View Full Version : The Health-Care Backlash
Warrior-Mentor
12-22-2009, 12:35
The Health-Care Backlash
Peter Wehner
12.21.2009 - 3:07 PM
Here are some thoughts on where things stand in the aftermath of the certain passage of the Senate health-care bill.
1. Few Democrats understand the depth and intensity of opposition that exists toward them and their agenda, especially regarding health care. Passage of this bill will only heighten the depth and intensity of the opposition. We’re seeing a political tsunami in the making, and passage of health-care legislation would only add to its size and force.
2. This health-care bill may well be historic, but not in the way the president thinks. I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything quite like it: passage of a mammoth piece of legislation, hugely expensive and unpopular, on a strict party-line vote taken in a rush of panic because Democrats know that the more people see of ObamaCare, the less they like it.
3. The problem isn’t simply with how substantively awful the bill is but how deeply dishonest and (legally) corrupt the whole process has been. There’s already a powerful populist, anti-Washington sentiment out there, perhaps as strong as anything we’ve seen. This will add kerosene to that raging fire.
4. Democrats have sold this bill as a miracle-worker; when people see first-hand how pernicious health-care legislation will be, abstract concerns will become concrete. That will magnify the unhappiness of the polity.
5. The collateral damage to Obama from this bill is enormous. More than any candidate in our lifetime, Obama won based on the aesthetics of politics. It wasn’t because of his record; he barely had one. And it wasn’t because of his command of policy; few people knew what his top three policy priorities were. It was based instead on the sense that he was something novel, the embodiment of a “new politics” – matured, high-minded and gracious, intellectually serious. That was the core of his speeches and his candidacy. In less than a year, that core has been devoured, most of all by this health-care process.
Mr. Obama has shown himself to be a deeply partisan and polarizing figure. (“I have never been asked to engage in a single serious negotiation on any issue, nor has any other Republican,” Senator McCain reported over the weekend.) The lack of transparency in this process has been unprecedented and bordering on criminal. The president has been deeply misleading in selling this plan. Lobbyists, a bane of Obama during the campaign, are having a field day.
President Obama may succeed in passing a terribly unpopular piece of legislation – but in the process, he has shattered his carefully cultivated image. It now consists of a thousand shards.
6. This health-care bill shouldn’t be seen in isolation. It’s part of a train of events that include the stimulus package, the omnibus spending bill (complete with some 8,500 earmarks), and a record-sized budget. In addition, as Jim Manzi points out in the new issue of National Affairs:
[Under Obama] the federal government has also intervened aggressively in both the financial and industrial sectors of the economy in order to produce specific desired outcomes for particular corporations. It has nationalized America’s largest auto company (General Motors) and intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings of the third-largest auto company (Chrysler), privileging labor unions at the expense of bondholders. It has, in effect, nationalized what was America’s largest insurance company (American International Group) and largest bank (Citigroup), and appears to have exerted extra-legal financial pressure on what was the second-largest bank (Bank of America) to get it to purchase the *country’s largest securities company (Merrill Lynch). The implicit government guarantees provided to home-loan giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been called in, and the federal government is now the largest de facto lender in the residential real-estate market. The government has selected the CEOs and is setting compensation at major automotive and financial companies across the country. On top of these interventions in finance and commerce, the administration and congressional Democrats are also pursuing both a new climate and energy strategy and large-scale health-care reform. Their agenda would place the government at the center of these two huge sectors of the economy…
Together, these actions tell quite a tale. Mr. Obama has revived the worst impressions of the Democratic party – profligate and undisciplined, arrogant, lovers of big government, increasers of taxes. The issues and narrative for American politics in the foreseeable future has been set — limited government versus exploding government, capitalism versus European style socialism, responsible and measured policies versus reckless and radical ones.
Barack Obama is in the process of inflicting enormous damage to his presidency and his party. And there is more, much more to come...
SOURCE:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/202662
Obama's antics have done severe damage in the tax payers eyes, but if they pass immigration reform the Dem's may produce enough new loyal voters to make it through the fire that awaits in 2010.
