twa Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 The irreversible consequences of Senate passage of a national health care bill http://andrightlyso.com/2009/12/24/the-irreversible-consequences-of-senate-passage-of-a-national-health-care-bill/#more-11883 Now that the Senate Democrats (and their fellow-traveler independents) have found their way to pass the current health care bill, we will have seen an historic event presaging the very end of the American experiment in a Constitutional federal republic comparable to the repeal of the 17th Amendment and other events that opened a hole in the Constitution to allow the growth of an all-powerful central government. Here is what is unprecedented: 1) Both houses of Congress have voted that to annex from states and individuals responsibility for and control of the provision of health care to every American citizen. This is a breathtaking expansion of the Federal government’s claims over the citizens and individuals that will irreversibly alter the balance of power between the Federal government and the states or people, putting a nail into the coffin of limited central government. Having reached a critical mass of power, there will be no limit to future expansions of federal power. In other words, Congress (in conjunction with the Executive Branch) have now laid claim to health care as its exclusive province. And as history demonstrates time and time again, once the Federal government accrues and arrogates power unto itself, it does not willingly surrender it back to the people (or states). The flow of power almost always runs towards greater centralization at an accelerating rate. Essentially we have now essentially rewritten the 10th Amendment to state all rights reside in the Federal government, except for those (ever diminishing) areas that the Federal government expressly deigns to not exercise at this time but leave in the hands of states or individuals – and they reserve the right to take control of those areas at any time. more @ link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 :mad: I think market forces will ultimately take care of this. People aren't going to want to work for a company that offers only a crappy plan. I know I wouldn't. Company plans are not necessarily cheaper but they do tend to be a better value because they have more comprehensive coverages and companies are able to pool their money together better than individuals. Although, one of the best aspects of this bill is it allows individuals to pool their money together thus making the individual markets cheaper than ever before. But not everyone will be eligible for the exchanges. Not sure what you are talking about here. The Healthcare reform bill provides subsidies for families who can't afford health insurance. If you think what they are doing now is not enough (schip) you should be in favor of this change. This will help your friends. I'm speechless :saber::saber: okay the market forces will take care of it just like wall street and if you are lucky individual markets will make it cheaper !!! Dream on buddy because that is a freakin lie!!! B.S. if you work your ass off and make more than the so called poor who will not work then all you are going to do is line there fruits even more and it makes me want to puke :mad: Another b.s. bill that punishes capitalism!!! I would love to see the government held accountable for every tax cent and dollar that it takes from the hard working American!!! Screw Obama !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 we have now essentially rewritten the 10th Amendment to state all rights reside in the Federal government, except for those (ever diminishing) areas that the Federal government expressly deigns to not exercise at this time but leave in the hands of states or individuals – and they reserve the right to take control of those areas at any time. This has been true for a long time. The health care bill isn't to blame. Its just a byproduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 This has been true for a long time. The health care bill isn't to blame. Its just a byproduct. Yep, you are correct. Those that doubt the slippery slope argument deserve what they get, This is simply a natural extension of federal control that began long ago. What I find ironic is that many that fear the effects of the Patriot act have embraced this much more invasive program and wish it went even further. All in good time citizen.:paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 ...... and this is only the little parts we know....... there are at least 2 things in there that are straight Unconstitutional? Quite a few other things that just outright bought the 10th Amendment from the Senator from that State, skipping the Governors.. Approx. 43% of the Cost is going to go to the State and that is going to be a couple billion they don't already have. Arguments that the Medicare savings would both extend Medicare’s solvency and help finance “new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings,” the CBO said. This looks A Lot like the VP of my company... he has the incoming equipment being used in 5 different projects ... You have to tone that down a bit for this not to be twice as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Does this bill come a jar of vasaline?? I really don't want this to be painful and I'm willing to share with my fellow ESer's I'm pretty sure Obama expects us to take it dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Should be interesting when it hits the house with more wanting equality;) under the law.:evilg: AG's from six states already perusing legal options http://www.khou.com/news/politics/Texas-AG-outraged-over-nebraska-tax-breaks-80007442.