Hr 3962 passes!

[ayiakri]

Critical thinking is not your strength either I see. Go back and reread my post, read it a few times if you don't get it this next time. Here, I'll help:

"I said the analogy was correct, not the numbers. People forget that Nazi was a political party, not a military."

Thus ... comparing it to another political party does make the analogy correct, though does not make it accurate.

*LAUGH*

So, you lead off with yet another ad hominem attack (this time attempting to insult my critical thinking abilities - although coming from you, I suppose that counts as a compliment!)

It's pretty funny that, despite being shown that he was wrong, his analogy was wrong, and that you were wrong, you're going to attempt a pedantic argument to attempt to weasel your way out of it.

That's probably the most pathetic attempt at rebuttal I have ever seen, rather than just (a) saying nothing and hoping everybody forgets your encouragement of a fallacious analogy, or (b) admitting that you were simply wrong (which I never expected, given your clearly partisan stance on everything).

Please - respond to me on this issue, again and again, so I have more opportunities to paste in your quote in support of comparing Democrats to Nazis.

Do you believe that the Democratic majority in the House is analogous to the Nazi party's (minority) status in 1930s Germany, and their ability to wield power? Please, tell us more of this comparison of Democrats to Nazis. I'm waiting with bated breath!

 

[KittenKoder]

Critical thinking is not your strength either I see. Go back and reread my post, read it a few times if you don't get it this next time. Here, I'll help:

"I said the analogy was correct, not the numbers. People forget that Nazi was a political party, not a military."

Thus ... comparing it to another political party does make the analogy correct, though does not make it accurate.

*LAUGH*

So, you lead off with yet another ad hominem attack (this time attempting to insult my critical thinking abilities - although coming from you, I suppose that counts as a compliment!)

It's pretty funny that, despite being shown that he was wrong, his analogy was wrong, and that you were wrong, you're going to attempt a pedantic argument to attempt to weasel your way out of it.

That's probably the most pathetic attempt at rebuttal I have ever seen, rather than just (a) saying nothing and hoping everybody forgets your encouragement of a fallacious analogy, or (b) admitting that you were simply wrong (which I never expected, given your clearly partisan stance on everything).

Please - respond to me on this issue, again and again, so I have more opportunities to paste in your quote in support of comparing Democrats to Nazis.

Do you believe that the Democratic majority in the House is analogous to the Nazi party's (minority) status in 1930s Germany, and their ability to wield power? Please, tell us more of this comparison of Democrats to Nazis. I'm waiting with bated breath!

Okay fuckwit ... don't learn a damned thing, remain ignorant for all time ... no skin of my nose. Someday you may learn to think instead of regurgitate.

 

[ayiakri]

That's what I thought ;-)

 

[The T]

I don't see it as politically correct ... but yeah, that's why I say native American ... simply because Indians come from India ... good catch there.

I was just scrolling through the section titles of the bill at the library of congress website, sometimes they use the term Native American, but most times they use the term Indian. It's actually quite amazing how much of the bill is specifically written for Native Americans, looks like a couple hundred pages are devoted to them.

But wait a sec here? Does not the Government already provide HealthCare to the tribes? And how good is it?

I know I am quoting my own post here...but this goes back to 2008...

Indian Health Care: A National Tragedy

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/indian-health-care-a-nati_b_97666.html&cp

Yeah, yeah, it's a Huffpo article...but it highlights what I am talking about. It really is a good read. What I see here is people who gave up alot to 'get things' from the Government.

Apparently? The 'Indian Plan' as administered by the Government isn't too good either.

And aren't those enrolled in Medicare also addressed in this bill? Will they expect more of the SAME?

What are these people doing exactly? Is this what we are headed towards? People will be forced off their private/Corporate plans of their choosing. And not at first, but will be the end result of this Bill that passed. And it's BY design. Wake up folks!

Count on it...

 

[Vel]

Well thank your father and your brother for their service ( sincerely ) BEFORE you mention that you're cheerleading the efforts to destroy the freedoms they've spent their lives defending.

Yeah, because clearly some regulations on the insurance industry and some subsidies is the destruction of freedom. Hyperbole much?

Didn't read and/or understand the bill much?
"The power to tax is the power to destroy" . And government has gotten into it in a big way here. They are taxing businesses and individuals, not for income they made but simply for existing. I doubt that is constitutional.
With any luck and some major work we can get this turd stalled in the Senate.

That's the point that the liberals supporting this don't seem to get. This bill taxes every American just for breathing.

