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

reply to post by projectvxn


Then if it is that cut and dry...why isn't it being stopped?

The problem here is that you may think it is clearly stated that this is illegal...and so may others...but obviously not everyone thinks that. Some think it is perfectly legal, and some like myself are not sure...but am able to see the argument both sides are presenting and will admit to the fact that I am not the best person to make this call...so I will defer to the courts.

I'm not sure why that is such a big problem?

What process do you suggest to stop it if it is so clearly spelled out that this is illegal???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Why wasn't the Patriot Act monstrosity stopped? The FISA amendments? The bailouts? Because we, as a people, are notdemanding that things are done within the confines of the law. We have continuously allowed for the breaking of the law and our Constitutional traditions to service the politics of the day. We DO NOT have to ignore the Constitution to get this done my friend.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm with you on health care reform, always have been, but I want it LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL. I don't think I'm asking for much.


Edit to add:

I appreciate your tenacity and passion for this kind of legislation. But please understand that I am not a right wing or left wing person, my political passion lies in the Constitution.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn


The patriot act and the bailouts used good ol' fear mongering to gain the American publics support. The few who cried against it were overwhelmed by the fear of impending doom. I wish the bailouts didn't happen...I would of loved to see those banks fail for what they did. The patriot act...I can't say I actively spoke out against it...it was a confusing time I think for everyone. Once I found out it was already written and waiting for 9/11 to happen...it was already passed. For the FISA ammendments...sadly I think it was a case of people just not really caring...I have to admit that there were a lot more personal things going on in my life at that time that I didn't care at all about that...didn't even really know about them until after the fact.

I don't consider anyone here "against" me...we are all supporting what we think is best for our country. I don't want this done illegally or unconstitutionally either...that just opens it up to get overturned down the road. But like I said...I hear both arguments for it being legal and being illegal...and I honestly see valid points in both. It's open for interpretation...and I will defer to the courts to make that inerpretation. Do I think the courts are perfect and will make the absolute correct call...no. But it is what we have to work with.

If there is another way to show this 100% unconstitutional, cut and dry, without one shred of doubt or confusion over interpretation...then I would be against it also. But I just don't see it that way. I'm open to suggestions and ideas though.


edit to add: I also appreciate your and everyone elses passion on this topic. I am a firm believer in that when everyone is in total agreement...something is wrong. But when everyone can have an honest and civil discussion about their differences and make progress through compromise and agreement...then we are on the right path. Believe me...I wouldn't still be talking here if I didn't respect everyones opinions here.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

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.

TomAto to me, toMato to you. There are two groups in this FIGHT; Those who are grabbing power, and those who are going to be squashed. So you have told us which you are. Does that make you a troll?

But to address your concerns.

Just like Baraq Husseini? In other words, to rephrase your inadequate propaganda...

1) Taxes on those that choose not to purchase health insurance. This is absolutely needed if the system is going to work.

How do you define 'work'? Do what YOU want, not what I want.
You can't get rid of pre-existing conditions and allow people to grift the system. So you either get health insurance...or you pay a tax up the amount of what an average health plan would cost.

In other words, you shove it up our tush.

I'm glad they are doing this...the uninsured is one of the big problems with health care costs.

But only the socialist programs to force us to pay for free medicine for illegals and the indigent are actually costing us, AND the drug industry scam that is determined to keep us sick and paying high rates for their man-made, patentable drugs, not the low cost free natural actual solutions.


2) Tracking medical devices. This is not scary...

Not scary to those who are grabbing our freedoms, and doing the tracking of their slaves.

it will be life saving. If you don't have an implanted MEDICAL device...this shouldn't worry you. The data collection is already done by many private companies and state governments...this is just expanding it to a national database. It really isn't scary at all...people need to calm down.

IE, people need to go back to sleep, nothing here folks. We are here only for your benefit and everything is dandy. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Are you saying it is not all unwarranted, and some of it is factual, like this power grab?
Wanting everyone to have good healthcare does not translate into the government wanting to kill you.

First thing you said that is factual. Sometimes they just want to enslave you! And having good healthcare is not equivalent to having any or full access to American 'sorcery', translated in the KJ Bible from the Greek word 'pharmacopia'. Since you are so gung ho about communism, I suggest you go back to China. Leave us Americans alone.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

I 100% disagree...we probably can't be more opposite on this issue. We are currently in the situation we are in because health insurance has been free to work in the free market. Some industries need to be regulated...I believe health insurance is one of those.

