Health Care Reform PASSED!!! Now what? by chrisisall

The Moyers interview posted above aired on March 5.

This was posted Mar 4:

Is John Boehner, in a gesture of cross-the-aisle compassion, trying to help Democrats not lose seats in Congress later this year by warning them not to pass health care legislation? Or is the Republican leader of the House playing the old Br’er Rabbit card?

[snip]

For all kinds of reasons I think Democrats are going to get trounced at the polls this November. But they will not get trounced for passing a genuine health care reform. And any Democrat who falls for the Boehner-Cantor Br’er Rabbit scare pitch is even sillier than the would-be punishers of a carrot-stealing rabbit.

http://themoderatevoice.com/64840/john-boehner-plays-the-brer-rabbit-c
ard/

And on March 5th:
REPUBLICANS HAVE RESORTED TO THE "BR´ER RABBIT" SYNDROME
BUT MAYBE THE BR´ER RABBIT TRICK WILL ALSO WORK….?

As the health care reform bill gets closer to a possible "up & down vote", the Senate and House Republicans are starting to show just how desperate they are at trying to stop the bill. It is appearing that they are now taking the "reverse psychology" approach.

[snip]

So yes, the Republicans are taking their last desperate chance at trying to "Bully" the Democrats into believing that passing health care reform will be their "Waterloo" as was predicted by the Republican Senator, Jim DeMint.

Go ahead Democrats, "I double-dare you to throw that bill into the Reconciliation Briar Patch".

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/144516

As far as I can see, the phrase got started with that moderatevoice blog on March 4, then was picked up as an apt description of the latest Republican ploy, as it was all over the blogs on March 5. Hence it made its way to Bill Moyers.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:04 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Kaneman, are you currently paying taxes? ANY taxes? Property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, FICA, Social Security, etc. taxes?

If so, why?

Now, if you *are* paying your taxes, are you doing so by choice, or because you're "forced to" with the threat of penalties or jail? I only ask because you say that never before have we the people been forced to buy something from the government. Did you go to public school? Ever? Do you have a local police department or fire department? Do you have public libraries?
If so, you've been "forced" to buy all of them, regardless of whether you want to or not, regardless of whether you're going to use them or not. Also, you've been forced to "buy" a military, even though you may see no direct benefit from doing so.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:08 AM

Quote:

So yes, the Republicans are taking their last desperate chance at trying to "Bully" the Democrats into believing that passing health care reform will be their "Waterloo" as was predicted by the Republican Senator, Jim DeMint.

They can make that comparison all they want, but they're completely missing one key point: If this is the Democrats' Waterloo, the Republicans are Napoleon, and Obama is Wellington. So their analogy is correct, but not quite in the way they think it is. ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's try this again. To get the summary, go to

http://thomas.loc.gov

Click on Bills, Resolutions

Click on Search Bill Summary, Status

Type HR03590 in the search line and enter

Select CRS Summary on the bill's title page.

I got no idea why the address for the summary takes you to email if you copy and link it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Geezer: Thanks for fixing the link! I'm afraid it darned near got lost in the shuffle, though, so I'm "bumping" your reply for those who want to check it out. I'm hoping to look into it in some more depth later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:12 AM

And do you drive a car Kaneman? What would happen if you got pulled over and had no proof of car insurance?

Ever bought a house? Ever wanted to own your own home, but couldn't finalize that bank loan until you'd purchased insurance?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:34 AM

I'm missing something here...
If EVERYONE pays health insurance, but NOT everyone needs treatment beyond checkups & prevention, don't the insurance companies still come out ahead- just not as ahead as they've BEEN?
I understand this impacts the Yacht-building industry as well.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:03 AM

Frankly, to be honest, I don't like the idea that I'm *forced* to buy insurance. Sure, I have to if I drive a car, or buy a house, but I don't HAVE TO do either of those things.

The GOOD I see in this measure is that it will open the door for a public option, or a single-payer system, OR any of a dozen new and novel approaches to providing healthcare coverage to people who would otherwise have been left out if the insurance companies had been able to maintain the status quo.

I'd actually like to see a non-profit "wellness" program started up, where you get reduced premiums and/or increased coverage for participating, for doing specific things to increase your own health, whether they be preventive, maintenance, or what have you.

As I've mentioned before, this year I got the privilege of having my premiums increase 37%, to over a quarter of my gross income, all for having the nerve to quit smoking and try to improve my own health.

Do I think this legislation is PERFECT? Oh, hell noes! I think it's better than the alternative, which was nothing at all except for ever-spiraling premiums and ever-dwindling services provided.

We tried the free-market approach. The "invisible hand" of the market ended up in our cookie jar, stealing our money.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:08 AM

I don't where exactly what the companies will get out of this, I don't think anyone does. But keep in mind the fees: because they are getting new customers, they are going to have get some of that back and they'll be paying billions over the next few decades.

Hey, it's a compromise. The insurance companies (and the politicians they own) would not have come around for a policy that completely shut them down. There had to be a plus side for them. I'm sure the crap behind closed doors was: "But we can't pay those fees, we'll go under!" versus "You're getting a mandate and no public option - you better give up those fees." And on and on until they ended up somewhere in the middle. (Republicans: that's how compromise is *supposed* to work.)