Side note: Davidson county voters should land on Jim Coopers office in droves tomorrow and formulate a plan to remove him from office in 2010.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, because clearly some regulations on the insurance industry and some subsidies is the destruction of freedom. Hyperbole much?

Didn't read and/or understand the bill much?
"The power to tax is the power to destroy" . And government has gotten into it in a big way here. They are taxing businesses and individuals, not for income they made but simply for existing. I doubt that is constitutional.
With any luck and some major work we can get this turd stalled in the Senate.

That's the point that the liberals supporting this don't seem to get. This bill taxes every American just for breathing.

Side note: Davidson county voters should land on Jim Coopers office in droves tomorrow and formulate a plan to remove him from office in 2010.

Amen to that.
Did you see what that fuckwad said about the bill? He was opposed to the bill but voted for it so the Senate would have to act.
What a friggin loser. He needs to go go go.

On a brighter note, John Tanner and Lincoln Davis both voted against it, as did Bart Gordon. At least someone is listening to their constituents.

 

[alan1]

Amen to that.
Did you see what that fuckwad said about the bill? He was opposed to the bill but voted for it so the Senate would have to act.
What a friggin loser. He needs to go go go.

On a brighter note, John Tanner and Lincoln Davis both voted against it, as did Bart Gordon. At least someone is listening to their constituents.

Is he related to Olympia Snowe?

 

[The T]

Yeah, because clearly some regulations on the insurance industry and some subsidies is the destruction of freedom. Hyperbole much?

Didn't read and/or understand the bill much?
"The power to tax is the power to destroy" . And government has gotten into it in a big way here. They are taxing businesses and individuals, not for income they made but simply for existing. I doubt that is constitutional.
With any luck and some major work we can get this turd stalled in the Senate.

That's the point that the liberals supporting this don't seem to get. This bill taxes every American just for breathing.

Side note: Davidson county voters should land on Jim Coopers office in droves tomorrow and formulate a plan to remove him from office in 2010.

Amen. See 'Cap And Tax'. That is next.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The point you are missing is that the government is forcing us to buy the insurance it chooses. not the insurance we may want.

Health-insurance is already regulated on a state-by-state basis, so the ONLY health-insurance you can buy is insurance that is already "approved" by your state insurance regulator. And since just about every state-approved health-insurance plan will qualify under the federal mandate (which is for a bare-minimum plan), the vast majority of people won't have any new requirements, or any change at all. Period.

And the state does not force me to buy. i can choose any plan offered by any company.
the house bill already states that not all plans already offered in all states will be "acceptable"

i know my insurance costs will go up. i have an HSA right now but that will be deemed "unacceptable" by some fucking bureaucrat and i will have to pay for coverage I don't need

First - you don't "know" that your premiums will go up, you only believe they will. There is no final bill on the President's desk yet, and won't be, until the Senate bill is reconciled in an ugly, sausage-making mess, with the House bill.

Yes i do. i have already shown where HSA accounts like mine will most likely lose their tax status and since i will be forced to buy a policy with no deductibles, I will necessarily pay more.

Second - provide a link to the section of the House bill that deems Health Savings Accounts to be not covered by the mandate, or else concede the point that you're only guessing. The point of the mandate is that right now, your tax dollars are paying for the emergency-room medical care for the people who don't bother to get health-insurance. That's right now, that's the law NOW.

you assume that 100% of all people without insurance do not pay any of their medical bills.
Where is your link to prove that?

And they have not defined what will be acceptable yet. but the general opinion is that HSAs will be a thing of the past because this bill is designed to limit out of pocket expenses like deductibles.

If somebody with no health insurance gets hit by a truck, and goes to the ER, the hospital HAS to provide service by law - they can't turn them away. Eventually, part of the costs are covered by Medicaid, which comes from - wait for it - your taxes. If that person had insurance, at least they'd be paying into the system, and not a burden on everybody else.

A very very small percentage people fit that example and that does not justify the government forcing me to buy the type of insurance it tells me to buy. Any insurance should do.

As I said, if my insurance costs rise to well above what the tax penalty will be if I don't buy, then I will pay the penalty and exploit the law that says I can't be denied insurance for preexisting conditions.

Good for you - whatever the law is, go for it. If you're too poor to get health-insurance, you'll be eligible for a subsidy to help you pay for it (or to pay pretty much all of it, if you're genuinely poor). If you can afford insurance, and don't get it, then you should be penalized, since the first time you need some medical care, the law says the hospital can't turn you away.

