states suing over a bill they get money for
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_playing_both_sides;_ylt=AqbJWwIa50GLBz15eNdY7nCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQwOHFzMG4xBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODMxL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9wbGF5aW5nX2JvdGhfc2lkZXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwMzBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDc29tZXN0YXRlc3N1[^] To understand this article, states are suing the federal government over the health care law that they are using to pay for health care costs. When they loose or drop the cases after making political hay people will quietly forget about the stink and what actually took place. All that will be left in people's memories will be that they were against it, not that they took the money they cursed. That is an amazing amount hypocrisy.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_playing_both_sides;_ylt=AqbJWwIa50GLBz15eNdY7nCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQwOHFzMG4xBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODMxL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9wbGF5aW5nX2JvdGhfc2lkZXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwMzBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDc29tZXN0YXRlc3N1[^] To understand this article, states are suing the federal government over the health care law that they are using to pay for health care costs. When they loose or drop the cases after making political hay people will quietly forget about the stink and what actually took place. All that will be left in people's memories will be that they were against it, not that they took the money they cursed. That is an amazing amount hypocrisy.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
That is an amazing amount hypocrisy.
This, imo, is an example of the sort of thing that happens when gov't and the private sector become too deeply involved w/each other. The root of the problem here is that both the states and the private sector are strapped for cash. ObamaCare will doubtlessly drive health care costs up and quality of care down. That's etched in stone. But while the fight continues the states will take cash anywhere they can find it. Yes, it seems like hypocrisy. But I see it as survival instinct. The whole thing hinges on the question of the constitutionality of the federal requirement to purchase health insurance. This isn't anything like mandatory car insurance (state enforced). This is a case of the federal gov't overstepping its authority and forcing citizens to make purchases they might not otherwise make. They do not have that authority, and I can only hope that the SCOTUS rules correctly when the case finally lands on their bench.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_playing_both_sides;_ylt=AqbJWwIa50GLBz15eNdY7nCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQwOHFzMG4xBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwODMxL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9wbGF5aW5nX2JvdGhfc2lkZXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM2BHBvcwMzBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDc29tZXN0YXRlc3N1[^] To understand this article, states are suing the federal government over the health care law that they are using to pay for health care costs. When they loose or drop the cases after making political hay people will quietly forget about the stink and what actually took place. All that will be left in people's memories will be that they were against it, not that they took the money they cursed. That is an amazing amount hypocrisy.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
*Plays America the Beautiful on a Kazoo* Anti-gay figure heads keep coming out and/or getting caught. Some of the major 'Family Values' promoters have themselves had multiple divorces(including the occasional adulterer) And not one bit of this matters to the people who support them.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
That is an amazing amount hypocrisy.
This, imo, is an example of the sort of thing that happens when gov't and the private sector become too deeply involved w/each other. The root of the problem here is that both the states and the private sector are strapped for cash. ObamaCare will doubtlessly drive health care costs up and quality of care down. That's etched in stone. But while the fight continues the states will take cash anywhere they can find it. Yes, it seems like hypocrisy. But I see it as survival instinct. The whole thing hinges on the question of the constitutionality of the federal requirement to purchase health insurance. This isn't anything like mandatory car insurance (state enforced). This is a case of the federal gov't overstepping its authority and forcing citizens to make purchases they might not otherwise make. They do not have that authority, and I can only hope that the SCOTUS rules correctly when the case finally lands on their bench.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
ObamaCare will doubtlessly drive health care costs up and quality of care down. That's etched in stone.
How exactly? I've never seen someone give a real explanation here, but with the horrific compromise they pushed out rather than real reform I may actually believe it. Which of course was done to avoid... the exact same claim, which had no actual evidence behind it that anyone bothered to produce.
-
*Plays America the Beautiful on a Kazoo* Anti-gay figure heads keep coming out and/or getting caught. Some of the major 'Family Values' promoters have themselves had multiple divorces(including the occasional adulterer) And not one bit of this matters to the people who support them.
That's kinda where I'm going with this. Survival or not, it still makes you unprincipled. Principles for most people seem to be a convenience, so are rights apparently. I wonder how far things will go out of control.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
wolfbinary wrote:
That is an amazing amount hypocrisy.
This, imo, is an example of the sort of thing that happens when gov't and the private sector become too deeply involved w/each other. The root of the problem here is that both the states and the private sector are strapped for cash. ObamaCare will doubtlessly drive health care costs up and quality of care down. That's etched in stone. But while the fight continues the states will take cash anywhere they can find it. Yes, it seems like hypocrisy. But I see it as survival instinct. The whole thing hinges on the question of the constitutionality of the federal requirement to purchase health insurance. This isn't anything like mandatory car insurance (state enforced). This is a case of the federal gov't overstepping its authority and forcing citizens to make purchases they might not otherwise make. They do not have that authority, and I can only hope that the SCOTUS rules correctly when the case finally lands on their bench.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
That's etched in stone.
