No
No.
After the vote I hope to see some nifty photos of the naysayers here, kkent, teabaggers and Right Wingers spitting on each other in front of the White House.
Idea - yes. This plan - absolutely not. States are already getting killed right now and then you want to add an additional burden on them? Zokeseh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > 3. Pass a constitutional amendment forcing each > administration to balance their budget over a > period of 2 years. Similar to how some states must > do. > > The U.S. has ran a budget deficit for every year > since 1970 (except when Clinton Admin. balanced > the budget). There is a systemic issue with the > congressional expenditures that crosses every > party line. > > None of this will happen due to politics and I > foresee U.S. sovereign debt running into trouble > in the future if these things are not addressed. > > What do you guys think? Thatâs impossibleâŚthereâs too much lag in the system that it would be picking up the trash that the previous administration left - i.e. all healthcare aside, look at what Obama has had to deal with. Balanced budget in 2 years? No way. Besides cutting back on the defense budget, Clinton got pretty lucky due to the internet boom. He also left behind the mortgage mess - but Iâll limit the off topic to there.
Why would passage of the bill make us wrong in our opposition? JOE2010, you have successfully evaded responding to ALL of the issues with this bill, such as the fact that Medicareâs efficacy will be destroyed, the statesâ Medicaid programs will be bankrupted, and the red ink will run at the federal level due to lack of political palitability of Cadillac taxes on union insurance plans and draconian Medicare cuts not to mention the unconstitutionality of mandates to buy insurance.
No for the reason of little to no cost containment.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would passage of the bill make us wrong in our > opposition? JOE2010, you have successfully evaded > responding to ALL of the issues with this bill, > such as the fact that Medicareâs efficacy will be > destroyed, the statesâ Medicaid programs will be > bankrupted, and the red ink will run at the > federal level due to lack of political > palitability of Cadillac taxes on union insurance > plans and draconian Medicare cuts not to mention > the unconstitutionality of mandates to buy > insurance. All of the âpolitical palatableâ issues youâve described are being voted on later today. If you donât think they can stomach these rules then a new bill will have to be introduced to change the law. As for the Cadillac issue: thatâs been addressed with a compromise where these premium plans will have less tax than originally proposed and there will be an increase on taxes on those making 250k plus on investment income (forget the actually numbers but itâs in that neighborhood). Draconian Medicare Cuts: This is a straight cut to Medicare (all of the waste saving is bs). Anyone concerned about the deficit should approve this because itâs the first significant cut in the health care entitlement. Unlike Medicare part D which was a straight hand out with no measures in place to pay for it. Unconstitutionality: This is a joke similar to the unconstitutionality of paying income taxes. A few right-wing extreme groups will bring cases although they will most definitely lose. They might even get all the way to the Supremes but that would be to simply squash this issue once and for all. The fact is people wonât have to get insurance; itâs just that if you donât get insurance you have to pay a tax (2% of income) to accommodate for your actuarial impact on not having insurance in society. The bottom line is weâre at a place right now where someone who walks into a hospital with his arm sliced off is going to get it attached with or without insurance. ------ For the bill.
Against the bill. Doesnât address the issue of rising costs and Iâm convinced further government intervention will only worsen the rising costs. The only sector that has seen more government subsidization over the past 25 years than healthcare is higher education. Coincidently, the only sector that has seen costs increase at a faster rate over the past 25 years than healthcare isâŚyou guessed it, higher education.
team_alex: Am putting you down for a Yes. If you are a No, please post again. Score update: Yes=5 No=11
For the bill. Mainly because I donât want insurance companies to be permitted to deny you by reason of pre-existing condition. Everyone (more or less) should be able to buy health insurance.
This pole is pointless, who cares what anyone thinks about the bill. Letâs all realize that we are trying to predict the future here. No body here knows enough to make an informed statement as to what the future outcome of the bill will be. All you are doing is getting a tally of party representation, honestly. If someone can present me a 10 ten year forecast of outlay and receipt increases/decreases due to this bill each year then I will take back my statement (backed by verifiable research/data). @ packattack4, Youâre not reading what I wrote, thatâs not true because the previous administration would have had to balanced their budget; this would ensure that each administration comes in with a clean slate and balanced budget. The only âlagâ would be the first administration this is enacted under. Therefore, if this was enacted under OB, he would balance his budget in the next two years (this just means that the current overall budget deficit would stay the same); Iâm not sure what youâre missing.
LBriscoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why would passage of the bill make us wrong in > our > > opposition? JOE2010, you have successfully > evaded > > responding to ALL of the issues with this bill, > > such as the fact that Medicareâs efficacy will > be > > destroyed, the statesâ Medicaid programs will > be > > bankrupted, and the red ink will run at the > > federal level due to lack of political > > palitability of Cadillac taxes on union > insurance > > plans and draconian Medicare cuts not to > mention > > the unconstitutionality of mandates to buy > > insurance. > > > All of the âpolitical palatableâ issues youâve > described are being voted on later today. If you > donât think they can stomach these rules then a > new bill will have to be introduced to change the > law. > > As for the Cadillac issue: thatâs been addressed > with a compromise where these premium plans will > have less tax than originally proposed and there > will be an increase on taxes on those making 250k > plus on investment income (forget the actually > numbers but itâs in that neighborhood). > > Draconian Medicare Cuts: This is a straight cut > to Medicare (all of the waste saving is bs). > Anyone concerned about the deficit should approve > this because itâs the first significant cut in the > health care entitlement. Unlike Medicare part D > which was a straight hand out with no measures in > place to pay for it. > > Unconstitutionality: This is a joke similar to > the unconstitutionality of paying income taxes. A > few right-wing extreme groups will bring cases > although they will most definitely lose. They > might even get all the way to the Supremes but > that would be to simply squash this issue once and > for all. The fact is people wonât have to get > insurance; itâs just that if you donât get > insurance you have to pay a tax (2% of income) to > accommodate for your actuarial impact on not > having insurance in society. The bottom line is > weâre at a place right now where someone who walks > into a hospital with his arm sliced off is going > to get it attached with or without insurance. > > ------ > > For the bill. Youâre wrong. The political issues are NOT being voted on today because most of the meat of this bill is enacted AFTER the 2012 elections and the Cadillac tax will be implemented in 2018, AFTER Obama is out of office. Future Congresses WILL have to address these issues. I agree that I donât support the existence of a Medicare entitlement in the first place, but the issue here is that at least $200 billion toward paying for this bill is in what you correctly describe as bs Medicare savings. That means this is a deficit spending bill. But the true cuts to Medicare will be in reimbursements to hospitals and doctors, which will quit taking Medicare patients, meaning more people are going to be covered but that coverage is only on paperâthere wonât be a doctor who will see them! Unconstitutionality of this bill is NOT a joke. See this article here by a Georgetown professor of law: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Fringe right-wing groups are not going to be suingâitâs going to be the statesâdozens of states. My home state, the Commonwealth of Virginia, is ready to throw down immediately.
Fu¢k no. This bill is just another way for the govât to bring in some revenue so we can keep spending money to eternity. m
sid3699 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sublimity: Am putting you down for a Yes. If you > are a No, please post again. Please remove my âyesâ. : ) I donât know enough to say either way.
@ kkent, I could care less one way or another, this bill will not materially change my economic situation one way or the other, that being said. It is clear the states will lose if they go to the supreme court, look to the precedent of the June 2005 Supreme Court decision Raich v. Gonzales. This supreme court decision said that the federal government could prosecute individuals for marijuana use even in states where it was legal. This is a clear statement that federal law supercedes states laws/rights. If you disagree please point out one case of supreme judicial precedence where states laws/rights were regarded as superceding federal laws (please donât post an opinion article, do some critical analysis here). If you do, Iâll take back my comment.
Again, anyone who is saying the bill will decrease or increase the deficit in the long run should start their own psychic hotline. 1-CFA-PSYCHICâŚcall now operators are standing byâŚ
Zokesh, you clearly have zero understanding of the basis of the lawsuits. They are not in one way based upon state law superceding federal law. They are based upon the fact that federal law (federal mandate to purchase health insurance; federal law exempting one state from the cost of Medicaid) is unconstitutional. If the federal government passes unconstitutional laws, then states, individuals, or whoever has standing can sue. For example, McCain-Feingold (parts of it) were ruled unconstitutional when Citizens United sued the federal government for passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws restricting free speech. You are also wrong that the bill will not impact your economic situation. The bill raises the capital gains tax 3.5%, as well as at least 18 other tax increases. The American Enterprise Institute (a conservative organization) studied these tax increases and estimated that it will take away1+% of the GDP annually, which WILL impact you. In addition, the bill cuts Medicare reimbursements to doctors and places huge financial burdens on state Medicaid programs. There are only 2 possible mathematical scenarios: 1) doctors will quit taking Medicare and Medicaid patients OR 2) doctors and hospitals will charge private insurance companies more. The latter happened in California THIS YEAR when California drastically reduced reimbursements to doctors, which caused insurance premiums for some companies to rise 39%. So donât give me this bullsh*t that it wonât affect you. It just shows me that you havenât studied this bill AT ALL.
Look, half of my family are lawyers and my gf works on Capital Hill for a Senator; I think I have a little point of reference here. The unconstitutionality of the bill is related to the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: âThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.â Free speech is in the constitution, where in the constitution does it say it is unlawful or forbidden to mandate health care? This is directly related to the issue of whether or not federal law supercedes stateâs rights/laws. I didnât say, they couldnât sue, you obviously misread. I said they wonât win. If you can show me otherwise in the U.S. constitution, Iâll admit you are correct (I know, this will take some effort on your part, pasting an article wonât do). Please stop quoting reports that forecast the future; I work in budgeting/forecasting analysis on a daily basis. A forecast is a good as the day of the week, as far as Iâm concerned. You have no idea about my personal situation. When I say I will not be âmateriallyâ effected I know my own finances which you are not privy to. So donât try and talk to me about something you have no clue about.
The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. â On the individual mandate: Randy E. Barnett, Constitutional Law Professor, Georgetown University: âCan Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power âto regulate commerce . . . among the several states.â Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. Thatâs why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of âeconomicâ activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and thatâs how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance. But the individual mandate extends the commerce clauseâs power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying âcash for clunkersâ is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds. If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.â In summation, there is no precedent in American history where the federal government has had the right to force individuals to engage in an economic activity. Thus far, this is NOT part of the commerce clause. Since the federal govât was not delegated the right to regulate economic inactivity, only the states or the people have that right.
By the way, itâs âCapitol Hillâ and I worked for a congressman. Congrats.