|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 24, 2010 14:44:55 GMT
Ouote: "Is that all?"- I notice you don't mention how people will be FINED if they don't join this. ***### that! Talk about evil! There's NO freedom in that! When people buy a car it's THEIR choice to buy 1 and then be fined if they don't have insurance and cause a wreck, etc. THIS gives people NO choice! In other words, LESS FREEDOM! Before I hear any stuff about where I learned this info, I found it on AOL.com on the front page with the latest news on yesterday. I thought I'd point that out before hearing that I probably found the info on FOX (FAUX) or some e-mail. I guess I just don't understand the mindset that would rather carry no health insurance. That's a slippery slope - scary, imo. Also - sure - you can drive without auto insurance if you never have an accident, but the chances of that are just kind of 50-50 since it also includes accidents in which you are not at fault. If that happens and you are not insured, won't you be fined or, worse, lose your license? If The head of a household does not choose to carry health insurance and a dependant falls ill, the result could be tragic. Notice, there is a plan for those who would have trouble paying for a medical policy. Wouldn't that be sufficient to help make it a good idea? I do see what you're saying, but trying to avoid being insured is out of my range of understanding. It doesn't seem to be a good thing. I don't appreciate how you ASS-ume that I don't want ANY healthcare reform without a word of proof from me anywhere on here. I have chronic health problems that at this point have NO cure, OK? I have to see the doctor every 3 months. It used to be every month. I'd say I'm concerned about healthcare at the least. I've also worked in the medical/medical insurance field for most of my working years. What I have a problem with is that people WILL BE FINED (which from all I've seen so far you WILLFULLY IGNORE in your posts) for choosing NOT to be part of this! That's NOT FREEDOM! Is this something YOU want? It's comparable to this: you win the lottery, BUT in order to be paid, you have to not go out of your house, ie., you can't DO WHAT YOU WANT or GO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. Would you want this for the MONEY? Would you be willing to give up your freedom for money? Just wondering. I believe 100% that healthcare reform WAS needed and was needed for many years. However, at SOME prices reform is evil if it takes away ANY of our freedom of choice! You think it's OK for people to BE FORCED to TAKE this coverage to the point they'll be FINED if they don't? You honestly think that's OK? To be honest, I'd rather use the county hospital than have ANY of my freedoms taken away! I'd rather use a doctor I trust and work out a long-term payment plan with him than give up any freedoms!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 14:54:14 GMT
Ouote: "Is that all?"- I notice you don't mention how people will be FINED if they don't join this. ***### that! Talk about evil! There's NO freedom in that! When people buy a car it's THEIR choice to buy 1 and then be fined if they don't have insurance and cause a wreck, etc. THIS gives people NO choice! In other words, LESS FREEDOM! Before I hear any stuff about where I learned this info, I found it on AOL.com on the front page with the latest news on yesterday. I thought I'd point that out before hearing that I probably found the info on FOX (FAUX) or some e-mail. I guess I just don't understand the mindset that would rather carry no health insurance. That's a slippery slope - scary, imo. Also - sure - you can drive without auto insurance if you never have an accident, but the chances of that are just kind of 50-50 since it also includes accidents in which you are not at fault. If that happens and you are not insured, won't you be fined or, worse, lose your license? If The head of a household does not choose to carry health insurance and a dependant falls ill, the result could be tragic. Notice, there is a plan for those who would have trouble paying for a medical policy. Wouldn't that be sufficient to help make it a good idea? I do see what you're saying, but trying to avoid being insured is out of my range of understanding. It doesn't seem to be a good thing. I don't appreciate how you ASS-ume that I don't want ANY healthcare reform without a word of proof from me anywhere on here. I have chronic health problems that at this point have NO cure, OK? I have to see the doctor every 3 months. It used to be every month. I'd say I'm concerned about healthcare at the least. I've also worked in the medical/medical insurance field for most of my working years. What I have a problem with is that people WILL BE FINED (which from all I've seen so far you WILLFULLY IGNORE in your posts) for choosing NOT to be part of this! That's NOT FREEDOM! Is this something YOU want? It's comparable to this: you win the lottery, BUT in order to be paid, you have to not go out of your house, ie., you can't DO WHAT YOU WANT or GO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. Would you want this for the MONEY? Would you be willing to give up your freedom for money? Just wondering. I believe 100% that healthcare reform WAS needed and was needed for many years. However, at SOME prices reform is evil if it takes away ANY of our freedom of choice! You think it's OK for people to BE FORCED to TAKE this coverage to the point they'll be FINED if they don't? You honestly think that's OK? To be honest, I'd rather use the county hospital than have ANY of my freedoms taken away! I'd rather use a doctor I trust and work out a long-term payment plan with him than give up any freedoms! no hon. not even close. the ONLY analogy that is would be the fact that you will certainly be fined for not having car insurance. there is no difference with the healthcare bill
