House Passes Health Care Reform
The House of Representatives tonight passed 220-215 sweeping $1.2 trillion health care reform legislation. The bill garnered the support of just one Republican, Joe Cao of Louisiana; 39 Democrats voted against it.
The vote, which looked uncertain even going into the House Rules Committee last night, came after the adoption 240-194 of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat ensuring that no money would go to funding abortions. Pro-choice groups expressed outrage over what they considered an assault on a woman's right to choose and progressives vowed to fight to remove the provision in conference with the Senate. “We've sought in the case of this common ground in many areas,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who personally was against the amendment though she brokered the deal to bring it to a vote, told reporters after passage. “We'll continue to seek common ground.”
The House punted on several contentious issues, such as limiting access of illegal immigrants to the so-called exchange that, if the bill is enacted into law, will be created to help expand coverage to the 50 million uninsured Americans. They also didn't address medical malpractice liability, an issue identified by President Obama in his special address of the Joint Session of Congress on health care reform, as an area of common ground with Republicans. The GOP, in fact, used their motion to recommit -- a proceedural vote the minority often uses to highlight specific problems with legislation -- to highlight the lack of liability reform of the system, a surprise as most Democrats expected them to focus on the immigration provisions. The move produced a tense – if amusing – moment during the debate when Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley, a former trial lawyer, delivered the Democratic rebuttal. Republicans taunted him, yelling, “Trial lawyer!” A few of their own, though, couldn't help but laugh when Rep. Don Young, an Alaska Republican and a well known employer of several lawyers due to various legal woes, called out, “Line your pockets, ambulance chaser!”
The Republican alternative bill failed mostly along party lines by a vote of 176-258 with one Republican, Timothy Johnson of Illinois, voting Nay. Republicans nearly unilaterally condemned the vote as a “total government takeover of health care,” said Rep. John Shadegg, an Arizona Republican, in a statement. “This is a tragic day for all Americans, a day that will go down in infamy for anyone who believes in freedom, liberty and the future of our nation and its citizens,” he added. The sole vote for the bill came from Cao, a former Jesuit priest who represents a heavily Democratic district and who was leaned upon by the Catholic Bishops and the White House after the Stupak amendment passed.
Earlier in the day, Tea Party activists held a rally – the second this week – on the East lawn of the Capitol. This one was much smaller, though no less vocal than Thursday's theatrics. When asked if Dems could expect more protests when they head home tonight for a week's recess on honor of Veterans Day, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats to Congress, pointed to today's small rally as evidence that the attention paid to far right opposition is fading. “They had a protest today and it didn't seem to scare anyone's vote tonight,” Van Hollen said.
President Obama, who made a rare Saturday trip to Capitol Hill to rally the caucus, called to congratulate Pelosi and the Democratic leadership after the vote. He also personally called several fence sitters thoughout the day. “I decided this afternoon that I'd vote for it,” said Rep. Dan Maffei, a New York Democrat who is facing a tough reelection at home. “It was going to be tough either way I voted… The president reassured me that [several of my issues] would be addressed going forward.”
Of the Democrats that voted Nay, most were from swing districts like Maffei. Though, at least one, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, voted against the bill from the left saying it didn't go far enough to reign in health insurers. “We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are,” Kucinich said in a statement. “But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem.”
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn told reporters at the end of the night that the vote has been the toughest of his career, the climate change bill earlier this year a “distant second.” Pelosi, who brought down the gavel on final passage and was applauded, hugged and lauded by every Democrat – even those who voted against the bill, was more sanguine. “They're all a challenge in their own way, remember the stimulus, the budget, climate change?” she said, before walking into her offices to a thunderous round of applause just after midnight.
The bill now heads to the Senate where passage before the end of the year remains uncertain. House Dems, though, in a victory press conference, preened at their achievement. “We've done something people have been trying to do for more than 100 years,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said. “This is a great day.”
-
1
It's about freakin time!
P.S. Trial, not trail lawyers. -
2
Nancy Pelosi deserves major kudos for getting this bill through the house. It's a huge victory for her and her cohorts, and President Obama can take a great deal of satisfaction from this as well. It was his vision and his motivation that got the Democrats this far. Very exciting night for the Democratic Party.
-
2.1
Yes. She deserves the kudos.
