|
|
|
|
|
| | Health care Page 13 of 46 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46) | The problem with 'socializing' or pure democracy for that matter, is the constitution and our country should not support it. If tomorrow the majority of the people, 90% + wanted Obamao gone...well it's concensus, but it's not constitutional. As would shipping all the ________ (fill in the blanks) back to their homeland.
Socialized medicine will be the first time in hisotry government made you buy something or go to jail. A lot of mischief in this kind of law. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/14/2009 9:13:35 PM | "Nanci Pelosi Dodges Question on Jail Term for not Purchasing Mandated Health Care"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUkzV8h3Wp0
Bullarki. Every word she says is a bunch of bull. Pelosi is bold face lying to the American people, to us! She is lying that we all carry the cost of an unpaid medical bills. That's like saying we all pay for unpaid phone bills, or unpaid department store card bills, or unpaid plumbing bills. Don't be snowed by a snake's tongue. Those who don't pay for their health care end up with their credit smeared, judgments, liens and wage garnishment. Pelosi is insane. Only four states prohibit wage garnishment: North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Pennsylvania. What the heck is this woman talking about? Hospitals have the same recourse to debt collection with only a few exceptions:
The hospital cannot garnish your pay so that you take home less than the weekly minimum wage (40 times the Connecticut hourly minimum wage, currently $276/week, $284/week starting Jan. 1, 2004). If you normally earn less than the weekly minimum wage-often the case for part-time workers-the hospital cannot attach your pay. If you earn more than the weekly minimum wage, the hospital can garnish your wages up to a maximum of 25% of your take-home pay."
The first $1,000 in your bank account is exempt from a bank execution. So are any additional savings from welfare, social security, unemployment compensation, court approved child support, or worker’s compensation. The execution notice will include a form that you must fill out and return to the court by the indicated deadline in order to claim any of these exemptions, but you must do so within 20 days after receiving the notice. Instructions are listed on the back of the form.
If the hospital obtains a foreclosure on your home, you are entitled to keep the first $125,000 of your home’s value over the amount of any mortgages or tax liens (under the “homestead exemption”).
Visit the court clerk’s office to file forms to lower a wage attachment or claim an exemption.
Source: http://www.hospitaldebtjustice.org/rights.html
Just wait until the government handles your "health care." We are talking about home repossessions and the force of the entire US government coming down on your head. This is serious business. Yet, how many say, baaah, bahhh....health care for all is great... duh.
Reality check: Picture IRS strategies in health care PLUS an even simpler criteria for jail time and think again. Wake up. If you slip one time under this plan your rear is toast should you not "qualify" to be saved by daddy government subsidy. Its not worth it people--don't plot to lay this burden on us or on future generations. Don't be naive. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/15/2009 4:56:11 PM | When asked what gave Congress the right to institute such a tyrannical mandate, Democratic Senator Jack Reed actually had the nerve to tell CNS News that it was constitutionally justified.
Why? Because, according to Reed, it was no different than making people “sign up for the draft.”
Got that? They believe that they have every right to force you to purchase a Pelosi-Obama-approved health care plan under penalty of law.
And apparently, like the draft, it's your solemn duty to purchase their so-called health care plan... or else.
If you are not covered by a health care plan that has the Obama-Pelosi Seal Of Approval, the IRS will assess a penalty of up to 2.5 percent and if you resist paying this penalty, you can go to jail for up to five years and/or be fined up to 250,000 dollars.
Congressman Dave Camp, the Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, put it this way:
“This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.”
Specifically, when asked for the justification, under the Constitution, for Congress to make the draconian requirement, Reed told CNS News:
“Let me see... I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]."
"Get back to you?" ... on the Constitution? ... Is this man actually a United States Congressman?
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said:
“But here would be the first time where our [federal] government would demand that people buy something that they may or may not want... you know, if that’s the case, then we didn’t need a 'Cash for Clunkers,' all we had to do is have the federal government say you all got to buy new cars, no matter how tough it is on you." | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/15/2009 7:54:21 PM | Without researching it, I don't know of any Supreme Court decision directly on the point of Congress's authority to force people to buy something. I suspect the reason the bill's authors chose a tax as the means of regulation is that there's some authority for that.