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 16:10:31 GMT
this explains, quite succinctly, the real world for those who won't comprehend it Health bill lawsuits are going nowhere By Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, Special to CNN March 24, 2010 6:57 a.m. EDT STORY HIGHLIGHTS 13 state attorneys general have filed lawsuit to challenge health care law Timothy Jost says there's no legal merit to the challenges He says the bill allows states to make choices and to come up with an alternate plan Jost: Virginia law to nullify health law no more valid than 1950s desegregation action RELATED TOPICS Medicaid Health Care Policy Virginia Civil Trials Insurance Editor's note: Timothy Stoltzfus Jost is a professor of law at the Washington and Lee University. Jost, a Democrat, blogs about legal issues in health reform at www.oneillhealthreformblog.org/ (CNN) -- A state attorney general is almost by definition a candidate for higher office. The filing of lawsuits challenging the health reform law by 14 attorneys general -- all but one of them Republican -- may look good for their next campaigns, but these cases are going nowhere legally. The case filed by Florida and 12 other states challenges obligations allegedly imposed on the states by the statute as well as the individual insurance purchase mandate imposed by the law. The Virginia case challenges only the individual mandate, setting up against it a new Virginia law purporting to nullify it. One of the states' claims is based on a simple misreading of the health reform law. The lawsuit claims that it compels the states to enforce the federal law or to operate exchanges that would make health insurance available to consumers. Section 1321 gives states the choice of doing so or not, and if states elect not to do so, the federal government will enforce the law and operate the exchange in the state. No state has to do anything, except make its choice known to the federal government. Moreover, section 1333 of the act allows states to apply for a waiver to take a completely different approach to covering their residents if they have a better idea. The complaint also attacks the provisions of the law that provide Medicaid coverage for all Americans whose income is under 133 percent of the poverty level. These Medicaid expansions are not effective until 2014, and the federal government pays the entire cost until 2017, after which the state's share gradually increases to 10 percent by 2020. It is hard to understand how the states are harmed in any way by the billions of dollars the Medicaid expansions will pour into their states to cover millions of their residents, many of whom would otherwise be treated by providers without compensation. But in any event, states can simply opt out of Medicaid if they choose not to participate. The Supreme Court has long upheld spending clause programs that require states that accept federal program funds to comply with federal program requirements, and this law simply follows those precedents. The challenge to the individual insurance mandate is simply not legally credible. First, it is not clear whether the federal courts even have jurisdiction to hear the claim. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts may not decide hypothetical questions but rather only actual cases and controversies. The states are in no way injured by the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, and thus should not be able to challenge it. But the mandate is clearly constitutional. The mandate requires people who have household incomes above the tax filing limit ($18,700 for joint filers) and who are not covered by their employer or a public program to buy health insurance. Those who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level will get tax credits to help pay for it. People who are subject to the mandate but choose to remain uninsured will have to pay a tax, which will increase with their income up to the cost of a high-deductible insurance policy. Under the reform legislation, insurers must take all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions. The insurance market can only function if healthy people buy insurance, helping to share the cost burden with those who get sick. We cannot simply let people wait until they are sick to purchase it. But more fundamentally, people who can afford insurance and don't buy it are simply being irresponsible. An auto accident or serious disease can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why should the taxpayers or health care providers have to finance the care of those who refuse to buy insurance? The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. The Supreme Court has long held that this authority reaches all economic activity. The court has recognized as legitimate exercises of the Commerce Power the authority of Congress to prohibit the growing of a few marijuana plants on a window sill for personal medical use or to outlaw a doctor's performing of a partial-birth abortion. Choosing whether to buy insurance or impose your health care costs on others is economic activity subject to that authority. Virginia has passed a law purporting to nullify the federal law. