Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 For the first time ever, our Fed Govt is forcing everyone to buy something. The argument is that the Constitution does not allow the Fed Govt to do this. Ergo, it is unconstitutional. That's a poor argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 When nothing seems different on election day, I wonder what those against will say has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 LOL! and here I thought you were complaining about the spin! You weave quite a yarn!!The only people who "stripped" the bill were the same ones who approved the bill. Yes, I told you from day one that the so-called "reforms" were nothing but garbage, yet you debated me everytime. Look closely at who was correct throughout this debate. Own it libs! It's 100% your mess!! Its actually 100% the mess of the very moderate blue dog dems, and Lieberman. Not the liberals who wanted a public option, antitrust exemption revocation, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I admit that I've only heard the word "unconstitutional" thrown around and have no idea what the basis is (which means I'm not able to make any comment about whether it is constitutional or not). I would be surprised if I was convinced it was unconstitutional, but if you provide links, I'd be interested in seeing what the hullabaloo is about. The argument is that they seem to be unable to find a clause in the Constitution which entitles the government to mandate that people spend their own money on something which the government thinks they ought to have. (Although I could see a counter-argument of "Would you prefer it if the government simply taxed everybody by that amount, and then the government spent the money buying insurance for you?") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The argument is that they seem to be unable to find a clause in the Constitution which entitles the government to mandate that people spend their own money on something which the government thinks they ought to have. (Although I could see a counter-argument of "Would you prefer it if the government simply taxed everybody by that amount, and then the government spent the money buying insurance for you?") Its pretty funny that people are claiming its unconstitutional when they were trying to introduce tort reform at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 No. And your post is neither inciteful nor helpful to the discussion. This is the kind of "loony tunes" stuff that distracts. :2cents:One more thing, I'm pretty sure the government could make smoking illegal. No they couldnt. They could ban the sale of cigarettes, but they cant make it illegal to smoke. The rest of your post is just the typical deny and deflect mode. How dare anyone question the motives of Obama. I must be racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 That's a poor argument. Maybe. But that's the argument Im hearing. The first part is true. The Fed Govt is forcing us to buy something. That's never happened before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Also the complaint on Bush is his healthcare bill of 2006 cost more than this one, and he didn't even attempt to pay for it. 100% of it was left off budget, and was borrowed. Worse it took the form of subsidies to large corporations and didn't ask for any meaningful concessions for those subsidies on the governments part. You're enough of a political regular that you should know that I have more complaints about Bush than I can count. I just picked the first budgetary one that came to my head. You think I liked Bush's Medicare plan? In the next ten years as a nation we will spend 35 trillion dollars on healthcare. This bill in it's entireaty accounts for less than 3% of that sum over that period.You are complaining that with a jury riged litmas test you can see 4-7% of that going to the deficit? Makes no sense.... Fact is Obama said deficite neutral over ten years, and he found a way to get the ultra conservative non partisan CBO to agree he accomplished that. Look, if you're gonna respond to me saying that using the "first ten years" measurement is moronic because that's not when the bill's spending becomes active by writing several paragraphs about how great the "first ten years" are, well, I'm not really sure what you hope to accomplish. Valid point, but I think you picked a poor example. Bush hid the costs of the war by claiming that they were zero. He (and the Republicans) hid the costs of his tax cuts by pretending that they would only last for a year or two (and then averaging those few years over 10 years). (And then claiming that anybody who didn't vote to make them permanent, later, was "raising taxes".) I think I may have written that poorly... I wasn't suggesting that this round of shenanigans is better than Bush's was. I pulled out that example because I knew that most of the partisan complaints would have been flip-flopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Its actually 100% the mess of the very moderate blue dog dems, and Lieberman. Not the liberals who wanted a public option, antitrust exemption revocation, etc. No sir! It's 100% owned by the left. Cant be debated. Those so called "blue dogs" are nothing but Libs who pretended to have some conservative values in order to get elected. The left had it's own congress and President in place, nothing is in place to stop them from passing whatever piece of crap they want to. And thats just what they did. As I said, Own it Libs, its all yours. You get your Christmas wish of being able to pretend your compatriots in congress did something valuable for America. Everyone that can use their brains to think knows better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Only all of us can, individually. Its certainly a judgment call.The point I'm trying to make is that the bill was not written by "evil" people trying to take over your freedom. The bill did get ****ed in the process of trying to help people though. Also, it does seem like premiums will fall, not rise, for most people. Maybe not everyone, but most. See politifact.com link above. I admit that I've only heard the word "unconstitutional" thrown around and have no idea what the basis is (which means I'm not able to make any comment about whether