And now insurers are reined in, not able to do the nasty shit they've been doing. They may win a little in the near term, but overall they have so lost. The more I read about this bill, the better I feel about it.

Now, if only that public option weaseled its way back in, I'd be opening the bubbly...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:12 AM

There are about 15 states now suing over the legality of this Law. They believe there is a problem with the Federal Govt. interfering with what is clearly a state's rights issue...namely selling insurance. Now, you have to buy insurance from within your state, you cannot buy across state lines, so Federal oversight of state-regulated companies will be a problem. Also the mandate requirement itself may be unconstitutional. The Govt cannot force you to buy anything. Car insurance is not the same thing; for that is a priviledge, not a right, and you need to take state tests. You're also driving a potentially dangerous vehicle, so insurance becomes a public safety issue. With this Law, the Govt wants to tax and/or fine you simply for being alive and breathing. It seems like something straight out of 1984 or even Firefly to me. The hated Purplebellies (Fed Govt.) intruding further into you life than ever before....AND engaging 17,000 Purplebellied IRS Agents to watch and enforce over you and your employer. This Law IS the Public Option, because now the Govt will be regulating and setting the boundries for every private health insurance co., so it's the same as public option....Govt. making and enforcing the rules. Is this what you Libs really wanted? I can't believe it. I think you're just defending the seemingly indefensible because of standard political posturing and the old game of my side is never wrong. And you're aware that to get to the "projected" cost savings they cut $ 500 billion from Medicare...and the Fed Govt will now take the Studen Loan Programs away from private banks and operate it themself...at a profit of course. The profit will be the % difference between what they borrow money for and what they charge students for the loans; about 5%, and Obama used that income as part of that CBO score. And economists say the whole thing is deviously front-loaded....10 years of money going in with only 6 years of money going out...quite dishonest. They also did not include the AMA doctor "fix" of a quarter trillion dollars...plus the CBO cannot accurately project beyond a President's term or terms because no one can accurately predict the future economy. Also, considering the sleazy and corrupt deals that were made to move it along, I think it's absolutely a new low for American politics. Supposedly, my state of Florida got one of those sweetheart exemptions....we'll see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:24 AM

I was listening to a Conservative commenting on this- he said that health care should be divided into a voluntary for-profit insurance system, & a welfare-like universal (well, national anyway) coverage, as in, your taxes pay for roads AND insulin.
I thought he was talkin' some sense there.

Back to the bill- yeah it sucks, but not as bad as doing NOTHING.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
With this Law, the Govt wants to tax and/or fine you simply for being alive and breathing.

We already are taxed for that, now it's just more literal. I have no problem with being robbed, as long as it's done to my face.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:49 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And do you drive a car Kaneman? What would happen if you got pulled over and had no proof of car insurance?

Ever bought a house? Ever wanted to own your own home, but couldn't finalize that bank loan until you'd purchased insurance?

Ding, ding, ding.
We have a winner!
Thank-you Mal for making Kaneman's point.

How do you think mandatory car insurance went over when it was first introduced? It was an infringement on a person's liberties. It took away one more choice that a person could make regarding their lives. Now us "sheeple" just think of it as par for the course.

This is the slippery slope which I believe Kaneman is refering too. Now I understand that people have their ideological blind-spots. And I'm not saying that mandatory health insurance is the devil incarnate. It simply seems to be another small way in which a big government can control peoples lives. You know, meddle in their business.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Back to the bill- yeah it sucks, but not as bad as doing NOTHING.

I appreciate that you at least are not jumping on the irrational exhuberance and hooplah surrounding this. You write the word NOTHING as if there was nothing else that could have been done. There were many things they could have done to actually lower costs and inititate some reform, but they went for the big redistribution of wealth enchilada which was always the core goal all along. So now Obama controls Banks, Car Companies, Insurance Companies, Healthcare Insurance, Investment Firms, College Loan Business, etc. Boy, you'd think with all that under their control they might find a way to lower the unemployment rate a bit. But they'd actually have to care about that issue first I suppose. It does make a nice excuse for them to tie everything else to, but so far they have been completely ineffective in creating jobs and invigorating the economy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:33 AM

Thing is Jong, NOTHING ever gets done the right way.
I'm confident that you, I, & a couple bean counters could effectively re-design the health care system and make it WORK, make it FAIR, and make it REASONABLE.
Alas, the ball is not in our court. Too many fingers in the pie.
In this real-life scenario, I takes what I can gets.
Savvy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:40 AM

Fair enough friend Chris. Would you mind telling me what you get out of this? And also, if possible, give me your quick thought(s) on the new army of IRS agents being hired to snoop into your life and enforce laws upon you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Would you mind telling me what you get out of this?

Nothing personally, my life won't really be affected as far as I can see. I just want the kids of poorer families in my country to have a better chance in life is all.

Quote:
And also, if possible, give me your quick thought(s) on the 16,500 IRS agents being hired to snoop into your life and enforce laws upon you.

