ObamaCare and the Constitution

Lance McMillian's picture

The Framers of the Constitution created a federal government of limited, enumerated powers. In the words of James Madison, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Throughout the country, federal courts are presently considering whether this original design has any remaining viability. The question before these courts asks: Is Obamacare constitutional?

Regulation of economic transactions, of course, is unremarkable, and Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power “to regulate Commerce ... among the several States.”

Obamacare, however, goes far beyond garden-variety regulation. The law’s centerpiece, the much-maligned individual mandate, compels every American – at the risk of criminal penalties – to purchase health insurance from an insurance company. And therein lies the rub.

It is one thing to regulate all those who choose to engage in an economic activity; it is another thing entirely to force an individual to engage in a particular economic activity in the first place against that person’s will.

Such a shift dramatically alters the nature of congressional power under Article I. The power to regulate something already in existence becomes the power to compel something into existence.

Even the laws we typically conceptualize as mandatory are different than the individual mandate in critical respects. Yes, everyone must pay taxes, but only if they choose to earn an income. Yes, everyone must buy auto insurance, but only if they choose to drive. Yes, criminal law details a whole host of things we cannot do, but it does not say that there are things we have to do.

Obamacare, on the other hand, directs this: Simply by being alive, each of us must do business with an insurance company. This total deprivation of choice is unprecedented in American law and constitutes a form of coercion that poses a significant threat to individual liberty.

Allowing the federal government to exercise this type of unconstrained power removes any pretense that the Constitution limits the reach of Congress in any real way. Words have meaning, and danger looms for all Americans when politicians and judges cast aside the plain meaning of words for short-term, partisan ends.

If the text of the Constitution can blithely be ignored in this way, then it follows that placing faith in that document to safeguard our civil liberties is a grave miscalculation. Our rights devolve to only those that the Supreme Court allows us to have. When this happens, the rule of law gives way to the shifting rule of five-justice majorities on the Court.

And that brings us back to Obamacare. The highly politicized manner that accompanied its passage likely dooms any effort to reach consensus on its constitutionality as the merits of the law have long ceased to matter.

Still, there is hope. Despite the many differences between liberals and conservatives, the two sides do share a distrust of government overreach that sometimes – albeit all too infrequently – overlaps. Perhaps the vast tentacles of Obamacare can awaken this common fear to produce an unexpected unity.

The chief discomforts with the new healthcare law need not – and indeed, will not – be the same. For the conservative, allowing Obamacare to stand would remove any constitutional constraint on centralized regulation as well as obliterating any pretense of state autonomy.

For the liberal, permitting government the power to mandate that every person enter into a contractual relationship with insurance companies gives enormous power to big business at the expense of individuals, especially those presently without insurance on the lower end of the economic ladder.

While the sources of uneasiness in these respective critiques differ and reflect the competing ideological concerns in the liberal and conservative worldviews, both analyses reach the same conclusion: this law goes too far.

The Constitution ultimately protects all of us from the strong hand of government. While we may disagree over the exact contours of these constitutional safeguards, Americans of all political stripes agree that (a) there should be meaningful limits on government and (b) the Constitution should supply these limits.

The individual mandate, however, mocks both of these baseline premises. A federal government that can force its citizens to engage in particular activities is a government unrestrained by the words of the Constitution. Power and politics – not the rule of law – become the order of the day.

Lance McMillian is a Fayette County resident and law professor at Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School.]

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Yep, it's all the Tea Party's fault!!!

I am not the biggest fan of the TP, but I am loving them lately. They have become almost like a bonafide 3rd political party that this country has desperately needed for a very long time but has been prevented by the Dems/Repubs agreeing that any competition is terrible and let's throw up every roadblock possible to keep anyone else from getting a foothold.

The majority of Repubs that swept into the House last year were not members of the Tea Party. What almost all the freshmen Repubs whether they are aligned actively with the TP or not have in common is that they all ran on a very specific platform and got elected. Now, they are following up on what they said they were going to do, which is coincidentally why they got elected less than a year ago. As the Prez said "elections have consequences."

I don't see how 30 TP members in the House are some how "hijacking" the government when they are very significantly outnumbered and the Dems control 2/3. It's not the TP's fault that the Repubs and Dems have been so awful for so very long that some are in a state of shock that there suddenly exists politicians that actually attempt to do exactly what they said they would do once elected, unlike the DC establishment of hypocrites or the President who is the biggest hypocrite of them all.

The stock market moves up/down at times for reasons that have little to do with US politics. The downswing right now is real evident: Europe is floundering badly, there are uprisings in the Middle East and oil prices are still an issue, China is not as roaring as before, unemployment is firmly above 9% and showing no signs of any decline, GDP is puny and alarmed everyone when it hit 1.3% recently, inflation is starting to become a concern(imagine that!), big biz ain't hiring but is laying off, Obama-led regulations at places like the NLRB, NMB and EPA have big biz upset and uncertain, latest corp financials were less than expected by analysts...where is the good news for investors that aren't contrarians at the moment? Add to that a very weak President and you have a perfect storm for a bear market. Since the US seems to be in a double dip recession, what do you expect? There's a reason why gold has been soaring for quite a while now and keeps setting new records and it's hardly because of a few dozen Tea Partiers.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
NUK_1: Check the expiration date before you make that purchase.

I believe the Tea Party which you are enamored with has a fairly short shelf life. The far right wing of the Republican Party is NOT a third party.

I've met you. I like you. You say what you think regardless of who's political feathers might get ruffled. But I wonder if we are talking about the same Tea Party here; The Tea Party which embraces the governor who abandoned her post Sara Palin, "investigate anti-American members of Congress" Michele Bachmann, "I'm not a witch" Christine O'Donell, "2d Amendment Remedies" Sharron Angle, "The Civil Rights Act was wrongly decided" Rand Paul,“If ballots don’t work, bullets will” Allen West of Florida?