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that federal law is the supreme law of the land. Virginia's law is no more enforceable than were its laws attempting to nullify federal desegregation laws in the 1950s. I am from Virginia. Like most states, we are in terrible shape financially, lacking money for schools, roads or health care. We cannot afford bankrolling frivolous lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 24, 2010 16:41:03 GMT
I don't appreciate how you ASS-ume that I don't want ANY healthcare reform without a word of proof from me anywhere on here. I have chronic health problems that at this point have NO cure, OK? I have to see the doctor every 3 months. It used to be every month. I'd say I'm concerned about healthcare at the least. I've also worked in the medical/medical insurance field for most of my working years. What I have a problem with is that people WILL BE FINED (which from all I've seen so far you WILLFULLY IGNORE in your posts) for choosing NOT to be part of this! That's NOT FREEDOM! Is this something YOU want? It's comparable to this: you win the lottery, BUT in order to be paid, you have to not go out of your house, ie., you can't DO WHAT YOU WANT or GO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. Would you want this for the MONEY? Would you be willing to give up your freedom for money? Just wondering. I believe 100% that healthcare reform WAS needed and was needed for many years. However, at SOME prices reform is evil if it takes away ANY of our freedom of choice! You think it's OK for people to BE FORCED to TAKE this coverage to the point they'll be FINED if they don't? You honestly think that's OK? To be honest, I'd rather use the county hospital than have ANY of my freedoms taken away! I'd rather use a doctor I trust and work out a long-term payment plan with him than give up any freedoms! no hon. not even close. the ONLY analogy that is would be the fact that you will certainly be fined for not having car insurance. there is no difference with the healthcare bill You're willfully ignoring that it's UP TO EACH PERSON whether or not they GET a car, OK? There's NO choice with this healthcare. SEE the difference? If you don't want it (and you HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO NOT WANT IT) you get FINED! Horrible! The government is going to financially PUNISH you if you don't want their insurance! You KNOW that's completely different from CHOOSING to get a car or not! The government doesn't financially punish you if you choose to NOT get a car.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Mar 24, 2010 16:45:41 GMT
"13 state attorneys general have filed lawsuit to challenge health care law."
If I'm not mistaken, that is what conservatives used to call "judical activism" and "legislating from the bench". Now they must reframe their side's "activism" as the rule of law, divining the founder's intent, etc. Just like the time they named George Bush president.
Who cares if a bunch of socialist hate-america-firsters whine in their fancy elitist magazines and editorial pages that it's intellectually dishonest or even a coup d'etat by 5 guys in robes? That's something to celebrate, not worry about, if you're a Republican.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 18:14:29 GMT
"13 state attorneys general have filed lawsuit to challenge health care law." If I'm not mistaken, that is what conservatives used to call "judical activism" and "legislating from the bench". Now they must reframe their side's "activism" as the rule of law, divining the founder's intent, etc. Just like the time they named George Bush president. Who cares if a bunch of socialist hate-america-firsters whine in their fancy elitist magazines and editorial pages that it's intellectually dishonest or even a coup d'etat by 5 guys in robes? That's something to celebrate, not worry about, if you're a Republican. but, but, but, you just don't understand. the irrefutable FACT is that republican and hypocrite have ALWAYS been synonyms. just look at the boo hooing that the lunatics were doing about the procedure used to pass the bill. the imbeciles crying about the democrats doing the exact same things that the lunatics did when they passed the unconscionable tax cuts for the rich that the american people overwhelmingly opposed. of course, you see this kind of crying all the time in a preschool playground
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 18:29:25 GMT