And say as expected the Dem's get thrown to the curb, how long is it going to take to undo all that has been done? Is it even possible considering Obama has Veto power?
In my mind we're in for one big shit sandwich no matter what.
Is the bill anywhere we can look at it? My bet is not, and that the full vote will be called, and the bill will not have been available to even the Senate for them to read before voting.
And can anyone explain to me that if overhauling the Health Care system is SOOOOOOOO important, why does it not take effect until 2014????
dadof18x'er
12-22-2009, 15:32
The Health-Care Backlash
Peter Wehner
12.21.2009 - 3:07 PM
Here are some thoughts on where things stand in the aftermath of the certain passage of the Senate health-care bill.
1. Few Democrats understand the depth and intensity of opposition that exists toward them and their agenda, especially regarding health care. Passage of this bill will only heighten the depth and intensity of the opposition. We’re seeing a political tsunami in the making, and passage of health-care legislation would only add to its size and force.
2. This health-care bill may well be historic, but not in the way the president thinks. I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything quite like it: passage of a mammoth piece of legislation, hugely expensive and unpopular, on a strict party-line vote taken in a rush of panic because Democrats know that the more people see of ObamaCare, the less they like it.
3. The problem isn’t simply with how substantively awful the bill is but how deeply dishonest and (legally) corrupt the whole process has been. There’s already a powerful populist, anti-Washington sentiment out there, perhaps as strong as anything we’ve seen. This will add kerosene to that raging fire.
4. Democrats have sold this bill as a miracle-worker; when people see first-hand how pernicious health-care legislation will be, abstract concerns will become concrete. That will magnify the unhappiness of the polity.
5. The collateral damage to Obama from this bill is enormous. More than any candidate in our lifetime, Obama won based on the aesthetics of politics. It wasn’t because of his record; he barely had one. And it wasn’t because of his command of policy; few people knew what his top three policy priorities were. It was based instead on the sense that he was something novel, the embodiment of a “new politics” – matured, high-minded and gracious, intellectually serious. That was the core of his speeches and his candidacy. In less than a year, that core has been devoured, most of all by this health-care process.
Mr. Obama has shown himself to be a deeply partisan and polarizing figure. (“I have never been asked to engage in a single serious negotiation on any issue, nor has any other Republican,” Senator McCain reported over the weekend.) The lack of transparency in this process has been unprecedented and bordering on criminal. The president has been deeply misleading in selling this plan. Lobbyists, a bane of Obama during the campaign, are having a field day.
President Obama may succeed in passing a terribly unpopular piece of legislation – but in the process, he has shattered his carefully cultivated image. It now consists of a thousand shards.
6. This health-care bill shouldn’t be seen in isolation. It’s part of a train of events that include the stimulus package, the omnibus spending bill (complete with some 8,500 earmarks), and a record-sized budget. In addition, as Jim Manzi points out in the new issue of National Affairs:
Together, these actions tell quite a tale. Mr. Obama has revived the worst impressions of the Democratic party – profligate and undisciplined, arrogant, lovers of big government, increasers of taxes. The issues and narrative for American politics in the foreseeable future has been set — limited government versus exploding government, capitalism versus European style socialism, responsible and measured policies versus reckless and radical ones.
Barack Obama is in the process of inflicting enormous damage to his presidency and his party. And there is more, much more to come...
SOURCE:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/202662
How much of this can be undone after these fools all commit political suicide?
Is it even possible considering Obama has Veto power?
Yes. A two-thirds majority will pass the bill into law after vetoed.
TOMAHAWK9521
12-22-2009, 16:25
How much of this can be undone after there fools all commit political suicide?
That's the problem. The liberals are so fanatical about their agenda they don't care about their political careers as long as their life long goals to transform America are brought to fruition. One might compare them to Al Qaeda or any one of the Islamo-fascist organization. Well, their actions are definitely fascist and they are radical zealots for their ideology.