That Tea Party Nuk? Let's look a bit deeper, shall we?

Their very name defies considered thought: Taxed Enough Already. But then, it was pointed out to the Taxed Enough Already group that most of them have NEVER enjoyed LOWER tax rates in their lifetimes. The REALITY is taxes are historically LOW. Oh..... ummmmm... errrr.... It's the deficit! We are the anti deficit party that just woke up when Obama came into office and we now realize that when Dick Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter," He was very wrong. But we'll focus our criticism on this new guy who inherited a horrible crisis which already had TARP legislation in place.

NUK, the Tea Party was off base from their inception. Their name attacked a tax structure which has never been more favorable to low tax proponents. They never were interested in good governance or statesmanship:

They brought to and flaunted guns at their rallies, all while the President they revile expanded gun rights into National Parks. They called him a socialist (while enjoying their social security and medicare). Many of them called him Muslem and fostered the failed "birther" movement. In short, they took anger at government and misdirected it into personal attacks and illogical rhetoric not supported by fact. And, initially, anger won many elections in 2010. But what has their focus been, NUK?

Abortion, unions, and gridlock. Did the Teas run on an anti-abortion platform Nuk? Are they doing what they said they would? Did Scott Walker in Wisconsin run on an anti-union message? No. But that is his focus.

And how has America received the Tea Party, as a whole?

1. Senator Lisa Murkowski became the first senator in 50 years to win a write in campaign facing Tea Partier Joe Miller in Sara Palin's Alaska.

2. We did not elect a witch.

3. Even the ineffective Harry Reid beat his Tea Party apponent because she adopted this wreckless and dangerous "solve the Reid problem with 2nd Amendment remedies" crazy talk.

4. Allen West of Florida practically challenged Debbie Wasserman Schultz to a fistfight over her pointing out his stance on medicare... comments she made addressing him as "The gentleman from Florida." His response? "that you are not a Lady" and "shall not be afforded due respect from me!" Problem is, she was right that he is moving to reduce Medicare benefits. HE DID NOT CAMPAIGN on that. When he had his next town hall, he was blasted by Republicans he represents. How do you think HIS re-election looks?

5. Democrat Bill Owens took NY's 23d district which had been GOP since the Civil war versus a Tea Partier.

NUK, buddy, get your popcorn ready. Tomorrow are the special recall elections in Wisconsin, where candidates who did not campaign on union busting, but focused mainly on union busting, are being called to task. This will be yet another example of the shelf life of The mixed message, gun-brandishing, deficit and tax-hating Tea party.

I have not been impressed with their inability to govern responsibly. And even less impressive is seeing the GOP move hard right in order to pander to their Dick Army-funded campaigns and fake grass roots movements funded by The Kock brothers.

NUK,now is not the time for grandstansders speaking of revolution. We need statesmen, engineers, and scientists who have rebuilding and moving forward at heart. Remember this key sentence from Standard & Poors WRT our downgraded credit rating:

"S&P said in a statement that "the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011."

We need people willing to work together; not ideologues... and that goes for BOTH sides.

Sorry so long, but The TEAs have a resume' that deserves airing.

Cheers

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
kevin: TP

You should have saved your typing skills for another response :)......like I've said several times, I'm not the biggest fan of the TP, especially some of the clowns like Miller, Angle, O'Donnell, Palin, Bachmann, etc. I do agree with the TP on a lot of fiscal issues, and then they lose me on everything else. If they had just stuck to the basic Tea Party Patriots' group philosophy (hard right fiscally, socially libertarian or apathetic, accepting of GOPride, etc), that would be fine with me. Instead, there is an ultra-conservative side on social issues and also the role of government in those issues that is big trouble and that I totally disagree with.

I don't have a problem with what the TP did over the debt ceiling, though. The fact that 70+ of these ceiling revisions have been done in history is exactly why we have a 14 trillion deficit right now. Until something drastic happened, it would have continued forever. Now, the playing field has changed. It's not good to make decisions out of spite either, but Obama's vote in the Senate against raising the debt ceiling so he could appear "principled" because he knew it was getting raised no matter how he voted makes this situation rather fitting and ironic.

I didn't see any leadership whatsoever from Obama or the Dems. They have been too cowardly to even pass a budget and Obama's last one got shot down 97-zip. Obama, the Dems and some Repubs completely ignored the Gang of Six and the Boyles/Simpson committees that both proposed very serious measures and worked long and hard to come up with a roadmap to getting control again on govt's spending and debt for the long-term. . Obama and the Dems wanted zero part of either, just like the Ryan plan. When the Dems are sitting around as usual against anything, it's ridiculous to then start calling the Repubs or TP the "parties of no" when Obama's "4 trillion grand bargain" was nothing but rumors and the CBO
doesn't score heresay and rumors.

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will happen, but then everyone is going to look back a year later and wonder why the deficit is still humongous and growing as fast or faster than usual. There is a big fundamental problem of government spending that has to be addressed and there's going to be pain and teeth-gnashing over it. No more kicking the can down the road.

The temporary plan that passed left the Bush tax cuts in effect and also didn't touch entitlement spending. In other words, it's another example of putting everything off once again. That's why the TP people at the end voted against it and it's also why the whole debacle will be visited again.
I don't see blaming the TP for doing what they were elected to do and what the Repubs, Dems and many Presidents have all been afraid to do for far too long.

damn..I rambled more than you I think :)

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Nuk and kevink
Quote:

damn..I rambled more than you I think :)

Looks like a tie from where I stand. Alas, I never have near enough smarts to last long enough to write entries like those.

The Tea Party to me fits the definition of a granfalloon: "A granfalloon is a recognized grouping of people that, underneath it all, has no real meaning."