Imposing private insurance policies upon the populace is not regulating the health insurance industry, quite the opposite it is empowering that industry. Long before the insurance industry began insuring people over health care there was a profession known as health care. Reducing health care to nothing more than a suitable insurance policy is the problem.

It is not the insurance industry that has caused the incidents of cancer to rise as dramatically as they have in the past one hundred years. The insurance industry has not contributed in any way to the gross rise of diabetes in the U.S.. That industry is not the source or cause of Alzheimer's, heart disease, kidney failure, AIDS, and all the various influenza's that threaten a persons health.

While it may or may not be the Western medical establishment that has caused the incidents of cancer to rise dramatically in the past one hundred years they are not so easily relieved of responsibility in this equation as the insurance industry is. Where the insurance industry can be excused for the rise of diabetes, heart disease, organ failures, AIDS, and other diseases, the medical establishment can not and should not be excused, as they have accepted the responsibility, and demanded payment for services rendered regarding these diseases.

This is not to argue that it is the medical establishment that should be regulated over the insurance industry, as I do not advocate regulations and it has all ready been demonstrated in this thread by another poster, that regulations don't work anyway. Another poster has pointed to the bank bail outs a few times now and that example is a perfect example to show just how useless government regulation is. The justification for the bank bailouts has become fondly known as "too big to fail", but this is not the official government policy since there are ANTI TRUST LAWS set in place with the full on intention of regulating businesses and preventing them from becoming too big to fail to begin with.

However, the anti regulatory nature of my beliefs is irrelevant, Congress clearly believes and often times the Courts will support this contention, that the government has the authority to regulate businesses in some form or another. It may be uncapitalistic but it is not unconstitutional to regulate businesses. Even so, requiring people purchase health insurance under law and threat of penalty through fine or imprisonment goes well beyond "regulation" and into the realm of tyranny.

There have been many more options discussed, like a public option, but they have been demonized and are now a dirty word that can't be discussed without someone accusing of death panels and rationing.

The public option you mention is nothing more than yet another insurance scheme. When I refer to options available to Congress in order to reform health care I am talking about options available beyond insurance schemes and into policies and programs that endeavors to foster the type of research in disease that produces actual cures rather than the cottage industries that flourish today because of diseases not yet cured. I am talking about options that begin viewing health care in terms of nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle choices that are pro survival. I am not talking about a government that regulates these lifestyle choices but instead creates policies that foster better living. Forcing health insurance on people does not accomplish this.

Congress has the legal authority to pass anything they want...and then it is up to the checks and balances to deem it constitutional or not.

Congress does not have the legal authority to pass anything they want and this is precisely why the Bill of Rights was included into the Constitution, the make damn clear that Congress can't just pass any legislation it wants upon any whim. We the People did not decide to form a more perfect union by creating a legislative body that legislates law by simply tossing up legislation against a wall and waiting to see what sticks.

What authority of the people? I know I will get a lot of attacks for this...but the only authority the people have is to vote in their representatives and senators. Once that is done they have handed all their authority over to them. This They can vote them out if they don't do the job they want them too...but they don't have the authority to overturn the job they end up doing or the overturn the votes they end up casting. is the system that the constitution has put into place...so if you have a problem with it...don't attack me...attack the constitution.

What authority of the people? Don't attack you attack the Constitution? Perhaps you should read that Constitution and cite the precise reference that would support your assertion that the only authority the people have is to vote in their Representatives and Senators. Show us all where in the Constitution it states that once the people elect a government they surrender their own political power to that government. Show us all where it states in the Constitution that the people don't have the authority to overturn the votes they end up casting.

You have made many assertions that are quite simply false. The Constitution for the United States of America did not in anyway take power away from the people. The Revolution of 1776 was not fought so people could declare freedom only to then surrender it to a different form of government. The federal government was not created to function as a better more benign form of tyranny. The federal, as well as state and local governments within the U.S. have been formed to better protect the rights of the individuals who reside there and whether they vote or not is irrelevant to their basic natural rights to life, liberty and happiness.

We the People, at all times, hold the inherent political power in the United States and we have the authority to challenge tyranny, and indeed, by Constitution, have the authority to abolish the federal or any state or local government...even those we elected. It was We the People who Ordained the Constitution and it is We the People who can abolish that Constitution, or it is We the People who can use that Constitution to ensure our individual rights are protected.

It is telling that by your own admission you not only know nothing about jurisdiction, but equally as telling that you excuse this ignorance because you are not a lawyer. Every person is presumed to know the law and ignorance of that law is just no excuse. Knowing and understanding the jurisdictional boundaries of the government officials who would attempt to impose their will upon you is your responsibility not a lawyers and if you are willing to surrender your political power for the privilege of voting that is your business, but you do not have the right to declare all other people powerless to the political process outside of voting. You have the right to hold that as an opinion, but you can not impose your bleak politics on others.