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYafhS4gQTw&feature=player_embedded 13 different democratic senators asked for their states to be exempt from Obamacare costs that will be piled on the individual states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 MORRIS: No gain, plenty of pain, on Day One http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/article_6ac87546-5839-503c-ba42-180257ad9138.html By DICK MORRIS | Posted: Friday, December 25, 2009 12:00 am Obama's health care bill, the poisoned Kool-Aid making its way through the Senate, will not confer any of its supposed benefits on Americans until 2013. But they will find themselves chafing at its restrictions and paying its taxes immediately after the law takes effect. This odd juxtaposition of "suffer now, benefit later" is the byproduct of the administration's sleight of hand in specifying 10 years' worth of cuts and taxes in the legislation, but deferring its benefits for the first four years. By comparing six years of spending with 10 years of taxing, it managed to appear deficit-neutral under the rules of the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the annual revenues fall far short of covering any single year's worth of spending, adding to the deficit for each of the last six years over the next 10 ---- but, viewing the decade as a whole, it appears deficit-neutral. Yet the political price is hardly neutral. Democrats who misguidedly vote for this monstrosity will face immediate political repercussions. The harshest of these backlashes will come from the elderly, who will face the rationing immediately. The first "no" will hit the 10 million elderly who now rely on Medicare Advantage to pay for the care Medicare itself does not cover. In a payoff to AARP, Obama gutted this program in his bill, ending over $100 billion in federal premium subsidies. These 10 million voters will get the grim news that their premiums are going up and their benefits dropping early in 2010. The goal, of course, is to force them to drop Medicare Advantage and sign up, instead, for Medi-gap insurance ---- offered, not coincidentally, by the AARP ---- which provides less coverage at higher cost. Young people without health insurance can expect to start writing $750 annual checks to Washington to pay the fines written into the bill. (And, after the Conference Committee finishes its work, the fines may be higher.) All Americans will soon find their insurance premiums rising as a result of the bill. The young uninsured will not buy policies. Why should they? Why not just pay the $750 fine each year? Why pay between 2 percent and 10 percent of their household income before subsidies kick in? It makes no financial sense for anyone making more than $30,000 to pay for coverage. (And most of those under that threshold will be covered by Medicaid, not by private insurance.) There is no reason for the young to buy private insurance. The legislation requires that health insurers take all comers and not raise rates based on pre-existing conditions. So the young can get coverage when they need it, having only paid $750 per year beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Ms Cleo says the old people are going to get hammered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Ms Cleo says the old people are going to get hammered. Dingy Harry and the Dems might as well be saying..."Yo geezers. I got your death panels RIGHT HERE!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 It makes no financial sense for anyone making more than $30,000 to pay for coverage. I'm pretty sure FOX news pays Dick Morris more than $30K a year, wonder if he follows his own advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Dingy Harry and the Dems might as well be saying..."Yo geezers. I got your death panels RIGHT HERE!" Exactly. Subsidized/optional end of life consulting is no different than a death panel. And Republicans would never advocate such a policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Exactly. Subsidized/optional end of life consulting is no different than a death panel. And Republicans would never advocate such a policy. Was thinking the dropping of their standard Advantage. And make them pay 100$ supplemental to AARP, making it 320$ a month give or take... Or the 500billion reduction in what exactly? Or the 40% increase in devices or the Increase in Drug costs sounds like cash death panel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Why is it that the Democrats are the most anti-democratic, and the Republicans are working hardest to destroy the Republic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Exactly. Subsidized/optional end of life consulting is no different than a death panel. And Republicans would never advocate such a policy. Rationing,cuts to funding and panels determining what is cost effective are another matter though. How about the loss of the legal right to challenge health procedures? What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare Changes to Medicare will give the feds control of surgical decisions. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574613992408387548.html Hays v. Sebelius involved a patient who said Medicare unfairly denied her a prescribed treatment for her serious lung disease. Medicare decided instead to pay for a different drug that bureaucrats argued was a suitable but cheaper alternative. Now the Obama team will use murky provisions embedded in the Senate bill to subtly attain in law those powers they couldn't more artfully acquire in court. In fact, the bill lets Medicare seek almost any restrictive payment authority it wants from a Medicare Commission established for the purposes of cost control. ... The Senate health-care bill also exempts Medicare's actions from judicial review, taking away the right of patients to sue the government. Unlike existing Medicare coverage laws, patients won't have the ability to appeal any of the decisions of this new Medicare Commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Why is it that the Democrats are the most anti-democratic, and the Republicans are working hardest to destroy the Republic? Democrats ran on a platform of healthcare reform. IIRC, they stomped the party that thinks heathcare is a priveledge. Doesn't get any more Democratic than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Democrats ran on a platform of healthcare reform. IIRC, they stomped the party that thinks heathcare is a priveledge. Doesn't get any more Democratic than that. They ran on many things With only 36% approving of this bill they are gonna get a lesson in democracy soon.:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Rationing,cuts to funding and panels determining what is cost effective are another matter though.How about the loss of the legal right to challenge health procedures? What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare Changes to Medicare will give the feds control of surgical decisions. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574613992408387548.html Hays v. Sebelius involved a patient who said Medicare unfairly denied her a prescribed treatment for her serious lung disease. Medicare decided instead to pay for a different drug that bureaucrats argued was a suitable but cheaper alternative. Now the Obama team will use murky provisions embedded in the Senate bill to subtly attain in law those powers they couldn't more artfully acquire in court. In fact, the bill lets Medicare seek almost any restrictive payment authority it wants from a Medicare Commission established for the purposes of cost control. ... The Senate health-care bill also exempts Medicare's actions from judicial review, taking away the right of patients to sue the government. Unlike existing Medicare coverage laws, patients won't have the ability to appeal any of the decisions of this new Medicare Commission. Yeah it sucks, but there is simply no way around some form of rationing. For this conversation to stay in the realm of reality, we should be talking about what kind of rationing is appropriate rather then scream "oh no, rationing!!!" I think relative effectiveness of treatments ought to be an important aspect of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Yeah it sucks, but there is simply no way around some form of rationing. For this conversation to stay in the realm of reality, we should be talking about what kind of rationing is appropriate rather then scream "oh no, rationing!!!" I think relative effectiveness of treatments ought to be an important aspect of this. I'm waiting to talk and ain't screamed yet. Isn't the plan I have proposed rationing? I think expanding options should be the most important aspect,as well as making healthcare affordable. added On relative effectiveness Once you have a loved one in critical need a personalized care plan vs a cookie cutter one geared to cost effectiveness seems rather lacking. This plan appears to impose that cookie cutter one by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Why is it that the Democrats are the most anti-democratic, and the Republicans are working hardest to destroy the Republic? Partisan is from the Latin for "partly sane." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Unlike existing Medicare coverage laws, patients won't have the ability to appeal any of the decisions of this new Medicare Commission. Would you trust ANYONE that said this to you upfront? the Anti-Guarantee is not what people seek, it's what people fight against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Unlike existing Medicare coverage laws, patients won't have the ability to appeal any of the decisions of this new Medicare Commission.Would you trust ANYONE that said this to you upfront? the Anti-Guarantee is not what people seek, it's what people fight against. Who was previously making those decisions? Politicians or Insurance providers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Who was previously making those decisions? Politicians or Insurance providers? Ins providers you can change to suit you....even those in company plans. You might also look at the higher rate of denial of claims by Medicare,and that is BEFORE 'reform' and it's new cuts and new committees. These committees are also in store for 'approved' public plans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Who was previously making those decisions? Politicians or Insurance providers? does it matter, at least you could sue for change over one.. For the people that get stuck in the government option: Take it or, take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.