Regarding stopping the rise of the deficit, it is not what you do but how you do it. I do not believe that we had to be shot in the foot to begin the fix.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Carbon n NUK: There is no rambling with original thoughts.

Even when I don't agree, I enjoy reading well thought out, non cut and paste opinion. We are lacking that here and in Washington DC. Thanks to you both for bucking the sound bite trend.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
DMom & Checks

See recent posts re FAA--blame should be laid at feet of Senate who refuses to pass the House bill that extends FAA funding.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG

Playing the blame game does nothing for the deficit. The American people can help lower the deficit NOW. As we can see, the members of Congress aren't interested - they have other things to 'argue' about. Someone has to do something about the deficit!!. The American people, acting maturely, can do that by writing a check to the Treasury Department. If the members of Congress can't figure it out, we'll just have to skip the 'process' that goes nowhere fast.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
DMom & Blame Game

I only commented because you were hitting on congress for being on vacation while citizens were not getting their checks and didn't know what you were talking about--I still don't. And you can send the US Treasury what you want, but you must know that it's just a"feel good" reaction on your part--it's rather meaningless.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG
Quote:

I only commented because you were hitting on congress for being on vacation while citizens were not getting their checks and didn't know what you were talking about--I still don't.

This is what I said: My check is going to the Treasury Department to help pay down the deficit. . not to insure anyone getting a check. With this Congress, check today's news. FAA??

You had asked me what citizens are not getting checks. What are you on? Don't bother to answer. Have a nice day.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG

4000 workers in FAA are 'furloughed' - no checks. Construction workers on airport projects are shut down. My statement has nothing to do with 'checks' - but the deficit!! It's not a feel good step - a reputable economist stated that this could be done - and others are joining in. Congress (this Congress is getting nothing done - and the deficit continues to grow.) Americans can do something. But you and others don't have to be concerned, no one is 'forcing' anyone to do this. Have a nice day. ..and I do know what I'm talking about. Turn on the news.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
FAA/AHG

A constituent of yours is on TV - an engineer out of work at this time. Neil Bolen. Know him? Westmoreland, and GA Senators represent him - and he's a little upset that they are on 'vacation'. BUT MY CONCERN AND CHECK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS AT THIS TIME - my little check is just to reduce the deficit.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
DMom & FAA

A constituent of mine? I don't think so--like you, I am a completely retired person and, as such, have no constituents. And typically, you continue to ignore inaction of the Senate (Boxer specifically) to even offer an amended bill to what the House passed on Jul 20th.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Democrats are the Unions lap dogs

A bill has been passed by Congress. Harry Reid and the libs refuse to vote on it because they know if they pass it, that their Union bosses will hang them out to dry in 2012. Unions own the Democrat party, lock, stock, and barrel.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Grizz, uniona and their members are the root cause of our probs.

Starting with that 6 term union boss Ronald Reagan. Haven't they just systematically ruined all that was good in America?

If we could just bust all of the unions it would finally free up the 2001 tax cuts so that they could FINALLY cause the trickle down jobs that were supposed to happen ten years ago. Stinkin unions.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
RWM

LOL. Something from the consignment shop in Fayetteville!

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
The Democrats just want to use everyone elses money to

prove they are compassionate.

Their compassion should rest on their own pocket books.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Teas and the FAA

The Teas in the House of Representatives have thrown a hizzy fit and refused to reauthoriize the FAA unless subsidies end for a few small airports.

The party of deficit reduction has taken a firm stand that results in the lay off of thousands of government and non government employees and the suspension of major airport consturction projects.

This is costing the Federal government millions of dollars and the loss of revenue is growing. Hey dummies, you are causing the budget deficit to grow.

And the House takes a vacation.

Thanks a lot to all you Fayette County Republican Teas.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Lion & The FAA

The House passed a bill extending funding for the FAA--the Senate refused to pass it. Yes, it included elimination of subsidies for 3--yep, 3, small airports--all within 1 1/2 hrs driving time to another airport. Oh yes, one was in Nevada--ya know, that place where Harry Reid hails from! And contrary to Dem scare tactics, air travel safety is not involved.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
The FAA is Clearly a Republican debacle AHG

Let's review what actually happened. The FAA has been funded with continuing resolutions since 2007 until money expired July 23. For the new funding, Republican House Transportation chairman John Mica inserted a provision to overturn a regulator's ruling that airlines can unionize if a majority of ballots in an election favor a union. This aligns the airlines with every other industry in the country. The previous, and very unusual rule that was struck down, was that all members of the workforce who did not vote were counted as additional "No" votes. This is what Mica wanted to restore and that was the reason that the Senate voted it down. Obama endorsed the Mica bill this week and Reid still refused to accept the provision.

Republicans claim that the hang up is over closing three insignificant airports that cost $16 million/year. So far, they've blown a billion in tax collections. Of course, that is a preposterously stupid cost/benefit outcome and actually has nothing to do with the real fight, which is the Republicans attacks on unions. For that fight, any amount of taxes can be sacrificed and any number of jobs can be lost.

Mica seems to have agreed to drop the provision today after Reid said no to Obama. So far, and besides the FAA employees, because there are no FAA inspectors, another 74,000 construction workers working on FAA projects have been furloughed.

The FAA debacle is just an aspect of the Republicans attacks on unions.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
JeffC sorry to pile on but....

you do have your facts wrong.

First and foremost the Senate could have passed the bill and in fact Reid tried to do so as it was, however Barbara Boxer blocked it.

"The Senate had ample opportunity to prevent this from happening, or at the very least to end the FAA shutdown by simply passing the House bill before adjourning on August 2. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) even urged his colleagues to do just that, saying “sometimes you have to step back and find out what’s best for the country and not be bound by some of your own personal issues.” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood concurred, imploring the Senate to act. But when Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) offered a unanimous consent request on Tuesday to proceed to consideration of the House bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) objected, effectively blocking the measure, after which Reid decided to throw in the towel and adjourn for the August recess, thus allowing the shutdown to continue."

