“Congress lacks the political will to fund comprehensive health care … because taxes above those already provided [in federal healthcare programs] would produce too much opposition,” the Virginia lawsuit says.
“The alternative... is to fund universal health care in part by making healthy young adults and other rationally uninsured individuals cross-subsidize older and less healthy citizens,” the suit says.
The seven-page lawsuit presents a straightforward challenge to Congress’s decision to rely on its power to regulate interstate commerce to justify the federal mandate that every individual must have health insurance or pay a penalty.
“It has never been held that the Commerce Clause [of the Constitution] … can be used to require citizens to buy goods and services,” the suit says. “To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods and services would deprive the Commerce Clause of any effective limits.”
March 24, 2010
Lawsuits challenging the new health care law.
Filed:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
281 comments:
1 – 200 of 281 Newer› Newest»The last reason is the hardest one to ignore, I think.
I was curious how the zealots in favor of this bill would respond to what seems like a major impediment to the success of their cherished enterprise. Ezra Klein and his commenters' approach is that the individual mandate is actually nothing more than a tax, which is waived if the taxpayers purchases a federally-qualified health insurance plan, an option facilitiated by subsidies for those who need them. Congress has the right to levy taxes, and to set up exemptions to such taxes. So goes the thinking. Some of his commenters were actively ridiculing anyone who saw a problem with this, claiming it is an utterly ordinary thing, no change is the dynamic between the state and the governed. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this effort to redefine the mandate as a mere tax-with-exemptions is undone by the evident intent as expressed thousands of times by those who advocated it.
Since insurance is regulated by the state, how are any of the insurance mandates constitutional?
A more vivid example: the best insurer in my state exists only in my state. Where does Congress have the authority to tell them that they have to cover preexisting conditions or cover dependents until 26?
I posted this naive IANAL question on my blog:
given the legislative history where Congress rejected GOP efforts to open health insurance to competition across state lines, could there be a plausible argument that Congress has implicitly placed insurance outside interstate commerce, and thus outside the Commerce clause?
John,
I have heard speculation that the IRS is going to handle the premiums so that they can call it a tax and win that way.
What about states' rights, though? I just don't understand how the feds can take this over and make the states and individuals pay for it and call that legal!
I'd suggest putting the Spanish American war tax back on phone bills to finance it.
That comes under war powers.
There's a lot of information in prices, as you can tell when you interfere with pricing, say in housing, or medical care.
The fixes will never end and will get successively more damaging.
The original prices were themselves the fix.
Do laws and the constitution mean much anymore? We don't really enforce immigration laws yet we seem to go too far to enforce drug laws. We pick and choose who pays taxes and who doesn't pay because they forgot, overlooked it or never thought they would be nominated for a big job in the White House. We put up traffic cameras up to catch speeders yet we don't require ID to vote. The spokesperson [Olivia Alair] for the Transportation Dept voted in Ohio in the last prez election even though she did not live there. When threatened with prosecution, the state let her rescind her vote! Captured bank robbers wish they were allowed to return the loot [no harm no foul].
Couple questions I'd like answered:
1) If individuals are mandated to purchase health insurance, how will the Federal government monitor that the individual doesn't drop the coverage 2-3 months after purchase?
2) The current legislation stipulates that tax dollars (affordability credits) cannot be used toward individuals not lawfully in the US. Does this mean that the 10-15 million illegal aliens will be denied care? Or does it mean that they'll still be cared for but we'll end up eating the cost for said care anyway?
3) What in this law actually reduces cost? I have looked at all the provisions and the cost savings elude me.
Orin Kerr's post and accompanying comments at Volokh goes into this in quite a bit of detail.
Orin's not optimistic. I'm not, either, but I'm not as pessimistic as he is.
One interesting comment brought up the fact that the Senate language sounds like a capitation, a tax on individuals, which is, AFAIK and IANAL, unconstitutional.
This is going to be fun.
Hoosier- re your 1st questions, I read the IRS will now verify that you had insurance each & every month of a year.
On the multistate bar exam, any multiple choice option that suggests the 10th Amendment is a cause for making a law unconstitutional is automatically assumed to be the wrong choice because it's pretty much accepted by the courts that the 10th Amendment is no longer law.
I think we should pass a new amendment to the Constitution which should be worded thus:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And this time we mean it.
Hoosier- re your 1st questions, I read the IRS will now verify that you had insurance each & every month of a year.
That should be an interesting process.
Right now the P&C and health insurance industry is jumping through the technological hoops of reporting to CMS, individuals who have either private health insurance or have received a settlement in which portions of it were used to pay for medical care. This is also know as Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP), which is to ensure that Medicare is not paying for services that could be covered by private carriers.
So yeah, I guess its possible for them to do it but as I have been working on the MSP project for some time now, I can say this will be a monumental undertaking.
And yes, we will transfer the costs back to you.
You're welcome :-)
Slightly OT:
I had to laugh this morning when I found out that the health bill, which we are reminded time and again was for the children, doesn't actually cover children with pre-existing conditions.
I have read that they are going to have the insurance companies to furnish their customers with something like 1099 forms stating how much eash of us paid for medical insurance and exactly what the insurance covers. This will be required to be attacched to our Federal tax returns.
Then what happens? Does the IRS review the insurance coverage for adequacy according to some standard furnished by some other Department or agency, or do our tax returns get copied and forwarded to such other parties?
There will be fines for non-compliance. Levied by who? Yet other entitiies, such as DoJ and its subsidiary agencies?
What about all those of us covered by the insurance mandate(s), but not required to pay taxes?
Skyler said...
The last reason is the hardest one to ignore, I think.
The major problem is that the courts have been very very receptive to expanding the commerce clause use.
John Stodder said...
Ezra Klein and his commenters' approach is that the individual mandate is actually nothing more than a tax,
so much for the "my plan does not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000"
hehe? I'm going out right now to spend the $2,500 dollars that Obama repeatedly promised me that his plan was going to save each American family in its annual health care premiums.
Driller said: The major problem is that the courts have been very very receptive to expanding the commerce clause use.
They've limited it recently with guns near schoolyards. Perhaps they will admit that it has this limit as well.
I think there are enough anti-communists on the court that it might be sufficient reason to limit the law.
actively ridiculing anyone who saw a problem with this, claiming it is an utterly ordinary thing, no change is the dynamic between the state and the governed
Well, that's depressing, but not surprising.
As I said the other day, it's the same mindset that has made the same people swallow Global Warming over the years. "Our guys say this is the way it is, we do not question. We hop on board. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot or evil."
I think that the health insurance industry will be a good place to be employed right now.
I bet the IRS spends so much time and effort on this that the number of returns they audit decreases.
Is medical care a civil right?
Should it be?
I don't think it should - but I'm not comfortable with some of the implications of that stance.
