Here we go...if Obamacare is upheld, then ObamaMotors can be required too !... State, National, International, posted by Amy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 29, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Required purchases by govt...
1. The (expletive self-deleted) CFL light bulb. (a windfall employment generator for China)
2. Next Obamacare.
3. Next Obama Student Loans (unless you're one of the few who can pay for it yourself.)
4. Next ObamaMotors??? (Oh, if you don't drive, you'll not have to purchase it...how generous of Obama.)
Posted by anti-stupid brigade, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 29, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Hey Amy, CSN? Really? Quoting a republican congressman from texas? Really? Isn't this the same news network that runs documentaries about how humans lived side-by-side with dinosaurs 6 thousand years ago? Really? Why not start quoting the flat-earth society...they're a better source...now go back to your bunker where it's safe (for us)...
Posted by Jane, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 29, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Rep. Burgess's comments were right up there with those preaching from the floor of the House that Armageddon was upon us now that HCR had passed. A tad bit over the top, maybe? Get a grip on reality, people.
CNSNews.com bills itself as "a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin." Funny how often they miss that mark.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 29, 2010 at 7:45 pm
PM and Amy, are you conveniently forgetting (again)that a health care mandate was a republican concept? Now that a democratic president has successfully revamped the system using THEIR OWN CONCEPT the republicans are calling it unconstitutional.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 29, 2010 at 8:24 pm
If you believe it is fear inducing BS, then answer the primary question:
“The Congressional Budget Office has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government mandated that any one buy a specific good or service and, of course, the bill includes the individual mandate. Is there a part of the Constitution that you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”
We will try to get to the fear inducing part later, or maybe this is it?
Posted by anti-anti, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 29, 2010 at 9:08 pm
What a bunch of mean b*%t#s. I'm am getting SO sick of anti-stupid Queen B ruining every topic...pretty much dragging PW further into the gutter. Obviously, named herself....nobody would have made that mistake.
Posted by Ha, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Mar 30, 2010 at 6:43 am
PMfT: "Did you read how the gov't is selling off it's Citibank shares, at an expected profit of about 7.5 BILLION dollars?"
Did you read the entire article that states that Citi is the ONLY "investment" that was made that is likely to show a profit? The rest will be loses. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
Perhaps you should change your name to "Pleasanton Mom for Partial Truth".
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 30, 2010 at 7:57 am
Thanks for being concise pm4t, I don't see where SCOTUS decisions re: the governments authority under the commerce clause gives them the right to force me to buy something. Very simply, regulating interstate commerce isn't the same as making it mandatory under force of law.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2010 at 8:24 am
Ya see folks, this is why it is a battlefields of ideas, and it is not right vs left, it is right vs wrong.
The leftists here blather on about fear inducing BS, but when asked when did the government ever assume the right to force an individual to purchase something, or whether there is a part of the Constitution that you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance, we get nothing except pm4t and her tepid response pointing to the commerce clause.
The point is, they got nothing, unless you are including smears, distortions and outright lies. If you are a fiscal conservative, get educated and get your neighbors involved so they get educated.
A major poll taken right after the health care vote showed that way over 50% of respondents did not know if their representative in Congress was voting in line with their views and wishes on health care reform.
We have the facts and the truth in this debate on our side as fiscal conservatives.
Posted by Pleasanton Mom for Truth, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2010 at 10:31 am
Wow Jim.
Here's what "they" got:
Insurance can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause (you can call my response "tepid," but is actually very germane). In addition, Congress has the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Finally, it can be argued that the penalty for not purchasing insurance can be considered a tax to offset the costs of medical expenditures for uninsured individuals when the need for care arises. There are of course other arguments to support the constitutionality of HCR as it's structured, but I've got stuff to do.
And in the future, should you pose a question to which you don't feel you receive an adequate response, and before commenting that your opponents have run away from your overwhelming "facts and truth," consider that perhaps they have just grown tired of the infantile drivel presented daily on these blogs.
Now, go on and talk about marxism, communism, socialism, destruction of America, and all the other fear inducing BS you "got."