Well, Pelosi was very keen on getting BHO nominated and elected ...
-
-
3
"The House ... passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night. "It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "
Well done, madam Speaker.
You may go to Disneyland - for the weekend.Then it is back to the grindstone: What would it take to insure the remaining 4% of the Americans? After all, they are also included in the "we, the people".
Regardless of what the Republican creed says, our American Constitution does not propose "liberty and pursuit of happiness" for 96% of we, the people - does it, Madam Speaker?Madame Speaker, we note that citizens of many so-called 'third world' countries - including most African countries - are guaranteed minimum standard of 'free' health care in the government-run health care facilities. [And those who want paid premium care can seek it elsewhere]
Yet, the USA is the kinder, gentler civilized nation that cares for the most disadvantaged of its own and does not discriminate among its citizens, right?---------------
How do we come up the extra funding for the noble cause?
By going back to the basics and by working smarter. For example:1) We shall not directly and/or indirectly use our resources to build houses and provide food and health care for foreigners - until all Americans find happiness in health coverage and a house for every household.
[Recovered: $Billions shipped to Egypt and Israel. I mean if a feisty Chihuahua assumes that the dumb big dog will always be there to cover its back as it taunts and picks up fights ...]
2) We shall not provide the money to create jobs in other countries until all our people are employed and covered health wise.
[Recovered: The $Billions spent sourcing fighter jets and parts from UK - when our unemployed workers can do it ...]3) Let us consider government acquisition and contracting agreements - especially those entered into by the previous administrations. How many $Billions can be recovered there (in addition to the citizens' obscene satisfaction of dispatching Cheney's cronies to jail)?
And does the government still spend $200 on a screw that can be purchased for $0.05 at the neighborhood store?3) (Qualitatively) It is said that at the behest of the military-industrial/corporation complex, superpower USA spends several times more in "defense" spending compared to the next 3 highest spenders in the world combined - even as there is no credible enemy to absorb all that punch in WMDs. [Indeed, do we really need to be capable of destroying all life on earth more than once over - and perhaps twice for good measure?] Cut that out.
How much are we currently still spending on waging a war of aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
[Recovered: ... More than enough to provide pretty good health care for all Americans.]-
3.1
cfukara> I am not in disagreement with you that it's disgraceful to only cover 96% of the people, and that this is merely a stepping stone towards a proper system. But most of the "suggestions" you make for how to recover billions are extremely naive.
.
Protectionism just does not work. If you pull the billions out of foreign orders for fighter jets, then foreign nations will pull out billions from orders in the US (for example by adopting the Eurofighter).
.
Similarly (smart) foreign aid can be a boon to your own economy - not just by direct payback in the form of orders (and thus the employment you want) to US companies, but also through long term stability increasing wealth and spending - likely to go largely to US companies - but also through lower military costs etc.
.
I'm not saying there isn't money to save - for example I agree the money to Israel is like throwing money out the window - into a well, filled with oil - and on fire. But even so I'd suggest a careful review before decided to pull the money, and this goes for all your other suggestions too. The law of unintended consequences will tend to always kick you hard for making badly considered decisions... -
3.2
" .. But most of the "suggestions" you make .. are extremely naive. .."
Yes, they are framed that way.
We need to re-evaluate our basic assumptions, attitudes and the way we do things.Naive? Indeed, they are framed that way.
Do you remember that tale of a naive, very unlikely guy with an unlikely name who rode into town shouting "YES, WE CAN"?
And he came up with even more naive approaches to saving the western civilization from the brink of total collapse?For it said: "Mind the cents and the dollars will mind themselves .."
-
-
4
Republicans nearly unilaterally condemned the vote as a “total government takeover of health care,” said Rep. John Shadegg, an Arizona Republican, in a statement. “This is a tragic day for all Americans, a day that will go down in infamy for anyone who believes in freedom, liberty and the future of our nation and its citizens,” he added.
How can people, a Congressman no less, say this kind of asinine lunacy and yet still be taken seriously? What "freedom and liberty" do the millions of uninsured and uninsurable Americans have when it comes to health care? The freedom to die from preventable and treatable diseases? Do they not know that Slippery Slope arguments are logical fallacies? Does it not matter that the people in charge of writing our nation's laws (or mindlessly rejecting them in this case) have no compunction to make logical arguments?
