Special Session???

[SwimFan85]

They think we'll have forgotten about it by then. In fact, they're banking on it.

Sadly, they are probably right for the majority of those who vote. We need to do our best to keep it in the public eye until then.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace.

[stevie_d_64]

I think I just busted a gut laughing.

Yes, you also spend YOUR money on paving the roads to make sure I get to work, you spend YOUR money making sure their are police to Protect ME, and you spend YOUR money making sure their are F-35s patrolling the skies against Communist.

Or we could have taken the money we wasted on New Fighter Jets, and spent it on Healthcare and broke about even.

I guess I'm just a dirty "Socialist" (Anyone care to tell me "WHY" thats a bad word?) that I think the main reason we have a government is to HELP PEOPLE.

I think I just busted a gut too...Are admissions the better part of valor???

I can't believe how much discussion this thread has created...And I'm still on page 3 or something...Geesh...

[stevie_d_64]

The arguement over guns in Switzerland makes no sense anyway. Most gun ownership there is military weapons issued when you leave the military. It's a military program, extension of the military. It's about protecting the country from foreigners not protecting the citizen from criminals or protecting citizens from their own government. Other kinds of gun ownership is highly regulated and highly taxed. Besides that, there has been a strong push for tighter gun laws in Switzerland in recent years , since it's becoming more socialist .

Then find me a Government Run Health care program that restricts Private Gun ownership!

You know...I was waiting for this to come up...There is nothing in this healthcare bill that will surprise me anymore...

There is no reason to NOT have something in such an economic strangling/killing bill like this to NOT have the mechanism in place hidden within the folds of this abomination to eventually determine as a health hazard...Guns...

It may not say it directly at this point, but the ability to declare a "concern", for the government to act against us, would be stupid to not have in this bill to begin with...

If I was a liberal-statist (like yourself) I would be negligent in my efforts if I didn't get a provision in the bill to eventually be able to take care of all sorts of future issues like this that will further infringe and intrude upon every Americans life as possible...

[stevie_d_64]

I thought this was a good article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562948992235831.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By the way show where in the Constitution it says that Nasa, the Airforce, Immigration, the EPA, the FDA, or Eduction are Constitutional
Why should I pay to educate YOUR Kids? Or better yet cause this is Texas, why should I PAY for your kids to play football?

The Air Force is Constitutional...

...Provide for the Common Defence...

...Promote the General Welfare...

Oops...I want to make sure you understand that the word is "promote", not "provide"...Just want to make sure you saw that...

You appear to support those people in office that do believe YOU should pay to educate other's kids...And for them to play football...etc etc etc...

Didn't think I was coming back to this thread did ya???

[Kythas]

Very interesting article on American Thinker today. We are, after all, basically discussing limits to Federal power in this thread.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/ ... power.html

We're going to be hearing a lot about the commerce clause, the dormant commerce clause, and preemption thanks to anti-federal health care lawsuits by state attorney generals. If they rely on the standard arguments made in such cases, they (and we) will surely lose.

Preemption is a concept of Article VI of the United States Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The only condition that needs to be satisfied is that the federal law be shown to have been made pursuant to the Constitution. The reach of the interstate commerce clause is well-known and documented: Basically any activity or product that "affects interstate commerce" can be federally regulated.

What affects interstate commerce? Just about everything. In one of the few cases nullifying a federal law as exceeding the reach of the commerce clause, the majority challenged the dissenters to name an area of activity that the federal government cannot regulate. Needless to say, no answer was forthcoming. When the standard is "affecting interstate commerce," there is no activity or product that is separated by more than one degree.

To explain the fact that a certain activity has not ever been regulated by the federal government since the founding, federal courts have adopted the construct of the "dormant commerce clause." Under this theory, the federal government has always had the power to regulate the activity in question but has only now chosen to regulate it -- it has awakened the power. Having now chosen to regulate it, state law is preempted even if the state has regulated the activity for the past two hundred years.

The state attorneys general will argue that the states have always had the exclusive power to impose personal mandates on their citizens. The federal counterargument is that the provision of health care services involves goods through interstate commerce. Evidence that the states have regulated this activity for two hundred years is irrelevant with respect to the dormant commerce clause. The federal health care law having been made pursuant to the Constitution -- namely, the interstate commerce clause -- any contrary provisions in the state's constitution or laws are nullified pursuant to Article VI.

There appears to be no escape from the logic of the federal argument: Once a federal law has been shown to be made pursuant to the Constitution, state laws and/or constitutions are preempted. When the standard is as broad and as vague as "affecting interstate commerce," there is no activity that cannot be regulated by the federal government.

