The Health-Care Backlash

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by lindy

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

[lindy]

How did YOUR Senator vote to invoke cloture?

FYI...both Maryland Senators voted yea. I know you're as shocked as I am.

[lindy]

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]

Originally Posted by FCWood

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.

Originally Posted by FCWood

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.

Originally Posted by FCWood

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.

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

Originally Posted by Paslode

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

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

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

[steel71]

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.

Originally Posted by Paslode

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

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by armymom1228

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.

[kgoerz]

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.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

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.

[FCWood]

Originally Posted by Defender968

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.

Originally Posted by Defender968

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.

Originally Posted by Defender968

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.

[FCWood]

Originally Posted by Paslode

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.

[T-Rock]

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