.
Explain this.
.
That is a woman named Nikki White who was diagnosed with Lupus, lost her job, and then lost her insurance. She died from lack of medical care. Had she been a convicted bank robber, she would have had court-mandated health insurance and been fine. If she had been a citizen of almost any other industrialized nation, she would have been fine. And yet we have representatives with the gall to claim that Nikki White's freedom and liberty were taken away with this bill?
.
It's madness.-
4.1
" .. How can people, a Congressman no less, say this kind of asinine lunacy and yet still be taken seriously? .."
Maybe they are operating in a different world/framework from which you are - the world of money/self-interest - not ideals.
MONEY (from interest groups)
Vs
the spirit of the CONSTITUTION ("freedom, liberty and the future of our nation and its citizens”)
-
4.2
"How can people, a Congressman no less, say this kind of asinine lunacy and yet still be taken seriously? What "freedom and liberty" do the millions of uninsured and uninsurable Americans have when it comes to health care? The freedom to die from preventable and treatable diseases? Do they not know that Slippery Slope arguments are logical fallacies? Does it not matter that the people in charge of writing our nation's laws (or mindlessly rejecting them in this case) have no compunction to make logical arguments?"
.
Let me break it down for you, redraven937.
.
What "freedom and liberty" do the millions of uninsured and uninsurable Americans have when it comes to health care?
.
Republicans have been in favor of providing legislation to stop denials due to pre-existing conditions. To pass legislation which would make it illegal for an insurance company to rescind someone's health care insurance due to a pre-existing condition. We agree with this part of the bill.
.
But, the massive spending this bill creates, the assault on our freedom to choose is what we disagree on. It is plain and simply not my responsibility to provide you with free health care. It is your responsibility to choose to pay for it or not. No where in the constitution does it say or even preclude, that this government can require me to do anything with the exception of paying taxes.
.
Republicans asked for other measures to be considered, and they were all locked out of any discussions or debates. That is an assault on our freedoms and liberties. I did not elect my Representative so that Nancy Pelosi could wield her now famous gavel, and silence over 50% of America's voices as they are represented by a Republican.
.
Barack Obama running for election said clearly that he would seek out and elicit bipartisanship when he got to Washington. He promised that he would clean up Washington, and it would no longer be business as usual.
.
BARACK OBAMA LIED Nancy Pelosi LIED
.
"Do they not know that Slippery Slope arguments are logical fallacies?"
.
What does this mean? Is this just filler for your argument? Are these just words of accusation that mean absolutely nothing? There was enough pompous asinine statements last night on the floor of the House. Congress Men and Women saying things they did not have a clue about what-so-ever. That is the logical fallacy in all of this, and nothing more.
.
"Does it not matter that the people in charge of writing our nation's laws (or mindlessly rejecting them in this case) have no compunction to make logical arguments?"
.
Finally we agree. Yes, we need to elect people to represent us, who have the compunction to make logical arguments. I foresee that this will happen in 2010. I also foresee that someone like you will not be happy with the result, as your liberal Democrats are thrown out of office. -
4.3
Rusty,
What was asinine about Shadegg's statement was his argument against the bill was "Freedom and Liberty". which is completely stupid. This bill, nor health care reform in general has little to do with our freedom and liberty.
If Shadegg wanted to make a legitimate argument against the bill, he would have statement that this bill would lead to massive government spending and lead us into bankruptcy. I don't know if I would agree with such sentiments, but at least it is a plausible argument.
You can say all you want about the lack of "freedom", but the Republicans offered a bill and it was voted down. Far from being undemocractic, Pelosi allowed the vote on the amendment regarding abortion funding, even though she disagreed with it.
You can claim that Obama "lied" about being bipartisan, but it has been the Republicans who have refused to play ball. If anything, look at how much Olympia Snowe has been courted by the White House, you would have thought she was the most popular girl in the senior class.
I read about the Republican alternative. While other individual Republicans offered alternatives previously, the one offered by the Republican leadership was mere windowdressing. While Republicans are against dropping people for pre-existing conditions, the Republican alternative did not require insurance companies from OFFERING insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, so it did little to deal with this problem.