no hon. not even close. the ONLY analogy that is would be the fact that you will certainly be fined for not having car insurance. there is no difference with the healthcare bill You're willfully ignoring that it's UP TO EACH PERSON whether or not they GET a car, OK? There's NO choice with this healthcare. SEE the difference? If you don't want it (and you HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO NOT WANT IT) you get FINED! Horrible! The government is going to financially PUNISH you if you don't want their insurance! You KNOW that's completely different from CHOOSING to get a car or not! The government doesn't financially punish you if you choose to NOT get a car. i definitely agree that no one should be forced to pay for the yachts and multiple million dollar houses of insurance company executives. however, if you make less than 80 grand a year, most of the money will come from the government. since it won't cost you much of anything, if you choose to die because you have decided that you don't want to utilize the doctor or hospital, it should be on you, of course. healthcare is a right, but only if you choose to have it.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 24, 2010 19:53:19 GMT
no hon. not even close. the ONLY analogy that is would be the fact that you will certainly be fined for not having car insurance. there is no difference with the healthcare bill You're willfully ignoring that it's UP TO EACH PERSON whether or not they GET a car, OK? There's NO choice with this healthcare. SEE the difference? If you don't want it (and you HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO NOT WANT IT) you get FINED! Horrible! The government is going to financially PUNISH you if you don't want their insurance! You KNOW that's completely different from CHOOSING to get a car or not! The government doesn't financially punish you if you choose to NOT get a car. i dont quite understand where your objections to this are...are you objecting to having health care... are you objecting to others having health care are you saying you dont wish the poorer of society or those who who are on low incomes or who cannot get health care to be denied health care?? could you please explain what your real objections are as i live in a country where health care is free at point of need i find objections to health care cover rather strange
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 24, 2010 23:13:04 GMT
Mouse - I agree that health care is important. I do think everyone should have it. However, not at the expense of income redistribution by government.
My aversion to income redistribution takes priority over my desire for everyone to have health care.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 24, 2010 23:40:03 GMT
What we have here in this country is a scenario where some of the people are pulling the wagon (paying taxes) and some of the people are riding in the wagon (not paying much in taxes if anything). We also have a political party (the Democrats) that has figured out that their are now more riders than pullers. Their key to power is to cater to the riders in order to get their votes. The riders are happy to oblige. Democracy breaks down when the riders outnumber the pullers and can vote themselves distribution of the national treasury. A fairer system would be to allow votes based on taxes paid. Rather than one man one vote it might be one vote for each $1000 in taxes paid. If you haven't paid at least $1000 in the year of the election you don't qualify to vote. Corporations should also get to vote on the same basis. Such a system would be both intelligent and considerably more fair than the present hijacking of the country by the Democrats. you have made some abjectly stupid comments, but damm lad, that has to go down as the most imbecillic comment you have ever made on any subject. such a moronic statement TOTALLY discredits you, and anything else that you might say Well Jumbo, obviously you don't agree but I fail to understand why. Are you in denial as to the facts or is your liberal bias just too strong to let the truth enter into your thinking? Someone like Bill Gates creates thousands of jobs and is a real driver of the economy. A wino, on the other hand, is a leach that drags down the economy. Why do you want to reward the wino and punish Gates? What kind of system is that? Where is the fairness?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2010 7:58:36 GMT
you have made some abjectly stupid comments, but damm lad, that has to go down as the most imbecillic comment you have ever made on any subject. such a moronic statement TOTALLY discredits you, and anything else that you might say Well Jumbo, obviously you don't agree but I fail to understand why. Are you in denial as to the facts or is your liberal bias just too strong to let the truth enter into your thinking? Someone like Bill Gates creates thousands of jobs and is a real driver of the economy. A wino, on the other hand, is a leach that drags down the economy. Why do you want to reward the wino and punish Gates? What kind of system is that? Where is the fairness? Obviously a bloke like Gates has far more political influence than a wino. But when they stand in front of the ballot boxes their votes are worth the same. All men (and women) are born equal. Your views really are startling.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 25, 2010 8:00:05 GMT
P.S. among most civilised states in the anglosphere, a liberal bias is considered a good thing, as it suggests that the person who has it is biased towards the rights of the individual against the state.
Only in America have you so debased and misunderstood language and ideas . . .