[/quote]

I'm not too poor. I've had insurance for years and I chose the policy that best fits my needs. but if the government is going to force me to pay more and as the WSJ article i linked to in a previous post pointed out that someone in my income bracket can expect insurance premiums to be 20% of my income.

I pay nowhere near that much now so i'll choose not to buy insurance take the tax hit which will be cheaper and only buy insurance when i'm sick because no insurance company will be allowed to turn me down.

So if i get hit by a truck, I'll call an insurance company on the way to the hospital, give them a credit card number to pay for a few months' premium and then get all the medical care i need. When I'm better, I'll cancel the policy until the next time I'm sick or hurt.

Now do you see how idiotic this bill is?

I would actually fully support a change to the bill that says nobody can be FORCED to get insurance, if that person signs a legally-binding agreement that they get no health-services of any kind that are paid for by tax-payers. I think that's fair - if you really don't want it, I think you shouldn't have it. When you dial 911, you'd get a recording that says, "Sorry, emergency service is not available to your house". Heart attack in the mall? As soon as they run your ID, and see you've "opted out", they'll cancel the ambulances, and let you die right there. In fact, the cost to move your body by the mortician should come out of your estate.

911 has nothing to do with insurance.

And i already showed how to get around your example of emergency care by exploiting the stupidity of this bill.

But since it seems that my idea is unlikely to be made law (and I'm not sure how many people would willfully refuse subsidized health-insurance, preferring instead to simply give up all medical services that receive government funding - which is almost all of them).

i won't be getting subsidized insurance. i will be the one subsidizing via my higher premiums.

But like you said - if you prefer to pay the penalty, go for it. I've get a pretty great health-insurance plan for my family through Bupa, and I'm fortunate enough that I don't need to worry about the costs.

As long as it is "acceptable" And don't forget, if it's too good you might be taxed on it too.

Too bad so sad but my bottom line is more important to me than yours.

Actually, since I work overseas this year (and next year), and pay taxes abroad, I'm exempt from almost all U.S. Federal income taxes, except my capital gains taxes. So you're not going to affect my bottom line much at all

[/quote]

but you won't be exempt from tax penalties if you have no insurance.

And sooner or later you'll be back here and then you'll be paying.

 

[Liability]

....with only 1 Republican vote..

Who was the Republican?

I guess the one republican wo didnt want to go down in history as being wrong.

Leave it to a schmuck like you, Herpes Virus, to try to give props to the one moron Republican who voted for your statist insanity. You are retarded.

The pay-back against the liberoidal Democratics come Dejection Day 2010 will be a pleasure to behold.

Sweep the liberal Democratics, those vermin, the fuck out of Congress.

 

[Ame®icano]

39 Democrats who voted NO

31 are from districts that supported John McCain
24 are Blue Dogs
14 are Freshmen congressmen/congresswomen

1 Republican who voted YES is from district that supported Obama

To me, it looks like a "I want to keep my job" vote.




House Democrats Who Voted Against the Health Care Bill


.

 

[toomuchtime_]

....with only 1 Republican vote..

Who was the Republican?

I guess the one republican wo didnt want to go down in history as being wrong.

But the 219 Dems who voted for this bill apparently didn't mind going down in history as being wrong. This bill, if it became law, would increase health insurance premiums - making their constituents poorer and businesses less competitive and jobs harder to find - would reduce choices - their constituents would have only three policies to choose from regardless of the company they chose instead of the many choices they now have - impose, in effect, a regressive tax on all their constituents who now have health insurance by requiring everyone be insured at standard rates - so some one who earns $50,000 a year would now pay more so that some one with a pre existing condition who earns $500,000 a year could pay less - and reduce innovation in the health care delivery system - it would take an act of Congress to make any changes in the system.

These 219 Dems betrayed the economic interests of their constituents by putting politics and ideology ahead of good policy and by putting the interests of the Democratic Party ahead of the interests of the nation and ahead of the interests of their constituents. Let's hope the Dems in the Senate act with more regard for the interests of the people who put them there than these 219 House Dems did.

 

[WillowTree]

Since when is 26 years old a "child"?

Oh, never mind, it's the government, they want all of us to see them as our mommy.

Jesus christ. now my cousin won't have to get a fucking job. he can just live at home until he's 27.

Won't be a problem because there won't be any jobs for your cousin to get. What freaking idiot thinks that employers are going to take on new employees in the United States knowing that instead of offering a job, they're fucking adopting people for life.

no problemo Vel, the asshole in dc will just extend unemployment benefits again,, they just did and now we are up to 99 weeks.. that's almost two years of guaranteed sit on your ass time innit?