The only thing Republicans can argue is about "malpractice reform", as noted, one law maker was chided as a "trial attorney" and "ambulance chaser". The ironic thing is ambulance chasers are not affected by this bill. If anything, as a part time ambulance chaser, I make sure the doctors get paid. Being an "ambulance chaser" is much different than being an attorney who does medical malpractice. And as I have previously pointed out, medical malpractic caps don't work, and these type of laws should be left to the individual states, unless you want federal intervention.
As far as tort reform, it is just a form of "socialized" legal practice. You don't have lots of tort cases in Europe because everything is so regulated. As a lawyer in our free market system, it does not make sense for me to take a "frivolous", because I am not likely to win and in tort cases, I get paid only if I win or settle. As far as settling "nuisance value" cases, it takes a lot of effort and resources to get a small amount of money. In our wonderful free market system, I look for cases which will really pay off, no the nickel and dime stuff. If you want Socialized Legal services, Rusty, that's fine, but let's be honest about it.
-
4.4
Thank God that "infamy" has now lost that peculiar Japanese connotation.
Look for the launch of the new Honda "Infamy" in a dealer near you.
-
-
5
" .. What would it take to insure the remaining 4% of the Americans?
Well. OK.
Let us leave that fight for another day.
[Some tell us not to kick a dying horse, eh, elephant while it is down. But verily I say unto you, when the limbaughs/Becks/Steeles/Newts/Republicans are down, don't let them get up. Kick them hard agaoin and again. Rub their noses in their impotence real good. For their time may come and then you will wish .... ] -
6
The house has passed a health care bill.
There will be a revolt, one way or another.
Best Regards
PoliticalPen-
6.1
Bring them on ...
-
6.2
Hey, moran, go fix typo in the name of your blog on the front page of your site then come back and cry about your lost freedoms.
.
What is it with wingnuts and typos, anyway? Is spelling an elective course when home-schooling? -
6.3
Why, PoliticalPen? Why a "revolt"? What freedoms have been taken away? The purpose of this bill is to GIVE citizens the freedom to choose between various health care plans, including a public option that, like private plans, people can join and pay premiums for. It's not an entitlement program in the same way that, say, social security is.
.
If you feel that tax dollars should not go toward subsidizing health care for the indigent, I can appreciate that position. (I disagree, but that's a freedom we enjoy in the U.S.) However, to make statements about a "revolt" comes across like a not-so-veiled threat. Our political system, for all its flaws, is the playing field we have. If you lose on that political field, you don't threaten to beat up the opposing team in the parking lot.
.
Far too many politicians--far too many people in general--throw around the phrase "loss of freedom" far too casually and (dare I say) liberally. It's a hot-button phrase--no American likes the idea of losing freedom, so political opponents of any measure use that phrase like a weapon, regardless of whether or not the phrase makes contextual sense, because they know it will rally an angry response.
.
Instead of rhetoric, PoliticalPen, explain which freedoms you feel are being threatened by this health care reform bill. Then we can engage in a constructive debate. You might even persuade people to change their minds. -
6.4
You are full on correct Tom. There will be a "revolt". A full on, and potentially bloody revolt from those of us who will protect and defend the constitution.
-
6.5
"Hey, moran, go fix typo..." square1
November 8, 2009
at 5:06 am.
For all to see how when little liberals attempt to demean someone, they only demean themselves with their stupidity.
."Moran" - East Africa Masai warrior: a young unmarried male warrior of the Masai people.
.
Perhaps most intelligent, square1 you meant to call Tom a MORON
.
Let me help you out with your spelling and name choices buddy.
."Moron - 1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.".
Which definition best describes Tom who you accuse of typo's?
.
But the better question is which one describes you?
.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -
6.6
rusty google "get a brain moran" and choose Images.
.
You made Tom's joke for him.
.
By the way is that you holding the sign? -
6.7
Unfortunately that is not me, Paulnot. Perhaps it is your friend square1 and company in disguise. You know the far left fringe who attempt to make other people look stupid, but in actuality, only make themselves look dumb.
-
6.8
A full on, and potentially bloody revolt from those of us who will protect and defend the constitution.
.
Rusty loves his country so much that he's willing to secede and murder his fellow citizens in cold blood.
.
It's what Jesus would have wanted. -
6.9
You betcha, cliffy!!