So, ummm... they're hiring now?

Okay, bad. But we've had bad before.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:59 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Did you really read the clips you posted?

Yes, I watched the whole thing a couple of weeks ago. I specifically remembered it because of the briar patch allusion, something I'd been reflecting on since Obama and the insurance companies first began "negotiations" (over a year ago). It's a pretty obvious allegory and I'm sure lots and lots of people, on the right, left, and elsewhere, have considered it.

I posted the link merely to address your attempt to dismiss my comments as Republican talking points and pigeon-hole me into your caricature of "right-wing". If that's going to continue be your focus, then I guess we're done talking. If you want to address the ideas, I'm interested.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Would you mind telling me what you get out of this?
Nothing personally, my life won't really be affected as far as I can see. I just want the kids of poorer families in my country to have a better chance in life is all.
Quote:
And also, if possible, give me your quick thought(s) on the 16,500 IRS agents being hired to snoop into your life and enforce laws upon you.
So, ummm... they're hiring now?

Okay, bad. But we've had bad before.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

Thank you for your honesty. You are a stand-up guy, and have been for years. I suppose that's why you are so respected here. Good job!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Thank-you Mal for making Kaneman's point.

And thank you for predictably moving the goal posts. Kaneman's point was that the govt has never required citizen's to do business - WRONG!

Stay on topic BDN.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Fair enough friend Chris. Would you mind telling me what you get out of this? And also, if possible, give me your quick thought(s) on the new army of IRS agents being hired to snoop into your life and enforce laws upon you.

Jongs, not that it will probably change your outlook any, but I just heard it explained in a bit of a different light this morning (actually last night on "Countdown", but I downloaded the podcast and was listening this morning).

The reason it was folded into the IRS's job description is for a couple of reasons.

1) You are not mandated by law to buy health insurance. But you get a decent tax break and deduction if you do.

2) It isn't a "fine" levied on you for NOT buying health insurance; it's a tax break you CAN'T take if you don't have health insurance.

Now, if it's presented in the courts in that fashion, it's going to stand, absolutely. The federal government absolutely has the power to levy taxes and collect them, according to the government and tons and tons and tons of legal precedent.

Also, are any of you home-owners out there? Or do any of you have children? Aren't there specific tax breaks, deductions, and credits that you get to take for owning a home or having a child?

Would you say that I'm being "fined" for NOT owning a home or having children? Or would you say that the big bad government is trying to force everyone to own a home and have children?

Just another way to look at it.

Also, someone mentioned that if you have a car, you're a potential danger to the public, so making you carry auto insurance is totally acceptable. I'd like to point out to you that if you have a body, you're a potential danger to the public as well; you could be carrying tuberculosis, smallpox, typhoid, swine flu, or any other communicable disease, and if you don't have insurance, you might very well not be getting medical care for your condition, you may not be taking your medication, and you may be endangering vast numbers of people through your own selfishness and small-minded views. Heck, you might even be going to work while sick, and infecting your coworkers!

Should the government be able to come in and forcefully quarantine you, force medicines and medical treatment upon you? And if so, who should pay the costs inflicted upon society for your "independence"? You? The taxpayers? Me?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I was listening to a Conservative commenting on this- he said that health care should be divided into a voluntary for-profit insurance system, & a welfare-like universal (well, national anyway) coverage, as in, your taxes pay for roads AND insulin.
I thought he was talkin' some sense there."

It doesn't make sense to me. At that point insurers would drop everyone who had ever had a claim or might possibly have a claim some time in the future. The government would be forced to pick up the most expensive health care. Insurance profits would soar, as would government expense. It would be the worst of both worlds.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And do you drive a car Kaneman? What would happen if you got pulled over and had no proof of car insurance?

Ever bought a house? Ever wanted to own your own home, but couldn't finalize that bank loan until you'd purchased insurance?

Ding, ding, ding.
We have a winner!
Thank-you Mal for making Kaneman's point.

How do you think mandatory car insurance went over when it was first introduced? It was an infringement on a person's liberties. It took away one more choice that a person could make regarding their lives. Now us "sheeple" just think of it as par for the course.

This is the slippery slope which I believe Kaneman is refering too. Now I understand that people have their ideological blind-spots. And I'm not saying that mandatory health insurance is the devil incarnate. It simply seems to be another small way in which a big government can control peoples lives. You know, meddle in their business.

But what is it that they are "controlling"? What is it they're "meddling" in, specifically?

And was it Armageddon when you were required to buy auto insurance in order to legally drive your car?

This is quite literally what some people have said this equates to - Armageddon; the utter destruction of our nation; the absolute end of all our freedoms and liberties.

I tend to think they're over-reacting a bit...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you want to address the ideas, I'm interested.

Hey cool! So you're ready to return to what brought up the Brer patch thing: I was asking for *actual* numbers and facts behind your talking point. You seem to think that putting a different name on an empty talking point makes it not an empty talking point. Try again. Try for *substance*. Because the substance of that interview, if you'll check again, was this:

"If we don't do anything right now, that's what they'll-- that's what will happen. They'll win everything." --Wendell, about the insurance companies

And, Sarge, I'm still waiting for your comment on this:

....breakdown in contributions to senators from health care and pharmaceutical companies and such:

oppose HCR: $96,839
support HCR: $69,421

And I'll remind you of this:

* Drug manufacturers would pay the US a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019.
* Health insurers would pay $47 billion over the same period.
* Medical device manufacturers would pay a 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any of their wares, beginning Jan. 1, 2013.

