What Does It Mean?

[TE999]

Despite all the chest beating, whining, pontificating, doom crying and miscellaneous rhetoric, a Health Care Bill will be passed in time for the POTUS to announce it in the SOTU speech in February. That's the good news.

Once everybody can finally determine what all it entails, how it's to be implemented, how soon it will be implemented and what it's going to cost both the taxpayers and employers expect howls of rage from sea to shining sea from the Left and the Right.

No one will be satisfied, for starters. It'll do too much or not enough. Some will want to be first in line for the freebies, others will see the medical community and services they've known and depended upon ebb away as sand in a stream bed.

Given the patchwork nature of this legislation and the many, many loopholes, exemptions and exceptions included for all those who complained the loudest or constitute an identifiable voting bloc (eg: unions) this bill will rapidly become an administrative and financial nightmare.

It will create a substantial number of jobs however...in the government.

Be careful what you wish for, you might (or will) get it.

 

[jomar]

If she loses? The way she's tanking the campaign I have to wonder if she's being paid off.

 

[amicus]

AMICUS remove me from your FREE SPEECH list as I dont wish to be associated with about 1/2 the people you list. You obviously went daft while away from LIT.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Hello, James, it isn't 'my list', but the official poll of those who voted. Politics does make strange bedfellows, does it not?

And...not that it matters...but I posted that before my brief sojourn...

ami

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TE999

ObamaCare may never be implemented because of Constitutional problems. Some legal scholars believe ObamaCare will survive judicial review because illegals and the uninsured create a substantial burden when they recive free care at emergency rooms. The Supremes already ruled that you have to treat them.

But if any activity or inactivity has economic consequences then anything can be regulated and the Constitution is nullified. Congress can, say, order compulsory fitness programs or order the puchases of GM autos. Maybe prohibit guns because lotsa people are killed from firearms. Or drowning...maybe you shouldnt go near the water.

 

[TE999]

TE999

ObamaCare may never be implemented because of Constitutional problems. Some legal scholars believe ObamaCare will survive judicial review because illegals and the uninsured create a substantial burden when they recive free care at emergency rooms. The Supremes already ruled that you have to treat them.

But if any activity or inactivity has economic consequences then anything can be regulated and the Constitution is nullified. Congress can, say, order compulsory fitness programs or order the puchases of GM autos. Maybe prohibit guns because lotsa people are killed from firearms. Or drowning...maybe you shouldnt go near the water.

Makes one wonder how all this free government medical care will affect everyone who's overweight, smokes, drinks, takes drugs, has indiscriminate unprotected sex or indulges in other unhealthful activities? That'll be a drag on the system taking care of them. I suppose some form of mandatory behavioral modification will be in order.

 

[Boxlicker101]

TE999

ObamaCare may never be implemented because of Constitutional problems. Some legal scholars believe ObamaCare will survive judicial review because illegals and the uninsured create a substantial burden when they recive free care at emergency rooms. The Supremes already ruled that you have to treat them.

But if any activity or inactivity has economic consequences then anything can be regulated and the Constitution is nullified. Congress can, say, order compulsory fitness programs or order the puchases of GM autos. Maybe prohibit guns because lotsa people are killed from firearms. Or drowning...maybe you shouldnt go near the water.

We don't know wehat will be included in Obamacare, but parts of it might well be unconstitutional, such as the requirement that people buy health insurance. Some compare it to car insurance, but it's not the same thing. If my car is paid for, I am not required to insure it. I'm not even required to have liability insurance, but I am not allowed to drive if I don't have it. In other words, to enjoy the privilege of owning and driving a car, I am required to have liability insurance, but there is no comparative privilege related to health insurance.

There are those, especially childless people in generally good health who prefer to eschew health insurance and to pay for medical care as needed.

 

[amicus]

Thas the way socialism works folks, get used to it. High taxes on Petrol in Britain are indicative of 'Pigouvian' laws intended to modify public behavior.