That there is no activity that cannot be regulated by the federal government is the flaw in the federal argument. For example, the Hobbs Act is the federal law prohibiting armed robbery affecting interstate commerce. It has repeatedly been challenged on the basis that it exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, and it has been repeatedly upheld as a valid exercise of the commerce clause. But some cases highlight a problem: Why should some individuals be prosecuted in federal court for comparatively small ("lemonade stand") armed robberies while others are prosecuted in state court for the same or greater armed robberies? That is, if all armed robberies affect interstate commerce, then why are some prosecuted in state courts?

This disparate and unequal treatment has struck some Circuit Court Judges as arbitrary. Some of these judges, wishing to overturn the particular case, opined that Congress should make its intentions clear as to which armed robberies should be federally prosecuted so that comparatively small cases would be excluded from federal prosecution. In support, the Clear Statement Doctrine was cited: If the federal Congress wants to change the historical relation between the states and the federal government, then it is obligated to state its intention to do so clearly and unequivocally. The only problem with that rationale is that it concedes the basic point that the federal government has the authority to make all armed robbery prosecutions exclusively federal.

If Congress has the power under the commerce clause to make all armed robberies affecting interstate commerce (that is, all armed robberies) federal crimes, then it may, according to the Clear Statement Doctrine, expressly nullify all state armed robbery laws in all states. If Congress has the power to nullify state armed robbery laws, then it has had that power from the beginning. If Congress has had that power from the beginning, then states have never had it: They merely exercised that power until Congress awakened its dormant commerce clause power.

One can substitute any activity or product affecting interstate commerce for armed robbery, and one would necessarily reach the same conclusion. Thus, if one can make a reasonable argument that divorces, adoptions, marriages, real estate transactions, contracts, personal injuries, rapes, murders, or shoplifting affect interstate commerce, then one would have to conclude that the federal government, by way of Article VI, has the exclusive right to regulate that area of law. If Congress has the exclusive right to regulate that area of law, then the states never had it.

That states regulate those areas of law now is not because their own citizens gave their respective states the power to do so in the state constitution. The people have delegated those powers to the federal government in the commerce clause, and the federal government has permitted the states to regulate until such time as it exercises its power through the dormant commerce clause.

Every power the federal government has through the commerce clause is one the state has never had. If everything that affects interstate commerce (which, by today's standards, is every imaginable activity) can be federally regulated, then the states never had any power. If the states have no exclusive regulatory power, then they are simply temporary custodians of federal power until the federal government chooses to retake that power.

That states have no exclusive power is an absurd conclusion. But it is not easy to see now because the federal government "discovers" one power at a time. But if all activities affect interstate commerce, then what other conclusion is there?

[TxDrifter]

I think I just busted a gut laughing.

Yes, you also spend YOUR money on paving the roads to make sure I get to work, you spend YOUR money making sure their are police to Protect ME, and you spend YOUR money making sure their are F-35s patrolling the skies against Communist.

Or we could have taken the money we wasted on New Fighter Jets, and spent it on Healthcare and broke about even.

I guess I'm just a dirty "Socialist" (Anyone care to tell me "WHY" thats a bad word?) that I think the main reason we have a government is to HELP PEOPLE.

Socialist is only dirty in America because it means you are stealing an individual's FREEDOM. Plain and simple Individual Freedom is the foundation of the Constitution. Government does not exist to help people. That is what CHARITY is for and if the federal government were not taking so much from everyone in this country to redistribute it to others based on politics, not need, charity would become what it used to be and the government would be unnecessary for that aspect, as it should be.

Roads and Military are different. The only roads the Federal government should have anything to do with are the Interstates and for the most part do. Military, without it patrolling and protecting everyone nothing would be possible. If you think it is just Communists, you are seriously lacking pertinent information. Police protect you? The Supreme Court even said it is not their job to be responsible for your safety. You can't sue them for not responding fast enough to save you or a family member. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... cotus.html There are more references, but this one was off a quick Google search.

I have no problem if you want to live in California where it is nearly Socialist, but the Federal government should not force that on every state, nor bail out any state because its policies failed. If it is at the state level I can CHOOSE not to live, work, play, or support that model in any form or fashion. You and anyone else can choose to live under a government boot heel in that state as well.

[marksiwel]

Government does not exist to help people.

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”- Alexander Hamilton

[sjfcontrol]

Government does not exist to help people.