So first thing you need to correct is the fact that Senate Democrats failed to compromise on the bill and failed to even offer an amended bill.

Second another issue was the Administrations attempted forcing of Delta Employees to accept a Union. Both the Pilots and Attendants have rejected the Unions attempts so the GOP added into the bill a proposal to stop ballot box stuffing by allowing non present members to vote. A sure fire way to insure voter fraud.

Democrats of course rejected that measure. They are beholden to the Union leaders not the workers themselves.

Now on the last issue and the Airports. The subsidizing (I thought that was a bad word now) of Airports in Harry Reid's State of Nevada has been a sore spot for a long time.
Did you realize that the taxpayers subsidize travelers out of these airports as much as $3700.00 per seat? Why?

The practice of Government picking business winners and losers must end Jeff.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Spin it OOU

There have been trick procedural votes on both sides. The argument is still about the unions. Here's Aviation Magazine reporting that Mica himself said that the riders closing the airports was "just a tool" to get concessions on the National Mediation Board’s ruling about unions:

FAA Reauthorization Extension Threatened

Underlying this recent tiff over the extension are larger divisions over the actual reauthorization bill. The top issue among them are changes to the National Mediation Board’s (NMB) rules that would make it easier for airline and rail employees to unionize.

The House added the EAS policy riders as a way to extract concessions on the NMB provisions, according to Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who also spoke at the conference.

“It’s just a tool to try to motivate some action to get this resolved,” Mica says, adding that the NMB issue is being moved “at the highest leadership levels of the House and Senate and beyond my ability to resolve.”

Here's the WSJ's: "Now aviation and railway workers who don't vote in a union election are no longer counted as part of the overall work force from which unions must build a majority. In effect, the board counts a nonexistent ballot as a pro-labor vote to organize."

This is absurd spin. The board does not now count a nonexistent ballot as a pro-labor vote to organize. Almost exactly the opposite, the board now does not count a nonexistent ballot as an automatic "No". The rule stops the counting of nonexistent ballots at all.

Under the new rules, votes in an election to unionize must win the majority of votes cast instead of a majority of the total workforce. Obviously, this makes unionizing easier so the Republicans oppose it.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
OOU: Nothing on unions in the short-term bill

The House passed a 60 day temporary funding bill that contains nothing about union voting at all. They passed an earlier bill for long-term funding that contained the language that overturned the ridiculous NMB edict and has gone nowhere since then, but the bill the Senate won't act on contains none of that, but does end the subsidies for a few airports/airlines for money-losing flights.

Dems have done a decent job of snowing most of the media into the whole "union busting" line of bull that isn't contained at all in THIS bill. I see Hoyer was out lying his backside off to the press today saying the present bill passed by the House and sent to the Senate has the NMB language when it sure as hell doesn't. Reid's attempt Monday to do the same got him shamed by the press.

Obama and eventually Reid and the FAA were ready to move on this 60 day funding but other Dems in the Senate refused and now it's just a matter of how long it will take for the rest of the media to stop howling about the TP and look at how the Dems have simply let 4000 FAA employees get laid off and construction projects delayed(you know that will drive the costs way up once they resume)because they are afraid the repubs will come right back with their long-term bill in a couple of months.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
JeffC & The FAA

New qestion: So why didn't Congress fix the FAA funding issue in 2008, 2009, or 2010? No, forget 2010 when there were zero appropriations bills passed--no, not one! Great job Speaker Peloser!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
JeffC: That's not accurate

The bill the House has passed contains nothing about overturning the NMB ruling about union votes. It does remove the 16mil in subsidies, however.

The Dems are apparently afraid that if they "give in" to the Repubs on this, THEN there will be a broader bill passed in the House that will address the union issue, but what the House has actually passed contains NOTHING at all about that particular issue. Reid got embarrassed by reporters on this issue when he tried that argument and one reporter had the actual passed House bill in his hands and correctly pointed out that Reid was full of crap.

Apparently, both Obama and Reid are now OK with the House bill, but Jay Rockefeller and others in the Senate are adamant about keeping the subsidies in the bill and taking a hardline because they think if they OK the House bill now(and they have had 2 weeks to think about this already) that the Repubs will come back for more. Rockefeller is using the same argument as Reid did the other day, though at least he admits there is nothing in the passed House legislation about union voting.

Sorry, this isn't about union voting rules suddenly decreed by the NMB at this moment; it's about 16mil in subsidies for nothing airline flights that cannot be supported by the ticket buying flying public and the Dems still licking their wounds over the debt deal and trying to exert some political muscle. They don't care if 4000 FAA workers and some construction projects get hung out to dry if they think they can blame it on the Repubs, but this time, they got nothing there.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Amazing how normally semi-reliable liberals

like JeffC and kevin seem to be going with the flow of blame everyone else but themselves for the mess we are in.

All spin all the time. They can't hide from the truth and neither can Obama.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Observer. I've been on the road for a bit, but familiar questio

What in the world are you talking about? Blame who for what? Mess I caused? In the kitchen? Bathroom? Bedroom? Help me out.

Take your meds.... and wash them down with an imported stout beer. Should help a bit.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
NUK - what do you expect?

What do you expect NUK? They're a bunch of bed-wetting liberals that lie as often as they breathe. They will say and do anything to obstruct and demonize anything that reduces spending. They will lie right in the face to Americans and not think twice about it.

http://www.nomoreblankchecks.com/

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
NUK_1, hope you're not expecting a response

JeffC, like Reid, tend to go dark when someone shines a light on their 'spin'.

