c'mon simon, i usually stay out of discussions on politics, but i have to agree, it will affect us all, especially the middle to upper classOriginally Posted by simontibbett
c'mon simon, i usually stay out of discussions on politics, but i have to agree, it will affect us all, especially the middle to upper class
CANT STOP WHAT YOU CANT CATCH
:idb::boobies:I EAT PUSSY FOR REPS! LOL :boobies::idb:
I actually quoted something from the letter, not fox news.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB4000...813148208.html
http://www.torontosun.com/money/2010...23736-qmi.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...atestheadlines
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_505993.html
http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12173951
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archiv....html?t=recent
heres abc
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...upport-it.html
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/tr...ngress_100322/
Of course I own this.
IT PUTS THE OREOS ON THE RIM
About 15 days.. actually I listen to unbiased analysis and biased analysis of the bill, gives me a pretty good understanding of what's going on and a point of reference to look it up myself and say that "I know the bill." Do I know every facet of the bill? Of course not, too much legaleze in it but I have a pretty broad understanding in how it will be enacted, who it affects and how it affects the citizens as well as the funding behind it. I don't claim to be a political savant but this is my absolute interest, I study this stuff when most are drinking beer are watching sports.
Well, to update your knowledge, taxes and costs will be in affect in approx 6 months of the bill being signed today. Just so you know.
Of course I own this.
IT PUTS THE OREOS ON THE RIM
Don't you think that is a little prejudice...? I drink beer while watching sports and beating my wife...
Paul "your bullshit makes the flowers grow"
that's fine and all - but while others are beating their wife (lol paul), drinking beer, and watching sports...and you are studying politics without actually being a politic, how are ya'll different? both you and others are 'waisting time'. Maybe you should take all that time you did in learning about one bill and put it towards something that can actually help prevent socialism..
Like some of the New Deal legislation, this bill is very open to challenges on a number of Constitutional arguments.
First Amendment - with SCOTUS having just recently ruled that spending is an exercise of freedom of speech, the mandate to spend money for health care insurance is open to an argument that it is a violation of the right of free speech. In addition, there are religious groups that don't believe in modern health care, and so it will be also open to attack under the freedom of religion clause.
Fourth Amendment - Income tax was originally struck down because of the illegal seizure of property clause of the Fourth Amendment. It took the Sixteenth Amendment to give the federal government the power to directly tax people. This bill mandates spending (which is not the same as tax) and penalties for not spending. The illegal seizure of property article clearly applies.
Fifth Amendment - Penalties without due process = unconstitutional. And this bill calls for just that. Again, the 16th Amendment loophole used by the IRS regarding taxation does not apply.
Ninth and Tenth Amendments - regarding State and individual rights.
This will be interesting. I don't think it will take long to get in front of SCOTUS. If they rule against it on some of these issues (especially if they rule in accordance with the ruling that made income tax illegal), it will take a Constitutional Amendment to override.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
WELLL Tony?
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
Went and had lunch with the wife and just got back so excuse my absence. I'm reading/understanding your post instead of quickly reacting, I'll reply in a few.
Not a problem. Figured you had made your way to another thread, so I bumped it.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
Okay as I said earlier I am no lawyer and although my study is the basis for constitutional law I am in no way qualified to rebut anything you posted. I can only say this in my own opinion:
On the first amendment, with a stripped down interpretation of the first amendment in no way does this bill infringe on the right to freedom of speech. What you are referring to is the Supreme Court's ruling that Corporations are able to express their freedom of speech through campaign donations, this wouldn't be such a stretch if those donations were mandated. By this rationale the insurance that you are required to have on your vehicle would be unconstitutional as well even though they are placed at the state level, local governments would take them to court.
Fourth Amendment, I actually addressed this earlier this morning in a thread titled "State Rights." From my own understanding you are actually right, but then again the Constitution gives Congress the power to expand Commerce so the legislative process is well within their means to mandate coverage, and if the SCOTUS rules in favor of the states on this subject it opens the door for the mandates to be converted to a payroll tax much like Medicaid and Social security in turn opening the door for a European style healthcare system.
Tenth Amendment I'll leave to the experts, I don't feel I have a good enough grasp to go in depth with the discussion. My basic understanding goes back to Congress' ability to expand Congress and that if states truly were sovereign, there had to be a different outcome from the Civil War. Furthermore the Federal Government would not be able to enforce pollution standards or the Disabilities Act.
Fifth Amendment - Due process is the key term here, the mandates will not be implemented until 4 years when it has gone through a very thorough legislative shaping. Again this is just my own interpretation and not anything to be quoted but an infringement on due process would be immediate mandates without any rebuttal or scrutiny. Now if you go with a more broad definition of Due Process of just how "fair" is the mandate then that is subject to the courts.
I'm not speaking of corporate donations. Also, what about religions? As I said some modern religions do not believe in modern medicine, so to force them to pay for it is a violation of the amendment.
Possibly.. but I'll stick to my guns on this one.
9th and 10th stay firm as well.
In this instance due process is for judges instead of legislators to define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. So without this due process, without SCOTUS approving this bill, it is unconstitutional.