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”- Alexander Hamilton

Ah! So you finally agree that the purpose of Government is NOT to help people. And now claim it is to "constrain" them! Our Government is a raging success!!

[marksiwel]

Government does not exist to help people.

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”- Alexander Hamilton

Ah! So you finally agree that the purpose of Government is NOT to help people. And now claim it is to "constrain" them! Our Government is a raging success!!

No its to conform them

What do you believe the purpose of government is?

[Dragonfighter]

Car Insurance:
As has already been (correctly) stated the mandate in Texas is proof of financial responsibility. A person may as well carry a notarized letter from their bank saying they have a sufficient trust set up or a card from their company establishing they are self insured. But either way, the mandate falls under the governments role of protecting the rights of other drivers/travelers. If you chose to drive as your means of travel you are responsible for controlling a hurdling piece of metal weighing thousands of pounds. If you fail to control that missile you can potentially deprive me of my right to life, property and or the pursuit of happiness.
The governments role is to protect our national security and our rights. When I was learning to drive, you left notes if you bumped a car (I actually went to knock on a door once after a moment of inattention at 16) then you figured out between you what the damages were and what was needed to make it right. As that mentality went to the wayside, as the number of undocumented drivers increased, as more and more self-serving people would rather leave you in a lurch then take responsibility, the government was forced to step in to protect the rest of us. Since you can't regulate attitudes, you regulate outcome by establishing penalties. They are having to increase penalties because the fear of the consequence has not been sufficient to mitigate the irresponsible behaviors to a sufficient level. Now you can have your vehicle confiscated for not having insurance...expensive. But a comparison between this mandate and health care is a non sequitor.

Health Insurance:
In passing this health care bill, a small minority of uninsured (and by this I mean those that could not get or afford coverage) will now have insurance. There are millions that are either illegal aliens, chose to mooch of the existing system or are healthy enough they pay cash when they visit a doctor or ER (BTW, it is amazing how the bill is discounted when they realize you are paying cash).
Now, under this system the people will be forced to buy insurance or be fined on their returns. In my daughter's and son-in-law's case, they make a decent living but the health insurance available to them is way expensive, so they have an emergency fund. They eat healthy foods and use homeopathic remedies when appropriate. BTW, you may as well say good bye to your health supplements as they will now be under regulation (read restriction) by the government owned insurance complex. Anyway, people on a budget will be further penalized because they can't afford the outrageous plans.
The argument has been made that you can still buy private insurance, let's look at that. The companies are now restricted from exclusion or preclusion which will throw the actuarial tables upside down. The cost of doing business will increase as they will be paying out more and more in claims. They will have to raise premiums even for the most basic of coverages, ration or collapse. They will be priced out of the market and the government company will soon have a cornered market. And now we have a government run industry that is a large portion of our economy.
This is not health care reform, this is insurance reform/takeover. History shows us that a fascist government starts by taking over private industry. Banks, automotive, now health care. How does this effect guns?

Winston Churchill said what history has established, "No socialist system can be established without a political police."

[marksiwel]

Health Insurance:
In passing this health care bill, a small minority of uninsured (and by this I mean those that could not get or afford coverage) will now have insurance. There are millions that are either illegal aliens, chose to mooch of the existing system or are healthy enough they pay cash when they visit a doctor or ER (BTW, it is amazing how the bill is discounted when they realize you are paying cash).
Now, under this system the people will be forced to buy insurance or be fined on their returns. In my daughter's and son-in-law's case, they make a decent living but the health insurance available to them is way expensive, so they have an emergency fund. They eat healthy foods and use homeopathic remedies when appropriate. BTW, you may as well say good bye to your health supplements as they will now be under regulation (read restriction) by the government owned insurance complex. Anyway, people on a budget will be further penalized because they can't afford the outrageous plans.
The argument has been made that you can still buy private insurance, let's look at that. The companies are now restricted from exclusion or preclusion which will throw the actuarial tables upside down. The cost of doing business will increase as they will be paying out more and more in claims. They will have to raise premiums even for the most basic of coverages, ration or collapse. They will be priced out of the market and the government company will soon have a cornered market. And now we have a government run industry that is a large portion of our economy.
This is not health care reform, this is insurance reform/takeover. History shows us that a fascist government starts by taking over private industry. Banks, automotive, now health care. How does this effect guns?

Winston Churchill said what history has est! abolished, "No socialist system can be established without a political police."