In true Democratic form, kevink will pop up and try to fill in for JeffC.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Jeff

I'm not sure which group in the FAA might want a union but my understanding of that is those fellows who want a union already make about $70,000 a year plus benefits.

They do not need a union to negotiate further!

Pilots should not have a union either.

Unions are for underpaid and mistreated peons! Laborers, for instance.I would think those construction workers are NOT FAA employees!

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
It's obvious Roundabout

that you have absolutely NO concept of either FAA or Pilots. I'm not a union fan but you need to ask former ValueJet pilots what life was like without contracted work rules, etc. Pilots get paid only for the time from "pushback to block-in." Not time at the gate, time in the airport, time delays for weather, time delays for mechanical. So most pilots put in 10 to 12 hour days and get paid for 4 to 5 hours. And that's with a contract. Without a contract, here is a ValueJet rotation that a friend of mine flew years ago: One leg to Jacksonville, Fl. flight time about 54 minutes. Layover and fly back. Total flight time: under 2 hours. With a contract that rotation would pay 10 hours (forcing the airlines to schedule productively). But ValueJet (no contract) paid only actual flight time: under 2 hours for 2 days work. Not a lot of pay is it? By the way, check out commuter airlines pay and work rules.
As for FAA controllers, you need to study the PATCO Strike of the early 1980's. The issue was NEVER money, but work rules in high stress environments. Leadership issues removed any type of stress counseling with the threat of job loss.
Point being is that neither the FAA or Pilots have unions due to being "underpaid," but to enforce work rules that directly affect safety, ie. mandatory rest periods, sick rules, etc.
Oh, by the way, what would YOU do the job for? Ask yourself this, do you want a pilot or controller having TOTAL control over YOUR life or the life of your family with insufficient rest, lack of experience, limited training, forced to "fly" or not get paid?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Birdman

I wasn't mentioning Controllers----they are working aren't they?

I'll not argue your facts with you---only to say as a manufacturing manager for many years, I was "on salary" and had no maximum hours or days a week to work.

The minimum was like 50 hours per week and a lot of Saturdays. Also night shifts.

I had to be schooled and trained just as you were.

I also started out at a salary that was not enough and earned more later by smartness and effort.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Jeff C& The FAA

OK, so why, then, did Dems fail to fix this Continuing Resolution Budget fix earlier when they had COMPLETE control of congess?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Interesting AHG

A few hours you knew nothing about the FAA problem - and now you're an expert! Wonderful!

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Democrats: Union Lap Dogs

The House Republicans passed the bill that would put everyone back to work. The Democrats refuse to pass it because they are owned completely by big labor.

Democrats take their marching orders from Trumka and his SEIU goons- plain and simple.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
AHG stop using logic and facts

Lion and dmom couldn't care less about your facts they have an ideology to push after all.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Airlines are loving it too!

They aren't lowering fares over the fact that the gov can't collect the FAA tax right now so I'm sure they hope this lasts for a while.

While this amount of money IS relatively small, Harry Reid says it REALLY has to do with the good 'ol NMB kowtowing to the pathetic labor unions who can't win a vote at Delta so they need the rules changed, which the NMB was more than happy to do. That's another fight that is going to happen, but the already-passed House bill that Reid doesn't like doesn't address the labor issue whatsoever and reporters burned Reid on that yesterday.

If Reid wants the FAA reauthorized, maybe he can come up with a bill more to the liking of the House since he won't consider what has been passed. If anyone is holding up re-authorization, it's actually Reid at this point. Why should the House stay in session waiting for Reid and his buddies to come up with ANYTHING when Reid has shown he's terrified to introduce any kind of legislation that might be in any way controversial or make the Dems nervous?

conditon55
conditon55's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2010
Bankrupt the USA to bankroll the Health Care industry?

Why ?

If the folks of the USA improve their own health, it is the single most potent answer to the HC crisis.

But, we can't bankrupt the country to bank roll HC.

drgio
drgio's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2008
Reply

I won't divulge my employee contributions. Regarding chiropractic coverage, we should be covered but that remains to be seen. I am more concerned as a business owner and employer than as a doctor. My core beliefs overshadow any self serving benefits that might arise out of this plan.

Regarding mandates for freebies, it happens now already. I help those people in need without funds; however, it raises the cost of my overhead and everyone else takes the hit. The ER's have to accept everyone. Do you think their care is free? The cost of overhead is passed along to the rest of us with insurance. If I hear about one more invase unnecessary federal mandate I'm gonna explode.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Instead of requiring everyone to buy insurance, the requirement

should be that every medical insurance company provide a percentage of their payout in indigent care or for others that are uninsured.

Much like attorneys are required to provide pro bono services.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Insurance companies have become the rulers of our world

and they need to be put in check and kept under control.

drgio
drgio's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2008
OBAMACARE

Obama said "I believe health care is a right." He made it a platform of his campaign. Nothing is a RIGHT when I have to fork out money or face prison time to ensure that "right." Your right to free speech, bear arms, freedom of religion, does not impose a federal mandate on anyone. Real rights do not impose taxes on anyone wishing to opt out of those rights. Nevertheless, he got his wish.

For all you "expert bloggers" who think you know what you're talking about, you don't. I've been a healthcare provider for 24 years and a business owner. My insurance premiums went to over $3500 a month this year, up from $2900 last year. That is for 3 people! There is NOTHING in Obamacare that in any way decreases these drastic increases in premiums. It is guaranteed they will go up. Why? Because Barack Hussein Obama wants to mandate that everyone is covered. No more pre existing clauses. That being the case it is impossible for the price of care to go down.

Obamacare means less money in the employers hands to hire new people. Furthermore, quality of health care will go down the tubes too. You think it takes a long time to see a specialist now? Wait until the thousands of "undocumented workers,' I mean illegal invaders start filling the doctors offices, not just the Piedmont Fayette ER.