it is constitutional or not). I would be surprised if I was convinced it was unconstitutional, but if you provide links, I'd be interested in seeing what the hullabaloo is about. I don't consider them anymore evil than any politician,but good intentions do not translate into good laws nor policies. It does result in loss of freedom Every study I have seen shows my rates increasing,frankly I don't think ya'll are worth it. http://www.pointoflaw.com/columns/archives/2009/12/impermissible-ratemaking-in-he.php Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional By Richard A. Epstein http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm0049.cfm#_ftn49 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 No they couldnt. They could ban the sale of cigarettes, but they cant make it illegal to smoke. Technically, the government could probably at least attempt to ban all tobacco via the same method it used to create federal marijuana prohibition - claiming that the Interstate Commerce Cause grants the power to regulate against the potential for the price of an illegal substance to change in a neighboring state. Of course, there's a good chance that this would only lead the Supreme Court to strike down federal claims on both substances (and other illegal drugs), which is one of the many reasons it will never happen. Speaking of the Constitution, Tulane, why are you comparing mandated insurance to tort reform? I don't see how they would be related in a constitutional sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 You're enough of a political regular that you should know that I have more complaints about Bush than I can count. I just picked the first budgetary one that came to my head. You think I liked Bush's Medicare plan? I think you were quiet about them. I think all conservatives were quiet when their man was doing the spending. I think the entire cost argument of this healthcare plan is a red herring. Spending 3% of what the nation will spend on the market to reform the market is not high spending. Not that there aren't other things one can complain about on this bill. Look, if you're gonna respond to me saying that using the "first ten years" measurement is moronic because that's not when the bill's spending becomes active by writing several paragraphs about how great the "first ten years" are, well, I'm not really sure what you hope to accomplish. My point is the CBO's budget numbers are very very conservative. They are non partisan, and they don't have a crystal ball. If they can't see 100% of how something will save money, then it costs money. Most medical economic forcasters don't think their numbers are accurate. But that's really why the CBO exists. And the Dems got under that hurdle. Who knows what will occur in 10 years? but argueing over the possibility that 6% of the healthcare reform bill in it's total is 3% of the Healthcare costs of the country might end up on the deficite if you jurry riged the beginning dates of programs which are stagered doesn't seem like a very big concern to me. I think I may have written that poorly... I wasn't suggesting that this round of shenanigans is better than Bush's was. I pulled out that example because I knew that most of the partisan complaints would have been flip-flopped. I don't think the big complaints on Bush's healthcare "reform" was on cost. At least from the left. The big complaint was he asked for and was given an 8% roll back on perscription drug prices in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of subsidies. The drug companies raised perscription drug costs 12% in the year it took the bill to make it's way through congress so the roll back amounted to a 4% increase. More than double the rate of inflation in 2006. That was the big complaint from the left. He didn't get anything, he didn't really ask for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 No sir! It's 100% owned by the left. Cant be debated.. Thats silly. This bill is a total compromise. It's got huge concessions ot the insurance companies. I agree it's a 100% democratic owned bill. But it's not the lefts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Thats silly. This bill is a total compromise. It's got huge concessions ot the insurance companies. I agree it's a 100% democratic owned bill. But it's not the lefts. A compromise of the far left and the not so far left. This has ZERO GOP support. The fact that you on the left WANT people to think everyone is involved tells me how much you know its a piece of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Thats silly. This bill is a total compromise. It's got huge concessions ot the insurance companies. I agree it's a 100% democratic owned bill. But it's not the lefts. There is no difference between Dem and Left right now. Lets not keep up the pretense and illusion that the so called "blue dogs" are anything but libs in conservative districts. They showed their true colors for their constituents with this abandoning of their supposed "values" that we now know they never really had to begin with. This is 100% owned by the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I think you were quiet about them. I think all conservatives were quiet when their man was doing the spending. I think the entire cost argument of this healthcare plan is a red herring. Spending 3% of what the nation will spend on the market to reform the market is not high spending.Not that there aren't other things one can complain about on this bill. :secret: I preferred Obama over McCain, I didn't vote for Bush in 2004, and I am not a Republican nor a conservative, at least according to the modern definition of the word. My point is the CBO's budget numbers are very very conservative. They are non partisan, and they don't have a crystal ball. If they can't see 100% of how something will save money, then it costs money. Most medical economic forcasters don't think their numbers are accurate. But that's really why the CBO exists. And the Dems got under that hurdle.Who knows what will occur in 10 years? but argueing over the possibility that 6% of the healthcare reform bill in it's total is 3% of the Healthcare costs of the country might end up on the deficite if you jurry riged the beginning dates of programs which are stagered doesn't seem like a very big concern to me. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You can feel free to read my actual post about the "first ten years" thing if you want to explain why you think it was wrong. I don't think the big complaints on Bush's healthcare "reform" was on cost. At least from the left. The big complaint was he asked for and was given an 8% roll back on perscription drug prices in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of subsidies. The drug companies raised perscription drug costs 12% in the year it took the bill to make it's way through congress so the roll back amounted to a 4% increase. More than double the rate of inflation in 2006. That was the big complaint from the left. He didn't get anything, he didn't really ask for anything. Right, what you quoted was referring to Bush's Iraq war accounting shenanigans vs. the accounting shenanigans involved in the "first ten years" claim about this bill. There were plenty of good reasons to complain about Bush's Medicare plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Thats silly. This bill is a total compromise. It's got huge concessions ot the insurance companies. I agree it's a 100% democratic owned bill. But it's not the lefts. I just got dizzy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 There is no difference between Dem and Left right now. Lets not keep up the pretense and illusion that the so called "blue dogs" are anything but libs in conservative districts. They showed their true colors for their constituents with this abandoning of their supposed "values" that we now know they never really had to begin with.This is 100% owned by the left. In that case you can just say it's 100% owned by the Dems, and JMS probably won't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 from the CBO regarding Medicare "savings".. Own it Libs! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ackCRQU57HhY&pos=9 Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A By James Rowley and Nicole Gaouette Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Congressional Budget Office challenged claims by health-care overhaul proponents that Medicare savings in Senate legislation would help finance expanded coverage and postpone the bankruptcy of the medical program for the elderly. The nonpartisan agency said the $246 billion it projected the legislation would save Medicare can’t both finance new programs and help pay future expenses for elderly covered under the federal program. Nor could those savings be used to extend the solvency of Medicare, set to run out of money in 2017, the budget office said in a letter to Senate Republicans. “What we’ve seen is a colossal manipulation” by Democrats “of the accounting scores of CBO” and the independent actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, said Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the Republican who requested the analysis from CBO. He called the letter “a potential game-changer.” The estimated Medicare savings in the legislation overstate “the improvement in the government’s fiscal position,” the CBO said in the letter. “The true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs would be a good deal smaller,” the budget office said. more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 In that case you can just say it's 100% owned by the Dems, and JMS probably won't complain. I'd rather hear him gripe and try to spin this off to folks who arent responsible for this idiotic bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Own it Libs! You are talking about it as if it's already turned into a disaster... which, contrary to your perception, it has not (at least not yet heh). I, for one, take full responsibility for actions of this President and the Dem controlled Congress. If they mess up, I will fully acknowledge my mistakes. Just like you did for your vote in 2000 and 2004. However, as you can imagine, the full pleasure of rubbing somebody's nose in this stuff only comes after time proves you right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I don't care who owns it. Health care is a mess and this bill does nothing but add up the debt while prolonging the problems. I'm still collecting names for my march on the Capitol. I think I still need 499,950 to go. So there's room. They can't shoot us all! If you forget, the plan is to go into the Capitol, preferable during the state of the union with about half a mil, and toss every elected official into the Potomac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 When nothing seems different on election day, I wonder what those against will say has changed. I gotta admit that was what was really irritating about the last election. Of the two candidates one had a record of working in a non-partisan manner and one didn't. One had a record for trying to control spending and one didn't. But somehow the majority thought the one that did not work in a non-partisan manner and had no interest in controlling spending was the one who would change partisan politics and wasteful spending. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 You are talking about it as if it's already turned into a disaster... which, contrary to your perception, it has not (at least not yet heh).I, for one, take full responsibility for actions of this President and the Dem controlled Congress. If they mess up, I will fully acknowledge my mistakes. Just like you did for your vote in 2000 and 2004. However, as you can imagine, the full pleasure of rubbing somebody's nose in this stuff only comes after time proves you right. it will definitely be a disaster. Now, when you realize this as fact, like I did with my awful Bush votes, will you also reject the faulty thinking that you and they have engaged in all along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Maybe. But that's the argument Im hearing. The first part is true. The Fed Govt is forcing us to buy something. That's never happened before. That is false. You are not "forced" to buy health insurance under the house bill or the Senate bill. It will merely not help your tax status. By that standard I guess you are forced to have children, forced to not smoke, forced to buy a house and take out a mortgage, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.