There - on subject FACTS I have contributed to the discussion, to actually back up my ideas.

What have you got?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:28 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And thank you for predictably moving the goal posts. Kaneman's point was that the govt has never required citizen's to do business - WRONG!

Stay on topic BDN.

If that is what you got from Kaneman's posts then perhaps it is you who is trying to move the goal posts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
1) You are not mandated by law to buy health insurance. But you get a decent tax break and deduction if you do.

2) It isn't a "fine" levied on you for NOT buying health insurance; it's a tax break you CAN'T take if you don't have health insurance.

Also, are any of you home-owners out there? Or do any of you have children? Aren't there specific tax breaks, deductions, and credits that you get to take for owning a home or having a child?

*sniff* I really love you man. Or I guess I love Countdown.

Yeah, I have to pay education taxes even if I have no kids. And it's not nothing. Did I get to say no? uh-uh. The law makes me do it.

But, all-in-all, I'd rather be out a few bucks than have a nation full of stupid people.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And thank you for predictably moving the goal posts. Kaneman's point was that the govt has never required citizen's to do business - WRONG!

Stay on topic BDN.

If that is what you got from Kaneman's posts then perhaps it is you who is trying to move the goal posts.

You know, I think it was actually you I was aiming that point at. (Complicated thread, and your posts do seem to blend with Kaneman's.) You're claiming that the Federal govt can't force people to buy insurance - um OK. So what's been happening with autos and homes for decades? I don't know... or maybe you've got something there. Maybe you should try arguing against the mandate. Maybe you should take it to court, if nothing else, you could force some changes into the bill... (Please don't throw the br'er HCR into that there supreme br'er court! Please please don't!)

As for states's right: You might want to look into moving past the 1860's. See, there was this whole war fought over states vs federal rights. Check into it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Fair enough friend Chris. Would you mind telling me what you get out of this? And also, if possible, give me your quick thought(s) on the new army of IRS agents being hired to snoop into your life and enforce laws upon you.

Jongs, not that it will probably change your outlook any, but I just heard it explained in a bit of a different light this morning (actually last night on "Countdown", but I downloaded the podcast and was listening this morning).

The reason it was folded into the IRS's job description is for a couple of reasons.

1) You are not mandated by law to buy health insurance. But you get a decent tax break and deduction if you do.

2) It isn't a "fine" levied on you for NOT buying health insurance; it's a tax break you CAN'T take if you don't have health insurance.

Now, if it's presented in the courts in that fashion, it's going to stand, absolutely. The federal government absolutely has the power to levy taxes and collect them, according to the government and tons and tons and tons of legal precedent.

Also, are any of you home-owners out there? Or do any of you have children? Aren't there specific tax breaks, deductions, and credits that you get to take for owning a home or having a child?

Would you say that I'm being "fined" for NOT owning a home or having children? Or would you say that the big bad government is trying to force everyone to own a home and have children?

Just another way to look at it.

Also, someone mentioned that if you have a car, you're a potential danger to the public, so making you carry auto insurance is totally acceptable. I'd like to point out to you that if you have a body, you're a potential danger to the public as well; you could be carrying tuberculosis, smallpox, typhoid, swine flu, or any other communicable disease, and if you don't have insurance, you might very well not be getting medical care for your condition, you may not be taking your medication, and you may be endangering vast numbers of people through your own selfishness and small-minded views. Heck, you might even be going to work while sick, and infecting your coworkers!

Should the government be able to come in and forcefully quarantine you, force medicines and medical treatment upon you? And if so, who should pay the costs inflicted upon society for your "independence"? You? The taxpayers? Me?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

It's a compelling analogy, something worthy of additional consideration. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Would you mind telling me what you get out of this?

Since my dd has significant pre-existing condition (brought about by the effin' HMO which tried to "save money" on her delivery, causing a Grade 4 brain bleed) she can now stay on my policy until she's 27, and after that she has a prayer of actually buying health insurance... something that would have been closed to her.

BTW- We live in one of those states which limit malpractice. In addition, our HMO required arbitration. Now, the way arbitration works is that you get to pick your arbitrator. However, arbitrators are paid for their work, and while individual cases come and go, the insurances always stay the same. So ultimately, the list of arbitrators reflects who the insurances like, because they have an abiding influence.

And with a policy that she can BUY, she won't be forced into poverty and MediCal. Unless you've been there, you just don't know how it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Fair enough friend Chris. Would you mind telling me what you get out of this? And also, if possible, give me your quick thought(s) on the new army of IRS agents being hired to snoop into your life and enforce laws upon you.

Jongs, not that it will probably change your outlook any, but I just heard it explained in a bit of a different light this morning (actually last night on "Countdown", but I downloaded the podcast and was listening this morning).