It has already begun here with tobacco taxes to control those who use the products. Soon to follow will be Fast Food outlets to control the one third of the population that is overweight. Government, in collaboration with Insurance companies will indeed pass laws to modify the behavior of citizens towards a more healthy lifestyle. A 'one child' policy may also be on the horizon, why not? Limited the population is just what the liberal weenies want.

Whatever happened to the concept of the individuals right to choose what to ingest? Individual choice must be a bad thing since so many are afraid of it.

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Thas the way socialism works folks, get used to it. High taxes on Petrol in Britain are indicative of 'Pigouvian' laws intended to modify public behavior.

It has already begun here with tobacco taxes to control those who use the products. Soon to follow will be Fast Food outlets to control the one third of the population that is overweight. Government, in collaboration with Insurance companies will indeed pass laws to modify the behavior of citizens towards a more healthy lifestyle. A 'one child' policy may also be on the horizon, why not? Limited the population is just what the liberal weenies want.

Whatever happened to the concept of the individuals right to choose what to ingest? Individual choice must be a bad thing since so many are afraid of it.

Amicus

High tobacco taxes have been around for about forty years, but there are other laws, such as seatbelts and helmets that are also intended to modify behaviour. Besides that, there are laws against public drunkenness and prostitution and smoking MJ and other behaviours that should be nobody's business but the people involved.

ETA: There are also moves afoot to tax soda pop and fast food and other things deemed by the nanny state to be bad for us poor ignorant citizens.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Supremes painted themselves into a corner with the Commerce Clause. Over the years theyve always backed government regulators against farmers when the government wanted to control commodities like meat and grain production. And they dont accept private consumption as a defense.

 

[Boxlicker101]

We will soon find out what it means. Coakley has conceded and Brown is the winner by about 52% to 47%. The Dems still control the House but they will no longer have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think a few more Democrats are now in serious trouble with voters. I also think the Tea Baggers might now dominate the GOP, scaring the crap out of the Democrat-Lite Wing of the party.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think a few more Democrats are now in serious trouble with voters. I also think the Tea Baggers might now dominate the GOP, scaring the crap out of the Democrat-Lite Wing of the party.

You're right, but nothing will happen with them until November. Some have already decided not to run, but to retire to avoid being beaten then. This is partly a matter of party loyalty. They know they would lose so they let sone other Dem. challenge the Rep. candidate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You're right, but nothing will happen with them until November. Some have already decided not to run, but to retire to avoid being beaten then. This is partly a matter of party loyalty. They know they would lose so they let sone other Dem. challenge the Rep. candidate.

Maybe a few tea baggers oughta challenge a few GOP mossbacks and scare the crap out of both teams.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You're right, but nothing will happen with them until November. Some have already decided not to run, but to retire to avoid being beaten then. This is partly a matter of party loyalty. They know they would lose so they let sone other Dem. challenge the Rep. candidate.

There are already more Rs retiring than Ds. Republicans are defending more "open" seats than Dems. How do you explain that? Or, you could just ignore it and live in Foxland, I suppose.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There are already more Rs retiring than Ds. Republicans are defending more "open" seats than Dems. How do you explain that? Or, you could just ignore it and live in Foxland, I suppose.

HUCK you talk like your team is 3-0 rather than 0-3.

 

[Huckleman2000]

HUCK you talk like your team is 3-0 rather than 0-3.

No, I'm just stating facts. Box seems to think (consider that phrase for a moment...) that Dems are retiring because they fear the Teabaggers - yet, more Repugs are retiring than Dems, and there are fewer of them to begin with. Teabaggers handed the NY election to the Dems, and the pretty boy in Mass. tried to deny he was part of them.

What the Dems need to do is start frog-marching bankers and Bush-Cheney staffers, introduce Medicare for everyone, and tax the shit out of Wall St. "bonuses". If the Repugs want to filibuster that, let them filibuster until November.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No, I'm just stating facts. Box seems to think (consider that phrase for a moment...) that Dems are retiring because they fear the Teabaggers - yet, more Repugs are retiring than Dems, and there are fewer of them to begin with. Teabaggers handed the NY election to the Dems, and the pretty boy in Mass. tried to deny he was part of them.