-
6.10
But if the DEMs patriots - the defenders of our liberty and freedoms - murder Rusty first - then that is a foul! A no-no.
-
-
7
[...] here to see the original: House Passes Health Care Reform – Swampland – TIME.com Health, Uncategorized [...]
-
8
Did they really call him a "trail lawyer"?
Who did he represent? Mark Sanford?
-
8.1
Trail or trial lawyer, why is this accepted as a taunt.
-
-
9
Very pleased with this - but the Republicans have lied with such impunity that it will still take a lot for the public to understand they're not getting screwed by this.
Have an acquaintance who insists she heard on NPR that private insurance companies get phased out in 2019.
Am really curious about the effusive praise from Miller, Waxman, et al. about Pelosi being one of the greatest Speakers ever. What is it she does that's so effective? (Aside from getting two extra votes so no one person can be "blamed" for having passed this).
CNN replayed most of the news conference of dems congragulating themselves. good on CNN.
-
10
"The bill now heads to the Senate where passage before the end of the year remains uncertain."
.
I truly want to take this opportunity and congratulate all the MSM, democrats, and liberals alike on a great victory. This is and will continue to be a very historic night.
.
Now onward to the Senate. I am CONFIDENT this bill will go down in complete and utter failure as it works its way into the Senate.
.
I am also equally CONFIDENT that those Democrats who will be running for a return to their house seat shall be resoundingly defeated in 2010.
.
No better rallying cry has been uttered today for the Republican Party. Those of us opposed to further big government programs, spending and the attack of our liberties and freedom will now have in place video streams of liberal Democrats who voted in favor of this completely unsustainable bill.
.
The American people are not stupid. We have asked for health care reform, yes. What we have not asked for is for our Representatives and Senators to create further destruction of our individual liberties and freedoms. Democrats have put this country at the greatest risk financially towards bankruptcy than it has ever faced before.
.
No where but in America, can you have a Party, representative of liberals in America that will make it a crime for not choosing to buy health insurance. No where but in America, can you have a Party, which will fine and penalize someone over $250,000 THOUSAND dollars for not purchasing something. No where but in America will someone face 5 years in jail for not purchasing something. Americans need to ask themselves is this the leadership they want from our Government Representatives?
.
Many speak of this as being an "individual right". It is not a right. It is simply and plainly what it is, a full on assult on the Constitution by Progressives.
.
I say NO MORE. Those who voted for this need to be voted out of office, especially those in more conservative districts. Its time to send the message.
.
NO MORE-
10.1
Rusty--see my comments above to PoliticalPen. What liberties and freedoms are being taken away?
.
You mention the part of the bill that requires people to have health care insurance. Fine--that's a specific example and one over which much political debate can be had. I've heard the arguments for it--if you don't require health care insurance, then the risk pool is too small and the costs go up for those who do join. I'm happy to hear arguments against it and therefore work toward solutions.
.
What other liberties and freedoms are being threatened? Is this rhetoric or something else?
.
The public option in this plan, as I understand it, will be funded in large part like private plans--through premiums paid by its members. There are subsidies for those who cannot afford health care insurance. It is not a full-on entitlement program.
.
As for bankruptcy--how many Americans under our current system have had to file for bankruptcy due to health care costs? THAT is not sustainable, Rusty.
.
You mention the Constitution as not guaranteeing Americans an "individual right" to health care. I agree. That does not mean, however, that this should not be considered as an individual right. See Exiled at Home's previous posts about social justice, for example. The right to privacy is not specifically outlined in the Constitution, either, but I would argue that most Americans feel their privacy is an individual right--not legalistically, perhaps, but morally and ethically.
.
Thank you for reading this, Rusty. -
10.2
Shakes:
.
Simply the freedom to choose. This is a precedent the progressives in Congress have put upon us. The progressives have now made it clear, that if they believe I should buy something, anything they legislate for me to purchase, I have no choice.
.
If I do fail to choose what they believe is in my best interest, then I go to jail. I am fined. Not merely a simple little fine or jail sentence. Over $250,000 THOUSAND dollars. Not a simple jail term, 5 YEARS of my life if I choose not to buy health care insurance.
.