I'm afraid that good intentions combined with power seeking are going to leave us worse off, overall.
I'd pay money to be wrong - but in twenty years I don't think we'll look back at this as a good thing.
How is Euro-style social welfare promoted in our constitution?
It's not.
Is medical care a civil right?
No, because that would mean there is no limit on medical care, even beyond the point of rationality. Simply calling off CPR could now be seen as a violation of someone's civil rights.
I think that the health insurance industry will be a good place to be employed right now.
Depends. I'm not so sure yet that this is going to be the boon for insurers that everyone thinks it is.
Actually you may very well see small and regional health insurers tank while the big boys pick up the remainder of market share. Great news right? Well perhaps. As I said before, the law does nothing to reign in costs so now insurers will be still facing the continued rising costs of medical care yet be barred from raising premiums to meet costs oh and they will be forced to cover the most costly individuals.
What could possibly go wrong?
If the federal government has the power to force people to purchase insurance from campaign donors of the President ... what does it not have the power to do?
Obama is enriching lobbyists who will turn around and kickback some of those riches to his campaign.
They've prefunded his next campaign, in fact.
Shouldn't everyone have life insurance?
Burial insurance? Why should society fund pauper graves?
Shouldn't everyone have dental insurance?
Fire insurance?
Flood insurance?
Insurance in case your insurance company goes belly up?
This will never, ever end.
Once the government can force you to purchase things, you are a slave - just as if you've been forced to pick cotton at the whip.
We must end this.
I'll bet The Zero wishes he hadn't picked that fight with SCOTUS.
OTOH, Roberts and Alito better watch each other's backs.
Skyler said...
On the multistate bar exam, any multiple choice option that suggests the 10th Amendment is a cause for making a law unconstitutional is automatically assumed to be the wrong choice because it's pretty much accepted by the courts that the 10th Amendment is no longer law.
Silly me. I was taught that the Constitution was the ultimate law of the land.
This is why I've always viewed judicial review as unconstitutional.
Is medical care a civil right?
Well the goverment thought everyone owning their own home was a right and that turned out wonderfully didn't it?
@Parker, who wrote: "Is medical care a civil right?"
We already have laws in this country guaranteeing that if you require medical care, you will get it without respect to your ability to pay, or your insurance status.
Yes ... medical care is a right. One granted a long, long time ago.
Insurance, however, is another matter altogether.
Obama has provided nobody medical care, except that now the law requires you and I to fund through our tax dollars the extermination of the black race through abortion policy.
All Obama has done with this "reform" is require Americans to purchase insurance products from his campaign donors.
This is garden variety corruption.
Nothing more.
"I bet the IRS spends so much time and effort on this that the number of returns they audit decreases."
Wrong.
The Senate anticipated this, and if you read the bill which was signed into law (which damn few people have, including Barack Obama) you'll find out that in reality the IRS has almost no enforcement capability.
The law precludes, for example, the IRS from attaching a lien to your real property to collect insurance "fines."
About the only way the IRS can collect these fines - by law - is to hold back any payments you might be due from the government. (This could always change in the future, but this is the law today).
Smart people of course, already make sure they never have a tax refund that Uncle Sam can hold back, as that is merely providing these fucking scumbag motherfuckers interest-free revenue that they will use to murder black children with.
Review your W2. Make sure you're not giving the baby killers an interest-free loan and don't bother either paying the fine or buying insurance.
There's nothing they can do about it.
Here is what Nancy Pelosi has to say about it:
"the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited."
"Roberts and Alito better watch each other's backs."
Clarence Thomas replies: "I got this."
I think that the health insurance industry will be a good place to be employed right now.
No. The entire state of Connecticut is freaking out right now. Congress has already said they're going after PHARMA, that the deal they cut with Obama to avoid price controls won't stand. And the insurance companies, while they may be happy to get more customers, know that it's just a matter of time before they go bankrupt: the law requires them to spend 85% of premiums collected on services, limiting them to 15% overhead. That's going to force them to jack up their rates to cover their costs, and when the rates get too high, hello, price controls, good-bye profitability.
It's only a matter of time. My acquaintances in the business are actively seeking to get out. If we weren't so screwed we might be allowed a little schadenfreude, all the insurance and health care industry Obama voters now thinking, "I can't believe I voted for this guy."
If ever there was a time for an "I told you so"...
".. the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited."
The power of the people to eliminate elites who advance this line of thinking is equally unlimited.
Despots, history have shown, always overreach, and always meet the same fate.
I think that the health insurance industry will be a good place to be employed right now.
One other point, Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C) plans are all offered through private insurers. This is the part that Obama doesn't like and they'll be cutting payments on this over the years to the point where it will end up being dropped altogether.
Bear in mind this is a popular program with the blue hair portion of the electorate so that should go over well.
Honestly I can't get too worked about about this bill since we don't have anything close to a free market in health care since like 1960. Once Medicare was enacted, the genie was out of the bottle.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights to housing, food, health care
Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Paragraph 2 means WIC needs to be extended to the whole population and Paragraph 1 means single payer, plus guaranteed housing, food stamps.
Oh and guess where the next part of the health care shoe is going to drop next?
Government funded Long Term Care.
You heard it here first ladies and gentlemen.
The thing about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that the first few articles are good stuff like life, liberty, no slavery. But then it degenerates into Marxism. So much for life and liberty.
“The alternative... is to fund universal health care in part by making healthy young adults and other rationally uninsured individuals cross-subsidize older and less healthy citizens,” the suit says.
Doesn't the bill fund by slashing Medicare (cancelled out in part by the separate "doc fix" bill), by taxing the "wealthy," by taxing (from 2018 on) generous employer-sponsored plans, and by starting taxes now and delaying outlays for four years? The funding leeched from uninsured individuals seems like a lot less than under the original House bill.
Dingell: It will take a while for ObamaCare to “control the people
The "UN" universal declaration of human rights isn't worth the toilet paper it is written on.
Did you vote on it?
I certainly wasn't allowed to vote on it.
It's worthless tripe, posted by a hack fucktard who wants to fund the extermination of the black race with T-bills.
"Alex", please fuck off. Your brand of institutional racism isn't wanted here.
To paraphrase a classic monologue from the movie, 'Full Metal Jacket'
The Democrats have hit every major healthcare target in the U.S., and hit 'em hard. Insurance company HQ's have been overrun. Big Pharma is standing by to be overrun. We also have reports that the department of the H.H.S. has occupied all of the medical device industry. In strategic terms, the Government has cut healthcare in half... the civilian press are about to wet their pants and we've heard even Olbermann's going to say the war is now won.
In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite.
In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite.
Sir, does this mean Ann Margaret is not coming?