Through the years, the Court has vacillated about whether Congress can use its power to tax to expand the other enumerated powers the Constitution grants it, at the expense of the states. But it has authorized using a federal tax almost entirely to regulate an activity, while producing almost no revenue. There's a 1950 decision where it upheld a federal tax whose obvious purpose was to eliminate bookmaking, even though Congress has no constitutional authority to do that by means of a criminal law.
The New York decision in the early 1990's did a lot to revive the Tenth Amendment. The case was about a federal regulation that required New York to take steps to collect and arrange to dispose of all the state's radioactive medical waste. The regulation established a schedule the state had to meet--and if it failed, at a certain time it had to create a state office that would buy and take possession of the waste itself.
The Court held this regulation violated the Tenth Am., because the U.S. had no authority to force a state either to create a government office or to acquire property. An insurance policy is one form of what used to be called a "chose in action." In other words, it's an intangible property right, because it gives you a legally enforceable claim to a payment.
The U.S. usually has even less authority over individual residents of a state than over a state government. The New York decision would seem to be pretty strong authority that the U.S. also has no constitutional authority to force individual state residents to buy property--in this case, in the form of a health insurance policy.
If not, the fact Congress can use taxes to regulate individual behavior wouldn't matter. If a law has an unconstitutional purpose, it's unconstitutional--no less so because it's to be enforced in a constitutionally approved way. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/17/2009 5:58:22 AM | Well the Chinese summoned ObaMao to the middle kingdom for a reason. It appears this morning Reuters has revealed all. Extracts only from this breaking story...
Nothing happening in Washington today should give Beijing any comfort or confidence about what may happen tomorrow. Healthcare reform was originally promoted as a way to “bend the curve” on escalating entitlement costs, the major part of which is financing Medicare and Medicaid. That is looking more and more like an overpromised deliverable.
For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.
So there you have it, China tells the USA what are acceptable domestic policies, and ObaMao gets on the plane when they tell him to. The savings aren't there (I have read no study out of the Fed or from private (Cato, Heritage, etc.) that indicates anything but financial ruin. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/17/2009 3:43:16 PM | | ^^^I can't figure out why you think Obama was summoned to China. That's called propaganda, but I know you'll drink from any public pool so long as there is something negative said about Obama. Obama is the leader of this country, which make it customary for him to meet with other leaders around the world. Do you suddenly have a problem with having diplomatic ties with China? And, how does that little exerpt lead your simple mind to think China is dictating our domestic policies? It has one meaningless sentence, which doesn't even belong in the paragragh, that mentions China. Where do you get the idea the exerpt is even about China? That poor wasted brain of yours. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/17/2009 6:09:48 PM | Quotes on China by Obama and quotes on health care in China by others with a quote directly from the Chinese media on American health care, as all of this relates to the topic of health care, ummm, kinda (lol):
"Japan has been an outstanding ally of ours for many years, but obviously China is rising, and it’s not going away. They’re neither our enemy nor our friend. They’re competitors. But we have to make sure that we have enough military-to-military contact and forge enough of a relationship with them that we can stabilize the region. That’s something I’d like to do as president." --Obama
"In the U.S., the reform is to try and expand coverage whereas in China, they're just trying to make sure everyone has basic health care." -- Drew Thompson
"In China, if you do not have health insurance, you do not have access to care. Period." --Gordon Liu, Professor of economics at Peking University's Guanghua School of Management.
"Like us, China has a major initiative underway to reform its health care system. In fact, just this year Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a blueprint for health care that was surprisingly like ours — all Chinese people should have access to affordable essential health care. Beijing, in fact, allocated $10.4 billion toward health care reforms in 2009...But there's a big difference: China has money to burn."
--Source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/china_spanking_obama_is_health_care_2rqi3z2vTOEN79acajjkWI
"Five congressional committees have drafted three different versions of healthcare reform legislation, and working out a final draft for vote in both House and the Senate will take some time...Analysts predict that with a strong Democratic majority in Congress, Obama still has good chances to see the Congress pass a healthcare reform legislation within this year...However, it will not be an even path before he gets to that point and more importantly, he may miss some of his original goals."