That's a rather rigid way of thinking. Only the laws of physics as we understand them are etched in stone.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
The whole thing hinges on the question of the constitutionality of the federal requirement to purchase health insurance. This isn't anything like mandatory car insurance (state enforced). This is a case of the federal gov't overstepping its authority and forcing citizens to make purchases they might not otherwise make.
Then our taxes shouldn't be used for police (security service), or fire departments (fire fighting service). Historically fire departments early on were paid for by residents when their homes were burning. Otherwise the fire departments would let them burn. Right now if you don't have insurance hospital emergency rooms can't deny you care, but for people who have cancer and need on going treatment the morality of fuck you it's not my problem seems to be what passes. Anyone who believes that is morally repugnant and not civilized. I don't recognize the morally repugnant and non-civilized has human beings, just human animals.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
ObamaCare will doubtlessly drive health care costs up and quality of care down. That's etched in stone.
How exactly? I've never seen someone give a real explanation here, but with the horrific compromise they pushed out rather than real reform I may actually believe it. Which of course was done to avoid... the exact same claim, which had no actual evidence behind it that anyone bothered to produce.
Distind wrote:
How exactly? I've never seen someone give a real explanation here...
Start here: House Dems Hide Cost Of Health Plan[^] Then here: The High Cost of ObamaCare[^] Perhaps the most frightening thing about the bill is that almost none of the people who voted for it actually spent any time reading it. Speaker Pelosi herself said that "we'd find out what's in it after it's passed." Not one credible economist who studied the legislation supported it. There are tons of hidden costs and regulations in the bill. We need reform, but whatever reform we ultimately get should help us, not hurt us. Uncle Sam's track record with health care is spotty at best (Medicare/Medicaid/VA). They can't handle what's on their plate already. They don't need more. :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
ObamaCare will doubtlessly drive health care costs up and quality of care down. That's etched in stone.
How exactly? I've never seen someone give a real explanation here, but with the horrific compromise they pushed out rather than real reform I may actually believe it. Which of course was done to avoid... the exact same claim, which had no actual evidence behind it that anyone bothered to produce.
Distind wrote:
How exactly?
Premiums will increase for many. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated premiums for the non-group market will be 10 to 13 pct higher in 2016 than with no bill and cost will fall higher on young and healthy families. Also, this is before the government dictates and locks into place new federal benefit mandates that will increase premiums for all Americans. There are little or no experience of government officials reversing these trends. Filling the Medicare “donut hole”, price fixing Medicare reimbursement to physicians, creating new long-term entitlement programs... pushing the price tag to over $2 trillion. Nearly every page of the bill specifies rations and the beuros responsible for regulating who can get what. With the deficit and national debt so high, do you really think we can expect the government to take care of us? :doh: You will get no healthcare.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
That's etched in stone.
That's a rather rigid way of thinking. Only the laws of physics as we understand them are etched in stone.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
The whole thing hinges on the question of the constitutionality of the federal requirement to purchase health insurance. This isn't anything like mandatory car insurance (state enforced). This is a case of the federal gov't overstepping its authority and forcing citizens to make purchases they might not otherwise make.
Then our taxes shouldn't be used for police (security service), or fire departments (fire fighting service). Historically fire departments early on were paid for by residents when their homes were burning. Otherwise the fire departments would let them burn. Right now if you don't have insurance hospital emergency rooms can't deny you care, but for people who have cancer and need on going treatment the morality of fuck you it's not my problem seems to be what passes. Anyone who believes that is morally repugnant and not civilized. I don't recognize the morally repugnant and non-civilized has human beings, just human animals.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Then our taxes shouldn't be used for police (security service), or fire departments...
These are things that are taxed and implemented at the local or state level. The principal issue here is whether or not the federal gov't has the authority to bypass the states' authority and force citizens to make a private sector purchase. As I (and a lot of other people) understand the Commerce Clause, the fed does not have that authority under the Constitution. We cannot, dare not, set aside the Constitution for the sake of anyone's agenda.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
That's etched in stone.
That's a rather rigid way of thinking. Only the laws of physics as we understand them are etched in stone.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
The whole thing hinges on the question of the constitutionality of the federal requirement to purchase health insurance. This isn't anything like mandatory car insurance (state enforced). This is a case of the federal gov't overstepping its authority and forcing citizens to make purchases they might not otherwise make.
Then our taxes shouldn't be used for police (security service), or fire departments (fire fighting service). Historically fire departments early on were paid for by residents when their homes were burning. Otherwise the fire departments would let them burn. Right now if you don't have insurance hospital emergency rooms can't deny you care, but for people who have cancer and need on going treatment the morality of fuck you it's not my problem seems to be what passes. Anyone who believes that is morally repugnant and not civilized. I don't recognize the morally repugnant and non-civilized has human beings, just human animals.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Why not let the government do everything for us? We will be assigned work duties and it will be decided what we will do, where we will live, how many children (if any) we are permitted to have. You will be given a food card, medical card, housing cost allowance, energy allowance, clothing allowance, and all that shit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Why not let the government do everything for us? We will be assigned work duties and it will be decided what we will do, where we will live, how many children (if any) we are permitted to have. You will be given a food card, medical card, housing cost allowance, energy allowance, clothing allowance, and all that shit.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Hey, you might even get a wife out of it. Maybe. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Then our taxes shouldn't be used for police (security service), or fire departments...