NewHam - regardless the USA signed the Declaration, so I guess we are obligated to follow international law. Or if we don't we become a rogue nation and it's ok to invade us?
Shit sandwich can be tasty if you put some sauce on it.
Joan:
Re insurance industry areas like Connecticut freaking out:
Obama is slowly but surely eliminating career options and mortally wounding entire industries...banks are evil, Wall Street is evil, insurance is evil, doctors are evil, etc.
That has been incredibly damaging to our economy bouncing back. I suspect Obama understands this and the destruction is his ultimate goal.
AJ Lynch - but the sad thing is 53% of the American voters buy Obama's Marxist tropes. We're finished if there are no huge GOP gains this November.
Pretty sorry week for the GOP. First it would kill grandma! - total Armageddon! - then it was Repeal! Then on to Repeal and Replace! Then the first polls came out and now it's "well there were always things in there we liked!"
Jesus.
Hoosier Daddy You still here? Vanish, most ricky-tick, and take Shoe-in-Mouth Biden with you. You're responsible for him.
And Hoosier Daddy, you will take off that damn button. How's it gonna look if you oversee death panels while wearing a peace symbol?
What? No Lawsuits I hope will Fail tag?
That has been incredibly damaging to our economy bouncing back.
Exactly. That's why the Dow is tanking.
Dow ain't everything brother.
Think about this Mad Man- what career industry advice do you give to your kids? Auto? Bank & finance? Insurance? Sales? Sell what? Medicine? What promising industies are left after serial demonization by Obama?
Exactly. That's why the Dow is tanking.
Which is of much consolation to the 10% who are unemployed since they can get by on their dividend earnings.
I'm still so sad that this passed. I feel like something I love has been murdered and people are celebrating.
I don't know how you could say that it is constitutional for the feds to *mandate* that citizens buy something. Of course, I didn't realize that the 10th Amendment is no longer in the Constitution.
I suppose it matters who makes the argument (I am not a lawyer) and their level of excellence.
I pray that the people are informed enough about this to make a meaningful decision this fall.
I'm already jumping ahead to the point in time where democrats come after our right to own personal property. & Our right to run our own businesses.
"the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited."
--Nancy Pelosi
Easily becomes:
"the power of Congress to regulate FILL IN THE BLANK is essentially unlimited."
--Nancy Pelosi and the democrat collective.
And Hoosier Daddy, you will take off that damn button. How's it gonna look if you oversee death panels while wearing a peace symbol?
Don't make me get into my duality of man speel sir. You know, the Jungian thing sir.
April:
I think a tax on your cash, investments and other property is inevitable.
Exactly. That's why the Dow is tanking.
Just a breathtakingly stupid comment, Mad Man. You are usually better than this in your opposition.
What promising industies are left after serial demonization by Obama?
Well they're putting the kabosh on private student loan lending so it would seem that getting a job with the Federal government seems to be the way to go.
Hoosier:
I agree - we tell our kids to become public servants and they will forgive your student loans too.
Paying attention to the frenetic fervent arguments for the bill overwork my fallace-o-meter to the point of short-circuiting. One of my sisters used to argue with my mother this way. They didn't communicate to create an understanding. Oh no, the point was to bludgeon each other bloody until one of them caved. The illogic seen in those arguments was stupefying. I marveled. One day I thought I'd take it up with sis and give it a go. She said something abusive so I ignored the illogic of her attack but rather attacked back similarly illogically. While she addressed my attack I ignored her response and used the interval to formulate a new unrelated attack then delivered it. Proceeding thus, attack, ignore, attack, ignore, attack, ignore, attack, ignore attack. Each attack completely wildly illogically unrelated to the previous attack and resolutely not addressing the response. Within moments she was in tears. It was fun! I was about eleven years old and I thought then a profound epiphany, "holy shit, this actually works."
That's how I process this whole discussion. You can address each point as logically as you like but that's the wrong approach. The opposition does not care one single bit about facts, reason, logic, what's good and virtuous, health, civilization, American exceptionalism, or any of those things. It's why opposition is called racist, uncivilized relative to other advanced nations.
Incidentally, here's what got to my sister. "You wouldn't be so ugly if you weren't so stupid," followed by, "your teeth wouldn't be green if you'd just brush them once in awhile." She isn't ugly and her teeth weren't green. There's no good reason why that should have stuck. I have no idea what she was saying to me because I was resolutely not paying attention. See what a little turd of a brother I was? Realizing I had mastered her dark force Jedi ways she abandoned that approach with me. Thereafter she approached me more gracefully and with much more caution.
MadisonMan,
Regarding your comment on the Dow's performance, similar issues occurred during periods of the Great Depression, we shall see if history repeats itself.
After the 1929 crash, stock prices remained reasonably steady for about a year, until November, 1930.
Then stock prices fell almost continuously until mid-1932, and even then kept falling until 1942, with a major second crash in 1937.
Details here:
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.i.djia
Think about this Mad Man- what career industry advice do you give to your kids?
Find something you love to do. Become very good at it. Find a place to do it with co-workers who are interesting. I would also add: be flexible. Gone are the days when you could do the same things for 30-40 years and thrive.
You are usually better than this in your opposition.
Right up there with You, A Law Professor.
Will they also be filing lawsuits against mandatory auto insurance?
This is just a new wrinkle in the ill-conceived Republican strategy to sidetrack any health reform...and of course, keep their loyal tea bagging wing nuts anxiously awaiting their next unAmerican move.
Proof Democrats are creepy authoritarians who refuse to answer direct questions. how dare you ask the queen such a question!
http://tinyurl.com/yeqarve
Hoosier Daddy said... As I said before, the law does nothing to reign in costs so now insurers will be still facing the continued rising costs of medical care yet be barred from raising premiums to meet costs oh and they will be forced to cover the most costly individuals.
The Health Insurance industry is dead. What is left is the health billing industry. Insurance is all about estimating individual risk, establishing risk pools, and setting premiums to match. This HCR prevents the old insurance industry from doing any of that. They will be forced to offer standard policies to all comers and much the same rate regardless of risk, pre-existing conditions, or useage.
They simply function as a billing agency to collect fees and distribute them to claimants.
at its heart, HCR is an income restribution scheme.
NewHam - regardless the USA signed the Declaration, so I guess we are obligated to follow international law. Or if we don't we become a rogue nation and it's ok to invade us?
Unless it was ratified by the US Senate, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not have the force of international law here.
Now that the bill has been signed and we can find out what's in it (per Pelosi), we need to find every opportunity to use the force of the law against it. Examples:
a) The penalties for not having insurance are less than the cost of insurance and pre-existing conditions will no longer be grounds to deny coverage. Solution: cancel insurance until you need it. It's the equivalent of waiting until you've wrecked your car to buy comprehensive and collision insurance.
b) The tax on "Cadallac Plans" exempts unions so lets all form our own unions!
