NOW THIS PI88E8 ME OFF!

[Furious1Auto]

I would post the entire article, but it is against BOF's user policy. I will not post snippets because it will be distorted by people trying to block real reform. It just makes me angry that the insurance companies could have this much influence.

 

It is important to note that this only happened because of the media's damming of a public option, and the use of the words Obama care.

 

Health Care lobby

[kpc655]

I would post the entire article, but it is against BOF's user policy. I will not post snippets because it will be distorted by people trying to block real reform. It just makes me angry that the insurance companies could have this much influence.

 

It is important to note that this only happened because of the media's damming of a public option, and the use of the words Obama care.

 

Health Care lobby

 

 

well, that and the fact that the gov't has no authority to offer a public option, require coverage, establish minimum coverage standards or require those with pre-existing conditions to be covered

 

ever read the constitution?

[partsisparts]

well, that and the fact that the gov't has no authority to offer a public option, require coverage, establish minimum coverage standards or require those with pre-existing conditions to be covered

 

ever read the constitution?

[/quote|

 

Explain Medicare then......

[Furious1Auto]

well, that and the fact that the gov't has no authority to offer a public option, require coverage, establish minimum coverage standards or require those with pre-existing conditions to be covered

 

ever read the constitution?

 

 

Do you mean that you can stop paying SSI? Do you mean you can stop paying for schools, Do you mean you could stop paying for police, and fire. If you could would you want to? There is no question as to whether or not they have the authority to implement socialized medicine. I take issue with the fact that any American company, or several working together could persuade or politicians to take actions against the American people for money.

 

I know it has been this way for some time, and if people really want to take back their government they need to wake up to the truth. We are the only industrialized nation that does not have social health care, and many people that live in those countries won't step foot in thee US, because if they do, and get hurt they cannot afford care. Even older Canadians buy travelers insurance to cover their medical when coming here, or they just stay home.

 

 

What we don't need is some watered down legislation that will make insurance companies richer, and cause the cost of care to rise more significantly. Some how I think this article was written to get people like myself to back off of any type of reform. That will never happen.

[kpc655]

well, that and the fact that the gov't has no authority to offer a public option, require coverage, establish minimum coverage standards or require those with pre-existing conditions to be covered

 

ever read the constitution?

 

Explain Medicare then......

i can't. there's no constitutional basis for it.

 

but luckily the challenges are beginning to crop up.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj

[kpc655]

Do you mean that you can stop paying SSI? Do you mean you can stop paying for schools, Do you mean you could stop paying for police, and fire. If you could would you want to? There is no question as to whether or not they have the authority to implement socialized medicine. I take issue with the fact that any American company, or several working together could persuade or politicians to take actions against the American people for money.

 

I know it has been this way for some time, and if people really want to take back their government they need to wake up to the truth. We are the only industrialized nation that does not have social health care, and many people that live in those countries won't step foot in thee US, because if they do, and get hurt they cannot afford care. Even older Canadians buy travelers insurance to cover their medical when coming here, or they just stay home.

 

What we don't need is some watered down legislation that will make insurance companies richer, and cause the cost of care to rise more significantly. Some how I think this article was written to get people like myself to back off of any type of reform. That will never happen.

 

i wish i could opt out of ssi. not yet...soon hopefully.

 

i didn't mention schools..or police...or fire....why would you? come on...focus here.

 

but thank you for further demonstrating that you have no understanding of the constitution, constitutionsl law, enumerated powers and government responsibility.

 

lets turn this around...under what constitutionally authorized power will socialized medicine be offered?

[Furious1Auto]

i wish i could opt out of ssi. not yet...soon hopefully.

 

 

 

lets turn this around...under what constitutionally authorized power will socialized medicine be offered?

 

 

Since you made the charge you lead, what constitutional law would prevent a government option? Are you telling me that the insurance industry cannot be regulated? This attitude is exactly why the insurance lobby was able to get legislation passed in Ohio mandating that people buy auto insurance. We need a government option takes away power from the insurance lobby, and Pharma. When you let private industry charge what every they please, because you make it law you buy their product, you have a problem. They went from charging nothing to start a policy, to charging a down payment. They now have our policemen walking around like collection agents, if you don't pay for insurance then you have your license taken, fined, and possibly put in jail. The problem lies in the fact that they sell policies for profit, and they will charge the maximum that the market will bear. We need a non-profit government option, or better yet a single payer health care system that outlaws the sale of health care insurance all together!

 

People cannot control getting sick, and they should not be extorted for it.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Furious1Auto

[stephenhawkings]

well, that and the fact that the gov't has no authority to offer a public option, require coverage, establish minimum coverage standards or require those with pre-existing conditions to be covered

 

ever read the constitution?

i read it for the articles.

