ObamaCare revisited

[Gonz]

Senate Finance Committee members have been notified that the committee's health reform bill was filed today. S. 1796 weighs in at 1,502 pages, according to a Senate Republican leadership source. It's still not up yet on the Finance Committee website or Thomas.gov. We'll post a link as soon as we get one

Politico

read it

(c) TREATMENT AS TAX.—For purposes of subtitle
F, the fees imposed by this subchapter shall be treated as if they were taxes.

But minkey says fees aren't taxes.

 

[catocom]

hmm...
it seems it's not just obamacare anymore.
it's all out political war.

 

[Winky]

yup and their take-over of the
country is nearly complete.

 

[spike]

Drama

 

[randomJACKASS]

OMG the government might start paying for my health care and as we all know people hold the government to a higher standard than they are even capable of holding my expensive insurance company to! What am I to do?!? The death panels are falling the death panels are falling!

Get out and spread the fear!

 

[Winky]

edited - Leslie

 

[Gonz]

OMG the government might start paying for my health care

Where does THE GOVERNMENT get their money?

 

[Winky]

It used to be a printing press in Denver
but now it's created with a series of mouse clicks
and another sale of a large chunk of U.S. to the ChiComs.

We really aren’t mortgaging our grandchildren’s futures
cuz they ain’t got one!

 

[jimpeel]

And you will be able to sign up at your local DMV for health insurance. Hell, you can't sign up for automobile insurance at the DMV but Obama wants you to be able to step into his plan while you sign up for Motor Voter.

All it needs now is a drive-thru window.

You Will Get Health Insurance at DMV—Literally (It’s in the Bill)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey

The most revelatory passage in the so-called “plain English” version of the health care bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved on Tuesday (without ever drafting the actual legislative language) says that in the future Americans will be offered the convenience of getting their health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is no joke. If this bill becomes law, it will be the duty of the U.S. secretary of health and human services or the state governments overseeing federally mandated health-insurance exchanges to ensure that you can get your health insurance at the DMV.

You also will be able to get it at Social Security offices, hospitals, schools and “other offices” the government will name later.

Page 19 of the committee’s “plain English” text says: “The Secretary and/or states would do the following: ... Enable customers to enroll in health care plans in local hospitals, schools, Departments of Motor Vehicles, local Social Security offices, and other offices designated by the state.”

This is the bill’s most revelatory passage because it sublimely symbolizes the bill’s true aim: a government takeover of the health care system.

<more>

 

[Winky]

What with the quality of service I've received over the years
I'd advocate we make the DMV a one stop shopping source
for all your life’s needs, except there is no shopping at the DMV
you get what they give ya and that’s it.

The reality is there is nothing at the DMV that anyone really needs, think about it.
Register to vote? Only needed to do that once in 1979 a fat lot of good it did.
(and that wasn't at the DMV)
Would my car drive without a registration or license plate?
(you bet yer ass it would)
After 30+ years of accident free driving and no insurance claims at all
just how much DO I need car insurance?

Wait the last time I needed medical insurance was in 1974
when I had surgery. All those decades, Dang it I want a refund!

 

[jimpeel]

Here's a funny exchange between a CNS reporter and Patrick Leahy on the constitutional authority to mandate health insurance.

Video Link

SOURCE

Senate Judiciary Chairman Unable to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
Thursday, October 22, 2009
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer


Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Photo courtesy of Leahy’s Web site)
(This story was updated Oct. 22, 2009, at 1:30p.m..)

(CNSNews.com) – Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.

Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that “nobody questions” Congress’ authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"

Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"

CNSNews.com: "I’m asking--"

Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."


When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government’s ability to set speed limits on interstate highways--before turning and walking away.

CNSNews.com: "But where, I mean, which–"

Sen. Leahy: "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?

CNSNews.com: "The states do that."

Sen. Leahy: "No. The federal government does that on federal highways."

Prior to 1995, the federal government mandated a speed limit of 55 miles an hour on all four-lane highways. The limit was repealed in 1995 and the authority to set speed limits reverted back to the states.

Technically, the law that established the 55 mile-an-hour limit--the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974--withheld federal highway funds from states that did not comply with it. The law rested on the Commerce Clause, which give Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress’ authority to dole out federal tax revenue. Someone who does not buy health insurance, critics have argued, is not by that ommission [sic] engaged in interstate commerce and thus there is no act of interstate commerce for Congress to regulate in this situation.