I'm sure in a legal monstrocity over 2000 pages long, there are plenty of opportunities to use the law against itself, a sort of healthcare judo.
You can choose not to have a car. I didn't own one for years and relied on public transportation.
So I did not have to buy auto insurance. Further, when I did get my first car it was quite old and I bought really cheap, minimal insurance. The IRS didn't check up on what I paid or what it covered, either. And if I had bought really spiffy insurance, I wouldn't have paid an 'excise tax' to help somebody else get their insurance. And the insurance company was free to hike my rates if I turned out to be a bad risk- a drunk driver, careless, etc.
I can't choose not to have a living body unless I decide to commit suicide, which I have no plans to do.
wv-flizi- I wish this were some kind of Italian word. It looks like a fun word.
"Fizi! Flizi! Bella luna!"
at its heart, HCR is an income restribution scheme.
You broke the code.
The Health Insurance industry is dead. What is left is the health billing industry.
This may be true, but I think it underestimates the business acumen of some in the Insurance Industry.
And if there is to be growth in the Health Billing Industry, then someone will make a fortune off of it.
Dang! I knew we should have pushed for single-payer, which would have been constitutional under the Taxing and Spending clauses.
Lynne said..."You can choose not to have a car."
True, and you can do the same with health insurance until the mandates kick in...right?
So why start bitching and whining about something that doesn't take effect for quite some time...you know, until you actually see how the reforms work? (Other than just being obstinate.)
And do YOU know many people who are over the age of 30-40 who take the chance of not having health insurance? Do you think they can sign up for insurance at that age, with no problem? (GFL)
Do you realize that the more people who do have insurance, the lower the price is for everybody?
It's the opposite of the economic formula that drives all business: supply and demand.
In the case of insurance, the MORE people who demand and buy insurance, the better it is for everybody.
That's why you and others here get a better rate...the MORE they insure.
What is it about this that most here just can't get through their block heads?
former law student said..."Dang! I knew we should have pushed for single-payer, which would have been constitutional under the Taxing and Spending clauses."
Are you kidding?
The people who frequent this site would NEVER understand something like that.
They still don't get what's happening right now...and it's taken decades.
The Health Insurance industry is dead. What is left is the health billing industry.
Especially rough considering they just blew hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against HCR. Seems like a dumb bet to spend their last nickels they desperately need after HCR.
Joan said...
I think that the health insurance industry will be a good place to be employed right now.
No. The entire state of Connecticut is freaking out right now. Congress has already said they're going after PHARMA, that the deal they cut with Obama to avoid price controls won't stand. And the insurance companies, while they may be happy to get more customers, know that it's just a matter of time before they go bankrupt: the law requires them to spend 85% of premiums collected on services, limiting them to 15% overhead. That's going to force them to jack up their rates to cover their costs, and when the rates get too high, hello, price controls, good-bye profitability.
It's only a matter of time. My acquaintances in the business are actively seeking to get out. If we weren't so screwed we might be allowed a little schadenfreude, all the insurance and health care industry Obama voters now thinking, "I can't believe I voted for this guy."
If ever there was a time for an "I told you so"...
As Rush said, "Everything Barack Obama says has an expiration date".
This is what you get when you make a deal with the devil, although it's interesting to note the German industrialists got a better deal from Hitler.
This is how insane the GOP has become:
Senate Republicans fuming over the passage of health care reform are now refusing to work past 2 p.m. -- a tactic they can employ by invoking a little-known Senate rule.
- On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee was forced to cancel a hearing as was the Senate Armed Services Committee.
- Canceled an oversight hearing on police training contracts in Afghanistan."
- Delayed a hearing on the cause of Western forest fires.
- And of course, John McCain is doing what he can to make good on his threat to withhold all Republican cooperation from Democrats...evidently not part of the "America first" thingie he touted when running for President.
The GOP is using an obscure rule that states committees can only meet when the chamber is in session with the unanimous consent of all members.
That consent has almost never been withheld -- until now.
The party of obstruction limps along...
Jeremy said:
Will they also be filing lawsuits against mandatory auto insurance?
No, Jeremy, because that's a state requirement. We don't have a constitutional right to drive the roads that the government built. As has been noted before, driving a car on government-maintained roads is a priviledge, and you have to abide by the rules therein. You have to have a valid license, insurance, etc.
Driving is optional, even if very inconvenient if you don't. This healthcare thing is not optional, because you pay whether you need to go to the doctor or not.
Also, Jeremy, if this law is so great, why did Congress exempt it's staffers from it?
I see the thread is loaded with the usual tea bagging wing nuts ...
So wander over to Daily Kos or TPM or some other site where the loser liberals meet with the limousine liberals to collect their talking points and daily marching orders.
Meanwhile why not slither back under your stone? The grown-ups are talking, dear boy, and don't want to listen to your baby talk.
PatCA said..."Hoosier Daddy,
Long term care is already in there. I have a feeling old folks won't be in long term care very long..."
Yes, they're organizing the "death Panels as we speak.
Have you offered up your parents names yet?
Here's the number to call:
1-800-S-E-E-Y-A-A-A.
I ... relied on public transportation.
Socialist.
I didn't think the professor permitted your kind to post here.
Big Mike - "limousine liberals"
Yeah...it's the "liberals" who are the elites.
Probably why they're constantly harping on elitist perks like health insurance and unemployment and Medicare and Medicaid...
Come out of the cave, Mikey...
From one of your own...
But David Frum, the former W. speechwriter, conceded that in trying to turn health care into Obama’s Waterloo — a replay of the Clintons’ disaster in 1994 — Republicans may have made it their own Waterloo.
“We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat,” Frum wrote on his blog, adding: “Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother?”
And don't be throwing out that garbage that Frum isn't really one of your own.
He was revered when coining phrases like "Axis of evil" to serve little Georgie's purposes for the Iraqi fiasco.
The only thing Frum contributed to that phrase was "axis of".
He's as conservative as David Brooks or Andrew Sullivan.
Have any of the local tea baggers here considered this...before starting the whinefest?
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional:
You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.
He's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.
Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."
It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment.
"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"
The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place.
All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.
That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday.
Right up there with You, A Law Professor.
Very well then, Mad Man - Take 2:
The stupidity of your assertion that the Dow is the economy was as unsurprising as it was irrelevant - a non sequitur in keeping with and characteristic of your disingenuousness when confronted with an argument you're incapable of logically countering.
Better?
Joan said..."He's as conservative as David Brooks or Andrew Sullivan."
Yeah, sure.
Ever notice how, as someone becomes more and more logical...the less they represent the GOP?
Suddenly Frum and Books are no longer conservatives...and as for Sullivan, how conservative can a gay person be? The GOP hates gays, lumping them in with pedophiles.