What's next? What will Nancy Pelosi deem to be "necessary" for me to buy? Maybe she and her husband will start making swastikas. I will be required to buy Nancy's swastikas. Maybe they will restrict what I can buy. Maybe they will make it so difficult to find to purchase ammunition for my guns. Maybe Nancy will decide that I can no longer enjoy some type of food. Or, maybe Nancy will decide for me that I should eat more vegetables, and I have to eat turnips instead of potatos.
.
Just maybe, Nancy says "Rusty, you have cancer buddy. I am so sorry. But I have decided that you can only have radiation, and not chemotherapy". Nancy decides for me what is in my best interest.
.
Is this so difficult for you to understand, Shakes? Do you want Nancy to make your decisions for you and your family? -
10.3
Rusty, thanks for responding.
.
I do not believe ANY progressive feels that the government should mandate the kinds of things you list: food, swastikas, ammunition. I and most every American would stand next to you in fighting any attempts to pass laws that restrict these kinds of things.
.
Do you truly feel that Nancy Pelosi or any government official would want to restrict the kinds of things you mentioned? To argue against the HCR bill because it might set a precedent for those kinds of restrictions is like voting against environmental protection legislation because it might set a precedent for, let's say, the government evicting me from my house because I've purchased a certain brand of bottled water that doesn't meet EPA standards.
.
As for the fines you mention...where did you see that? I found this bit about fines in the health care bill (admittedly in a summary from a CBS News blog):
.
The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don't offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate.
.
Okay. So where's the $250K / 5 year jail sentence? Unless you are earning $10 million a year, according to the figures I found above, you won't be paying $250K in fines. I don't believe you are making this up out of thin air. I'm just curious as to your source.
.
Nancy Pelosi is not single-handedly making decisions for me or for anyone. She is the Speaker of the House, not a dictator, anymore than Newt Gingrich was, for instance. She is not single-handedly deciding every aspect of your health care. That is what health insurance companies are doing right now. And they are in the business to make money. Which means they can, and do, decide on treatments based on the bottom line, not always in the patient's interest. Which is partly why people are behind a public option, which will not be set up on a profit-making model.
.
Perhaps you are using metonymy to suggest "Nancy Pelosi" = government, the way others on this blog (including me) have used "Glenn Beck" = Tea Party conservatives. Fair enough.
.
Another curiosity--PoliticalPen mentions in his post about a "revolt" that the ballot box is the next battleground, but that this option won't work because the majority have voted at the expense of the minority. He doesn't mention the courts, where the people can argue about the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch.
.
Why jump to "revolt" rather than argue against the legality of legislation, for example? -
10.4
One reference I have found Shakes:
."The “Code” in question is the Internal Revenue Code, and Barthold's note was a followup to Ensign's public interrogation of him on the issue of whether or not the IRS would be responsible for enforcing the “individual mandate” in President Barack Obama's health care “reform” plan. Apparently the answer is “yes.”
If the IRS enforces the thing, and if failure to comply is prosecuted under the tax code, it gets pretty hard for Obama to argue with a straight face — as he did last Sunday to George Stephanopoulos — that the mandate isn't a tax.
Last year, some companies were “too big to fail.” This year, apparently, some companies are “big enough to get Washington to sic the IRS and the cops on people who don't want to buy their stuff.”
How big does a company have to be to get that kind of sweetheart deal? Will the store ads that arrive in the mail each week eventually come with red letter warnings that a warrant may be issued for your arrest should you fail to take advantage of Wal-Mart's low low prices every day, or to transfer your medical prescriptions to Walgreens? Will we be assessed fines (with jail time for not paying) if we choose to nurse a few more miles out of our clunkers, or ride bikes, instead of ponying up for something new from Detroit every five years?"
.
http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/10/05/buy-now-or-pay-later/
.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html
.
I apologize for the $250,000 thousand reference that I heard Republicans making during last nights debate. But even still, $25,000 dollars is still a chuck of money to someone that does not believe they need health care insurance, or chooses not to buy it under the Pelosi mandate.
.
Again, it is principal. When can the government dictate to me or anyone else that I need to BUY something?
.
Where does it stop?
.
Again, if a whim of Nancy is to mandate "all Americans are to purchase and display swastika's on their front doors", or face a jail sentence imposed by the IRS and a fine of $25,000.
.