All versions of the health care bill currently being considered in Congress mandate that individuals buy heatlh [sic] insurance. Americans who don't would be subject to a financial penalty.

Attorney David Rivkin Jr., who worked in the Justice Department under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that Sen. Leahy's response about the constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance "is wrong."

"None of Congress' enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate," said Rivkin. "We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'"

"This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers' vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers," he said. "If the federal government can mandate an individual insurance purchase mandate, it can also mandate an unlimited array of other mandates and prescriptions, including the mandate to buy health club memberships or even to purchase a given quantity of fruits and vegetables."

"This state of affairs would completely warp our constitutional fabric, vitiate any autonomous role for the states and eviscerate individual liberty," said Rivkin. "It is profoundly un-American."

This is not the first time Congress has considered forcing Americans to buy health insurance. In 193-94, an individual mandate was a key component of then-President Bill Clinton’s health care reform proposal.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a 1994 report that for federal government to order Americans to buy health insurance would be “unprecedented,” adding that the government had “never required” Americans to purchase anything. “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” CBO found.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States," said the CBO report.

"An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Although Sen. Leahy said that "nobody" questions that Congress has the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee did question whether Congress had that authority when the health-care bill was being debated in their committee. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) tried to offer an amendment that would expedite judicial review of the bill were it enacted, but Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled that Hatch's amendment was out of order.

In making his ruling, Sen. Baucus said the issue should not be considered by the Finance Committee because it came under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee--the panel chaired by Sen. Leahy.

"If we have the power simply to order Americans to buy certain products, why did we need a Cash-for-Clunkers program or the upcoming program providing rebates for purchasing energy appliances?" Hatch asked on Oct. 1 when trying to offer his amendment in the committee. "We could simply require Americans to buy certain cars, dishwashers or refrigerators."

 

[Winky]

"there is no question of authority"

Their authority knows no bounds!
Who will be the first to not pay the ‘fine’
for not having health insurance?
If it could even make it to the Supreme Court
how would a wise Latina rule?

This is has gone beyond silly
straight into the ludicrous zone.

Oh America what a once great country you were.
No longer the land of the free, nor home to any brave.

 

[jimpeel]

Remember when they said there would be no rationing of care?

Remember when they said there would be no death panels?

Robert Reich didn't get the memo.

SOURCE

Hear it yourself.

AUDIO LINK

Here is what he said in a September 2007 speech to an audience at UC Berkeley:

I'll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

"Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true and what I'm going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people...you're going to have to pay more.

"Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

He also stated:

"Also I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid---we already have a lot of bargaining leverage---to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you."

 

[spike]

Page 19 of the committee’s “plain English” text says: “The Secretary and/or states would do the following: ... Enable customers to enroll in health care plans in local hospitals, schools, Departments of Motor Vehicles, local Social Security offices, and other offices designated by the state.”

This is the bill’s most revelatory passage because it sublimely symbolizes the bill’s true aim: a government takeover of the health care system.

Sounds great that it will be so convenient to get healthcare.

It's idiotic though that these ridiculous sources like CNS would throw in nonsense fear mongering at the end though. Oh noez it symbolizes government takeover!@! No, it doesn't. It symbolizes that you'll be able to sign up for healthcare at multiple locations.

That's the problem with sites like CNS. They make illogical leaps and distort facts. It'd be nice if you found some real news.

Also Jim, you might notice that in 2007 Reich wasn't in the administration so he couldn't possible be speaking for them or have "got their memos".

 

[catocom]

"cause and effect"

seems all the effects aren't being either considered, or displayed.
Especially if it conflicts with the agenda.

 

[spike]

seems all the effects aren't being either considered, or displayed.
Especially if it conflicts with the agenda.

What makes you say that? Anything specific, or are you just making vague unsubstantiated complaints?

 

[catocom]

What makes you say that? Anything specific, or are you just making vague unsubstantiated complaints?

1.) my perception of events

I'm quite often vague. Are you just now figuring that out?

unsubstantiated? Are you saying there are no regulations at all, now?

 

[spike]

You said the efffects aren't being considered. That was unsubstantiated vague complaining. It's pretty much meaningless.

 

[catocom]

that's your perception.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

that's your perception.