The reason it was folded into the IRS's job description is for a couple of reasons.

1) You are not mandated by law to buy health insurance. But you get a decent tax break and deduction if you do.

2) It isn't a "fine" levied on you for NOT buying health insurance; it's a tax break you CAN'T take if you don't have health insurance.

Now, if it's presented in the courts in that fashion, it's going to stand, absolutely. The federal government absolutely has the power to levy taxes and collect them, according to the government and tons and tons and tons of legal precedent.

Also, are any of you home-owners out there? Or do any of you have children? Aren't there specific tax breaks, deductions, and credits that you get to take for owning a home or having a child?

Would you say that I'm being "fined" for NOT owning a home or having children? Or would you say that the big bad government is trying to force everyone to own a home and have children?

Just another way to look at it.

Also, someone mentioned that if you have a car, you're a potential danger to the public, so making you carry auto insurance is totally acceptable. I'd like to point out to you that if you have a body, you're a potential danger to the public as well; you could be carrying tuberculosis, smallpox, typhoid, swine flu, or any other communicable disease, and if you don't have insurance, you might very well not be getting medical care for your condition, you may not be taking your medication, and you may be endangering vast numbers of people through your own selfishness and small-minded views. Heck, you might even be going to work while sick, and infecting your coworkers!

Should the government be able to come in and forcefully quarantine you, force medicines and medical treatment upon you? And if so, who should pay the costs inflicted upon society for your "independence"? You? The taxpayers? Me?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

It's a compelling analogy, something worthy of additional consideration. Thank you.

Well, it certainly caught MY attention. It was one of those moments when you kind of slap your forehead, going, "Why didn't they just say so from the outset?!"

And I'm not trying to get anyone to LOVE this bill, or even this idea; just trying to get them to understand that SOME might like the idea as much as they hate the idea.

You asked Chris earlier what was in it for him, personally. If I might answer the same question - for me personally, going by Mal4Prez's numbers that she posted above (the Christian Science Monitor's article mentioned the numbers cited), I'd see an immediate savings of close to $5000 per year off my premiums. Additionally, my employer (we are a VERY small business, actually started out of an apartment) would see healthcare savings in the form of tax credits or deductions of around 35%, or well over $12,000 per year, for no reduction in the amount of healthcare we currently receive.

So if it's all about "what's in it for you?", then you can see why I'd be pretty happy under this new system.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I'm not trying to get anyone to LOVE this bill, or even this idea; just trying to get them to understand that SOME might like the idea as much as they hate the idea.

That is fair, honest and noble.

Quote:
You asked Chris earlier what was in it for him, personally. If I might answer the same question - for me personally, going by Mal4Prez's numbers that she posted above (the Christian Science Monitor's article mentioned the numbers cited), I'd see an immediate savings of close to $5000 per year off my premiums. Additionally, my employer (we are a VERY small business, actually started out of an apartment) would see healthcare savings in the form of tax credits or deductions of around 35%, or well over $12,000 per year, for no reduction in the amount of healthcare we currently receive.

Sounds like you pay a totally ridiculous amount for HC insurance...You'll SAVE 5 grand? I cannot imagine what you currently pay.

Quote:
So if it's all about "what's in it for you?", then you can see why I'd be pretty happy under this new system.

I've got Blue Cross/Blue Shield for me and the wife through my company, a big intl corporation. My rates for the 2 of us (kids are grown up now) are very modest and it comes out of pre-tax dollars. Assuming the Corporation keeps providing this, what could happen to my weekly deduction?....I wouldn't have a problem with a small tax on it, it would still be virtually "free" to me. So can I relax? Say yes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My rates are $800/ mo for the whole family, not including dental ($133) and vision ($25). We're an agency of about 1000 people... not small, but certainly not a big intl corp. That doesn't count for the fact that neither of our workplaces offer "single person" coverage, so our whole family is "double covered", and my hubby's rates are $1200/ month, so between the two of us we're paying $2000/month.

Did you see my post about what "I" get out of it? Bc its all wrapped around our dd, who has a pre-existing condition (brain damage due to botched delivery). SHE gets to stay on our plan until age 27, and after that, she can actually BUY insurance.... something she wouldn't have been able to do before.

In preparation for the fateful day when she could no longer stay on our policies AND not be able to buy insurance, we had to strip her of her assets (what little they were, down to $2000), put her on SSI so that she could qualify for MediCal, and set up a special needs trust so that the money we set aside for her never "officially" comes under her control (bc that would dsiqualify her from MediCal, which would have been the ONLY option open to her!)

Now, there are a shitload of issues with that whole setup:

She really doesn't need SSI. So she's costing the system $$$/ month already.
That $2000 is unrealistically low. In order to qualify for state medical insurance you have to be absolutely destitute.
When we are gone, we have to find someone to administer the trust for us; she has no legal say whatsoever in how the money is spent. Looking around at younger relatives, none of them appear ready for that responsibility.
MediCal sucks.