Eating Healthy Foods, great idea! I have an idea about redefining what food IS, so that when we give FOOD stamps they can only buy REAL Healthy food, not Cheetoes and Dr Pepper.

As for Homeopthy Yeah I'm going to use REAL Medicine not the Pseudo Science . This video explains it. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Stinks that insurance is too Expensive ( or as another member said "Too Bad so sad)", if only we had national program to help them out, oh wait that just happened. God forbid they every have to deal with something like Cancer, Heart Problems, something that mixing water cant solve.
Health supplements under government regulation? Since when? Post a link.
What outrageous plan? I make less than 50k a year and I can afford a plan that Meets every requirement of the bill.
what you call Socialism would be laughed at outside the united states.
As for raising Costs? Costs have gone up, even when the Insurance companies have made Record Profits. More people in the insurance company means more people putting money in their pockets. They will pay out more, and they will take more in.

[LarryH]

what you call Socialism would be laughed at outside the united states.

A very good reason for not going further in that direction. Look at how well it's working for them. (IMHO)

[Kythas]

Health Insurance:
In passing this health care bill, a small minority of uninsured (and by this I mean those that could not get or afford coverage) will now have insurance. There are millions that are either illegal aliens, chose to mooch of the existing system or are healthy enough they pay cash when they visit a doctor or ER (BTW, it is amazing how the bill is discounted when they realize you are paying cash).
Now, under this system the people will be forced to buy insurance or be fined on their returns. In my daughter's and son-in-law's case, they make a decent living but the health insurance available to them is way expensive, so they have an emergency fund. They eat healthy foods and use homeopathic remedies when appropriate. BTW, you may as well say good bye to your health supplements as they will now be under regulation (read restriction) by the government owned insurance complex. Anyway, people on a budget will be further penalized because they can't afford the outrageous plans.
The argument has been made that you can still buy private insurance, let's look at that. The companies are now restricted from exclusion or preclusion which will throw the actuarial tables upside down. The cost of doing business will increase as they will be paying out more and more in claims. They will have to raise premiums even for the most basic of coverages, ration or collapse. They will be priced out of the market and the government company will soon have a cornered market. And now we have a government run industry that is a large portion of our economy.
This is not health care reform, this is insurance reform/takeover. History shows us that a fascist government starts by taking over private industry. Banks, automotive, now health care. How does this effect guns?

Winston Churchill said what history has est! abolished, "No socialist system can be established without a political police."

Eating Healthy Foods, great idea! I have an idea about redefining what food IS, so that when we give FOOD stamps they can only buy REAL Healthy food, not Cheetoes and Dr Pepper.

As for Homeopthy Yeah I'm going to use REAL Medicine not the Pseudo Science . This video explains it. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Stinks that insurance is too Expensive ( or as another member said "Too Bad so sad)", if only we had national program to help them out, oh wait that just happened. God forbid they every have to deal with something like Cancer, Heart Problems, something that mixing water cant solve.
Health supplements under government regulation? Since when? Post a link.
What outrageous plan? I make less than 50k a year and I can afford a plan that Meets every requirement of the bill.
what you call Socialism would be laughed at outside the united states.
As for raising Costs? Costs have gone up, even when the Insurance companies have made Record Profits. More people in the insurance company means more people putting money in their pockets. They will pay out more, and they will take more in.

Record profits? The insurance industry has profit margins which range from 3% - 5%. Aetna, Humana, and Cigna - some of the largest insurers in the industry - each reported profits of approximately $300 million last year. UnitedHealth's profits were about $1 billion. This is a VERY small percentage of the $1.2 trillion health care industry.

I'd like to see where "the Insurance companies have made Record Profits." The fact is, that's a Democratic talking point which has been fed to you and you've no factual basis for that claim. In fact, that claim has been refuted by PolitiFact here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... t-not-rec/.

Even if they did have 'Record Profits', who's to say how much profit is too much? As soon as the government starts regulating how much profit a company is allowed, what's to stop them from regulating how much salary a person is allowed? Oh, wait, they already do that in this bill, capping the salaries of insurance company CEO's to $500,000. May I mention that these are PRIVATE BUSINESSES which government has NO BUSINESS in regulating their employee pay.

The day will come when the Federal government - waiving the commerce clause like a preacher waives the Bible - will regulate what salary each of us is allowed. The government is already taking steps with regulating pay in the auto and insurance industry saying they have the authority under the commerce clause to do so. Well, if anything can be regulated by the commerce clause, then so can the salaries of each and every American.