Please tell me what is the difference? -
10.5
"Another curiosity--PoliticalPen mentions in his post about a "revolt" that the ballot box is the next battleground, but that this option won't work because the majority have voted at the expense of the minority. He doesn't mention the courts, where the people can argue about the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch."
.
While I disagree with PoliticalPen that a "revolt" CAN happen at the ballot box, and we shall see one in 2010. Thankfully before this monstrosity of a bill is implemented.
.
In order for the funds to be secured to meet Obama's "zero budget or deficit neutral" requirement, it cannot start until about 2013 or so. That shall give us enough time to vote in people of responsibility, and get rid of the progressives in Congress that are attacking our Constitutional freedoms.
.
However, if that is not successful, America has seen other "revolts" by the miniority which have turned this country around against tyranny.
.
Nancy Pelosi's "tyranny" is expressly opposed in the Constitution itself. It allows for "We the People" to revolt against her level of tyranny. -
10.6
The right to privacy is not specifically outlined in the Constitution, either...
The Constitution's authors had something to say about that in the Ninth Amendment (link):
“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”
When rightists exclaim "But it's not in the Constitution!", they deny the Founders' intent, and the principles (liberal) of good society and a healthy nation.
.
The right to personal, bodily privacy is a right "retained by the people", not to be deprived except after the application of due process.
.
Populist rightists are many times at odds with the authors of the Bill of Rights; this is another example. -
10.7
Well happy days. Stuart is able to channel the Founder's "intent", and exclaim like Nancy that it is all ok. "It's ok Rusty, we'll help you buy it with all those rich folks money. You don't have to worry about it."
.
Well pardon me Shirley MacClaine. No matter how you spin it. Twist it. Or, even claim it to be so, just does not cut it.
.
It is ok for our Government to pass legislation that regulates what I cannot buy. BUT, to pass legislation to regulate what I CHOOSE not to buy is fully at odds with our Constitutional rights, and everything that the founders had in mind for this country.
.
A pure example of how liberals, who always accuse the conservatives of defining what is or isn't constitutional, ie the Patriot Act (which I do not agree with either, but do not see the harm in it as long as it is kept temporary), is fully at odds with their statements on this issue.
.
Channel on back stuart aka shirley and ask them their opinion on the Patriot Act while you are at it. -
10.8
" .. I am CONFIDENT this bill will go down ....
I am .. CONFIDENT that those Democrats.. shall be resoundingly defeated in 2010."Gosh!
Rusty is still licking cake thrown in his face his after his wrong predictions confidently offered in the NY-23 election - and he is already seeking more cake in his blithering face ..
Talk about masochism.
-
-
11
The GOP, in fact, used their motion to recommit -- a proceedural vote the minority often uses to highlight specific problems with legislation -- to highlight the lack of liability reform of the system, a surprise as most Democrats expected them to focus on the immigration provisions.
.
Democrats were shocked when the GOP used their motion to recommit to actually address a real problem with the bill instead of throwing a bone to the Hate-R-Us crowd that drives their primary races.-
11.1
The cure's worse than the disease – if there is a disease. "Liability reform," GOP-style, would be legislation that would, e.g., immunize medical device makers for cost-cutting decisions that result in permanent disability and suffering. The victims would be told they have no right to their day in court to redress crippling harm; the level playing field of the civil jury trial would be discarded, and the culpable would be given a free pass to maim and kill in order to enhance profits. KT's suggestion of a "best practices" defense in litigation has merit, but that's not what the Publicans are demanding.
.
Liability insurance companies have persuaded their doctors, and much of the public, that the answer to medical cost increases is to deny justice to a limited number of innocent victims. It just happens that the insurance carriers are the ones who would have to come up with the compensation. As with ordinary health care, they'd rather receive the premiums and avoid paying the claims. In states that have already limited recovery by injured plaintiffs,there's little or no evidence of restraint in the liability premium expense borne by the insured.
.
You can't decide in advance which lawsuits are meritorious. All you can do through "reform" is deny remedies for legitimate and illegitimate claims alike.
-
-
12
[...] 220 – 215 The Politics Behind the Health Care Win (Time) [...]
-
13
"“This is a tragic day for all Americans, a day that will go down in infamy for anyone who believes in freedom, liberty and the future of our nation and its citizens,” he added."