How much of this can be undone after there fools all commit political suicide?
Can-all. Will-? Is this enough to get the nation off its collective ass? I doubt it, but I don't count for much.
Yes. A two-thirds majority will pass the bill into law after vetoed.
Too much wrangling and formality involved for my palette...
Is the bill anywhere we can look at it?
Here's the bill for the cryppies out there (this MUST be written in code or something).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:
Where is this talk of a veto coming from? The Dims have the votes to put His desk and then bam: we'll all be paying taxes for something that doesn't even go into effect for another 4 years.
Obamacare BOHICA. Merry Christmas. Oh, Congress will also raise the deficit ceiling so your dollar will be worth even less. Nice.
Where is this talk of a veto coming from?
Hope for the future. Same as the zombies, emp, and rocks falling.
Here's the bill for the cryppies out there (this MUST be written in code or something).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:
Where is this talk of a veto coming from? The Dims have the votes to put His desk and then bam: we'll all be paying taxes for something that doesn't even go into effect for another 4 years.
Obamacare BOHICA. Merry Christmas. Oh, Congress will also raise the deficit ceiling so your dollar will be worth even less. Nice.
'IF' the Dems get thrown out, B-HO will still have the ability to slow any reversal through his Veto until 2012. In addition SCOTUS and all the other Courts will be swamped from both sides of the fence crying foul.
And while all that goes on, it is likely nothing will be accomplished, the new body will look like fools and will be ousted in the next election......and the process repeats itself.
There will be no quick and easy way out of this tangled mess.....at least in the accepted law abiding sense of things.
However reversal could happen quickly if people like Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Frank, Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman and the Elite scum were rounded up for treason and sedition, and then quickly taken to the nearest tree of justice.....but then you might be categorized in the same light as Pol Pot depending on who is writing the history books after such a purge.
While driving home listening to AM 580, people were calling in asking these same sorts of questions. One guy even asked what the penalty would be if roughly 30% of Americans who opposed to the bill didn't pay the tax. People are now getting desperate and the divide is now very apparent.
I found myself thinking about the line in the film "The Patriot": "Why would I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?"
Will the Tea-party gain more speed? Will the Republicans win majority in Congress?
Will crime rates increase as people become more financially desperate? Will someone assassinate the POTUS? These are all topics I hear discussion on just about every day.
Historic time? You betcha.
Careful Costa...INTERPOL is watching you. :eek:
While the dems are making a lot of enemies, the American people have a history of forgetting. As mad as everyone was in August about death panels you barely hear talk about it now. If congressional elections were held August '09 then a lot of conservative dems would've been home before Thanksgiving for good. However, time will cause many to forget.
One reason the bill is soooo important to pass? So that there's time between it's passing and congressional elections to be forgotten in part. The Senate's makeup, given the current situations, will not change in Nov of '10. If the dems can get health care done soon then they will lose seats in the house, but might just survive with a slim majority.
Why? Because those that elected Obama still love him though maybe a little less. Those same voters are going to go back to the polls to keep dems in power if but barely. Of course the moderates are key. With a water-down health bill they may stomach voting for a dem once more mainly because of the repubs lack of ideas.
Unless the repubs decide to start giving alternate ideas they will continue being seen as "the party off no." Obama's goals may energize the repub base, but they will fail to secure a majority if they can't convince the moderates they have good legislation of their own.
GratefulCitizen
12-22-2009, 20:17
Falling back to the next line of defense:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1R/proposed/H.HCR2014NB.pdf
Time to test the 10th amendment.
Whatever happened to the real ID act? :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
12-22-2009, 20:30
Here's the bill for the cryppies out there (this MUST be written in code or something).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:
Where is this talk of a veto coming from? The Dims have the votes to put His desk and then bam: we'll all be paying taxes for something that doesn't even go into effect for another 4 years.
Obamacare BOHICA. Merry Christmas. Oh, Congress will also raise the deficit ceiling so your dollar will be worth even less. Nice.
