Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

3/15/10 Reconciliation Healthcare Bill (PDF) 2309 pages

page: 3
88
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Wait a second, back up...

Show me in the constitution where the government has the power to Nanny Care the citizens?




posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I'm so glad Im not the only one here that thinks like you. Your the one voice of reason I've seen in this thread so far. Everyone keeps saying 'this is the real deal, read it and form your opinions' and then in the next breath are calling it a socialist bill. There is so much fear around this thing based on lies and made up theories, death panels anyone?. This is a good thing, Im glad its finally getting done, we need this and it'll be one of the most important things we do for ourselves and each other.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Interesting. It looks like if I am eligible for VA coverage (which I am) I get an exemption. Interesting.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kdial1
 


I'm reading through the bill too...but I am a supporter of this bill and have so far not found anything I am concerned about.



The line is being drawn in the sand over this atrocity.

You and your ilk are the enemy!



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Marid Audran
 


Me too, thank god! Lets just hope they don't try to slip that out of the bill when it goes to get signed....

-Kdial1



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



The government cannot MANDATE that you PURCHASE anything as it is NOT a power granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution.


What about your state...would you be ok with it if it is the state that enforces the mandate?

Just like all other mandates by the federal government...this one will be enforced by the states and they will comply because the federal government will use the threat of withholding funding to those states that do not comply.

This is perfectly leagal and constitutional...in fact it is already done today.

So how will it be unconstitutional if it is done in this way?



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidMirage
 



You and your ilk are the enemy!



I'm sorry you feel that way.

If you wish to discuss our differences rather than just declaring me the enemy...I am willing to listen.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

It isn't about whether I'm for or against. It's about what is and isn't Constitutional. The reason why is that a Blanket mandate does not address the needs of the state and there is bound to be huge disparities as it is 1/6th of the economy. At the State level it would be more efficient and cheaper to meet the needs of the people. No two State economies are the same and the US government and many here have failed to see that.

I'm for health reform, but that means different things to different states.
As far as everything else please refer back to the last post on page two. There is no precedent in the Constitution or in case law that says the government can force you to buy something.

When they force you to get chipped will you do that too?

[edit on 15-3-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by projectvxn
 


If you are going to claim it is not constitutional...then please provide proof of that claim.

Give me the section or the exact text that says this is not constitutional.


The Constitution assigns only limited, specific powers to Congress. The closest argument is that since the Federal govenment has the power to regulate interstate commerce, this allows them to force people to buy insurance. Personally, I don't see the connection. Especially if you're not able to buy insurance across state lines.

I would ask that someone show where the Constitution grants the Federal government the authority to force anyone to buy anything at gunpoint, which is essentially what this comes down to. If this is allowed to stand, what's to stop the government from imprisoning you for not buying a new car? Or a boat? Or a tuxedo? Or a solid gold swastika?



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
They can pass a bill that says health coverage is mandatory but I will not get insurance since I do not want it. I have only gone to the hospital once in the last 6 or more years.They can fine me for not having it but I will not pay it. What are they going to do about it? Put me in jail where I could live off of everyone's taxes for free anyways?

If people are so against it, just don't follow these rules. Forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine because you don't want it, isn't right to me. And I'm not going to pay for others when I have little to no money of my own.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by kdial1
 


I'm reading through the bill too...but I am a supporter of this bill and have so far not found anything I am concerned about.



The line is being drawn in the sand over this atrocity.

You and your ilk are the enemy!


That hyperbole is silly.

He's your enemy because he supports Obama's health insurance reform? I know it's not ideal because there is no public option (don't worry I'm sure we'll have one in 10 or so years), but it's better than keeping with the status quo.

I don't think the healthcare bill is perfect. In fact, I'm very unhappy with how the Republicans stonewalled reform and the Blue Dogs used their positions for pork and bribes while meaningful change got brushed aside (thanks again largely to Republicans and the HC industry lobbying).