By acquiescing to the Federal government the power to dictate what is and is not an acceptable profit margin for a company, we remove all incentive for entrepreneurs to start new businesses, for inventors to invent, for anyone to research new products or drugs or anything else. The profit motive may be distasteful to you but profit is the best incentive yet devised to encourage people to take risks.

I believe we are to be the final generation of Americans, at least as far as what that designation used to mean (a free and prosperous people). Truly I do, and I fear the future.

By the way, my above figures come from:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/health-i ... id=9036632
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/hea ... 86-by.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... t-not-rec/

[marksiwel]

explain to me why Anthem Blue Cross raised its rates more than 30% also why did the spend 10 million on lobbying Law Makers? Could it be, they are jerks?

also
http://www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2010/0 ... 42951.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anthem Blue Cross denied California man transplant coverage
March 24, 2010 (NewYorkInjuryNews.com - Injury News)

New Source: JusticeNewsFlash.com
Legal news for California insurance litigation attorneys. Blue Cross refused to pay for out-of-sate transplant, lawsuit soon followed.

A lawsuit was filed after Anthem Blue Cross denied a liver transplant at an Indianapolis hospital.

Los Angeles, CA—Anthem Blue Cross has been ordered by a Los Angeles jury to cover the costs of a liver transplant that the insurance company pulled out of because the patient received the surgery out-of-state. Blue Cross was also ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal expenses, which could exceed the $206,000 cost of the transplant, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

In 2006, the plaintiff’s, Ephram Nehme, 62, liver began to fail, and he was subsequently placed on the UCLA’s transplant list. Blue Cross approved the procedure, because UCLA was apart of its contracted network of hospitals. As Nehme’s health steadily deteriorated, the UCLA physician recommended that he be put on the transplant list at Clarian Transplant Center in Indianapolis; the wait was a mere 6 weeks at Clarian, compared to UCLA’s median wait time of two years. Blue Cross denied Nehme coverage because he had the procedure done at the unaffiliated Indianapolis hospital, which caused him to pay out-of-pocket for his transplant in January 2007.

I'm voting their just jerks

[Kythas]

explain to me why Anthem Blue Cross raised its rates more than 30% also why did the spend 10 million on lobbying Law Makers? Could it be, they are jerks?

also
http://www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2010/0 ... 42951.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anthem Blue Cross denied California man transplant coverage
March 24, 2010 (NewYorkInjuryNews.com - Injury News)

New Source: JusticeNewsFlash.com
Legal news for California insurance litigation attorneys. Blue Cross refused to pay for out-of-sate transplant, lawsuit soon followed.

A lawsuit was filed after Anthem Blue Cross denied a liver transplant at an Indianapolis hospital.

Los Angeles, CA—Anthem Blue Cross has been ordered by a Los Angeles jury to cover the costs of a liver transplant that the insurance company pulled out of because the patient received the surgery out-of-state. Blue Cross was also ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal expenses, which could exceed the $206,000 cost of the transplant, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

In 2006, the plaintiff’s, Ephram Nehme, 62, liver began to fail, and he was subsequently placed on the UCLA’s transplant list. Blue Cross approved the procedure, because UCLA was apart of its contracted network of hospitals. As Nehme’s health steadily deteriorated, the UCLA physician recommended that he be put on the transplant list at Clarian Transplant Center in Indianapolis; the wait was a mere 6 weeks at Clarian, compared to UCLA’s median wait time of two years. Blue Cross denied Nehme coverage because he had the procedure done at the unaffiliated Indianapolis hospital, which caused him to pay out-of-pocket for his transplant in January 2007.

I'm voting their just jerks

In any system which insures over 200 million people, I'll guarantee you can find a handful of people, or even several handfuls, who have been given the shaft over the years. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your claim of 'record insurance company profits', of which there are none and which was a major rallying cry behind this legislation.

You just can't admit to yourself that you, along with many other people, were bamboozled, flimflammed, and jibjabbed by the government.

Let me ask you this, then. If hundreds of thousands of events such as you describe are occurring every year, as we've been lead to believe by the Democrats who were pushing for this bill, why do the major portions of it not take effect until after the next presidential election cycle? If the insurance industry is so evil and our healthcare system is in such crisis, why wait another 4 years to stop these abuses? Why don't these things take effect immediately?

By delaying the provisions of the bill until 2014 (again, conveniently after Obama's re-election bid) aren't the Democrats who ram-rodded this bill effectively condemning hundreds of thousands (their figures, not mine) of Americans to death at the hands of the evil insurance companies?