Bum link. Found a good link on the C-Span page now here:
http://www.c-span.org/
Can also go to the Library of Congress home page and search for HR3590
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/111search.html
How did YOUR Senator vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00385) to invoke cloture?
FYI...both Maryland Senators voted yea. I know you're as shocked as I am.
Personally, I hope the board members from Nebraska vote this guy out of office ASAP.
Below is from the Washington Post.
For Sale: One senator (D-Neb.) No principles, low price.
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, December 23, 2009; A19
Sometimes there is a fine ethical line between legislative maneuvering and bribery. At other times, that line is crossed by a speeding, honking tractor-trailer, with outlines of shapely women on mud flaps bouncing as it rumbles past.
Such was the case in the final hours of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's successful attempt to get cloture on health-care reform. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the last Democratic holdout, was offered and accepted a permanent exemption from his state's share of Medicaid expansion, amounting to $100 million over 10 years.
Afterward, Reid was unapologetic. "You'll find," he said, "a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That's what legislating is all about."
But legislating, presumably, is also about giving public reasons for the expenditure of public funds. Are Cornhuskers particularly sickly and fragile? Is there a malaria outbreak in Grand Island? Ebola detected in Lincoln?
Reid didn't even attempt to offer a reason why Medicaid in Nebraska should be treated differently from, say, Medicaid across the Missouri River in Iowa. The majority leader bought a vote with someone else's money. Does this conclusion sound harsh? Listen to Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who accused the Senate leadership and the administration of "backroom deals that amount to bribes" and "seedy Chicago politics" that "personifies the worst of Washington."
This special deal for Nebraska raises an immediate question: Why doesn't every Democratic senator demand the same treatment for his or her state? Eventually, they will. After the Nelson deal was announced, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa enthused, "When you look at it, I thought well, God, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100 percent (coverage by the federal government). So he might have done all of us a favor." In a single concession, Reid undermined the theory of Medicaid -- designed as a shared burden between states and the federal government -- and added to future federal deficits.
Unless this little sweetener is stripped from the final bill by a House-Senate conference committee in January, which would leave Nelson with a choice. He could enrage his party by blocking health reform for the sake of $100 million -- making the narrowness of his interests clear to everyone. Or he could give in -- looking not only venal but also foolish.
How did Nelson gain such leverage in the legislative process in the first place? Because many assumed that his objections to abortion coverage in the health bill were serious -- not a cover, but a conviction. Even though Nelson, a rare pro-life Democrat, joked in an interview that he might be considered a "cheap date," Republican leadership staffers in the Senate thought he might insist on language in the health-care bill preventing public funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, as Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak had done in the House.
Instead, Nelson caved. The "compromise" he accepted allows states to prohibit the coverage of elective abortions in their insurance exchanges. Which means that Nebraska taxpayers may not be forced to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions in Nebraska. But they will certainly be required to subsidize such plans in California, New York and many other states.
In the end, Nelson not only surrendered his beliefs, he also betrayed the principle of the Hyde Amendment, which since 1976 has prevented the coverage of elective abortion in federally funded insurance. Nelson not only violated his pro-life convictions, he also may force millions of Americans to violate theirs as well.
I can respect those who are pro-life out of conviction and those who are pro-choice out of conviction. It is more difficult to respect politicians willing to use their deepest beliefs -- and the deepest beliefs of others -- as bargaining chips.
In a single evening, Nelson managed to undermine the logic of Medicaid, abandon three decades of protections under the Hyde Amendment and increase the public stock of cynicism. For what? For the sake of legislation that greatly expands a health entitlement without reforming the health system; that siphons hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare instead of using that money to reform Medicare; that imposes seven taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 a year, (Lindy Comment: does this affect anyone here?) in direct violation of a presidential pledge; that employs Enron-style accounting methods to inflate future cost savings; that pretends to tame the insurance companies while making insurance companies the largest beneficiaries of reform.
And, yes, for $100 million. It is the cheap date equivalent of Taco Bell.
mgerson@globalengage.org
Defender968
12-23-2009, 10:28
However, time will cause many to forget.