That doesn't mean I'm completely against its implementation. I think it will, in the long run, depress costs. And it will show some sort of progress we haven't seen in ages, and aren't likely to see again for awhile.

Does that make us enemies? If you say yes, I'd say put down the TV remote and log off the web for awhile and take a stroll. Then, come back inside and Google pictures of Palestine, China, North Korea, Somalia, and pretty much all other countries in the world and let me know how bad things really are here in the states.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Now I am an avid reader, and tend to take and devour books. But this is ridicolous. What this bill does is try to get some thing past the people and those in the government. I believe the main problem with this entire bill is that it is over 2300 pages long filled with stuff that would put most people to sleep, and thus should be voted down. Reform health care, ok, but break it down to different parts, that way there is no illusion or misconceptions as to what may or may not be in it, and make it simple that everyone can understand what it stands for.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by projectvxn
 


If you are going to claim it is not constitutional...then please provide proof of that claim.

Give me the section or the exact text that says this is not constitutional.


_____________________________________________________________

He doesn't have to give you a section or "exact text" of why it is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL! On the contrary, it is YOU who needs to show where in the constitution it is EXPRESSLY stated that your criminal government can make anyone buy anything! Powers not expressly enumerated ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES OR TO THE INDIVIDUAL!!!

Get a clue! Your posts would indicate that you are pure, unadulterated COLLECTIVEST! People have the RIGHT and the FREEDOM to make their own choices. What is good for your collective is of ZERO consequence!

Good luck getting me to buy your B.S. coverage under the duress of a gun pointed at me! i'LL NEVER PAY A FINE. I'LL NEVER PAY A "MANDATED" PREMIUM!

This is/was still a FREE country no matter how people like you try to destroy it!



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Just making replies as I go along... I'm sure I'll be adding to this. But, to answer your post on page 1, that's easy: if it isn't in the Constitution, then that means everything else goes to the State level. IE, if it isn't in the Constitution, it isn't constitutional.

So... a federally required health care is not constitutional.

Now on to page 2...

{edit here down}

Nothing of note on pages 2 or 3, but I would like to add this, to those who say that people shouldn't pay cash, that an insurance policy is better...

I have VA coverage (30% disabled), but I am not driving 1 1/2 hours to a VA facility for an emergency... I go to a public hospital 25 minutes away. The VA does not pick up the bill, I do; and yes, I will pay cash.

Sometimes I'll even have the hospital send me a bill, and make payments.

Last time I had to go to the ER was, oh, seven years ago. Why should I get insurance for something I don't need? Even if I didn't have VA coverage, why should I get insurance if I live a healthy lifestyle?

Yes, accidents happen... a trip to the hospital is inevitable. But the great thing is, the hospital HAS AN OBLIGATION to provide service. It's far better to just make payments.

Even if you cannot afford the service, guess what? HOSPITALS WORK WITH YOU to develop a payment plan.

How great is that? You can pay what you're able to, when you are able to. You don't need the government to tell you what do to.

[edit on 2010/3/15 by The Soothsayer]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
This is a general reply to all those saying it is unconstitutional.

First...like I said before I would say that they will "encourage" compliance by the states by withholding funding. This gives the state the right to not comply...the feds won't "FORCE" them to comply...but of course they won't get funding for certain projects. So it is still within the states powers to either comply or not comply to the mandate...there is nothing unconstitutional about this. If your state complies with the mandate...then it is because YOUR state has become dependant on the federal governments funding...if you have a problem with that you should take it up with your states government...not the federal government.

Second...If someone is making a claim it is Unconstitutional...then they are required to back up that claim. This is a highly contested point right now in the debate...there is no really clear answer. There isn't enough to say it definately is or isn't constitutional. So the only thing left to do is let the Supreme Court decide...but they can't decide until it becomes law and someone challenges it. I have not problem with that...it is the way our system works.