Sure, Joanie...sure.
Will they also be filing lawsuits against mandatory auto insurance?
I know I'll regret engaging, but...you do realize the federal government doesn't mandate auto insurance, which completely invalidates your anaology, right?
Jeremy,
You've all but admitted losing the argument when you are forced to quote David Frum. Although if you'd like I could quote Jane Hamsher about how horrible a bill this is; I mean she is one of your own.
But please answer Brian's question: If this is so great why did congress exempt themselves?
"Is medical care a civil right?"
I hate this bill and government provided anything, but I think medical care when sick or injured is some kind of right or at least moral obligation for the rest of us.
The fact that government will, as always, do a terrible job of it is my main objection to them do it.
Is it unconstitutional for the government to require a private business (hospitals) to give away their services for free (care to the indigent) or is it a form of slavery?
rocketeer67 - The Dow certainly is not "the economy," but it most certainly represents a good part of where your investments stand.
If you don't think the DOW has anything to do with your retirement accounts, pensions or other investments...many of which are directly tied to mutual funds...pull your money out of them and go it alone.
bagoh20 said..."I hate this bill and government provided anything..."
Does that included the police, military, infrastructure, food inspections, safety regulations, veteran's administration, child welfare, etc....or...is this just another case of you sucking up to your fellow tea baggers here?
Is it unconstitutional for the government to require a private business (hospitals) to give away their services for free (care to the indigent) or is it a form of slavery?
A hospital is not a person.
"But please answer Brian's question: If this is so great why did congress exempt themselves?"
Everyone who could, including top staffers who wrote it, exempted themselves. Does it suck or are they just heroic martyrs?
And, who will be given special exemptions in the future as political payola. Getting exempted will be like getting to own a car in the old Soviet Union.
Only the proletariat will have to have Obamacare.
If you don't think the DOW has anything to do with your retirement accounts, pensions or other investments...many of which are directly tied to mutual funds...pull your money out of them and go it alone.
Jeremy, did you even read rocketeer's post or do you just reflexively type a counter argument to every post on here?
Actually the one issue about mandatory coverage that might prove a silver lining is the number of 20 somethings who have plenty of money for Iphones, fashionable clothes and studio apartments in the downtown area will now actually have to fork over thier earnings for insurance. Cause they comprise a pretty decent chunk of the uninsured.
I'm wondering how they'll be liking Obama once they have to trade that Iphone in for a Jitterbug once they have to pay insurance premiums.
See, there will be some kharmic justice after all.
TM,
But the people forced to provide their labor are.
Do you realize that the more people who do have insurance, the lower the price is for everybody?
That's why you and others here get a better rate...the MORE they insure.
Gosh, then we should provide insurance to everyone in the entire world--think how much that would save us!
Jeremy, did you even read rocketeer's post or do you just reflexively type a counter argument to every post on here?
That reflexive thingy you said, Hoosier. Jeremy's essentially a slug, recoiling from every touch, possessing a purely biological need to respond to stimuli without the ability or desire to understand why.
This should be rather entertaining. In particular, I think that it will be interesting how a right-of-center Supreme Court interprets all of these precedents and comes out here. As usual, I think that Justice Kennedy may be the swing here.
Personally, I don't see the interstate commerce argument working, since health insurance is already interstate. I live in NV, am covered by Anthem BC/BC of AZ, and can use medical care really anywhere in the country. Hard to argue that it doesn't affect interstate commerce.
I think that the capitation argument is interesting. Also, there may be some viable quasi-EP arguments through the racial set-asides (but, of course, EP is 14th Amdt., not directly applicable to the U.S.) Also, the claims/loss requirement would seem to be a direct violation of ordered liberties (I thought that it was hilarious that Pelosi was citing just that section of the D of I, when the main effect of the bill/law is a major reduction in all three objects (life, liberty, and persuit of happiness), and esp. #2).
"Does that included the police, military, infrastructure, food inspections, safety regulations, veteran's administration, child welfare, etc....or...is this just another case of you sucking up to your fellow tea baggers here?"
Yes to both: Those functions except for military would all be superior as private enterprises. In fact, they are currently so expensive they will bankrupt the nation as they have California.
I love Tea Partiers, so I'm a racist too. There, saved you the trouble.
But please answer Brian's question: If this is so great why did congress exempt themselves?
I've said all along that Congressional exemption is something to tar all Incumbents with this November. I hope it's done. I earnestly hope it's done. (I know, I know, you weren't asking me.)
Here's a question for you: If the Dow were tanking right now, would you relate it to HCR?
Some things that the government does badly are because they are poorly designed, and some do badly because they are over reaching.
Like reducing obesity: good luck! Like providing health insurance for everyone, like making sure that everyone owns their own home.
The ideas are fine, they are just completely impractical and foolish to anyone with even a passing appreciation of human nature.
Trey
Hoosier-
I'm pretty sure that is why they are letting the "children" stay on their parent's insurance plans till 26 years old.
Ultimately to prevent the largest bloc of Obama voters from having to sacrifice their txting n'tunage.
The ideas are fine, they are just completely impractical and foolish to anyone with even a passing appreciation of human nature.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
Serenity, 2005
I'm pretty sure that is why they are letting the "children" stay on their parent's insurance plans till 26 years old.
Which is pathetic when you really think about it. 26 years old and you're still hooked to the parental umbilical?
But that boils down to mom and dad too and as long as you have parents that enable dependency in their children it will carry into adulthood. Which explains why the young voters were so attracted to Obama. What better than a President that can provide more than mom and dad?
MM,
Only if the evidence were there, but I don't really use the DOW to make points regarding the President (I still don't give Bush credit for hitting 14,000). There are people far more knowledgeable about economics than I on this site and I leave such points to them.
The only time I can really remember doing such with any regularity was when Obama was pushing the Stimulus last year. But given that he was predicting the imminent demise of our economy unless we passed his bill I think the connection with the depressed stock market was there.
Rush says that government lawyers are going to call the mandate to require citizens to buy goods and services a tax. That's how the courts will uphold Obcare.
So, all we have to do (until we manage to repeal it) is not buy health insurance, pay the fine (wich is said to be less than the coverage) and only get coverage when you need it.. remember you cannot be turned down for any reason.
Looking at it that way - this is just a big tax increase and the only way the democrats could have pass it was by not calling it that.
"Will they also be filing lawsuits against mandatory auto insurance?"
What a breathtakingly stupid comment. Even making allowances for the source. What federal law do you think forces you to buy auto insurance?
bagoh20 said...Yes to both: Those functions except for military would all be superior as private enterprises. In fact, they are currently so expensive they will bankrupt the nation as they have California."
So you think we should have "private" companies run our police forces? (Blackwater - Xe Services - perhaps?)