I would agree with you here, but only if things get better or remain the same, with the current level of spending, and the 2nd and 3rd order effects of this type of Bill (I can't say this bill as I haven't been able to read it, I did read much of the first one but this one has changed) our healthcare system WILL deteriorate and that negative stimuli will continue to build until there is some sort of resolution, most likely by voting many Dims out.
The Senate's makeup, given the current situations, will not change in Nov of '10. If the dems can get health care done soon then they will lose seats in the house, but might just survive with a slim majority.
Why? Because those that elected Obama still love him though maybe a little less. Those same voters are going to go back to the polls to keep dems in power if but barely.
Your premise here is that all the same people who voted him in will all show up at the midterm elections, I would argue he has a very loyal following, but they are the minority of who got him elected. He got elected though a very clever marketing scheme which I don't think he will be able to repeat, not to mention the reality is if you look at the history of midterm elections there is simply not be the same turn out as for primary elections, the 2010 midterm will be no different, many of the folks that showed up and voted straight ticket to get the one and many Dims in office simply don't care enough about what's going on to actually turn out in 2010. Further much of his base is getting disillusioned because he's not making good on his most left promises, so they will not come out as strong as they did to get him elected, which means the center right nature of this country will likely win out and the Repubs will pick up some seats and hopefully restore some balance.
Unless the repubs decide to start giving alternate ideas they will continue being seen as "the party off no." Obama's goals may energize the repub base, but they will fail to secure a majority if they can't convince the moderates they have good legislation of their own.
At this point, many "moderates" are getting buyer’s remorse, as shown by the presidents plummeting poll numbers, they're going to be looking for change again in 2010 as they bought into this change and it isn't panning out so well, I would bet they'll be shopping for more change in the future.
Ultimately there are many variables in this equation, and IMHO if they pass this healthcare bill it won't matter what happens in 2010, there will be no undoing it because there will not be enough votes to overturn the VETO even after 2010, which means all of this damage will in fact be permanent, and we will be securely on the road to national bankruptcy, depending of course on what exactly is in the bill.
I hope I'm wrong, but personally I'm preparing for if I'm right.
armymom1228
12-23-2009, 11:24
Defender, it is my understanding from watching both CNN AND Foxnews that this whole mess won't take effect immediately. Yeah, yeah, I know CNN is far to the left. I like to know what the other side of the coin looks like.
There have been comments from Fox especially that there will be legal action taken to prevent some of the most onerous stuff from being enacted. There is no provision in the constitution to force people to aquire something they have no extra money to pay for. Saying, "we will give you a tax refund" is great. But people have to have the $$ up front.
How will the government 'enroll' people. One comment had them using the tax rolls. So how will they find people 'off the grid'? Say, like me, my trust income is not taxable. I don't file taxes so...... It will create, like real ID would have, a whole sector of 2nd tier citizens who won't get medical care period because they could not afford insurance, therefore, to avoid getting fined they simply will find docs willing to treat them for cash,"under the table"? or do without period?
One point those Senators forget is that docs are not compelled to take insurance.
The dermatologist I go to, will not take medicare, medicaid,and some insurance company's because of thier record of payment or the hassle of dealing with them.
Medicare and medicaid typically are 6 mos behind in getting payments to the payees.
There is, already, a grassroots movement to dump Bill Nelson in Florida. I was contacted yesterday by a friend who knows how I feel about this whole issue.
At the moment if Betty Boop were to run against him, I would vote for her. He doesn't listen to his constituents.
I know we have a self balancing system. Time has proven that to be viable. But at the moment I am so disgusted with all those polecats that I makes me ashamed to have the world looking at that debacle going on in DC.
AM
armymom1228
12-23-2009, 11:26
However reversal could happen quickly if people like Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Frank, Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman and the Elite scum were rounded up for treason and sedition, and then quickly taken to the nearest tree of justice.
Out of bored argumentative curiousity, how is all of this treasonous/seditious?