Anyone who believes in the principle of liberty and the "right" to freedom probably agrees with all the other rights people have as well, since the right to freedom is justified by the same fundamental principles. However, it seems a few people feel they can cherry pick which rights are part of liberty and which are not, and who it is who ought to have access to them.
-
14
The latest details on this case: http://www.35energy.com/news/the-gop-vote-why-cao-said-yes.html
-
15
Doctor: Unfortunately, while this would have been covered under private insurance carriers, public plans were barred from including women's health measures. I'm sorry, you'll have to see "Dr. Julio" in the alley behind 7-11.
-
16
[...] House passed the bill yesterday. The vote was literally 50/50 for and against. Now it is on to the Senate. I would hope that we see a selfless health care reform move [...]
-
17
[...] Continue reading here: 220-215: The Politics Behind Obama’s Congressional Health-Care Win (Time Magazine) [...]
-
18
Everyone hates lawyers until they find themselves in legal trouble. The GOP just gets stupider and stupider.
-
19
[...] House Passes Health Care Reform - Swampland [...]
-
20
[...] the bill passed the House, SC Rep. and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said “that the vote has been the toughest of his career, the climate change bill earlier this year a ‘distant [...]
-
21
"The House of Representatives tonight passed 220-215 sweeping $1.2 trillion health care reform legislation."
.
I don't understand why people let journalists get away with this. A bill that leaves 80% of the health insurance market in tact and includes virtually no changes in the way care is delivered or charged is no way "sweeping" or "reform".
.
Instead of rolling up itheir sleeves and trying to formulate a sustainable health care policy; both houses have been sidetracked into designing yet another financial services support act..
.
Journalists like Jay do everyone a disservice when they parrot mistatements like this. -
22
[...] The sole vote for the bill came from Cao, a former Jesuit priest who represents a heavily Democratic district and who was leaned upon by the Catholic Bishops and the White House after the Stupak amendment passed. Earlier in the day, …Continue Reading… [...]
-
23
[...] leaders joined President Obama in hailing the historic, if narrow, passage of major health reform legislation in the House this [...]
-
24
[...] of Commerce aired its commercials in Maine, Louisiana and Arkansas. The House health care bill passed on Nov. 7 with a vote of 220-215 and the sole GOP vote for the bill came from Louisiana Republican Rep. [...]
-
25
[...] of Commerce aired its commercials in Maine, Louisiana and Arkansas. The House health care bill passed on Nov. 7 with a vote of 220-215 and the sole GOP vote for the bill came from Louisiana Republican Rep. [...]
- jnsmall Durbin to reporters: Lincoln told Reid how she'll vote. Durbin press release an hour later: I misspoke, Lincoln is still considering. Oops. - 17 hours ago
- jnsmall Ben Nelson announces he will vote on motion to proceed to debate on health care tomorrow. - 17 hours ago
- jnsmall Took the wrong coat from the Senate gallery and got all the way through Dirksen b4 I realized my mistake. Today's 1 of those days (sigh) - 17 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Obama Below 50 in Gallup, What it Means
- Modern Warfare 2: This %$#ing Game is #$%ing %^&#ed Up
- NASA’s Newest, Meatiest Spokesman: The Rock
- Black Friday: What We Know So Far
- What Would Jesus Buy?
- Oprah: Who Wins? Who Loses? And Is She Really Quitting?
- CA Sen Poll: Boxer Maintains Lead
- Reports: Oprah to End Talk Show in 2011
- Civil Disobedience, Religious Right-Style
- 20 Money-Saving iPhone Apps
- Can These Parents Be Saved: The Growing Backlash Against Over-Parenting
- Flibanserin Drug: Will 'Female Viagra' Boost Sex Drive?
- 'New Moon' Movie Review: Jacob Ascends in 'Twilight' Sequel
- It's Twilight in America: The Vampire Saga
- Teary Oprah Announces End of Show — But Is the Time Really Right?
- The Story of Barack Obama's Mother
- Germany: Blackface Filmmaker Wallraff Sparks Race Debate
- Dangerous Game: The Next Round of the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Face-Off
- A New Indian Travel Fad: "Divorce Tourism"
- The Anglican and Catholic Churches: Friends or Rivals?
Quotes of the Day »
RSS