 

[Care4all]

Jesus christ. now my cousin won't have to get a fucking job. he can just live at home until he's 27.

Won't be a problem because there won't be any jobs for your cousin to get. What freaking idiot thinks that employers are going to take on new employees in the United States knowing that instead of offering a job, they're fucking adopting people for life.

no problemo Vel, the asshole in dc will just extend unemployment benefits again,, they just did and now we are up to 99 weeks.. that's almost two years of guaranteed sit on your ass time innit?

I thought it was 26 weeks and they extended it for 14 more weeks? Did I miss a kazillion other extensions?

 

[Navy1960]

The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: "n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.

These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.

The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not "regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any "activity," such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.

Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus's (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an "excise tax" of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington D.C.-based attorneys, served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey: Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

I find the celebrations on this bill somewhat interesting and a little premature considering the many hurdles it has yet to overcome, one of which I named above. One other thing if all else fails, you can move to a state that will likely pass a law that will offset the mandates next year such as Arizona which has already placed a measure on it's 2010 ballot to do just that and has already passed the state house and senate. Another thing to consider and I will repeat it here is that vote as close as it was is not a good sign if your a supporter for this bill as it goes to the Senate.

 

[VodkaIce]

It is indeed a travesty that this billed passed.

The undertone to which is further pronounced with this bill is that the country that we once loved is now forging onto more dismal territory. However, it does not connote that WE THE PEOPLE cannot continue the fight to reverse it.

This bill promises nothing more than more GOVERNMENT CONTROL. It affords more intrusions into our PRIVACY as it is today, we have none. The satellites are the eyes and ears of our nazi gestapo regime as I am afraid that is where we are today.

The constitution, our FREEDOM's, and old glory is truly in great jeopardy.

The misnomers (lies) orchestrated by the Rockfeller think tanks are not compassionate in nurturing the constituents of the United States, but conversely, it is motivated and has succeeded to destroy the fabric that made this country strong.

This bill is passed under the misnomer that it shall promote health care to the now impoverish middle class. However, with the joblessness escalating and next year it shall rise even more so as Forclosures surmounts and includes also Commercial Real Estate. It would not be all too surprising to see unemployment at 35 percent or more.

The good news is that those countries who severed ties with the international monetary banks, the United States, the British, and it's crminal allies are becoming wealthier and economically strong for their fortitude to go against the neo con's new world order agenda.


The controversies is yet to be transparent with this bill. But those who are in the health industry do not see this as reigning in Insurance corporations, but rather the Insurance industry gaining more control over our health. You forget for the most part that our President and the two wings of congress (the Republicans and the Democrats) are merely harlots, that is, they are PAID a great lump sump of monies to betray the people of the United States.

Each and every one of us shall have more dangerous impositions with this bill. Today there are clusters of crays and computers that have a growing database of our EEG's. This is the future to Scalar Weaponry. This is the future to government CONTROLLING the masses in totality. Most of you cannot ever comprehend what all this means, but if you research it further. Then you shall understand, but I cannot give you all the information that i have NOW. It's many years of surfing the net, to which I have stumbled into the bleak future promised.

 

[Immanuel]

I can't wait to hear all the liberal bitching when they go into work and their employers tell them, "Sorry, we cannot afford to pay health insurance anymore. We are going to opt to pay the 8% penalty because it is so much cheaper. We are dropping our health coverage as soon as this contract is up. Laying off 20% of you and everyone is going to have to take a 15% cut in pay. You are all on your own in regards to paying for you health insurance. You can thank Madam Nancy for this."

Immie

 

[The T]

The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: "n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.

These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.

The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not "regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any "activity," such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.

Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus's (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an "excise tax" of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington D.C.-based attorneys, served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey: Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

I find the celebrations on this bill somewhat interesting and a little premature considering the many hurdles it has yet to overcome, one of which I named above. One other thing if all else fails, you can move to a state that will likely pass a law that will offset the mandates next year such as Arizona which has already placed a measure on it's 2010 ballot to do just that and has already passed the state house and senate. Another thing to consider and I will repeat it here is that vote as close as it was is not a good sign if your a supporter for this bill as it goes to the Senate.

Well written.

 

[VodkaIce]

B

ut Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

This is becoming the PAST. If you have not noted, we are headed into a dictatorship, sadly so.

 

[Modbert]