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 alonzo730
They only control the House of Representatives. If they controlled the Senate and the White House too, then we'd probably see some real change in this country. They only control one house, it's going to be business as usual. And from what I've seen, neither side of the aisle cares much for the Constitution.
Dear Mrs. _____________:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about health care reform. It is good to hear from you.
On March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the Senate version of the health care overhaul bill by a vote of 219-212 with no Republican support. The Senate legislation was filled with backroom deal-making, partisan arm-twisting and special carve-outs for wavering senators. This bill was then signed into law by the President. The House also approved a companion reconciliation bill, H.R. 4872, filled with "fixes" that made a bad bill worse.
The reconciliation bill then moved to the Senate where there were votes on close to 50 Republican amendments, including a repeal on cuts to Medicare and a provision to protect Americans from tax increases, none of which were adopted. The measure passed by a vote of 56-43 with no Republicans voting in favor.
The reconciliation bill provides $569 billion in new taxes, particularly affecting the small-business community. In order to fully enforce the provisions of this bill, the Internal Revenue Service estimates that it will be required to hire an additional 16,500 agents at a cost of $10 billion to the taxpayer.
I voted against both the Senate health care reform bill, H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation bill due to both the content of the bills and the way they were kept secret from many senators and from the American people. Our health care system needs reforming, but this is not the way to revamp a sector that represents 17 percent of America's economy.
I also voted against H.R. 3590 because among other bad choices, costs $2.5 trillion when fully implemented over 10 years, increases taxes, cuts Medicare by $465 billion, and does not bend the federal cost curve or the cost of overall health care to the citizens of the United States down.
For example, the threshold to qualify for Medicaid will increase to 133% of the poverty level. This will cost the state of Georgia an estimated $1 billion that will have to be offset through a tax hike, or cuts to public safety, education and other core services of state government. Also, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, approximately 176,000 Georgians enrolled in Medicare Advantage will have their benefits reduced. In addition, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, roughly 2.1 million Georgia households making less than $200,000 annually will pay higher taxes.
Aside from the bill's budget-busting cost, seniors and taxpayers will be faced with many undue burdens. By paying for these new provisions by cutting Medicare, a program that is already in danger of becoming insolvent, many senior Americans will see their benefits and access to care severely diminished in order to establish new entitlement programs. Congress cannot continue ransacking Medicare funds to implement new government entitlement programs.
I also opposed a mandate on small businesses to cover the costs of their employees. The health care industry itself will also feel more than $100 billion in taxes and fees, which will be shifted directly to the American people in the form of higher premiums. Also, during this economic downturn, individuals would be taxed a total of $8 billion for not purchasing insurance the government deems appropriate.
To be sure, the number of uninsured Americans continues to rise, along with the premiums and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by insured consumers. We in Congress need to address this problem by searching for effective ways to expand access to adequate, affordable medical care for all Americans in a fiscally responsible manner, not by expanding government, slashing Medicare and trading votes for sweetheart deals.
Nevertheless, America is in need of health care reform. That's why I was an original cosponsor of S. 1099, the "Patients' Choice Act," which was introduced on May 20, 2009, and was referred to the Committee on Finance.
That legislation would make health care coverage accessible and affordable for all Americans through private insurance coverage while promoting prevention and wellness which can improve lives and lower medical costs. It would also put Americans in charge of their own health care by giving them a tax rebate of $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families to buy health insurance. It would allow patients to comparison shop for health care the same way they do for other products and services, and would allow them to keep their coverage if they changed jobs. Individuals with preexisting conditions could not be turned down or denied coverage.
Absent from the recently passed legislation was serious focus on tort reform. I am an original cosponsor of S. 2662, the "Fair Resolution of Medical Liability Disputes Act of 2009," which would create a system of preliminary non-binding arbitration for medical malpractice claims. If one or both parties involved reject the arbitrator's decision, they can take the claim to court, but the losing party would have to pay the winning party's legal fees.
This is not end of the health care debate. I recently became an original cosponsor of legislation offered by Senator DeMint, S. 3152, which would repeal the health care bill. Governor Perdue has appointed a "special attorney general" to challenge the legislation.
During the debate, the Senate moved too quickly with radical proposals that may not achieve their worthy objectives. This rush to legislative passage will limit Americans' access to health care and lower quality while increasing taxes and the nation's debt. Instead of ramming through legislation – largely kept secret– to overhaul our entire health care system, we should have focused on incremental reform to improve the areas of greatest need.
If you would like to receive timely e-mail alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my Web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance
- Repeal Obamacare. - Bring back the troops - End the wars - Cut the war budget - Impeach Obama - Sue the last administration for war crimes - Close Guantanamo - Stop bank bailouts - Kick the FED's butt (well maybe Paul will, but alone he can't do much) - Reduce the deficit for real - Fix the economic scam... I meant system - Repeal the unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act/no warrant monitoring of all communications - Secure the border - Stop the TSA molesting and checkpoints being put all around the US
No, it's time to completely clean out Congress and the White House and put in GOOD men who have only the nation's best interests at heart.....except whoever gets in becomes one of them behind the black curtain.
While 18 of the 50 United States offer their citizens an opportunity to recall their elected officials, it is a fact that in our nation’s history, no federal legislator has yet been recalled.
It has not been for lack of interest. Rather, the process has languished in part due to debates on whether or not legal authority exists for recall of U.S. Senators and Congressmen; and, in the case of Idaho, interference by a state court prevented recall of a federal legislator....
After reviewing the body of law and opinion concerning recall, it is apparent that if recall of federal legislators is to succeed, it will likely only be after an intense battle in the federal court system as to the degree to which the courts will go to allow the literal meaning of the Tenth Amendment to be in force and effect.
As this author reads this language, it appears clear that " the States ‘ and " the people " living with in them, should be recognized to have the right of recall.
But in order to implement a strategy that will enable recall petitions to result in actual removal of errant Senators and Congressmen, considerable legal and political obstacles will present themselves and can only be overcome by understanding the lengths to which those opposed to recall can be expected to go...
Eighteen states have recall provisions. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin all have recall of some kind available to their voters. Only seven of these states require any grounds.