And oversee the building and regulations related to interstate highways, local roads, water systems, etc? Let them handle what they think we need, with no oversight? (Local building contractors?)
Handle all food inspections?
Oversee all safety regulations relating to buildings, consumer products, etc? (The same people who create the food and byproducts...and profit from the sales?)
Hand over the veteran's administration? (To who?)
And you think profit-motivated companies would drive the cost of everything down?
Yeah...right.
What a breathtakingly stupid comment. Even making allowances for the source. What federal law do you think forces you to buy auto insurance?
I think it's covered by the 'Good and Welfare Clause" of the Constitution, and also the 46th Amendment, which additionally requires oil changes every 5,000 miles and tire rotation every 10,000.
26 years old and you're still hooked to the parental umbilical?
You gotta give the Dems a lot of damn credit they know their base.
Pick any government run function and look at the costs. They invariably are out of whack and widely so. For example: In L.A. a fireman can retire at age 50 with 90% of his pay for life, then get rehired as a fireman and earn a full wage again. I love firemen and I don't blame him for taking it, but no operation should spend other people's money like that. It would be impossible without the power of government to force taxpayers to pay it. Then, that money gets recycled back through the union to the politician to maintain the flow. When recently it became clear that we could not afford it, they cut no jobs, no benefits, no hours - they raised taxes.
It's institutional corruption.
This function could be done far cheaper with no loss of service.
Health care will become the most abused, defrauded and graft-ridden operation in history. Of course the product will be sacrificed to pay for it. It's economics, it's politics, it's history, it's ours.
jeff said..."What a breathtakingly stupid comment. Even making allowances for the source. What federal law do you think forces you to buy auto insurance?"
I never said anything of the kind. I asked if lawsuits would be filed to override mandatory auto insurance we have at present.
And if you think there are no Federal Laws that mandate specific responsibilities in every state, you need to think about attending high school. (Little things like job discrimination, crime, etc.)
Oh, and I also posted a comment that relates to the fact that states can opt out...or do you just want to bitch instead of taking the time to research before sucking up to your fellow tea baggers here?
Once again:
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional:
You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.
He's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.
It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment.
The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place.
All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.
That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday.
madawaskan said..."You gotta give the Dems a lot of damn credit they know their base."
And of course, there are no 26 year olds still attending college or taking care of their parents or possibly effected by any health concerns?
Right?
You people sound like...well, 10 year olds.
"And you think profit-motivated companies would drive the cost of everything down?"
Why yes, yes I do. I say yes to all your paranoid private market scenarios. For profit organizations have a reason to lower costs as long as they are not monopolies. The government is always a monopoly and therefore never lowers costs. Why should they?
Look around grasshopper. There are all kinds of things that are cheaper than they used to be. None of them are government provided.
Bag-O-Wind - Anybody who thinks private companies could handle our state and local police, food inspections for a country of 300 million, the building and regulations relating to our infrastructure, our veteran administration, child welfare, etc...is a fucking moron who's just complaining to complain.
You might also read up on the untold billions of taxpayer dollars stolen in Iraq over the past 7 years...via "private" contractors.
Well Jeremy it's true a lot of them are unemployed, and are going to have a hard time finding work.
I was joking but it's really not funny.
Poin taken.
"And if you think there are no Federal Laws that mandate specific responsibilities in every state, you need to think about attending high school. (Little things like job discrimination, crime, etc.)"
And they all result in pathetic performance and bureaucracies riddled with corruption and waste.
I have a suggestion for the local tea bagging crowd:
Call your insurance company today, cancel all health related policies...and find new insurance.
Let's see how many of you can actually even get coverage...at any price.
This will be fun.
I love the idea that the individual human being has inherent rights - just because of their existence. Simply because you exist - there are certain freedoms or rights that cannot be violated - by government.
This seems to nullify that idea or begin the nullification process. It is a great loss.
Way, way back in time - in the ancient times - there was this:
"Do what you will and harm none - that is the whole of the law"
Now, America - the united States of America is ready to say the government can do anything it pleases? Say it ain't so...
Bag-O-Wind - "And they all result in pathetic performance and bureaucracies riddled with corruption and waste."
All of them?
Every single one is a loser?
Every Federal Law is ineffective, pathetic, and riddled with corruption and waste?
But if we were to turn it over to...oh, let's say...Wall Street or the Bankers of America...we would immediate see a system that is better and cheaper?
Have you been in a fucking coma?
Jeremy:
Your lack of a grasp of basic economics is stunning, really stunning. How can anyone who has read your belief that an increase in the market cap of a company results in an equivalent increase in the company's cash take anything you have to say on business matters with anything than a sad grain of salt?
Oh, and the term "teabagger" is homophobic, don't you know? Thought you lefties were all down with the gay crowd.
sunsong said..."Now, America - the united States of America is ready to say the government can do anything it pleases? Say it ain't so.."
Okay...it isn't.
What makes you think otherwise?
Where have you read anything that says "the government can do anything it pleases?"
Provide the link or evidence.
And please...no Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.
Call your insurance company today, cancel all health related policies...and find new insurance.
Actually I got a quote from a big blue about 3 years ago when it looked like I might have to acquire my own coverage and lo and behold it wasn't horrible.
Basic 80/20 plan with a $1000 deductible and $5000 out of pocket maximum. $20 copays for office visits and Rx all for a monthly premium of $205 which is about $50 less than the family cell phone plan.
Exactly. That's why the Dow is tanking.
As you would expect. The more the government intervenes in the economy, the better the largest companies will do. Because they can afford the armies of lawyers and accountants and programmers necessary to comply with the law.
We're on track for the kind of innovative, nimble economy you see in countries like France.
Michael said..."Jeremy: Your lack of a grasp of basic economics is stunning, really stunning."
You're back to the thread of about a week ago?
Have you been asleep...drunk...high?
I never said I was an economist, but I did attend a major university, did get a degree in business, and can certainly defend anything you think was wrong, and that I may have posted earlier.
Your constant harping on why a company's "market capitalization" isn't that important, or doesn't effect it's ability to generate increased profits or "cash" for it's stockholders is off the mark to say the least.
And I most certainly never said "an increase in the market cap of a company results in an equivalent increase in the company's cash."
I said that the company being discussed had a dramatic increase in its stock price and a massive increase in it's market cap...not that it resulted in "an equivalent increase in the company's cash."
But I will tell you this: Any company that does have such dramatic increases can certainly create one hell of a lot more "cash" down the line...because of it's increased market cap. It's called "credit" and "evaluation."
As for your crying jag over "teabagger" having a homphobic ring to it...well...you're the fools who chose to be called tea baggers, not me.
Maybe you and your fellow wing nuts should have looked up the meaning before slapping together all of those ridiculous signs and posters...ya think?
