It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jam321
Politicians live by polls when they run for election. Why do they ignore the will of the people when polls like these come out is beyond me.
I hope Reid reaps what he sows(BS) and the voters of Nevada show him the door.
We know Americans would rather pay billions for useless wars than help someone get Universal Healthcare! LOL!
Originally posted by LiquidMirage
That is because hell-care is a tax on living. The bastards are actually taxing life now. If you are alive, you pay the tax or go to jail. Then they hit you with the death tax. You are not even safe from having liberals/progressives rob you blind after you croak!
Progressives are a disease that needs to be eradicated, just like any other disease.
Universal health care is implemented in ALL industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States. Why is the American Health System like this? I would venture that somebody (making a 7 figure salary) figured out that they could make "some" money from caring for sick people.
Buried in the amendment is a bombshell; there will be no way to amend parts of Obamacare. Apparently, Reid wants to make this bill something like a royal decree where no one can change what has already been wrought.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."
and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.
i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.
Get that? No repeal, no amendments, no nothing. That part of Obamacare is as set in stone as the idea that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is unalterable - which, of course, means the entire bill is off limits.
The goal is to guard against the possibility that the GOP may win back the House and Senate some day and may wish to repeal or drastically alter Obamacare. In the dead of night, Harry Reid has turned the United States from a constitutional republic into a banana republic monarchy.
The bill will significantly increase federal healthcare spending - by about $185 billion in 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It will involve a substantial increase in taxes - by about $100 billion in 2019. It will compel everyone to buy healthcare, even the young and healthy, which ought to reduce costs.
But the political classes seem to have brought forth a miracle: According to the CBO (congressional budget), the plan will actually increase healthcare premiums for individuals and small business by an average of 10% to 13% in 2016.
The American healthcare system is already the most expensive in the world, at a total cost of nearly 17% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). After the better part of a year of effort by the Obama administration and Congress, one would have hoped that one result of this healthcare-system makeover would have been a measurable reduction in costs. Instead, this bill increases it. It's only a modest increase, to be sure. But it's still an increase.
Originally posted by Libertygal
Oh, this is free healthcare.
For the people they are trying to buy their votes from.
The indigent, and those below the poverty threshold.
The people will paying for their own personal healthcare, and that of the indigents, millions of which are illegals. Those that are working for employers that do not withhold the proper taxes, including Medicare/Medicaid, which many of these people will derive benefits from, simply because they are illegal, and do not have a SS number.
Community rating is designed expressly to redistribute the financial burden of ill health from the chronically unhealthy to the chronically healthy.
Whether or not one considers that fair is a political call.
But if community rating is embraced as part of health reform, it will tend to raise the premiums paid by young and very healthy people above what they might have to pay in a market that rates premiums on the individual’s health status. That is because the healthy would be subsidizing, through their premiums, the health care of sicker fellow citizens.
What typically is not much mentioned by the critics of the reform bills is the flip side of this effect, namely, that the legislation would also tend to reduce significantly the premiums paid for health insurance by chronically ill people.
Thus one could also quite legitimately write a lead editorial claiming that the health reform bills will “lower costs.”
The key point is that the savings to the HI (Medicare Hospital Insurance) trust fund under the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.