These are things that are taxed and implemented at the local or state level. The principal issue here is whether or not the federal gov't has the authority to bypass the states' authority and force citizens to make a private sector purchase. As I (and a lot of other people) understand the Commerce Clause, the fed does not have that authority under the Constitution. We cannot, dare not, set aside the Constitution for the sake of anyone's agenda.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
That's kinda where I'm going with this. Survival or not, it still makes you unprincipled. Principles for most people seem to be a convenience, so are rights apparently. I wonder how far things will go out of control.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
To be fair it's not all that new, we've been playing the same tune(on a kazoo I imagine) since we founded a country that was supposed to ensure the rights of the people, while granting voting rights only to wealthy landowning men, while allowing others to be property. We've been blowing smoke out both ends since we started, now it's mostly a matter of any idiot who graduated from high school should be able to see it. Principles are something this country doesn't seem to grasp, like how the constitution and it's protections of civil liberties stops things like Prop8. They don't want gays to get married, it's icky, and no matter how little it effects them, no matter how much pain it may cause others, they don't want it to happen. So they bravely trample over the rights of others, and then decry the fall of democracy when someone does the constitutional thing and overturns what they voted in.
-
Distind wrote:
How exactly?
Premiums will increase for many. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have estimated premiums for the non-group market will be 10 to 13 pct higher in 2016 than with no bill and cost will fall higher on young and healthy families. Also, this is before the government dictates and locks into place new federal benefit mandates that will increase premiums for all Americans. There are little or no experience of government officials reversing these trends. Filling the Medicare “donut hole”, price fixing Medicare reimbursement to physicians, creating new long-term entitlement programs... pushing the price tag to over $2 trillion. Nearly every page of the bill specifies rations and the beuros responsible for regulating who can get what. With the deficit and national debt so high, do you really think we can expect the government to take care of us? :doh: You will get no healthcare.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
We cannot, dare not, set aside the Constitution for the sake of anyone's agenda
Because of the way life is lived today, why should the US Constitution not be changed to reflect those needs?
-
Not a problem. Change it, don't bypass it or "interpret" it to mean whatever you want at the moment. (If only because moments change rather frequently.)
-
Distind wrote:
How exactly? I've never seen someone give a real explanation here...
Start here: House Dems Hide Cost Of Health Plan[^] Then here: The High Cost of ObamaCare[^] Perhaps the most frightening thing about the bill is that almost none of the people who voted for it actually spent any time reading it. Speaker Pelosi herself said that "we'd find out what's in it after it's passed." Not one credible economist who studied the legislation supported it. There are tons of hidden costs and regulations in the bill. We need reform, but whatever reform we ultimately get should help us, not hurt us. Uncle Sam's track record with health care is spotty at best (Medicare/Medicaid/VA). They can't handle what's on their plate already. They don't need more. :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
The national review and the Cato institute? You'll have to forgive my doubts. Personally I do despise the bill as passed, it went from attempting to do good for the country to a fucking political football when the republicans refused something that was better for the US than this cluster fuck. But I should have expected as much. Wave a sign that says socialist around and every screw wit who never got over the red scare freaks out. Forgive the rant, this is probably the biggest thing that annoys me about the current administration, not just Obama mind you, but every one of the buggers out there, after the public option was canned every single plan put out was provably worse in it's implementation, including the republican counter they finally produced. That said, I still want to smack every single congressman who complains about government health care given the packages they get. They can do it just fine if the right amount of money is given, problem is right now the right amount of money would bankrupt the lot of us and that's the problem.
-
Distind wrote:
How exactly? I've never seen someone give a real explanation here...
Start here: House Dems Hide Cost Of Health Plan[^] Then here: The High Cost of ObamaCare[^] Perhaps the most frightening thing about the bill is that almost none of the people who voted for it actually spent any time reading it. Speaker Pelosi herself said that "we'd find out what's in it after it's passed." Not one credible economist who studied the legislation supported it. There are tons of hidden costs and regulations in the bill. We need reform, but whatever reform we ultimately get should help us, not hurt us. Uncle Sam's track record with health care is spotty at best (Medicare/Medicaid/VA). They can't handle what's on their plate already. They don't need more. :)
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
We cannot, dare not, set aside the Constitution for the sake of anyone's agenda
Because of the way life is lived today, why should the US Constitution not be changed to reflect those needs?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Because of the way life is lived today, why should the US Constitution not be changed to reflect those needs?
There is a process for getting that done. However, do you wish to see the fed further empowered over the states? The rights of the states is one of the founding principles of the nation and what made us (for a long time) the most prosperous nation on Earth. It is the fact that we have strayed away from those principles, not the principles themselves, that landed us in our current mess.
Everybody SHUT UP until I finish my coffee...
-
Law has always had to be interpreted where the words used are unclear, or the living language has changed the meaning of the words as used.