AM
Out of bored argumentative curiousity, how is all of this treasonous/seditious?
AM
Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution. In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation.
JMO ;)
I think it's more like corporate fascism and cultural Marxism that defines America today. Corporate fascism destroys the free market with government (lobbying and payoffs, regulation that benefits monopoly) collusion, THAT'S fascism. The constant promotion of leftist polices intertwined with criticism/ pessimism of America's past that instills a guilt complex that paralyzes the majority population into silence. Never mind those who lead those criticisms are hypocrites of the highest order that talk out both sides of their mouths.
armymom1228
12-23-2009, 12:44
Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution. In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation.
JMO ;)
Based on the above. Sedition I can live with and completely agree. Treason not so much. I don't think they are 'intentionaly' disloyal, despite the appearance of such.
I think or hope that this current legislation will be in such litigation that it will be unable to be enforced.
AM
Based on the above. Sedition I can live with and completely agree. Treason not so much. I don't think they are 'intentionaly' disloyal, despite the appearance of such.
I think or hope that this current legislation will be in such litigation that it will be unable to be enforced.
AM
I am of the mind that folks taking bribes for votes, hiding information and going against the wishes of their constituents and nation shows intentional violation of their oath of office (which is serving the People and upholding the Constitution), thus we have treasonous activity.
That isn't likely to hold water in a Court of Law, but it is my opinion none the less.
Several States are working on enforcing their 10th Amendment rights, but we'll see how far that goes.....regardless I see the courts being swamped with litigation on many fronts.
I have absolutely no Faith in our perverted form of Government. Between the Pork spending, Bribes and overall corruption. We have created a Generation of "where is my free shit" "I gots whats coming to me"
Looking at my pay stubs last week again. Between my measly retirement check and my pay check. I paid out $1956 this last pay period. Since I get paid by my current work twice a months. I would say I pay out around $2600.00 per month in Taxes.
I can't imagine paying any more. But I know it's coming.
I have absolutely no Faith in our perverted form of Government. Between the Pork spending, Bribes and overall corruption. We have created a Generation of "where is my free shit" "I gots whats coming to me"
Looking at my pay stubs last week again. Between my measly retirement check and my pay check. I paid out $1956 this last pay period. Since I get paid by my current work twice a months. I would say I pay out around $2600.00 per month in Taxes.
I can't imagine paying any more. But I know it's coming.
I told the wife we were likely going get taxed for our Private BCBS insurance...15k in additional taxes for couples making 60k...it got ugly! Probably more Self-employment tax and all the other crap we pay into.
Honest to God it might end up being more affordable to live the remainder of your life sitting on your nuts instead of working.
It is all completely back asswards.
I would agree with you here, but only if things get better or remain the same, with the current level of spending, and the 2nd and 3rd order effects of this type of Bill (I can't say this bill as I haven't been able to read it, I did read much of the first one but this one has changed) our healthcare system WILL deteriorate and that negative stimuli will continue to build until there is some sort of resolution, most likely by voting many Dims out.
I agree with you the situation must not worsen for the dems to keep a majority. However, on the point of health care itself, it will not deteriorate any time soon. I say this because the bill has a time delay. More than likely it will not go into effect until 2014. It will then take several years for it to actually deteriorate to the point of the public becoming aware/outraged. So, IMHO, health care reform will not be the downfall of the dems in 2010. That's not to say other controversial bills won't cause it though, and like you stated if it does get worse by November then the public very well may remember the health care bill.
Your premise here is that all the same people who voted him in will all show up at the midterm elections, I would argue he has a very loyal following, but they are the minority of who got him elected. He got elected though a very clever marketing scheme which I don't think he will be able to repeat, not to mention the reality is if you look at the history of midterm elections there is simply not be the same turn out as for primary elections, the 2010 midterm will be no different, many of the folks that showed up and voted straight ticket to get the one and many Dims in office simply don't care enough about what's going on to actually turn out in 2010. Further much of his base is getting disillusioned because he's not making good on his most left promises, so they will not come out as strong as they did to get him elected, which means the center right nature of this country will likely win out and the Repubs will pick up some seats and hopefully restore some balance.