What the Dems need to do is start frog-marching bankers and Bush-Cheney staffers, introduce Medicare for everyone, and tax the shit out of Wall St. "bonuses". If the Repugs want to filibuster that, let them filibuster until November.

Who are all the GOP retirees?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Who are all the GOP retirees?

Here's the list:
Republican Open Seats (14)
Delaware's at-large (Obama 62 percent)
California's 19th (McCain 52 percent)
Florida's 12th (McCain 50 percent)
Georgia's 9th (McCain 75 percent)
Illinois' 10th (Obama 61 percent)
Kansas' 1st (McCain 69 percent)
Kansas' 4th (McCain 58 percent)
Michigan's 2nd (McCain 51 percent)
Missouri's 7th (McCain 63 percent)
Oklahoma's 5th (McCain 59 percent)
Pennsylvania's 6th (Obama 58 percent)
South Carolina's 1st (McCain 56 percent)
South Carolina's 3rd (McCain 64 percent)
Tennessee's 3rd (McCain 62 percent)

Democratic Open Seats (10)
Alabama's 7th (Obama 74 percent)
Florida's 17th (Obama 87 percent)
Hawaii's 1st (Obama 70 percent)
Kansas' 3rd (Obama 51 percent)
Louisiana's 3rd (McCain 61 percent)
New Hampshire's 2nd (Obama 56 percent)
Pennsylvania's 7th (Obama 56 percent)
Tennessee's 6th (McCain 62 percent)
Tennessee's 8th (McCain 56 percent)
Washington's 3rd (Obama 53 percent)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here's the list:
Republican Open Seats (14)
Delaware's at-large (Obama 62 percent)
California's 19th (McCain 52 percent)
Florida's 12th (McCain 50 percent)
Georgia's 9th (McCain 75 percent)
Illinois' 10th (Obama 61 percent)
Kansas' 1st (McCain 69 percent)
Kansas' 4th (McCain 58 percent)
Michigan's 2nd (McCain 51 percent)
Missouri's 7th (McCain 63 percent)
Oklahoma's 5th (McCain 59 percent)
Pennsylvania's 6th (Obama 58 percent)
South Carolina's 1st (McCain 56 percent)
South Carolina's 3rd (McCain 64 percent)
Tennessee's 3rd (McCain 62 percent)

Democratic Open Seats (10)
Alabama's 7th (Obama 74 percent)
Florida's 17th (Obama 87 percent)
Hawaii's 1st (Obama 70 percent)
Kansas' 3rd (Obama 51 percent)
Louisiana's 3rd (McCain 61 percent)
New Hampshire's 2nd (Obama 56 percent)
Pennsylvania's 7th (Obama 56 percent)
Tennessee's 6th (McCain 62 percent)
Tennessee's 8th (McCain 56 percent)
Washington's 3rd (Obama 53 percent)

Those are members of the House who are apparently retiring, or not seeking reelection. We have been discussing Senators, because that is where the sixty percent majority is meaningful. The House does not allow filibusters.

Here is a link to the number of senators who are retiring. There are more Reps than Dems, but there are more Dem held seats being contested than there are Rep seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010

Of the retiring Dems, three of them were just interim office holders anyhow. Two of them, Dorgan and Dodd apparently got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and they are retiring rather than face defeat. Some of the Reps might well be in the same situation. Party affiliation makes little difference in honesty; they are all crooks.

 

[JackLuis]

--
Party affiliation makes little difference in honesty; they are all crooks.

I think you just answered the question.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think you just answered the question.

What question was that? Ceertainly not THE QUESTION

 

[JackLuis]

What question was that? Ceertainly not THE QUESTION

What does it all mean?



"Party affiliation makes little difference in honesty; they are all crooks."

I think you hit it on the head, now can you do that to JBJ?