--Xinhua News Agency September 10, 2009 | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 10:29:42 AM |
"In the U.S., the reform is to try and expand coverage whereas in China, they're just trying to make sure everyone has basic health care." -- Drew Thompson
Wonder what this guy means by "expand coverage." That's a rather vague way of putting it for trying to be profound. The way I see health care reform being implemented is "to make sure everyone has basic health care." Drew Thompson sounds like he's trying to plant a seed for someone else to grow. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 10:37:22 AM | Everyone has basic health care, it is illegal for an ER to turn away a patient. What you want is government control and rationing, like guidelines released yesterday by government that recommend no mommograms until 50, then every 2 years thereafter and don't bother with self-exams. The medical profession, for a variety of technical and treatment conditions recommends annual exams starting at 40 and self-exams continually.
A remotely honest person would recognize this is a societal cost reduction policy that will result in an estimated 15% more deaths from breast cancer (uncontested statistical costs from both sides).
Libtards just go shoot yourself now, you are so morally bankrupt as to defy any human definition. PS you might also note the president and congress have left themselvs out of this policy and health care plan. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 10:54:26 AM | | ^^I only had to read your first sentence to find a flaw in your logic. Basic health care would include routine doctor's visits and a prescription benefit. No, everyone does not have basic health care. That's what this whole debate has been about this year. Turn off the Glenn Beck CDs and pay attention. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:04:29 AM | Skooch, let me develop a metaphor even you can understand.
Let's suppose we live in a neighborhood with 10 families. 9 of the families have a car. The 9 families decide it would be good if the 10th family also had a car. A committee is formed that comes back with a recommendation the 9 families sell their cars and .....
Get it? This is not about providing health care, or cars, to the 10th family. It is about getting everyone into a system where mass protocols that control behavior, societal value, etc. are determined by a government, not a person and their doc.
Now personally if i were king all you libtards would get everything you ask for, being incapable of understanding linkages among things you operate on feelings making you the parmecia of the human race.
Always glad to clear this up. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:36:30 AM | ^^^Actually you have never cleared anything up for me. I know that may come as a shock to your over inflated ego.
It is about getting everyone into a system where mass protocols that control behavior, societal value, etc. are determined by a government, not a person and their doc.
I see you're sucking up everything Glen Beck spits out. Govenment control of behavior? Values? Okay conspiracy theorist, I guess you are going to twist something around to support that line of crap. What makes you think the patients and doctors are making the decisions in the current health care mismangement system? Have you not been paying attention again? There are millions of people denied coverage for procedures prescribed by their doctors. The insurance companies have the say in what they will cover. Not the doctor and patient. I know that is going to confuse you. Sorry. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 12:00:35 PM | skooch medicare has a higher rate of refusals on procedures than insurance companies. You should check it out, it's an eye opener.
Now frankly I understand and accept the concept of refused service based upon contracts, pre-existing conditions, and for that matter protocols developed by government. I wish I belonged to a policy that discriminated against smokers, drug addicts, mountain climbers, base jumpers, and people who wear their shoes on the wrong feet (last one was a joke but you get the idea).
What I do not accept, nor should any free person, the idea that should I take my own money to a doc or clinic, or hospital, they cannot provide services without becoming criminals of the state.
so in that case i could get my 15 year old dog a cancer treatment for fee the next day, but the government might decide my value to society was such pain pills are the only treatment I can have.
Do you not see the insanity of that? Do you not see the dangers in that? | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 12:10:01 PM | | I've said this twice in this thread already, but I see it isn't sinking in. If you are happy with your current health care plan, then you may keep it. You will not be forced to take the government option. No one is forcing you to buy into the government option Golf. Just go about your day the same way you always have. This bill barely affects you. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 12:53:54 PM | I really, really don't think you understand the bill. But in that regard no one really does, it being an amalgamation of committees, and beuracracies with more questions than answers.
The one thing we do know is health care, owning same will not be an option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUkzV8h3Wp0
Secondly, the intent is to have a single payer, it's irrefutable. aside from not being explicitly called out, it's directionally apparent from the following.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=PlayList&p=E89027AC2A47C1D3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=37
Now you know ObaMao is speaking to morons in the above video cuz he was dropping g's like they were the Vanilla ice CD's lol.