I do agree that the dems will be weakened (mainly in the house). It is my assumption that they will maintain a majority however. I did not mean to say that they will hold all their seats, but would simply maintain control, be it a slimmer majority.
At this point, many "moderates" are getting buyer’s remorse, as shown by the presidents plummeting poll numbers, they're going to be looking for change again in 2010 as they bought into this change and it isn't panning out so well, I would bet they'll be shopping for more change in the future.
Ultimately there are many variables in this equation, and IMHO if they pass this healthcare bill it won't matter what happens in 2010, there will be no undoing it because there will not be enough votes to overturn the VETO even after 2010, which means all of this damage will in fact be permanent, and we will be securely on the road to national bankruptcy, depending of course on what exactly is in the bill.
I hope I'm wrong, but personally I'm preparing for if I'm right.
The only problem is that the repubs are not offering that new "change" you mentioned. The moderates are going to be looking to elect those with new ideas, not just criticisms and "no" votes. If the repubs can pull it together, which I hope they do, they will have a chance to really gain some ground (they will gain some seats regardless because like you stated it always happens that the party in power is weakened). However, without clear plans for the American people they will fail to retake a majority in either house. The repubs took control in '94 due to the fact of clear message of what they wanted to change. Without this purpose, goal, or whatever one would like to call it; there will be no repub majority in '10.
We seem to be of a similar mindset, and I think you've got several interesting points. The key as you stated is that things can't get worse otherwise we might just see a repub majority. But IMHO that won't happen with only the dems making enemies, but also requires the repubs to pull it together and offer something worth taking an interest in.
I am of the mind that folks ... going against the wishes of their constituents and nation shows intentional violation of their oath of office (which is serving the People and upholding the Constitution), thus we have treasonous activity.
Having agreed with most of what you stated I do have one question. Isn't one of the commonly used definitions of a statesman, someone who goes against the will of the majority to do what he believes is best for the country? (Don't get me wrong, I don't think the health bill is what's best for the country)
However much I may dislike a representative for voting contrary to what I or the majority of his/her constituents think, isn't that the idea of a republic? Since we are not a democracy, our representatives don't have to vote the way the majority likes every time. That's why we get a chance to vote them out if we believe it was egregious enough. But that's just my thoughts.
2. This health-care bill may well be historic, but not in the way the president thinks. I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything quite like it: passage of a mammoth piece of legislation, hugely expensive and unpopular, on a strict party-line vote taken in a rush of panic because Democrats know that the more people see of ObamaCare, the less they like it.
The Tariff of Abominations cometh......will the result be a Nullification Crisis :confused:
Honest to God it might end up being more affordable to live the remainder of your life sitting on your nuts instead of working.
It is all completely back asswards.
Not so quick, head 500 miles west, I need help building firing positions.
Defender968
12-24-2009, 09:27
I agree with you the situation must not worsen for the dems to keep a majority. However, on the point of health care itself, it will not deteriorate any time soon. I say this because the bill has a time delay. More than likely it will not go into effect until 2014. It will then take several years for it to actually deteriorate to the point of the public becoming aware/outraged. So, IMHO, health care reform will not be the downfall of the dems in 2010. That's not to say other controversial bills won't cause it though, and like you stated if it does get worse by November then the public very well may remember the health care bill.
I agree with you that healthcare itself may not deteriorate right away, because as you say there is a delay, however, the taxes will start immediately as will the administrative changes which will begin to hurt things in healthcare, and in the current economic environment the increased taxes will have a very negative impact that coupled with all the other taxes that are coming down the pike to pay for all of this ridiculous spending will crush our already fragile and ailing economy, also as soon as this bill goes into effect the healthcare deteriorate will begin IMO, as it adds many restrictions and rules but gives no ways to cut cost, so the costs have to go up.