------------
For myself, personally... Now, I have not been paying into Social Security/ Medicare for the requisite 40 quarters to qualify for either, although I have been working all of this time. (Our agency does not pay into Social Security). I DO have a retirement plan, and savings, but my retirement plan does NOT include medical insurance. Fortunately, I've been married for over 40 quarters and qualify on hubby's Medicare (We can argue about whether that is fair or not, but that's the way it is) which kicks in when I'm 65, but if I want to retire early (and BOY do I want to retire early!) I can COBRA my medical for up to 3 years, but that's it. So this would provide me with an option to BUY insurance, because... yes indeedy, I DO have pre-existing conditions. Not serious ones, but prolly would have been enough to kick me off to rolls (see below).
---------------
For my sister, who has not paid 40 quarters into SS and Medicare (when you work county you don't pay in) she was facing NO Medicare at all, and NO health insurance for her retirement. So I HIRED her for 40 quarters, paid her wages, SSI and Medicare just so she could "buy into" the system.
-------------------

For my MIL, when she divorced her abusive husband and was no longer covered by his insurance, and she was YEARS away for Medicare (by marriage) her "pre-existing condiiton" (migraines) disqualified her from getting any health insurance.
------------------
For my hubby, who has worked long and hard paying into the system, but has had many medical problems (autoimmune Meniere's, prostate cancer, BCC) he no longer has to worry about reaching a maximum limit. He will continue to work long and hard and productively, and continue to do the best he can to maintain his health (eats right, exercises, does not smoke etc.) but will no longer have the sword of Damocles over his head.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I'm not trying to get anyone to LOVE this bill, or even this idea; just trying to get them to understand that SOME might like the idea as much as they hate the idea.
That is fair, honest and noble.

Quote:
You asked Chris earlier what was in it for him, personally. If I might answer the same question - for me personally, going by Mal4Prez's numbers that she posted above (the Christian Science Monitor's article mentioned the numbers cited), I'd see an immediate savings of close to $5000 per year off my premiums. Additionally, my employer (we are a VERY small business, actually started out of an apartment) would see healthcare savings in the form of tax credits or deductions of around 35%, or well over $12,000 per year, for no reduction in the amount of healthcare we currently receive.
Sounds like you pay a totally ridiculous amount for HC insurance...You'll SAVE 5 grand? I cannot imagine what you currently pay.

Quote:
So if it's all about "what's in it for you?", then you can see why I'd be pretty happy under this new system.
I've got Blue Cross/Blue Shield for me and the wife through my company, a big intl corporation. My rates for the 2 of us (kids are grown up now) are very modest and it comes out of pre-tax dollars. Assuming the Corporation keeps providing this, what could happen to my weekly deduction?....I wouldn't have a problem with a small tax on it, it would still be virtually "free" to me. So can I relax? Say yes.

Jongsie, the shits of it is, I'm on Blue Cross/ Blue Shield as well. And I've got a $2000 deductible. THAT, my friend, is the difference between being in a corporation with 1000 people, and being in a tiny company with 4 employees total. We get similar healthcare (maybe even the same), but don't pay anywhere NEAR similar amounts for it. My wife is uninsured, because I simply cannot afford to add her to my policy and still have a place to call home. As I pointed out, my rates went up 37%, for zero claims, good health, no disease, no history of disease, no pre-existing conditions; I'm now paying right at $8000 per year for my health insurance, for me alone, no dental and no eye care.

This year isn't outrageous, either. It's shockingly TYPICAL. We've shopped around, and BC/BS is the most affordable quote we get, year in and year out. Nobody in the office has any dependents on their policies, either. Sad, huh?

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out, but if it's even close to being as advertised, I'd be ecstatic, as you can no doubt understand!

For all their talk of wanting to help small businesses, I've never seen ANY real efforts to do so, from either side of the aisle.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

It doesn't make sense to me. At that point insurers would drop everyone who had ever had a claim or might possibly have a claim some time in the future. The government would be forced to pick up the most expensive health care. Insurance profits would soar, as would government expense. It would be the worst of both worlds.

I see insurers initially cleaning up, then dying out as peeps get wiser to their scams. Government taxes (maybe sales) go up nominally to cover new coverage numbers.
The BEST of both worlds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It seems like, when it comes to specifics about how the bill helps or hurts, no one has anything useful to say.

My view is that despite being tremendously beneficial to my family and to small businesses in general, the bill should be modified to make healthcare less expensive overall. And the only way I can see doing that is to pry the health insurances' tentacles out of health care, NOT appease them with $$$.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:08 AM

In MY world, insurance has no place at all. Taxes pay for all health care.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It seems like, when it comes to specifics about how the bill helps or hurts, no one has anything useful to say.

Are you kidding me? Have you actually read these threads?

Here, try this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bil
l-101-what-the-bill-means-to-you

I quoted some of the details yesterday. Apparently, you missed that.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:40 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You know, I think it was actually you I was aiming that point at. (Complicated thread, and your posts do seem to blend with Kaneman's.)

Yeah, I know, all differing viewpoints are not worth your time or effort to comprehend or differentiate.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You're claiming that the Federal govt can't force people to buy insurance

I believe that was Kaneman's position. And coming from a strict constitutionalist, I see the point.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
- um OK. So what's been happening with autos and homes for decades?