This has NOTHING to do with right wing left wing politics. It has to do with pure stupidity (Obama for you Dems) vs. sanity. The solution is to open restrictions on distribution of insurance and let the free market dictate pricing. www.drgio.com

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
drgio?

How are Chiropractors treated in the congressional health plan? That is besides poor treatment insurance, and just what kind of care does your employees get at the prices you say you pay? How much do the employees pay?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
drgio

Doctor, excellent post. Those with a fuzzy vision of the way they would like to see the world and their ability to use government power to fulfill their vision is a misguided, albeit well intentioned, road to poverty for us all.

If Obamacare is not stopped in 2012, the entire country will suffer long lines and poor quality medicine. Our medical professionals will be over worked, discouraged and under paid for their services. As a result, there will be fewer and fewer quality people entering the profession.

President Obama, is an excellent example of a political elitist with "vision", a dangerous combination for the health of our nation.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Obama is a headache

I would rather have a president that gets headaches than the current president that only knows how to give headaches.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Grizz; you are ine deep thinker mate!

Real deep. You should work for the GOP version of Hallmark, because they are in dire need of slogans to fill the void where ideas would normally fit.

By the way. Do you want a President who thinks The USA defaulting on our debts is "not a big deal?" Do you want a President who worked for the IRS? That has drawn income from farm subsidies and then lied about the amount (an amount which she had included on financial disclosures previously)? Who lied about the amount of Medicaid and Medicare income her family earned from their counseling practice?

Do you want a President who tried to tell us the "founding fathers" who owned slaves "worked tirelessly to end slavery?"

Michelle Bachmann is a walking punchline. An anti-government politician who thinks there should be investigations of members of congress for anti-American thoughts. I could go on, Grizz, but I don't want to provide you with more facts than you can deny.

I pray she is The GOP candidate for president, and that, somehow, Sara Palin is also on the ticket.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
kevink - Bachmann

There's plenty of dirt floating in the toilet called Washington politics...on both sides. People rise to power on the backs of others by the time they get to Washington, it's political elitism gone wild.

You know why kevink? The American people have forgotten the intended purpose of government.

It's just that simple.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
kevink

I would rather have Bachman than the socialist Obama that wants nothing more than to "spread the wealth" for 4 more years in all 57 states. His presidency has been a complete, unmitigated disaster.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
57 states?

?????????

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Yes DM that is what Obama said. 57 States.

He's referring to a speech that Obama gave during his campaign where he said he had visited 57 states.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Take the time to check the facts about Obama bumbles

Here they are: he meant to say 47. Impeach him!

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/obamas-bumbles/

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Davids Mom - Fact Check

"True: Obama made the mistake of saying that he had visited 57 U.S. states during a presidential campaign appearance in Oregon in 2008. He clearly meant to say 47, but slipped up."

How does "Fact Check.Org" or anyone know what the Obama 'meant' to say? Perhaps he's just that ignorant, having spent his developing years under Muslim influence.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
I know DMom

That is what happens when the teleprompter is broken.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35Dude

LOL! Another perspective of the use of the teleprompter:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4848259-503544.html

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Impeach him, Moms? Ok with me.

BTW, did you get invited to his 50th birthday party? Hear it is going to be swell. Big supporter like you should get an invite. Whatcha gonna wear?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
RWM

YES! I'm wearing something from the consignment shop in Fayetteville. LOL!
(Don't know where my other answer went.)

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
DM,he is being sarcastic

Our President Obama in a stump speech talked about visiting all "57" states. He is merely repeating our president's words

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Wedge

Thanks

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
for u, grizz......

And somali pirates.... and bin Laden's network, I'm. Sure this has been a terrible presidency ;-)

Dondol
Dondol's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
You think Obama's been so good, Look at This!

Go ahead and do some checking around on this, IT WILL MAKE YOU SICK!

And to think these are the institutions that want to raise our Bond ratings!

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

July 21st, 2011

The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the left), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.

What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

“This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.” – Bernie Sanders(I-VT)

When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses can be stopped with five dollars worth of bullets.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696
FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
Senator Sander’s Article: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-6206...

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Dondol, Isn't it possible this has something to do with

the FDIC?

And that they were doing just what they had agreed to do in case of a failure in the monetary system.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
To all

I, like many others are sick of the whole process! These 'actors' in Congress who are now on vacation while thousands of citizens aren't getting their checks make me sick. Instead of bellyaching about the deficit, I'm joining those citizens who are sending what they can to the Treasury earmarked for deficit. These Congress people are empty suits. They are not doing the business of the people! We the people can sidestep this idiocy by doing what we can to bring down the deficit now. This is not a Republican, Democrat, or TeaParty solution. Just the American people taking common sense action. Someone said if one out of four sent five dollars a month to the Treasury, we would start reducing the deficit. Maybe this will help! Cutting government jobs is hurting us. Maybe we can stop this unnecessary bleeding. ( We -not our ineffective Congress)

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
DMom & Checks

While I share your sentiment of being sick of the whole process in Congress, Pls tell me just what citizens aren't getting their checks.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
kevink

You forgot the 15%+ that are unemployed, thanks to to Obama's policies of growing only government jobs and for being the SEIU's water boy.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Grizz, sorry it took me so long to point out your latest false

statement.

There are 518,000 fewer government employees now than there were in January 2009.

Stick to bumper stickers, mate. The sources from which you draw your commentary are not serving you well.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
*

*

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
You quote Krugman?

From Enron...?

Hahahahahahahaha - You really are a joke.

You need to look at the "facts" a little more carefully. Outside of the Postal Service, federal government jobs are up 139,300 (or 6.7 percent) under Obama, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The POSTAL SERVICE, Kevin. The government-run, money losing Postal Service.