Note when Obumbler says healthcare currently costs 14%, his bill, the bill, is estimated by the CBO to cost 21%. GENIUS. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:04:18 PM |
Without researching it, I don't know of any Supreme Court decision directly on the point of Congress's authority to force people to buy something. I suspect the reason the bill's authors chose a tax as the means of regulation is that there's some authority for that.
Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." This means it's legal for the United States to collect debts to provide for the general welfare, which is exactly what Socialized Health Care does. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:12:00 PM | The history of the concept of General Welfare is really unusual. Nothing in the Founders language had an intention of creating a welfare state. It was almost a throwaway line that if questioned what it meant in those days it certainly wouldn't have meant baling out a bunch of loser deadbeat Democrat union slugs and ACORN grifters
Now I no longer believe the constitution has any particular significance, this crowd feels they do not have to obey the rule of law from Kehoe to KSM trial to healthcare, they do what they want. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:24:24 PM | | The problem with a few people in this topic is that they think that they - completely uneducated on Constitutional law - are more qualified to say what the Constitution "means" than Constitutional scholars. What you think the Constitution means is completely irrelevant. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:24:54 PM | | When talking about the Constitution, we have to keep in mind it is a 222 year old document. To it's credibility, It has somewhat stood the test of time in it's original form. However, it has proven to be outdated as there have been fifteen more amendments added to it. There has been how many thousands of laws added since then? Republicans like to use the "framers of the Constitution" arguement all the time, but even the Forefathers knew they were compromising and not addressing issues so they could get the Constitution ratified. They made it difficult to change it, but they made it possible. That means they knew the document wouldn't stay in it's original form for all eternity. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:26:08 PM | LOL I saw the constitutional scholar-in-chief today say "we're gonna give KSM a fair trial before we hang him". What a loon.
The nature of the relationship between man and man, and man and state does not change with time. Only a lib imagines bar coding changes the amount of goodies the state puts in their coupon book. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:42:44 PM | ^^^That's a serious quote?
Well, that should make you feel better knowing he plans to be tough on the likes of KSM. The trial is going to be a debacle. I don't agree with Holder's wanting to try them in our court. (Thank you Match for making me see the light) A tribunal is a far more effective way of getting him to a death sentence. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:39:47 PM | | There's more than enough evidence to secure his conviction through a trial. The problem with military tribunals at this point in time is that America broke the Geneva Convention in torturing suspects for evidence. In a manner of speaking, that bread is already moldy. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/18/2009 10:12:47 PM | If you had a clue how grotesque you Dems and Obumbler sound with the rationale 'we've got enough evidence to convict him here so we'll do it here' sound you'd be embarassed. but basically being unprincipled lib slugs you're both uninsultable and unable to recognize shame.
The United States I love is not about outcomes but honest processes. These guys are foreign terrorists and not (in this case) due the protections of citizens.
So these unprincipled Dem clowns will make their own laws to get a conviction (somehow overlook Miranda, evidence, venue, etc) so they can fulfill some demented campaign promise only a fool would want in the first place. Having set a precedent for making law that obtains the outcome demanded by the mob, we'll slide yet another long step toward bananna republic status. | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/19/2009 12:50:51 AM |
This means it's legal for the United States to collect debts to provide for the general welfare, which is exactly what Socialized Health Care does.
So let us understand what you're saying here (takes a celebratory drink of the kool-aid)
You're telling us that it's ok to have the working class pay taxes into a system which will provide health care for the non-working class?
Please help us understand how this is a fair and equitable exchange. (let's dispense with the "for the good of the masses" cliche) | |
|
| Health care
Posted: 11/19/2009 10:06:56 AM | ^^^ That's already happening. You just don't want your tax dollars used for the health of the poor. Your tax dollars are already being used for other purposes including providing health care for the poor. Are you equally upset your tax dollars are being handed to Sunnis in Iraq? The same Sunnis who have killed a lot of our soldiers.
Thanks for another pointless hate filled post Golf. You really showed your maturity in that one. lmao | |
|
|
|
|
Page
13
of
46 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
|
|
Home
login 