Third...I agree that it may be better for each state to reform healthcare individually...but that is unrealistic. They have neither the money, power nor the motivation to engage in fighting the insurance companies.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I posted my case for the unconstitutionality of this piece of legislation on page two. The Federal government DOES NOT have the money either. Truly our number one priority is to pay down debt. Socialism is expensive, but if the government is broke, in debt, and dragging the states and people down with it then socialism
is impossible.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by projectvxn]



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



When they force you to get chipped will you do that too?



Why does it always go here? We are talking about healthcare...not a conspiracy to micro chip everyone.

We are MANDATED to pay social security...do you comply? We are MANDATED to pay medicare...do you comply? We are MANDATED to pay unemployment...do you comply? We are MANDATE to do a lot of things...and we comply. Does that mean you will do everything they ask...no matter how ridiculous of an example I can come up with???

Let's try to have a serious discussion about healthcare and not derail into something else.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
This should clear some things up....

External Content:
"By Sheldon H. Laskin

It is generally agreed, by both proponents and opponents of the Administration’s health reform bill, that the lynchpin of the legislation is the individual mandate requiring uninsured Americans to obtain health insurance, or pay a tax penalty for failing to do so. Without the mandate, even the Administration’s wildly exaggerated cost savings estimates simply cannot work. The whole plan is predicated on enlarging the risk pool by bringing in younger, healthier people who currently lack the means or the incentive – or both – to purchase health insurance.

Given the centrality of the mandate, it is somewhat surprising that little attention has been paid to the critical legal question of whether Congress has the constitutional authority to require Americans to purchase a commodity from a private, for-profit corporation. Other than some limited commentary on the Right -- George Will and Orrin Hatch both had columns on this topic in the Washington Post and the Heritage Foundation recently published a detailed legal analysis of the question – there has been almost no critical discussion of the issue. The silence on this issue is even more amazing in view of the fact that the Congressional Budget Office raised a red flag on the question during the Clinton Administration’s abortive effort at health care reform:

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, THE BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE, (1994) available at www.cbo.gov...

Unlike the states, Congress cannot enact any law even if doing so would foster public safety and health. Under our federal system of government, Congress can only enact laws that are of a type authorized by a provision of Article I of the Constitution, which sets forth the powers of Congress. Proponents of the individual mandate typically cite the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as granting Congress the authority to require individual Americans to purchase health insurance.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Therefore, in order for Congress to have the authority to require Americans to purchase health insurance, the purchase of health insurance must constitute “commerce” within the meaning of the Commerce Clause. It does not."



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



I posted my case for the unconstitutionality of this piece of legislation on page two.


And you are free to bring that case to the Supreme Court once it becomes law. But you can't challenge a proposed piece of legislation before it is law (as far as I know). If enough reps and senators believe it to be constitutional, then they will vote for it and it will become law. After that it will be up to the Supreme Court and how they interpret both the legislation and the constitution. ANd if they declare it unconstitutional...then that is the end of the discussion. But that is the proper process...I don't see anyway for anyone to stop it before it becomes law and then is challenged by the supreme court on a basis of unconstituionality...unless of course the reps and senators themselves believe it is and they don't vote for it.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
In reference to the Tax section 1501. I as well have concerns about governments roll in my life. But lets be honest, we live in a country of obese, unhealthy, ignorant people. For every healthy, self sufficient, tax paying American, there are another three abusing the system. This section starts to holds them accountable for once.

While I have liberal viewpoints in certain areas my core beliefs are that of conservative nature. One should be held accountable for themselves. What we have now is the taxpayers are paying for health coverage. We are the ones who pays for Emergency Room visits by those with no insurance. I'm sick of my money going to people who blatantly chose to mistreat there own bodies. I'd like to think my money goes to those truly in need, who can't provide insurance for themselves, the harsh reality is those cases are far and few between.

This tax nor this bill will fully address these issues. There will always be people who take advantage of the system. After much thought, I have concluded that this tax is a step in the right direction. My tolerance for others has wore thin, and I am ready to see people be held accountable for the continual neglect of their well being.





new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join