If we are presumed to know the law then we must have the authority to interpret any legislation passed by the federal government and in doing so we have the legal authority to reject any legislation not harmonious with the Constitution and this is how, in fact, the law will be challenged in court, by people who have refused to acknowledge jurisdiction and are demanding that jurisdiction be shown. We the People are the government and we never at any time surrendered our political power

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I have a question that I doubt I'm the only one pondering.

If someone is low income and has a community or state provided form of health coverage at low (or no) cost to them, does that count as having insurance? Or will these people suddenly find themselves paying a tax equal to the cost of something they couldn't afford to begin with just for not having it?

No the bill says they will get an exemption if they are allready covered under state provided insurance. Some people will be able to qualify for exemptions and others will qualify for subsidies to lower insurance costs.

Thanks very much. I attempted to read the text of the bill, but it's incredibly long and finding one specific piece of information was exceedingly difficult for me. I hope I didn't inconvenience you in turn by asking lol.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Imposing private insurance policies upon the populace is not regulating the health insurance industry, quite the opposite it is empowering that industry.

True...but getting rid of pre-existing conditions, regulating rate increases, and setting minimum standards of coverage is regulating the insurance industry...and it is much needed regulation. Am I happy that insurance companies are getting more customers and more money...no. But the only solution to that, the public option, was demonized and killed.

Where the insurance industry can be excused for the rise of diabetes, heart disease, organ failures, AIDS, and other diseases, the medical establishment can not and should not be excused, as they have accepted the responsibility, and demanded payment for services rendered regarding these diseases.

What would you have them do...deny services for these diseases because they are on the rise??? I don't follow your logic on this. Are you suggesting that the medical establishment has created these diseases?

I do not advocate regulations and it has all ready been demonstrated in this thread by another poster, that regulations don't work anyway. Another poster has pointed to the bank bail outs a few times now and that example is a perfect example to show just how useless government regulation is.

The bailouts happened because the banking and investing industry was NOT regulated...so again I don't follow your logic.

When I refer to options available to Congress in order to reform health care I am talking about options available beyond insurance schemes and into policies and programs that endeavors to foster the type of research in disease that produces actual cures rather than the cottage industries that flourish today because of diseases not yet cured.

So throw more money at big Pharma...I again fail to see your logic. This bill isn't about cures...it shouldn't be at this time...this bill is about health coverage. People are dying right now not because there is no cure...but because they either don't have the money or the insurance won't approve their treatment. The treatments are out there in a lot of cases...they just aren't accessible to the public.

I'm all for research...but it isn't the immediate need right now. It is a different discussion entirely.

Perhaps you should read that Constitution and cite the precise reference that would support your assertion that the only authority the people have is to vote in their Representatives and Senators.

I don't have to search the Constitution...I see it played out every day. What power do you have to stop this bill??? The most you can do is call or write the person that was VOTED to represent you.

If the polls are right and the majority don't want this bill...and you claim the people hold this authority and power...then why is it still going to pass???

The difference here is that I am a realist and you are an idealist. You want to see things how they should be...and I see them how they are.

[quoteWe the People, at all times, hold the inherent political power in the United States and we have the authority to challenge tyranny, and indeed, by Constitution, have the authority to abolish the federal or any state or local government...even those we elected.

Then do it...what is stopping you??? If you have this power...and you have the majority on your side....do it. Go out and stop this bill from passing if you have that power and you and the majority don't want to see it passed. Do it on your own if the constitution gives you that power...don't call your representative...just do it. Can you??? If you think so...I would like to know how you think you could do this???

It is telling that by your own admission you not only know nothing about jurisdiction, but equally as telling that you excuse this ignorance because you are not a lawyer. Every person is presumed to know the law and ignorance of that law is just no excuse.

I can't know about everything...I try to be informed...but I don't claim knowledge in everything.

Again...like I asked someone else...if it is so cut and dry in your eyes...then why is it not being stopped???

I know the boundries of the branches of government...you went way beyond that and got into the interpretation of certain clauses to further set the boundries...this isn't cut and dry. That is why I will defer to the courts...I honestly have no problem admitting that I don't know everything in the world....only the truely ignorant would make such a claim.