All other jobs are up. Get your facts together before you go spouting off about stuff you don't know about, weasel.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
jokekawfi coward: how are u enjoying your life in the shadows?

Jokeawfi. We can read. We can see this is Politifact, the non-partisan, Pulitzer prize winning publication which rates the truthiness of what people say. We can all see the BIG FAT TRUE right next to Krugman's comments. Politifact even explained your Postal Service slant. Do you think no one read that?

And, by the by, my unfriendly coward in chief, John Boehner tried the spin you just polluted the boards with. You never have an original thought, so that is probably where you borrowed your spun numbers. Notice the BIG FAT FALSE by Boehner's statements, which you parrot.

What a pathetic person you are, man. My brave little anonymous insult hurler.

Joke. I understand why you cower in the shadows. Your last face to face insult didn't go so well for you: "Smell it, smell it, smell it. Now take it :-D

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Oh KevinK, you poor, poor pathetic little weasel.

You boy Obama is tanking and will not be re-elected next year because of his shear incompetence and narcissism.

What pathetic little fool he is.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Jokeawfi. Gotta love the Zohan.

How's your face healing? :-)

T-Man
T-Man's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/16/2006
Health care

Not sure how the hew Health care plan ties into the rising cost of insurance. Insurance Co's are big business and could be trying to recoup monies fighting law suits.

Their maybe room for improvement in some areas of the plan but it marks a step in the right direction as the American way. What part of the plan do you not like? 6 million + kids now have access to a doctor.

Who do we make suffer?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
There is nothing unconstitutional....

.......about the health care passed by congress!

Call it congressional healthcare----not Obamacare!

James Madison never even dreamed of how to do any kind of health care!

Quacks, horse doctors, ill-trained, so-called doctors, and patent medicine was all that was available. Maybe some heroin syrup and home made brew!

Leach bleeding and brain drilling occasionally.

Poor people just simply suffered and died!

We need regulations-----if not, maybe we don't need the Bible either!

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
McMillan and healthcare

"Obamacare" is a word made up by the right wing opponents of health care reform. If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion on the subject, do not use the term "Obamacare."

Contrary to what Mcmillan states there is no criminal penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. There is a tax penalty--and a modest one at that.

Obama's health care reform is not a threat to our liberty. That is absurd. Reform helps put health care within reach of most Americans. And most Americans understand that despite the fear mongering from the far right.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - Whatever

you call it is DOA in 2012.

It can't come too soon for me.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
PTC Observer: What has the Affordable Healthcare act changed in

your life that you want reversed? For me, my college kids are now included on my healthcare policy for which I pay premiums. Where is the problem?

There is an individual rate, a married rate, and a family rate. If I am Michelle Bachmann with 15 dependents or a family of 5, the premiums are the same. So what is the problem you have with my college kids being covered as family until 26, while they try to fight the 9+% unemployment rate by gaining employment?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
kevin

I don't think anyone on this board has a problem with your kids on your insurance policy. It's the problem of covering an unknown number of unfunded subscribers in the future as Obamacare is further unrolled. Current events dictate that we can not afford another $100 billion added to each year's budget for the next 10 years.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
How are you, Cyclist? Two points my friend:

" Current events dictate that we can not afford another $100 billion added to each year's budget for the next 10 years."

And yet, we can afford to continue subsidizing oil companies, ethanol, etc? If you pay attention to the anti Affordable Health Care Act crowd, this is their version of reality. Say we are out of money, yet refuse to end subsidies or close tax loopholes. But here is where this train of thought jumps the tracks.

"the problem of covering an unknown number of unfunded subscribers in the future as Obamacare is further unrolled."

For there to be additional cost to the government in covering folks currently without health care insurance, you have to assume these people are not currently a financial burden to the state and federal government. The dirty secret (which is no secret at all) is this: People who get sick go to the ER and get the most expensive form of care we have. And that costs the government RIGHT NOW. This is no secret. ERs don't turn away the sick because they don't have insurance. They treat them.

This is precisely why The Affordable Health Care Act does not bankrupt America. This is pure GOP misinformation. And I am amazed how many ordinary folks have bought into this fallacy.

Moving the uninsured out of ERs and into health care insurance pools REDUCES the cost of the care they ALREADY get.

Safe travels.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Talking points and Rhetoric
kevink wrote:

" Current events dictate that we can not afford another $100 billion added to each year's budget for the next 10 years."

And yet, we can afford to continue subsidizing oil companies, ethanol, etc? If you pay attention to the anti Affordable Health Care Act crowd, this is their version of reality. Say we are out of money, yet refuse to end subsidies or close tax loopholes. But here is where this train of thought jumps the tracks.

Then why are you not yelling for closing the loopholes, where are the Democrats on this where are the bills? Where is anything but Rhetoric?

I noticed you added Ethanol to the list this is a true subsidy but remember once you remove the incentives from business to be able to write off expenditures we will spend less. Economy will stagnate further. Prices will rise. Inflation results.

Quote:

For there to be additional cost to the government in covering folks currently without health care insurance, you have to assume these people are not currently a financial burden to the state and federal government. The dirty secret (which is no secret at all) is this: People who get sick go to the ER and get the most expensive form of care we have. And that costs the government RIGHT NOW. This is no secret. ERs don't turn away the sick because they don't have insurance. They treat them.

No kevin the real dirty secret is that there is no healthcare crisis. Just like you said the uninsured already get Medical care. Thanks for finally admitting it. The "cure" would have been to address these Americans not force an entire population to endure a screwed up Government bureaucratic nightmare at the cost of a Trillion dollars plus.

Quote:

This is precisely why The Affordable Health Care Act does not bankrupt America. This is pure GOP misinformation. And I am amazed how many ordinary folks have bought into this fallacy.