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2010 at 11:27 am
Thanks for the link, the paper appears to be, according to an Ezra Klein column Web Link , Sen Baucus' basis for claiming the constitutionality of HCR. The paper states that there are likely to be additional challenges based on the 1st, 5th, and 10th amendment issues, and states that they "are unlikely to be successful".
The paper also confirms that there are "no examples of requiring a purchase", ie "there is no existing social legislation that serves as a perfect legal analogy to an individual mandate for private health insurance" and outlines why the mandate has been set up as a taxation provision.
Clearly, there are legal challenges looming that this paper foresaw, we will just have to wait to see what SCOTUS says, eh?
As Prof Hall edificates us, Prof Barnett also says: the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company.
Posted by Amy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Sharon...you are so full of expletive, I don't know where to start with you. This Obamacare has never been a Republican concept. (Yeah, I guess this is why zero Republicans voted for it.) This is a Democrat talking point...to paint this (falsely) as a Republican concept.
The Republican plan for healthcare change is to have little or no expansion of government. i.e. to have tort reform, to have competition of insurance companies across state lines, to have medical savings accounts so responsible people (you may not qualify for this group tho) to choose the medical coverage for themselves, etc.
There are only three things wrong about Obamacare Healthcare reform,
1. It is not about health (it is about growing government)
2. It is not about care (it is about the illusion of care...called 'coverage' . it is about rationing...and letting the 'unproductive' citizens like seniors die earlier than they would with quality healthcare like we currently have)
3. It is not about reform...it is about the opposite.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Mar 31, 2010 at 3:39 pm
As pm4t states, the FNC story - Republican concept, not Republican written legislation. I don't give the GOP a lot of credit for anything, but I do give them a bit of credit for standing together to oppose this legislation.
From pm4ts Fox News story (I am going to repeat that as often as possible)
The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School...Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans...Obama openly endorsed a mandate in his speech to a joint session of Congress in September...It remains one of the most unpopular parts of his plan. Even the insurance industry is unhappy.
Posted by Rae, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2010 at 7:11 pm
LOL!! PM4T, I love it when even Fox has to cover reality!
It's going to be interesting watching the upcoming election cycle as Republicans, who were for health care reforms before they were against them, are evidently for them again as they take credit for bits and pieces of the legislation . . . all while talking about a total repeal of the bill so they can do it right.
Doesn't anyone wonder why, if the GOP is so all fired up to . . . now . . . put their version of HCR in place, they didn't do it when they had control of both houses of Congress and the White House??? Go figure.
------
Amy, as Im sure you know, opening up the borders to offer insurance across state lines is an issue of regulation - some states have more stringent regulations and coverage requirements than others. However, you may not know that this (Republican) idea was, in fact, addressed in both the House and Senate HCR bills under the section titled "Interstate Health Insurance Compacts". It's in the final bill in Sec 1333 titled "Health Care Choice Compacts".
As for medical or health savings accounts, my understanding is that they work well with high deductible insurance plans, and are already available through many health plans. The purpose of an HSA is to allow an individual to save tax-free money in case an individual gets ill and has to pay those high deductibles. Unfortunately, I think theres a basic problem with the whole HSA scenario. If you purchase insurance with a high deductible youre probably trying to keep your monthly premium down to a manageable level. I cant see anything about an HSA that would make it inherently beneficial to HCR, an individual who already has insurance with a reasonable deductible, or the uninsured.
An individual with a high deductible insurance policy is already paying a big chunk of their medical costs. The insurance provider has set the cost of the policy and isnt likely to lower the premiums (without some sort of legislation to break up the insurance cartel price fixing game, that is). If an individual has a policy that doesnt carry high deductibles, they dont need an HSA (especially now since lifetime/annual caps have been done away with). Most uninsured families or individuals would already have insurance if they could afford it, or if they werent blocked from obtaining it by the insurance industry. An HSA isnt going to magically mean that they now have enough money to split between monthly insurance premiums and an HSA. Most folks are going to bank on staying healthy and worry about the cost of medical treatment when something happens. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is responsible". I just dont see HSAs as a health care reform goal.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