 

this isn't the first thing that wasn't mentioned in the constitution, it it wont be the last.

 

the major party that is resistant to change, or reform in the health care industry are those parties that are making the most money, go figure.

[Deanh]

i read it for the articles.

 

this isn't the first thing that wasn't mentioned in the constitution, it it wont be the last.

 

the major party that is resistant to change, or reform in the health care industry are those parties that are making the most money, go figure.

And there it is in a nutshell...thankyou Stephen.

[kpc655]

Since you made the charge you lead, what constitutional law would prevent a government option?

 

 

you can stop right there. the federal government can only do what it's allowed to do. i.e. powers that are specifically reserved for it via the constitution. All powers and authority not specifically reserved for the feds reverts to the people (or states).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

 

The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.

 

i guess you really haven't read the constitution. that expains a lot.

[Furious1Auto]

you can stop right there. the federal government can only do what it's allowed to do. i.e. powers that are specifically reserved for it via the constitution. All powers and authority not specifically reserved for the feds reverts to the people (or states).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

 

The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.

 

i guess you really haven't read the constitution. that expains a lot.

 

 

According to your own source, they can do it, and don't even have to answer as to what gives them the authority!

 

Enumerated Powers Act

 

The Enumerated Powers Act, [2], is a proposed law that would require all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress to include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted. In every Congress since the 104th Congress, U.S. Congressman John Shadegg has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, although it has not been passed into law. At the beginning of the 105th Congress, the House of Representatives incorporated the substantive requirement of the Enumerated Powers Act into the House rules.[

 

You would think that with all of the politicians that accept money from the insurance lobby, that if there was any truth to your charges we would have heard this argument before. Take the vote away from congress, and the senate and let the people vote on it. Then we will see who supports what. All of the reporting of statistics on this issue, and even the reports of peoples positions have been obfuscated. Let the people vote, and take it out of the hands of people that get paid for their position.

[kpc655]

According to your own source, they can do it, and don't even have to answer as to what gives them the authority!

 

 

 

You would think that with all of the politicians that accept money from the insurance lobby, that if there was any truth to your charges we would have heard this argument before. Take the vote away from congress, and the senate and let the people vote on it. Then we will see who supports what. All of the reporting of statistics on this issue, and even the reports of peoples positions have been obfuscated. Let the people vote, and take it out of the hands of people that get paid for their position.

 

 

i think you need to improve your reading comprehension. In no way does anything i posted (or the US constitution) grant the authority for universal healthcare. Every single piece of legislation written starts off with what power they are exercising. have you ever read a bill?

[Furious1Auto]

i think you need to improve your reading comprehension. In no way does anything i posted (or the US constitution) grant the authority for universal healthcare. Every single piece of legislation written starts off with what power they are exercising. have you ever read a bill?

 

 

The powers of the government may be limited, however they also are extended by the will of the people, so if there is not the authority to write a bill into law then all they have to do is present it to the people to vote on. BTW I scored in the top 95% in reading comprehension when I was in school, not to mention I read, interpret, and write my own contracts used in my side business.

 

You are still the only person using this argument, and you still have not specifically cited what laws disallow the government to wright a national health care plan into existence. You are right on one account, I am not an expert in constitutional law, however I understand contract law very well, it was one of my major coarses of study in school. It has been aligned with real world experience now, and the benefit of working under 2 different labor unions. I also served in one of them, and benefited from the contrast of the different contracts, and language.

 

Enough with my credentials, show me specifically where they do not have the authority to write such a program into law, I am not going to memorize the entire Constitution, and read every piece of legislation, case law, and precedents it attached to it to prove you wrong.

 

Until you can substantiate your claim, you my friend are full of it!

Edited October 6, 2009 by Furious1Auto

[Aces]

well, that and the fact that the gov't has no authority to offer a public option, require coverage, establish minimum coverage standards or require those with pre-existing conditions to be covered

 

ever read the constitution?

 

 

Obviously if you read it you did not understand it.

[kpc655]

The powers of the government may be limited, however they also are extended by the will of the people, so if there is not the authority to write a bill into law then all they have to do is present it to the people to vote on. BTW I scored in the top 95% in reading comprehension when I was in school, not to mention I read, interpret, and write my own contracts used in my side business.

 

You are still the only person using this argument, and you still have not specifically cited what laws disallow the government to wright a national health care plan into existence. You are right on one account, I am not an expert in constitutional law, however I understand contract law very well, it was one of my major coarses of study in school. It has been aligned with real world experience now, and the benefit of working under 2 different labor unions. I also served in one of them, and benefited from the contrast of the different contracts, and language.