We seem to be of a similar mindset, and I think you've got several interesting points. The key as you stated is that things can't get worse otherwise we might just see a repub majority. But IMHO that won't happen with only the dems making enemies, but also requires the repubs to pull it together and offer something worth taking an interest in.
I don't necessarily think the Dims think things will get worse, it appears to me that they believe they can spend unlimited amounts of money and things will just keep going as is, I personally don't agree, if they do not stop spending and if they continue to raise taxes our economy will deteriorate further and we may well fall into a depression, just my .02.
Not so quick, head 500 miles west, I need help building firing positions.
Hmmmmm....what tools should I bring
I think the real backlash - the one that will compel change - is coming from China. Or, more accurately, from the people that buy our treasury bonds. Keep in mind that as interest rates go up, the cost of paying the debt goes up. An extra 1% on $12 trillion is no small thing - it adds up to $120 billion per year, or (ahem) $1.2 trillion over a decade.
Our national spending contributes to this. Given the structure of the tax provisions, I suppose the supporters of the bill assume that we will cut the deficit, then crank in health care expenses, and that growth will cover the difference. I don't believe that will work.
First, as Kgoerz points out, taxes are already high. As they increase, there is less incentive to earn more money. A pleasant afternoon digging in firing positions might be more attractive than doing something that produces income, and hence more taxes.
Second, the bond market seems to be sending some signals. The potential buyers may be raising eyebrows. (The following charts are the 30 year treasury bond)
Take a look HERE (http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$USB&p=W&yr=3&mn=0&dy=0&id=p41374470464&a=186745888). If the price keeps going down, we will face a need to either raise taxes even more (a lot more), cut spending somewhere, or a combination of the two.
For context, a 20 year history of the 30 year treasury bond is HERE (http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$USB&p=W&yr=20&mn=0&dy=0&id=p43320019991&a=186745872)
Notice we've had 20 years of declining interest rates. We've added debt and other commitments to the point that increased interest rates will create some challenges.
By the way - don't expect mortgage rates to remain static. They will tend to go up, too. Which implies that home prices will be under pressure...which puts the value of houses beneath the mortgage value...which puts the banks and pension funds back into trouble...
It's one thing to tell the voters to run along. And quite another to tell the bond market to do so.
So, it passed the house.
What straw breaks the camels back, and what do we do then?
I think the real backlash - the one that will compel change - is coming from China. Or, more accurately, from the people that buy our treasury bonds. Keep in mind that as interest rates go up, the cost of paying the debt goes up. An extra 1% on $12 trillion is no small thing - it adds up to $120 billion per year, or (ahem) $1.2 trillion over a decade.
First, as Kgoerz points out, taxes are already high. As they increase, there is less incentive to earn more money. A pleasant afternoon digging in firing positions might be more attractive than doing something that produces income, and hence more taxes.
Second, the bond market seems to be sending some signals. The potential buyers may be raising eyebrows. (The following charts are the 30 year treasury bond)
It's one thing to tell the voters to run along. And quite another to tell the bond market to do so.
So if China won't buy our bonds (a crappy investment) issued by the Treasury, who will?
THE FED!!!
Where does the FED get it's money? From the Treasury! Uh...:eek:
Buy gold and store it in Wet Dog's AOR. Eventually private gold ownership will be illegal...once again. :D
Warrior-Mentor
12-24-2009, 15:15
Eventually private gold ownership will be illegal...once again. :D
Here's a tip from an anti-alchemist...eventually lead will be worth more than gold.
LongWire
12-27-2009, 20:09
Thought I'd share this.........
Thought I'd share this.........
That is good!
Snaquebite
12-31-2009, 10:27
Here's a take from a constitutional law professor...Interesting points.
http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn’t have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn’t stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to “be bound by oath or affirmation” to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
mrobertc@hotmail.com
Here's a take from a constitutional law professor...Interesting points.
http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a “tax” instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn’t work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.
If I recall correctly this was one of the many inciting reasons for the first American Revolution say circa 1776... Something about 'Taxation without representation', oppression, and a host of other greivances. :munchin