If we are presumed to know the law then we must have the authority to interpret any legislation passed by the federal government and in doing so we have the legal authority to reject any legislation not harmonious with the Constitution and this is how, in fact, the law will be challenged in court, by people who have refused to acknowledge jurisdiction and are demanding that jurisdiction be shown. We the People are the government and we never at any time surrendered our political power

You are saying nothing different than what I have been saying...let it be decided in the courts. But again...it won't be decided by the people...it will be decided by the courts.

Simply prove to me that isn't the case. Prove to me that the people have more authority than the courts. Prove to me that the only power people have is to vote. Because I just don't see it...if you had this power...why is this bill going to be passed????

reply to post by kdial1


No, that "National Medical Device Registry" just probably means that all the MANUFACTURERS of medical devices have certain obligations to register their devices.

Seems like a good thing to me.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

1) Taxes on those that choose not to purchase health insurance. This is absolutely needed if the system is going to work. You can't get rid of pre-existing conditions and allow people to grift the system. So you either get health insurance...or you pay a tax up the amount of what an average health plan would cost. I'm glad they are doing this...the uninsured is one of the big problems with health care costs.

This is a quote from your first reply in this thread. This is an example of your logic. According to your logic any individual who chooses to opt out of this so called mandatory insurance scheme is a grifter playing the system. In order to defend this so called logic of yours you ignore several important facts that undermine your own position. Instead you hope to deflect away from your lapses of reason and point to issues not at all relevant. The so called "public option" you keep lobbying for in this thread has nothing to do with forcing people to buy health insurance, or pay taxes on the insurance they don't buy.

The "public option" you continually advocate was not the "only solution" to a reasonable health care reform package. If Congress wants to regulate the insurance industry and impose bans on pre-existing illness qualifications, or suppressing rate increases or just simply imposing minimum standards upon the industry not all ready in place, that would be one thing, and even then, perhaps arguably not Constitutional, but when Congress insists the only way it can effectively regulate the insurance business is by forcing all people to do business with that industry then it should be clear whose logic is faulty.

Your naivete in regards to how government works, how the law works is not helping your cause. You on the one hand openly admit to ignorance, justifying your ignorance of the law by claiming you can't know everything. Of course, in a court of law, you are not presumed to know everything, merely the law. On the other hand, why would you be in a court of law regarding this issue? You've all ready surrendered your inherent political power to a "process" you are ignorant of.

You speak about legislation that has not yet been passed as if it all ready has been passed. You then attempt to demonstrate the peoples powerlessness by pointing to a hypothetical, that being that in the event this legislation actually passes, if the people are so powerful why couldn't they stop it from passing? Whether the legislation passes or not, whether Obama signs it into an Act of Legislation, or not, has no bearing on the force and weight of that legislation. If the people don't want this intrusion in their lives then they won't accept it.

It will be in the rejection of this legislation, (assuming it does indeed pass), by individuals where this law will be challenged, and it will not be the courts who decide this if it is a jury rendering a verdict. If a jury, any jury in any court, finds the legislation itself to be abhorrent to the Constitution, that jury can, in effect, nullify the law by refusing to acquit the individual charged with a crime simply because he or she refused to buy health insurance.

A jury is a body of people who are peers of the defendant. They are We the People. Indeed, even a Grand Jury consists of people who can and should, if confronted with this legislation, refuse to indict any individual who asserts their right to decide for themselves whether or not they will purchase health insurance.

When you analyze the situation from this equation, and what is analysis if not a necessary part of logic, then it is clear the people are not powerless at all when confronted with intrusive legislation and can do much without having to rely upon a Final Court of Appeals that can take years, sometimes even decades, to reach a decision. Any individual can challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of this legislation from the get go, which means from the moment it is passed. You ask if the people are so powerful then why haven't they stopped this legislation from passing, and now in direct response I answer:

1.) Thus far, the people have stopped this legislation from passing

2.) If it ever does pass, how will the government stop people from willfully refusing to acknowledge this law as valid? What power will they rely upon in order to exert their authority?

There was a time in the United States when it was endemic among Grand Juries across the nation that they would as a matter of course indict whomever came before them. In the past the Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich if the District Attorneys office or some other branch of government asked for that indictment, but more and more, We the People are shedding our velvet blanket of ignorance and less and less Grand Juries are willing to indict a person simply because they have been charged with a crime.

More and more people are beginning to question the efficacy of government and its ability to govern effectively. Logically speaking, when a government passes anti trust laws to prevent businesses from becoming too big to fail, then creates administrative agencies tasked with regulating businesses, only to turn around and shrug their collective shoulders and say, "oh well, they got too big to fail anyway, and now we can't let them fail", is ineffective government and demonstrates just how useless government regulation is, or at the very least can be. That is actually quite simple logic.