 

Enough with my credentials, show me specifically where they do not have the authority to write such a program into law, I am not going to memorize the entire Constitution, and read every piece of legislation, case law, and precedents it attached to it to prove you wrong.

 

Until you can substantiate your claim, you my friend are full of it!

 

you still don't get it...and demanding that i prove a negative is an excellent example of just how much you don't get it!

 

the constitution must specifically ALLOW it for the government to do it. Show me where it's allowed? you can't..because it isn't. go back and read that again.

 

powers not reserved for the feds are left to the people or states.

 

http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2650

 

Someone who would know a great deal about what the Founders meant is Thomas Jefferson:

 

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

 

http://libertymaven.com/2009/06/16/dr-ron-...re-on-cnn/6133/

 

seems pretty obvious..would it help if i pasted in the text of the constitution?

 

now if an amendment was passed adding this as a power...then it's possible. but that's not what's happening.

 

you're wrong. and you're inability to comprehend that doesn't change it.

 

contract law is irrelevant here because we are not talking about a contract.

Edited October 6, 2009 by kpc655

[Len_A]

Explain Medicare then......

 

i can't. there's no constitutional basis for it.

 

but luckily the challenges are beginning to crop up.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj

Challenges to what? Medicare's existence? Keep dreaming. As large as the senior lobby is, that will never, ever happen. Not in a million years.

 

and the "constitutional basis" for it is in your own referenced article - Article I of the Constitution gives Congress sole power to legislate, and unless that legislation is blatantly in violation of the Constitution, then it passes judicial muster.

[nvsked]

i think you need to improve your reading comprehension. In no way does anything i posted (or the US constitution) grant the authority for universal healthcare. Every single piece of legislation written starts off with what power they are exercising. have you ever read a bill?

 

I think someone had a political science class and they are itching to debate what they learned...The constitution has been a topic of debate for years, like where does it say the IRS is legal...Ask the people in jail for tax evasion

[Len_A]

you still don't get it...and demanding that i prove a negative is an excellent example of just how much you don't get it!

 

the constitution must specifically ALLOW it for the government to do it. Show me where it's allowed? you can't..because it isn't. go back and read that again.

 

powers not reserved for the feds are left to the people or states.

 

http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2650

 

Someone who would know a great deal about what the Founders meant is Thomas Jefferson:

 

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

 

http://libertymaven.com/2009/06/16/dr-ron-...re-on-cnn/6133/

 

seems pretty obvious..would it help if i pasted in the text of the constitution?

 

now if an amendment was passed adding this as a power...then it's possible. but that's not what's happening.

 

you're wrong. and you're inability to comprehend that doesn't change it.

 

contract law is irrelevant here because we are not talking about a contract.

It's called the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of the Constitution and how the Federal courts have interpreted it, ad nauseum, every time some jack-off tries to pull one of their Anti-Federalist interpretations of the Constitution. This is settled federal law. Been there, done that.

[Len_A]

I would post the entire article, but it is against BOF's user policy. I will not post snippets because it will be distorted by people trying to block real reform. It just makes me angry that the insurance companies could have this much influence.

 

It is important to note that this only happened because of the media's damming of a public option, and the use of the words Obama care.

 

Health Care lobby

Furious1Auto, I'm as frustrated by this as you are. It damn well seems like every one with money, i.e. the insurance companies, the banks, the Wall Street firms, are all the one's who have the means to access members of Congress (perfectly legal, but not necessarily in everyone's best interest) and get to manipulate the system to their interest's best outcome.

[Glow]

Since you made the charge you lead, what constitutional law would prevent a government option? Are you telling me that the insurance industry cannot be regulated? This attitude is exactly why the insurance lobby was able to get legislation passed in Ohio mandating that people buy auto insurance. We need a government option takes away power from the insurance lobby, and Pharma. When you let private industry charge what every they please, because you make it law you buy their product, you have a problem. They went from charging nothing to start a policy, to charging a down payment. They now have our policemen walking around like collection agents, if you don't pay for insurance then you have your license taken, fined, and possibly put in jail. The problem lies in the fact that they sell policies for profit, and they will charge the maximum that the market will bear. We need a non-profit government option, or better yet a single payer health care system that outlaws the sale of health care insurance all together!

 

People cannot control getting sick, and they should not be extorted for it.