Fifth Amendment may apply because of the "Eminent Domain", or 'Takings' clause in the last section of it. I.e. no just compensation for taking health care plans from citizens who want their plan, not the government's.
14th amendment challenge, since this bill effects people differently based on income discrimination and not a flat percentage or fee. The government is not providing for equal protection under the new law. The most interesting challenge I've heard mentioned however is the limits of the government to control or regulate interstate commerce. To do business in any state, an agent or underwriter must be licensed in that state. The business is strictly intrastate and thusly cannot be reasonably regulated by any federal code.
Last edited by xxbckiexx; 03-23-2010 at 02:11 PM.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
Technically, they are not receiving modern medical services - they can still refuse, as their religion states. Their religion does not state that they cannot pay for medical insurance - and even if it did - technically, the fine that they could pay instead goes to the general budget funding, so they technically would still not violate their religious beliefs. So it would not be a violation.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Actually, technically, they are paying for a service in which they do not use. A medical service in which they do not believe in. So technically, it violates their rights. TECHNICALLY. If you want to get TECHNICAL.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
But the Supreme Court ruling pertained to Corporate Donations in terms of spending being an extension of freedom of speech. As far as religion, choice of religion doesn't exempt you from taxes, nor will it exempt you from a draft or any other federal imposed law.
If the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional it then yeah, the whole bill is nullified.
Catepillar employees get employee discount at Walgreens so no worries!
i dont know much on this subject so ill sit and watch...
This will be factored separately from taxes. Taxes are taxes, this is a completely separate entity which adds unwanted/needed cost for the specific purpose of receiving modern medical care.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
And that reaches the end of my knowledge on the constitution in this sense. I have never seen a commerce mandate done or implemented so it will be interesting to see. I will say that the implementation of this mandate is kind of a stab in the back Hillary Clinton, during the primaries Obama beat Hillary partly because he stated that his plan did not have a government mandate while Hillary's did, now look at where we are at.
Yes sir. One of the reasons I've never supported Obama is because he's very wishy washy. Everything he's said he wasn't going to do, or is going to do, has been the opposite. And it was that way during election. Not saying all politicians don't lie.. but he's been 100% full of shit, instead of 50-75. lol.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
Wrong. It would be a fine for not getting insurance. The fine would go to the federal budget, and would not be separated or earmarked. They would not be paying for the medical service, rather they would be paying a fine for not getting insurance.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
A fine associated with not paying for the medical service which they do not use, believe in, and is against their religion. Is it me, or do you just not understand basic logic? Doesn't matter what way you spin it, it's not right. It's not constitutional, and you are wrong.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
my bro works there too.. lolololol
And this is relevant because...?
its not its fucking random as hell to lighten the situation, i am so sick of hearing about this... thought itd throw the intensity off and poke fun... idk ha
this is a serious discussion among men. you do not belong. back to the sammiches. me and tony are hungry from being geniuses.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
fine back to the kitchen i go !
Will you concede that this was NOT THE PROMISE Obama made during his campaign. This is not CHANGE if the same "washington politics" is being used. I thought this was supposed to be CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN, and CHANGING THE POLITICS OF OLD, and CHANGING WASHINGTON. What happened to all that? Instead the democrats did business as usual, except this time it was on a much larger scale than anything we have ever seen before. Ive said it MULTIPLE TIMES, they BRIBED people for votes, they brokered shady backdoor deals, they completely ignored their constituents IMO (although that will have to wait until november to be proven), and if the replublicans did it this way i would be saying the EXACT SAME THING. How did they pass this bill? They didnt do it the way our founders intended, they used a loophole, which yes has been used before, to pass something that is 15-20% of our economy. That in itself is wrong IMO
I agree 100000% , we are all paying for it SOMEHOW SOMEWAY under the current system. If you have insurance, you pay for people that dont already as that is built into your plan. We do not refuse medical care in the USA even if you are dead broke. However, no one is saying that we shouldnt fix this current system. I watch Rachel Maddows show last night just cause i like to watch the other side sometimes. Holy shit what a bunch of lies she was spreading saying "the republicans want to repeal this act and reinstate the current system that allows THEIR insurance companies to run things. They want people to die and go broke" That is totally FALSE. No one has EVER SAID THAT.My number one question that I have for people that want to quote increased taxes and cost of the bill, how do you think uninsured individuals have their medical bills paid under the current system? They obviously don't pay for it, the taxpayers do and yet the individuals incur a mountain of medical bills that they will never pay off. So whether we admit it or not under the current system taxpayers still pay medical bills for citizens and Illegal Immigrants.
I beleive it is an ECONOMIC ISSUE, meaning we need to find ways to LOWER COST so people can AFFORD IT. Offer Tax Credits to businesses to give them incentive to provide a healthcare plan, im all for EMERGENCY CATASTROPHIC insurance for people so they can handle the big ticket items. There were ways of expanding coverage reasonably and easily without the govt takeover. There were ways to attack this without allowing the Govt to now dictate to the insurance companies what they can charge. I mean you realize that now an insurance company must burden the SAME COST as well as cover MORE people for LESS money right? In what economic world does that WORK?