To trust that government will effectively regulate health care, when they have so demonstrably failed to regulate businesses they have a Constitutional authority to regulate, is not at all logical. To demand a so called "public option" as a health insurance policy because the cost of health care is rising is not logical. Lack of health insurance coverage is not what has driven the cost of health care up. It is not logical to argue that expanding health insurance coverage will drive the costs down.

In economics it is important to understand that price controls are not cost controls and if any government regulation that would impose price controls refuses to adjust for costs then the business they are regulating will fail. This regulatory process does not authorize Congress to force people to pay for insurance schemes. Congress can not legislate themselves the authority it must all ready exist by Constitution and it does not.

The problem with the health care reform package is that its focus has been on health insurance schemes rather than working in directions that would reduce the costs of health care. Expanding coverage of insurance will not reduce that cost. Equating insurance schemes with health care is not logical. A persons health should not be predicated, and indeed is not predicated upon the quality of insurance one posses.

Your own insistence that finding cures to diseases should not be the focus of attention only demonstrates your own pretzel logic in this whole sordid affair. Finding cures to disease is the central issue of health care, not which insurance policy is best. Discovering why cancer is on the rise and not on the wane despite the untold billions of dollars spent attempting to cure it, should be a big issue, not fanciful socialist ideals such as "public options". It is fairly evident why diabetes is on the rise and not on the wane, and expanding health care coverage will only facilitate this disease and not curb it.

We the People have time and time again proven to people like you, including ambitious government tyrants, that we do indeed have the power to overturn bad legislation, and the undeniable failure of the Prohibition Amendment and the willful disregard for that legislation by numerous people only led to its inevitable repeal.

reply to post by AceWombat04


It wasn't a problem. I actualy found it when I was looking for something else.

If the US Government thinks this a great health care policy

Then make every Government Employee be on the government plan.

Including the Obama family.

What has the Government taken over that can work?

Medicare

US Post Office

Social Security

It is just more laws & taxes.

Just what we need.

reply to post by Hyman Minski


WHAT PLAN???? All the plans will be from PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES. With the money Obama has...he would be fine on private insurance.

I'm not understanding this argument.

The guy at this link: www.wrongreform.com...
does a pretty good job of explaining the bill. I found it very
enlightening and easy to understand. -cwm

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Article 1 Section 7 and 9

Have a nice day


'America Live'- UnConstitutional Healthcare Bill

[edit on 12/18/84 by Alferd Packer]

reply to post by kdial1


National Medical Device Registry...

Old topic, often misconstrued in a paranoid fashion..

At present the corporations that manufacture medical devices...Pacemakers, pins rods for fusing bones etc...successfully demand and require surgeons who remove these devices to return them to the manufacturer or throw them away.

Why this is bad...no studies or stats can be gathred on whether a given pacemaker model is failing or not working...which is why of course the corporation does not allow patients or doctors to keep those devices for examination.

This clause requires that stats be kept on whether a given implant actually worked...it is consumer protection.

This way doctors can discover if pacemaker brand X sucks or not.



[edit on 18-3-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

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.

Maybe this will help.

www.youtube.com...

Can anyone locate the page/section the non-earned income tax is? I heard it was in the bill and that it would be a 3.8% on savings, dividens (sp), ect.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

1) Taxes on those that choose not to purchase health insurance. This is absolutely needed if the system is going to work. You can't get rid of pre-existing conditions and allow people to grift the system. So you either get health insurance...or you pay a tax up the amount of what an average health plan would cost. I'm glad they are doing this...the uninsured is one of the big problems with health care costs.

are you kidding me, you don't NEED health insurance, every 'pre existing conditions' that are at large in america is not a reality because the system is being 'grifted' or that these problems exist everywhere or always have etc etc

here is the problem, our food we eat is unhealthy, we over medicate,lazy liftestyle for most, all of the american publics 'need' for health care are their own personal choice,

let me explain, i grow my own food, from edamame soy, to fruits vegatables everything, i don't sustain myself completely but i have tons of excess money even though i only make around 1 to 5 grand a YEAR, i live a life of my own choosing, never forcing anything on anyone and never getting in anyones way...

this lifestyle has produced me into a very healthy individual, the food i grow is healthy, the everyday life i have is hard work, with maximum pay off,

and you're trying to say that i would need to get health insurance? buddy i LAUGH at the rest of america, call me a hippy or whatever you want, the way of the american was never for me,

you expect me to feel obligated to pay money for other peoples health care when in reality they create their own health problems?

what a joke.