 

Furious 1.....Your right, extorted people = pimping the people.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Glow

[Deanh]

Furious1Auto, I'm as frustrated by this as you are. It damn well seems like every one with money, i.e. the insurance companies, the banks, the Wall Street firms, are all the one's who have the means to access members of Congress (perfectly legal, but not necessarily in everyone's best interest) and get to manipulate the system to their interest's best outcome.

theres my POTW right there....all comes down to self interests and money Len. Just Business they say.....

[fmccap]

CONSTITUTION DAY

Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on "objects of benevolence." That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, etc., ad nauseam.

 

Here are my questions to you: Has our Constitution been amended to authorize federal spending on "objects of benevolence"? Or, is it plain and simple constitutional contempt by Congress, the president, the courts and, worst of all, the American people? Or, am I being overly pessimistic and it's simply a matter of constitutional ignorance?

[fmccap]

The powers of the government may be limited, however they also are extended by the will of the people, so if there is not the authority to write a bill into law then all they have to do is present it to the people to vote on.

 

Until you can substantiate your claim, you my friend are full of it!

 

Should the Oath of Office Be Changed?

The response was predictable. Congressmen cite the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution as giving them authority to pass laws dealing with education, farm handouts, student loans, foreign aid and fighting street crime. But here's what James Madison, the father of the Constitution said about the "general welfare" clause: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, The Government is no longer a limited one . . . ." Thomas Jefferson echoed the same sentiment saying that Congress does not possess "unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated. . . ." Moreover, if the Framers intended that the "general welfare" clause have the interpretation placed on it by today's congressmen, they could have spared themselves considerable grief and contentiousness during that hot, humid Philadelphia summer in 1787. They could have simply said: Congress shall promote the general welfare. That would be our Constitution. Forget all that business about separation of powers, prohibitions against Congress interfering with freedom of speech, and assembly and religion, taking private property and speedy trials. Congress would just promote what a majority of its members saw as the general welfare.

[Furious1Auto]

Len, and Glow thanks for giving incite in areas that I am less affluent, it seems that money still wins the favor of those sworn to protect the interests of the people of this great nation. Even though medical care is at the forefront of most debates lately. This thread is less about any one specific issue, and more about the control lobbyists have over our representative. The only way to stop it is for us all to come together with a collective mind and know the issues so we can demand our politicians act on our behalf, and to vote clearly.

 

Imawhosure told me once that the only reason that lobbyists that support minority groups are able to get legislation passed that does not favor the majority, is because they have representatives on capital hill distributing campaign contributions, not to mention the members of these groups all vote collectively while the majority does not. He was right, and now social forums like this and Ford fanatic give citizens the opportunity to communicate and share ideas around the world. If we vote in one voice, and inform people less involved while encouraging them to vote we can take back control.

 

Look at the illegal amnesty bill, me and many like minded people contacted our representatives and warned them they would be looking for a job if they supported it. We won, they dropped support for it. Then in supporting Obama, even after the obfuscated Pastor Wright controversy the internet forum lobby showed up to the polls to tell them what we thought. Now they are trying to block any real legislation that he knows will help the American people. I believe it is exactly what one article cited as spiteful politics. The Republicans want Obama to fail at everything just to regain power, even if it is at the expense of the American people. Two years ago I considered myself an Independent, but leaned to the principles of the Republican party. I even supported Ron Paul till I saw he could not win. I then leaned towards Obama because I knew Hilary was a liar, and McCain was a carbon copy of GWB. However even when I was supporting Bush I still supported Social Health Care. These d-cks we put on capital hill care nothing of the American people, more then what it will take to get us to support actions that will make them all independently wealthy. They say screw us, and I say screw them. I will read on and support every action to support the majority of us, even if it is at their expense.

 

The vote is more important to politicians then the lobbyists dollar, because without the vote they will never get the opportunity to accept any lobbyists money.

 

Forget all that business about separation of powers, prohibitions against Congress interfering with freedom of speech, and assembly and religion, taking private property and speedy trials. Congress would just promote what a majority of its members saw as the general welfare.

 

Hey Cap, have you ever heard the words "Eminent domain", they do as they please.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Furious1Auto

[fmccap]

Two years ago I considered myself an Independent, but leaned to the principles of the Republican party. I even supported Ron Paul till I saw he could not win. I then leaned towards Obama because I knew Hilary was a liar, and McCain was a carbon copy of GWB. However even when I was supporting Bush I still supported Social Health Care. These d-cks we put on capital hill care nothing of the American people, more then what it will take to get us to support actions that will make them all independently wealthy. They say screw us, and I say screw them. I will read on and support every action to support the majority of us, even if it is at their expense.

 

The vote is more important to politicians then the lobbyists dollar, because without the vote they will never get the opportunity to accept any lobbyists money.

From this statement I get that you waived your true principles for the winner.