No kevin your simplistic response is indicative of a progressive who believes we can spend in perpetuity.

It's the spending stupid.

They always said your house is your BEST investment so buy more house then you can really afford. How did that work out?

The SPENDING necessary to implement and maintain is what we cannot afford.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
observerofu. u have an interesting outlook.

Because uninsured people pour into emergency rooms and get the most expensive treatment possible, it is your opinion that there is no health care crisis. Well, you may want to grab a seat. Enough senators and congressmen disagreed with you to vote The Affordable Healthcare Act into law. Our President signed it. My kids are covered. Not even tea party ideologes can be dropped from their policies due to pre-existing conditions. It's the law of the land. Deal with it. Can't wait to hear you moan when the Bush tax cuts die.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hello kevin

I'm out here in toasty Tulsa. Anyways, about that AHA thingy; I know what your saying about emergency rooms expense but remember, this act is a jobs bill plus the HHS Secretary - AKA Healthcare Czar - has the power to fund any number of healthcare "levers". Remember it was the President and the rest of his merry band that was touting the fact that AHA will only cost a little less than a trillion over 10 years.

BTW, did you see that the Healthcare Czar announce that birth control, breast-pumps, yearly physicals, and other preventive services for women have to be provided with no co-pays. Insurance subscribers - that's you and me - will of course pay for this. I have just a little hunch that the Czar is not done making changes - some which that could be motivated by politics.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Cyclist. Been gone for a while, but I see you use to be about..

issues before your concern shifted to an aunt of the president. As for your above concerns, I suggest you bring them up with bloggers with breasts and or a uterus. They would be imenently more qualified to discuss the importance of said medical issues.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
kevin

I'm still waiting on the lady health care czar to mandate prostate cancer screening.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Cyclist. Ain't no man takin that route with me :-D

Till I'm 50 :-). And unconscious

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Kevin and prostate cancer
kevink wrote:

Till I'm 50 :-). And unconscious

Don't wait. I know they don't check this during your annual flight fitness physical so you get yourself down to the regular doc and get this check done. The American Cancer Society recommends the old finger wave and a PSA starting at 40. Kevin you can ignore all my other posts and or call me a ranting right wing tea party sympathizer; but please get this done.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Cyclist: Do you have small hands?

Maybe next Coffee summit we can set up a backdoor backroom for bloggers :-D.

I'll get 'er done, my friend. Thanks, and have a great day!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Cyclist: Do you have small hands?

Maybe next Coffee summit we can set up a backdoor backroom for bloggers :-D.

I'll get 'er done, my friend. Thanks, and have a great day!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Not for long, weasel

Yeah - I'm talking to you kevin

The monstrosity of the AHA will be repealed in 2013 the day after Obama leaves office after being voted out in a landslide, similar to the way that idiot Jimmy Carter was voted out.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
jokeawfi. will you promise to move to Costa Rica with Rush....

if neither of the above happen?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Oh kevin it was so popular that it had to be mandated

Why is that?

Why did they have to use parliamentary tricks to get it passed?

Why did the American public at large say they did not want it?

The why is kevin my little spend and tax buddy is that it's a boondoggler of Government bureaucratic bs.

Let's look at some facts:
1. According to Obama we have 30 million uninsured.

Obama wrote:

"Obama, Sept. 9: There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."

Now according to the left leaning Kaiser group this includes 10 Million Illegal Aliens. Even they admit Obama wanted to cover Illegal Immigrants.

Kaiser Group wrote:

The numbers do work, as long as you include uninsured non-citizens who are in the country legally to arrive at the final number. Of course "legal immigrants" are not "citizens," which is the word Obama used in his speech. But Obama has made no secret of his support for providing health care benefits for legal non-citizens.

2. Now if you subtract those and according to the same study approx 50% of the uninsured are those that opt out. The Young under the age of 25. That leaves us with 10 Million uninsured due to economic reasons. The same study also noted that a little more than half actually use some sort of taxpayer subsidized care about twice per year.

Now that gives us approx 6 Million people that need and use taxpayer subsidized healthcare.
Take into account that the average ER visit cost $1265 per visit that means that on average that each individual uses about $2500 per year in un-paid services for which Hospitals write off.

Kevin now you have stated that it was not the TRILLION dollars spent on Universal Healthcare.

kevink wrote:

For there to be additional cost to the government in covering folks currently without health care insurance, you have to assume these people are not currently a financial burden to the state and federal government. The dirty secret (which is no secret at all) is this: People who get sick go to the ER and get the most expensive form of care we have. And that costs the government RIGHT NOW. This is no secret. ERs don't turn away the sick because they don't have insurance. They treat them.
This is precisely why The Affordable Health Care Act does not bankrupt America. This is pure GOP misinformation. And I am amazed how many ordinary folks have bought into this fallacy.

But the cost associated with covering the uninsured.

You logic does not follow. If it cost us a TRILLION dollars to cover approx 6 million people that cost on average $3000 per year how then is the cost of the uninsured was therefore bankrupting American and not the AHCA?

You see kevin numbers don't lie people do. People that use them to boaster illogical arguments for ideological purposes.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
observer of you. You are right. People do lie.

For instance, people like to say that the majority of Americans were against the Affordable Health Care Act. They liked being kicked off of policies. They enjoyed uninsured life in ERs. They did not want their kids on the health care plans they already paid for.

The secret, which you fail to disclose, is many people wanted it to be UNIVERSAL; Single Payer; Medicare for all.

It's amazing how Tea Partiers love their medicare. Amazing. Anyway, mate. It's still the law. You can type until your fingers are raw. It is not going away anytime soon.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
I will show you mine if you show me yours

Give me the polls kevin that said Most Americans wanted Government to take over healthcare.

Recent Comments