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 25, 2010 8:58:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 25, 2010 9:34:01 GMT
yes i know all that..one of my ancestors was in the group that forced the end of slavery... the way the post was writen was as if ..slaves ie individuals were bought and sold etc ...abounded in the uk until 1833...so you were meaning the bussines of slave transporting/shipping etc etc and of course present day slavery is dreadful..and that it exists shames us all....and not only in the uk but it still thrives in the mid east trading out of africa..dreadful state of affairs where its even some times done the old way..traipsing out of africa roped up in groups i would like to see the death sentence for slavers who ever and where ever they are ...but hey we are far to civilised to have the death sentence...so slavery continues and there seems no great will to stop this human trafficking in misery some even deny that it happenes
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 25, 2010 9:47:33 GMT
you have made some abjectly stupid comments, but damm lad, that has to go down as the most imbecillic comment you have ever made on any subject. such a moronic statement TOTALLY discredits you, and anything else that you might say Well Jumbo, obviously you don't agree but I fail to understand why. Are you in denial as to the facts or is your liberal bias just too strong to let the truth enter into your thinking? Someone like Bill Gates creates thousands of jobs and is a real driver of the economy. A wino, on the other hand, is a leach that drags down the economy. Why do you want to reward the wino and punish Gates? What kind of system is that? Where is the fairness? i have no more use for the wino or druggie on skid row than you do. that's totally irrelevant though. we are not talking about winos or druggies, although, when it comes to voting, we do not count dollars as votes, thankfully. nonetheless, we are talking about the POOR laddie, which has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with winos or druggies
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 25, 2010 9:59:22 GMT
Well Jumbo, obviously you don't agree but I fail to understand why. Are you in denial as to the facts or is your liberal bias just too strong to let the truth enter into your thinking? Someone like Bill Gates creates thousands of jobs and is a real driver of the economy. A wino, on the other hand, is a leach that drags down the economy. Why do you want to reward the wino and punish Gates? What kind of system is that? Where is the fairness? Obviously a bloke like Gates has far more political influence than a wino. But when they stand in front of the ballot boxes their votes are worth the same. All men (and women) are born equal. Your views really are startling. not really startling. granted, das is a little more extreme, but his lunacy is just typical republican insanity. they will never let reality stand in the way of ideology
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 25, 2010 10:19:48 GMT
and to make his money gates requires the relatives of the wino and the druggie to work for him....its a circle gates may have the ideas..however gates requires the engineers....the chap on the production line....the sales man...the cleaners and the security guards to make his ideas into a reality...its all inter dependent...and the wino may have at one time been an employee..who knows gates isnt being punished far from it..he is left with more cash than he can spend....the chap who he pays peanuts to clean his pool however may need medical care....and should have acess to it..because its all the ...LITTLE.....men who enable gates and his family in the first place in our world today no man as shakespeare said..is an island
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 25, 2010 10:34:39 GMT
and to make his money gates requires the relatives of the wino and the druggie to work for him....its a circle gates may have the ideas..however gates requires the engineers....the chap on the production line....the sales man...the cleaners and the security guards to make his ideas into a reality...its all inter dependent...and the wino may have at one time been an employee..who knows gates isnt being punished far from it..he is left with more cash than he can spend....the chap who he pays peanuts to clean his pool however may need medical care....and should have acess to it..because its all the ...LITTLE.....men who enable gates and his family in the first place in our world today no man as shakespeare said..is an island And Gates already has more than one vote. Corporate power has massive influence in any government, much more influence than any community group or winos' votes, even if the winos vote in their thousands. Edit: Oops - that's what Riot has already said only she said it better. Damn.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 25, 2010 11:18:17 GMT
yes i know all that..one of my ancestors was in the group that forced the end of slavery... bloody good gene pool
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 25, 2010 12:04:06 GMT
and to make his money gates requires the relatives of the wino and the druggie to work for him....its a circle gates may have the ideas..however gates requires the engineers....the chap on the production line....the sales man...the cleaners and the security guards to make his ideas into a reality...its all inter dependent...and the wino may have at one time been an employee..who knows gates isnt being punished far from it..he is left with more cash than he can spend....the chap who he pays peanuts to clean his pool however may need medical care....and should have acess to it..because its all the ...LITTLE.....men who enable gates and his family in the first place in our world today no man as shakespeare said..is an island that's what das and the rest of the pro corporate lunatics aren't smart enough to comprehend. the simple, yet irrefutable FACT is that ALL business can operate without management, NO business can operate without labor. they pervert the capitalist idea into the exact opposite, and cheer the unfortunate fact that, instead of rewarding those who actually work, their capitalism does the exact opposite
|
|