That's the point. Do you think your ancestors ever thought they would need to tow the government line in order to provide a roof over their families head? You can start to see how pervasive it can become. What your ancestors railed against you take as status quo now.
What if the government starts limiting what you can eat or drink in the name of public good? What if the government mandates a certain number of hours a week that you should be exercising to keep rates down. Not necessarily bad ideas per se but scary scenarios all the same.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I don't know... or maybe you've got something there. Maybe you should try arguing against the mandate. Maybe you should take it to court, if nothing else, you could force some changes into the bill... (Please don't throw the br'er HCR into that there supreme br'er court! Please please don't!)

or maybe I should just pack up and head to bumf#*k Australia.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
As for states's right: You might want to look into moving past the 1860's. See, there was this whole war fought over states vs federal rights. Check into it.

No, Sarge couldn't possibly be right. You do not have a snarky bone in your body.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
or maybe I should just pack up and head to bumf#*k Australia

...Where they have universal health coverage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:12 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Hey cool! So you're ready to return to what brought up the Brer patch thing: I was asking for *actual* numbers and facts behind your talking point.

Talking point? Fuck you.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You asked Chris earlier what was in it for him, personally. If I might answer the same question - for me personally, going by Mal4Prez's numbers that she posted above (the Christian Science Monitor's article mentioned the numbers cited), I'd see an immediate savings of close to $5000 per year off my premiums.

Whoah, maybe there IS something in it for me... I just wasn't thinkin' that way.
Hmmmmm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
or maybe I should just pack up and head to bumf#*k Australia
...Where they have universal health coverage.

Well, to be fair, Signy, if I'm not mistaken, EVERY industrialized nation on Earth except for the U.S. has it... Might be kinda hard to move somewhere that DOESN'T have it!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:51 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And do you drive a car Kaneman? What would happen if you got pulled over and had no proof of car insurance?

Ever bought a house? Ever wanted to own your own home, but couldn't finalize that bank loan until you'd purchased insurance?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

I'm I forced to buy car insurance if I don't have a car? Actually, I'm not even going to make that point it may play right into your hands, because for some strange reason you view a human's person as property that needs to be regulated, programed, and directed on what to do just like an object . Beware what you wish for. A great tactic that Governments have is to abuse a small unsympathetic group, while the masses say good it's for thier best interest(illegal sin-taxes come to mind), however we all belong to one small unsympathetic group sooner or later. What the end result is mass control of the population. ...From what our children are tought in school(Department of education) to health insurance(obamacare). This is gradual break down of our liberties that we allow and ultimatly accept....you are an apathetic part of the problem. What you should be is outraged that the Federal gov. can force us to buy insurance. outraged. That you are not is sad.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:02 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And do you drive a car Kaneman? What would happen if you got pulled over and had no proof of car insurance?

Ever bought a house? Ever wanted to own your own home, but couldn't finalize that bank loan until you'd purchased insurance?

Ding, ding, ding.
We have a winner!
Thank-you Mal for making Kaneman's point.

How do you think mandatory car insurance went over when it was first introduced? It was an infringement on a person's liberties. It took away one more choice that a person could make regarding their lives. Now us "sheeple" just think of it as par for the course.

This is the slippery slope which I believe Kaneman is refering too. Now I understand that people have their ideological blind-spots. And I'm not saying that mandatory health insurance is the devil incarnate. It simply seems to be another small way in which a big government can control peoples lives. You know, meddle in their business.

Wow, nice to see someone can actually read what I wrote. I have a strange feeling they agree with me, but it's hard to blindly cheer along like a mindless robot, then do a 180* and be credible....Much easier to throw my posts in a hat, pull out words until it makes a sentence, and argue about it like lunatics...totally missing the point.

For the record(again)...I am not against insurance reform. I oppose it done on a federal level. However, I am against my being forced to buy it on any level.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You know, I think it was actually you I was aiming that point at. (Complicated thread, and your posts do seem to blend with Kaneman's.)

Yeah, I know, all differing viewpoints are not worth your time or effort to comprehend or differentiate.

Well, in fairness, maybe she meant just yours aren't worth her time or effort. And I see her point.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You're claiming that the Federal govt can't force people to buy insurance

I believe that was Kaneman's position. And coming from a strict constitutionalist, I see the point.

What do you define as a "strict constitutionalist"? HOW strict? In WHAT areas?

Are you bringing back slavery? Will one literally have to possess an actual printing press in order to obtain "freedom of the press"? Will you actually have to be employed by "the press" to gain those rights?

Deny women the vote? Make sure that negroes only count as 3/5ths of a regular person?

Do away with standing armies altogether? Do away with the Air Force?

Shall we all shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without fear of being jailed by the government?

Shall we do away with all forms of searches and questioning without warrants issued for probable cause?

Can we do away with ALL "cruel and unusual" punishments, including the death penalty, waterboarding, and other forms of torture?

How "strict" do you want to get, exactly. Please be specific. I'm waiting, patiently.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
- um OK. So what's been happening with autos and homes for decades?