Jeremy, 300 million Americans are very well serviced by thousands of private companies like FEDEX, Google, Boeing, Southwest, etc. etc.
They handle very complex operations and keep their customers happy. You know why? Because they have to. They don't get to pass laws requiring you to buy their product. It's so obvious that you are lost. Go toward the light.
"Basic 80/20 plan with a $1000 deductible and $5000 out of pocket maximum. $20 copays for office visits and Rx all for a monthly premium of $205 which is about $50 less than the family cell phone plan."
You've bought into the lie.
That seems really reasonable, but you have just described a medical plan that 99% of Americans cannot afford to use.
If you use this insurance (as opposed to just handing over $205 a month tax and never using it), your monthly out-of-pocket expenses could easily top $10,000 per year.
Most Americans do not have $10,000 lying around.
It only seems cheap because you're not using it.
And of course, once your insurance company believes that you have a condition where you'd actually use that insurance, they would instantly increase your premiums so high that it would no longer be affordable.
Insurance companies have to charge so much because Democrats prevent them from operating across state lines and because of the lawyer lobby which prevents tort reform by bribing Democrat lawmakers.
"Any company that does have such dramatic increases can certainly create one hell of a lot more "cash" down the line...because of it's increased market cap. It's called "credit" and "evaluation."
Dude, that is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard an alleged college business graduate ever say.
Every time you attempt to write about economics you reveal yourself to be a complete moron.
You cannot have a business degree.
I defy you to prove that you ever went to college.
You know if the government could prove that jihadist were threatening interstate commerce, I think is possible the courts might just allow waterboard them.
The Interstate Commerce Clause covers a lot of shit ;)
"Call your insurance company today, cancel all health related policies...and find new insurance."
We do this at our company every couple years when the current company gets too comfortable and raises rates too much. It really is no big deal. We think our insurance is a fantastic bargain. We also know it just got destroyed. Thanks Dems, we owe you one.
Typical. Republicans bemoan lawyers but use them as much or more than anyone. Also the cost to the state for these lawsuits will not be a small cost.
Anyway, why would people refuse to have their children or themselves on Health insurance? Oh wait...because it costs so much money. Maybe that is why we have this health care bill? Costs will come down because it encourages competition. And on the other spectrum if we had a Public Option or Universal Healthcare it would be even less. What a concept.
Democcrats and progressives will have to bring the Republicans into a civilized 21st century kicking and screaming.
Hoosier - Good for yu and your family.
I never said that "everybody" would be shocked and awed...but I bet many right here in tea bagger land would be floored by the cost or inability to get a new policy.
Unless of course, you think no one here has any of those nasty "pre-conditions" the insurance companies love to use for denial.
Is that what you believe?
Oh, and if you haven't had insurance for that will also effect your getting it. (Call your auto insurer...they like that one, too.)
Anyway, why would people refuse to have their children or themselves on Health insurance? Oh wait...because it costs so much money.
Or perhaps they are young and healthy and don't have medical expenses that justify buying insurance.
There used to be a day when insurance was only for big catastrophes, not for every sniffle.
Hoosier;
Government funded Long Term Care.
From Kaiser Health News
The bill would establish the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, a national voluntary insurance program that would allow people to finance their long-term care in advance through payroll deductions. It would provide a cash benefit of about $50 a day for long-term care, including nursing homes, in the home and adult day care.
And presently
Medicaid, the nation's health insurance program for the poor, low-income elderly and the disabled, is by far the largest financier of long-term care services, paying for 42% of all long-term care services and 43% of all nursing home care in 2004.
Medicare pays for another 20% (post-acute skilled nursing care)
So we're most of the way there anyway.
Bag-O-Wind - "We do this at our company every couple years when the current company gets too comfortable and raises rates too much."
Once again, a ridiculous comment.
What do you suggest for those who are not at your "company" or any "company" for that matter...you know, that might have bargaining power because of the numbers insured?
Oh, wait...I know: Just...start your own company...right??
"And of course, once your insurance company believes that you have a condition where you'd actually use that insurance, they would instantly increase your premiums so high that it would no longer be affordable."
This is BS. I have spent well over $500,000 of my insurance company's money over the last decade and my insurance has gone up by less than the national average. In addition, they have never refused or even balked at a single treatment. You are part of a group. For every person like me there is someone who never uses it. Bless their hearts. I used to be one of them for about 20 years. It's good if you don't need it, but a miracle if you do. Well it was.
Skyler - "There used to be a day when insurance was only for big catastrophes, not for every sniffle."
Hey...and you know what?
Young people can indeed buy high deductible, very low cost insurance, but with "catastrophic" coverage to make sure they're covered if something really bad happens.
It's pretty standard, but if you have the wrong genetics...watch out.
The garbage bag of all doctrines - written and unwritten - is the doctrine of Greater Good, the preeminent nullifier of laws constitutional or otherwise.
Would they risk civil unrest to "simply" uphold the law, or rather, defer to the doctrine of Greater Good? 5-to-4 says they'll opt for the latter, that is, they'll defer to Congress - Alito writing the scathing dissent.
"What do you suggest for those who are not at your "company" or any "company" for that matter...you know, that might have bargaining power because of the numbers insured?"
We are a very small group. We just are aggressive about shopping around and using competition to our advantage. That's soon to be gone.
I would be in favor of anything that increases competition. Buying across state lines, no mandated coverages, even tax breaks to buy coverage. But the customer must decide who to buy from or it is a monopoly and can only cost more, maybe not to you but to someone.
The minority opposition that lost the election in 2008 and lost the debate on health reform has engaged in increasingly over the top and hateful rhetoric, as is evident in these pages. (Also, Palin posting map of crosshairs on Congressional districts).
Now we have
* Vandalism at Congressional district offices.
* Death threats against members of Congress.
* One wingnuts's web site posted a Representative's brothers address. That brother's gas line was cut. Police are investigating.
Look, you losers. Here in America when you lose elections on the issues the country will go in a direction you don't like. It doesn't give you the right to engage in threats and violence.
You are zealots with no shame.
There are some really interesting ideas in this story about how people are thanking their local Congressman for massively increasing their health care insurance tax.
Step 1: Use open public records to find out where they live.
Step 2: Tell people how they voted.
Step 3: Let nature take its course.
I predict we'll see more of this as the Democrats force more unpopular legislation down the throats of average Americans and spread their wealth around.
Sarah Palin eggs on the crazies.
Weaponry has no place in settling civic disputes.
bagoh20 said..."We are a very small group. We just are aggressive about shopping around and using competition to our advantage. That's soon to be gone."
And what makes you think that's it's "soon to be gone?"
Why would the health reform bill make insurance cost more for groups?
Name any "group" that purchases services or products en masse...that pay MORE than individuals.
Now Senate Republicans are throwing a hissy and shutting down Senate business on a wide range of issues.