As i have said 10029309023920 times medical care is not expensive. What do we deal with most? UTIs, strep throat, FLU, colds, sprains, broken bones , etc. Most colds, infections, sprains can be handled my RNs or NP at clinics often for prices LESS THAN $100. We needed to expand the RN and NP to deal with the easy stuff. I mean if you get cancer without insurance or a broken leg ,yes its incredibly expensive and we should have attacked ways to deal with that issue. But just blanket covering everyone doesnt solve it IMO
I agree with you on this actually. I agree that Catepillar in the scheme of things is a relatively small percentage of the uninsured. But how many other companies are going to go through with this? What if all major industries as we know it see these kind of cost increases?I said what I did about being Catepillar employees because Catepillar employs maybe 100,000 individuals, shareholders are about 40,000 and stakeholders I don't know, we'll be generous and say 400,000-500,000.. There are over 30 million uninsured individuals, furthermore the job of elected officials is to do the good of the people, not the good of the Corporation, but that comment is based more on ideology. If you are a corporatist of course you would disagree.
My question to you is if these fortune 500 companies start seeing these kinds of cost increases, is it worth proving healthcare? How do you think they will recoupe these costs? Prudence demands a man of your intellect to know that either they will LAY PEOPLE OFF or they will RAISE THEIR PRICES, or they will FREEZE HIRING/WAGES.
SO like ive said all along you will have your healthcare at the expense of your job because this bill doesnt attack the ROOT causes of COST and why people cant afford it.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
oh and mark my words, 10-12 million of the people out of the 3X Million uninsured are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Next up will be Obama and Congress offering amnesty to all illegals in a power play to solidify 10-12 million more votes to their camp.
it all makes sense now. What do they care as long as they can replace the 8-10million independent votes Obama gained last election. if they can pull 10-12million illegals to their side, polls mean nothing. AS long as Obama can hover around 50% approval and hover around 48-52% approval on certain policies, the illegals votes will put him over the top.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Do you not understad that their religious beliefs are on not receiving modern medical care? It has nothing to do with how it is funded. It could be free, and they would not want it based upon their beliefs.
Paying fines or taxes is not against their religious beliefs. You do not hear them say that paying payroll taxes that fund Medicare are unconstitutional.
I don't have to spin anything. You are wrong, and cannot admit it.
As for the constitutionality, that will be judged by the courts and is a completely separate matter.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Illegals already get free medical care on US taxpayers dime. This bill will not change that.
Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available.
Sutter Solano Medical Center Chief Executive Terry Glubka wasn't looking to enter the immigration debate when she started lobbying for a clinic in 2006. She was trying to balance her hospital's budget. Between 2000 and 2006, Solano County saw a 13.1% increase in total emergency-room visits, more than twice the state average. Nearly 80% of the visits weren't urgent.
During 2006, the hospital had to write off $12 million in "charity care" -- or services provided to low-income patients who couldn't pay their bills. The charity helped create a $4 million budget shortfall that year. "They were getting the most-expensive care for what should be treated in a primary-care facility," Ms. Glubka says.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
i didnt meant to insinuate that they werent receiving coverage already because like you said, and like i previously said, in the USA we do not refuse care at the ER or at most hospitals. The hospitals provide care to tons of people who cant afford to pay for the service, and ultimately that winds up in our premiums as an embedded cost.
BUt this bill will however extend normal medical coverage to illegal immigrants, or they will grant amnesty to them so they become "citizens". SO i guess the process now is if you are illegal you cant really "work" for a company and be provided healthcare for fear of being caught or found. So right now i think its a catch 22, this bill DOESNT provide them anymore care than they already receive so technically they wont be "covered" although i dont know why the democrats include them in the "30 million uninsured" numbers. But if they provide them amnesty, then they will be allowed to be legally hired and companies , like all other citizens will be required to provide them care.
am i right?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Just saw this thread so I am a little late on this.
You couldnt be more wrong. Driving is a privilege the state extends to its citizens that meet specific requirements. One of those requirements is that you carry suitable insurance on your vehicles. You can easily avoid having to pay car insurance by not owning a vehicle. The mandate on health insurance is different as there is no privilege that is being extended with valid health insurance being a condition to be met before that privilege is undertaken.
Nov is around the corner..
I think all sides make valid points..
But... this is not the end... ONE WORLD ORDER ... SOON !!
that would be you my friend.
Way Too Big
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) Riveting tale, chap.
The entire system is broken, we are watching a game of three card Monty. While it's easy to oppose Obama's plan (and rightfully so), where were all the plans the Republicans have now to "fix" healthcare in the past? It wasn't even on their radar screen. In the end, the Congressman and Senators on both sides have the same goal...
To stay in power.
As Reagan said "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
and
"The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away."
I think half of the complaining from people is due to their OWN personal life, quit thinking about just yourself.
So are you saying this is strickly an isolated situation? While I don't have enough information to determine the total effect, I do see this creating problems for several companies. This worries me.
I think that something this important should warrant more thought. It should not be railed through just so a president, who has been loosing support of the people, can claim he made good on a campain promise
Rich...Bob...Stan...?????
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
JDMbabe