That's the point. Do you think your ancestors ever thought they would need to tow the government line in order to provide a roof over their families head? You can start to see how pervasive it can become. What your ancestors railed against you take as status quo now.
What if the government starts limiting what you can eat or drink in the name of public good?

You mean like drinking and driving, or using methamphetamine at work, or heroin in public schools?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And do you drive a car Kaneman? What would happen if you got pulled over and had no proof of car insurance?

Ever bought a house? Ever wanted to own your own home, but couldn't finalize that bank loan until you'd purchased insurance?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

I'm I forced to buy car insurance if I don't have a car? Actually, I'm not even going to make that point it may play right into your hands, because for some strange reason you view a human's person as property that needs to be regulated, programed, and directed on what to do just like an object . Beware what you wish for. A great tactic that Governments have is to abuse a small unsympathetic group, while the masses say good it's for thier best interest(illegal sin-taxes come to mind), however we all belong to one small unsympathetic group sooner or later. What the end result is mass control of the population. ...From what our children are tought in school(Department of education) to health insurance(obamacare). This is gradual break down of our liberties that we allow and ultimatly accept....you are an apathetic part of the problem. What you should be is outraged that the Federal gov. can force us to buy insurance. outraged. That you are not is sad.

Can you show me where in the bill it says that you absolutely MUST buy insurance? Latest I'm hearing is that you won't get a tax deduction if you don't have health insurance. That hardly sounds like "force", but you probably don't want to hear that, since it takes some of the bluster out of your outrage.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And do you drive a car Kaneman? What would happen if you got pulled over and had no proof of car insurance?

Ever bought a house? Ever wanted to own your own home, but couldn't finalize that bank loan until you'd purchased insurance?

Ding, ding, ding.
We have a winner!
Thank-you Mal for making Kaneman's point.

How do you think mandatory car insurance went over when it was first introduced? It was an infringement on a person's liberties. It took away one more choice that a person could make regarding their lives. Now us "sheeple" just think of it as par for the course.

This is the slippery slope which I believe Kaneman is refering too. Now I understand that people have their ideological blind-spots. And I'm not saying that mandatory health insurance is the devil incarnate. It simply seems to be another small way in which a big government can control peoples lives. You know, meddle in their business.

Wow, nice to see someone can actually read what I wrote. I have a strange feeling they agree with me, but it's hard to blindly cheer along like a mindless robot, then do a 180* and be credible....Much easier to throw my posts in a hat, pull out words until it makes a sentence, and argue about it like lunatics...totally missing the point.

For the record(again)...I am not against insurance reform. I oppose it done on a federal level. However, I am against my being forced to buy it on any level.....

Are you for denying healthcare to the uninsured and underinsured at every level? Are you in favor of booting them out of the ER and putting them out in the gutter to die there? Because if you'll sign a waiver that says you don't need no stinkin' health insurance, and nobody is ever obligated in any way to help you if you are injured or sick, I might agree with your point.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:29 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Kaneman, are you currently paying taxes? ANY taxes? Property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, FICA, Social Security, etc. taxes?

If so, why?

Now, if you *are* paying your taxes, are you doing so by choice, or because you're "forced to" with the threat of penalties or jail? I only ask because you say that never before have we the people been forced to buy something from the government. Did you go to public school? Ever? Do you have a local police department or fire department? Do you have public libraries?
If so, you've been "forced" to buy all of them, regardless of whether you want to or not, regardless of whether you're going to use them or not. Also, you've been forced to "buy" a military, even though you may see no direct benefit from doing so.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

All things that I "buy" that you mention are done on the LOCAL/STATE level. You know...the town has town meeting, a referendum, sells muni bonds etc.... It changes town by town,and state by state to fit with what the people who are going to use the library, be protected by the police, or walk through the town green want(one town can buy SUVs for thier town, but the other may us old cutlass')....one size does not fit all.
It is so different than what we get with this bill.....So different....Taxes against small groups in my mind is unconstitutional.

As for the military, it is a constitutional requirement. Done on the proper level. I can't argue that it is tyrannical against ME to be forced to pay for a military.....That is a federal responsibility(could debate how we use it). Not making me buy insurance....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:50 PM

Why do you say that the military is a constitutional requirement? It's a constitutional requirement that the armies not be paid for a period of more than two years. It's a constitutional requirement that the MILITIA be in charge of repelling invasions and quelling insurrection. Look it up. And that militia is made up of the people, not career military and the Pentagon.

Quote:
Article 1, Section 8, United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

It constantly amazes me that people who rail the hardest about the federal government and wasteful spending and big government "force" always, ALWAYS give the military-industrial complex a free pass. Sounds vaguely fascistic to me, turning things over to the military and keeping us constantly in a state of war...

We get so wrapped up in the little stuff, and then the big problems waltz right through, and we don't even frisk 'em.

And actually, it IS making you buy insurance; it's just using a different name for it. Your tax dollars - you DO pay federal income taxes, yes? - are being used to buy "insurance" that we're not invaded by all the people in the world we've pissed off, and insurance that we can still piss them off at will by bombing them for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all, whichever suits our mood!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:19 PM