" that cars must have seat belts and airbags. If you perceive that as "control" then it has been around for a very long time and no one has complained about it before.

The argument isn't over the general concept of 'control'. It's whether the new power to control introduced by ACA is justified or not.

That is the argument that the extreme right is making though. Their "right" to purchase worthless "health insurance", or none at all for that matter, must be preserved over the will of the majority to not have to cover the exorbitant expenses of the minority's lack of insurance and/or under insurance.

By refusing to be insured and/or adequately insured the extreme right minority is exposing the majority to having to pick up the tab when the minority ends up in the ER and doesn't have the funds to cover their charges. In this instance the majority does have a right to mandate that the extreme right minority must pay their own way. Because that was the original intent of the Heritage Foundation's healthcare proposal that was the basis for the ACA all along. This is a conservative mandate. It makes fiscal conservative sense.

I addressed this in another post. If EMTALA is the bugbear, then we need to fix EMTALA. The solution to dealing with a poorly conceived, unfunded mandate isn't another unfunded mandate.

EMTALA is over 25 years old. It's still the law.

A "fix" back then was what prompted the Clintons once in office to change the system. Then the pubs responded with what is now the framework for Obamacare. In 1993.

Nothing much happened in the following 15 years, until people agreed: SOMETHING had to be done (with pubs proudly announcing "hey, they uninsured have emergency rooms!" Great fix.)

So, tell me grasshopper - It most definitely was the bugaboo - and just HOW would you propose to fix it?

Going back to patient dumping?

To start with, just fund the damn thing. This idea that we can avoid the taxes associated with running a welfare state is delusional.

 

[boedicca]

I'm so glad Schadenfreude is not fattening!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXxy8cjZQA].[/ame]


Watching the ObamaCare disaster crash down around the Dems is absolutely DELISH!

 

[paperview]

The argument isn't over the general concept of 'control'. It's whether the new power to control introduced by ACA is justified or not.

I addressed this in another post. If EMTALA is the bugbear, then we need to fix EMTALA. The solution to dealing with a poorly conceived, unfunded mandate isn't another unfunded mandate.

EMTALA is over 25 years old. It's still the law.

A "fix" back then was what prompted the Clintons once in office to change the system. Then the pubs responded with what is now the framework for Obamacare. In 1993.

Nothing much happened in the following 15 years, until people agreed: SOMETHING had to be done (with pubs proudly announcing "hey, they uninsured have emergency rooms!" Great fix.)

So, tell me grasshopper - It most definitely was the bugaboo - and just HOW would you propose to fix it?

Going back to patient dumping?

To start with, just fund the damn thing. This idea that we can avoid the taxes associated with running a welfare state is delusional.

Oh, you're serious.



Raising taxes. Winning republican argument.

Winning!

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama cannot resist playing politics.

His rationale is that the bill allows men to be charged less than women.

What about the ACA which bills you according to your age, place of residence, and income.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You don't see government dictating how individuals finance their health care as 'control'?

No more so than the government "dictating" that cars must have seat belts and airbags. If you perceive that as "control" then it has been around for a very long time and no one has complained about it before.

The argument isn't over the general concept of 'control'. It's whether the new power to control introduced by ACA is justified or not.

The power is not "new" and it is no more of a "control" than any other power that We the People have contractually entered into under the Constitution. If you want to argue "justification" then you are questioning the fundamental Constitutional right/power of the government to collect taxes.

No. No reason that needs to be the case.

That is the argument that the extreme right is making though. Their "right" to purchase worthless "health insurance", or none at all for that matter, must be preserved over the will of the majority to not have to cover the exorbitant expenses of the minority's lack of insurance and/or under insurance.

By refusing to be insured and/or adequately insured the extreme right minority is exposing the majority to having to pick up the tab when the minority ends up in the ER and doesn't have the funds to cover their charges. In this instance the majority does have a right to mandate that the extreme right minority must pay their own way. Because that was the original intent of the Heritage Foundation's healthcare proposal that was the basis for the ACA all along. This is a conservative mandate. It makes fiscal conservative sense.

I addressed this in another post. If EMTALA is the bugbear, then we need to fix EMTALA. The solution to dealing with a poorly conceived, unfunded mandate isn't another unfunded mandate.

The "fix" for EMTALA was the basis for the ACA that the Heritage Foundation provided when it first came up with the current healthcare system that has now been enacted nationwide.

Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans

Furthermore it is not "another unfunded mandate" either. It is expected to generate revenues of about $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

The CBO letter to Boehner shows about $318 billion — a third of the $1 trillion in net revenues — would come from tax increases on upper-income taxpayers to help fund Medicare. (See Table 2, “Additional Hospital Insurance Tax.”) Beginning Jan. 1, taxpayers started paying an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on income above $200,000 (for individuals) and $250,000 (for families), and a 3.8 percent tax on investment earnings above those thresholds.
In addition to upper-income taxpayers, the law will impose new taxes and fees on businesses — particularly in the health care field. Another $165 billion in new revenue would come from an annual fee on drug manufacturers ($34.2 billion), a 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of some medical devices ($29.1 billion), and an annual fee on health insurance providers ($101.7 billion). (The revenue estimates for each industry come from a June 2012 JCT report used by the CBO for its report.)
In addition, the CBO says businesses that do not offer health insurance for their employees are expected to pay $106 billion in penalties over the 10-year period.
Those six provisions total $589 billion over 10 years. Two other changes in the business tax code push the total to more than $600 billion — about half of the $1.2 trillion in total new revenues.
This is not to say that some middle-income taxpayers won’t pay to help finance the expansion of health care for millions of Americans.
The CBO estimates that the law will raise about $106 billion from penalties on individuals who fail to buy insurance — the so-called “individual mandate.” But, as we have written before, less than half of the penalty revenue (about 46 percent) will come from taxpayers earning under $120,000.
Also, the CBO estimates that there will be $216 billion in “associated effects of coverage provisions on tax revenues.” Put simply, the CBO assumes that employees who drop or lose their employer-sponsored health care at work will receive higher pay to compensate them. As a result, the government will see an increase in tax revenues because wages are taxable and health benefits are not. The CBO, however, did not estimate which taxpayers might wind up paying more in taxes because of such coverage changes.
There will be other direct tax implications for individual taxpayers, including some middle-income taxpayers, such as limits on health care spending accounts that increase tax revenue. (A full list of the tax provisions can be found on the IRS website.)
Johnson also has made the point before that the “Obamacare taxes” will indirectly affect all taxpayers. In a response to the president’s State of the Union address, Johnson said: “The trillion dollars of Obamacare taxes have just kicked in. They will hit every man, woman, and child in America — either directly through taxes on your health care plan, or indirectly, through higher prices for health care in general.”

GOP Budget Revives ?Obamacare? Claims