They didn't get their way!!! WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!
Fucking spoiled brats who put party above country.
NewHam said..."There are some really interesting ideas in this story about how people are thanking their local Congressman for massively increasing their health care insurance tax."
And yet another tea bagger with a crystal ball.
Come up with something new. This is just the same crap we hear from Beck and others.
And did you complain when Anthem increased it's rates recently...by up to 39%?
Was that okay with you?
""What do you suggest for those who are not at your "company" or any "company" for that matter...you know, that might have bargaining power because of the numbers insured?"
Of all the possible suggestions to solve that, the stupidest would be let the congress handle it for you. I don't even know how you get that far away from the problem when looking for the solution. Unless you have other fish to fry, which of course they do...big fat fish.
Now we have
* Vandalism at Congressional district offices.
* Death threats against members of Congress.
* One wingnuts's web site posted a Representative's brothers address. That brother's gas line was cut.
That's just average Americans expressing their just concerns about despotic liberals stealing their money and giving it to thug unions.
I bet there will be a lot more "civil disobedience" and we certainly shouldn't be suggesting police state tactics to clamp down on people merely expressing their rage at the machine.
Congressmen's home addresses are public records, as are their votes on legislation.
It is totally moral and correct for a Congressman to know before he votes that he is supposed to be representing the majority of his constituents and that there are consequences for forcing unpopular legislation down the throats of voters.
We have rights of free expression and that occasional non-serious death threat uttered in the heat of the moment is to be expected.
That is part of the price of freedom.
Breaking the glass at your liberal Congressman's local campaign headquarters is an act of free speech and protest.
It is civil disobedience.
Organizing a shit in at his office is also a good way to protest. (See instructions for organizing your "shit in" here:)
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/03/saul-alinskys-interest-in-excrement-and.html
AlphaLiberal said...
Look, you losers.
That'll dissuade them.
"Insurance companies have to charge so much because Democrats prevent them from operating across state lines and because of the lawyer lobby which prevents tort reform by bribing Democrat lawmakers."
The McCarran-Ferguson Act, passed in 1945, which forbid federal regulation of insurance and exempts insurance from the anti-trust laws, and is responsible for the current situation. Note, however, an insurance company is NOT prohibited from operating across state lines. It just must qualify to do business in each state, and comply with each state's laws and regulations. Some healthcare insurance companies do and some do not.
Weaponry has no place in settling civic disputes.
Eggs are a wonderful way to express your disgust in your local liberal Congressman who is massively increasing your health insurance taxes.
Eggs thrown on cars ruin paint and are a tried-and-true "civil disobedience" tactic.
So is breaking the plate glass, and organizing "fart ins" and "shit ins" at your local Congressman's offices.
These sorts of "non-violent civil disobedience" acts were made popular in the 1960s by leftist radicals and in the 2010s by leftist anarchist groups.
This sort of "Act Up" method should be encouraged as a way to get average Americans excited about returning to politics.
It's free speech to throw an egg, so find a Congressman who is forcing unwanted and expensive taxes on you and egg his Lexus.
God, it's good to see American getting back into civics.
Jeremy, you still haven't answered my question, if this law is so great, why did congressional staffers exempt themselves from the law?
NewHam, what is "despotic" about elected officials passing laws by hearing and vote under the rules of the legislative bodies?
Not a damn thing. It's a deeply idiotic claim.
You guys have lost your grip on reality with this kind of hyperbole. And you are getting increasingly dangerous.
NewHam:
'Eggs thrown on cars ruin paint and are a tried-and-true "civil disobedience" tactic.'
Damage to property is not civil disobedience.
And since the political class will offer no relief, the citizens must seek to relieve themselves. On you and yours.
Jeremy, you still haven't answered my question, if this law is so great, why did congressional staffers exempt themselves from it?
Not only do you have to buy insurance, the insurance must meet federal criteria for coverage- you must purchase the coverage they mandate. You sill be subject to fines if you purchase less.
The reason there is no worry about losing to the SCOTUS is they already have an amendment. It mandates single payer universal coverage- which was the goal all along. The private insurance companies are toast. So are we.
Oh, and shy are certain congressional, senate, and other staff members exempt from the bill?
Lastly, it should, but will not be, unconstitutional for the government to subsidize some people and not others. The only way to help the poor is not to join them. No mercy. No pity.
"Why would the health reform bill make insurance cost more for groups?"
Just one way will be that they will require coverages that I don't want. Those cost money. I don't want them. I will have to pay for them anyway. Every company will have the same requirements. I already pay more than I have to because California requires me to pay for mental health, substance abuse, etc that I know I will never use. I like being insane, and drug addled. They go together and I should not have to pay to cure what makes me special.
"Fucking spoiled brats who put party above country."
You haven't seen anything yet, dude. We haven't even begun to make your lives miserable.
We aim to misbehave.
We're going to Act Up!
We're going Code Pinko on your fucking asses.
We're breaking your windows.
We're farting in your face.
We're "tea bagging" you.
We're organizing shit-ins and far-ins ... using Alinsky exactly the way you used it on us..
We're going to make life miserable for you and your families and your friends and anyone who dares to associate with you. If people don't want eggs thrown in their faces, maybe they should not associate with liberal Democrat despots.
We're organizing our communities to deal with THE MAN. And in case you haven't figured it out yet ... you're THE MAN.
All of the violent and non-violent tactics that the left have used to usurp America are now going to be turned back on you.
A few broken windows and some soiled shitty carpeting and some cut gas lines are the price of freedom you pay that enables you to steal from people and redistribute their money.
You should fucking lighten up, Francis.
There's your fanbase, Althouse. Whacked out violence-prone nutjobs.
Help push them over the edge some more with your denial of their actions, such as the attacks on the Congressional representatives.
You're a disgrace.
"Damage to property is not civil disobedience."
Yes it is.
It is because I say it is and I'm a community organizer.
Ask any anarchist, he'll tell you.
Nobody listens to you until you break a few windows. It's a good way to get coverage for your cause. Trashing a campaign headquarters and destroying the computers they're using to delegitimize your voting power is a common tactic that has been very effectively deployed in the past.
Breaking campaign headquarter windows is a tried-and-true tactic protesters employs to "get attention" for their cause and to raise funds.
If a few windows have to be broken, or a few gas lines cut, or the odd threat made ... well that's to be expected when new people get into the civic arena.
We should be encouraging these people. They're organizing their communities and for the first time, many of them are now engaging the local "political machine."
As Martha Stewart would say: "It's a good thing!"
So, organize your friends. Get together one night and get your local congressman's attention by having a redecorating party at his campaign headquarters.
Jeremy: You are kidding us about being a business major, right? Please tell us you are kidding, that you are pulling our legs. Or, tell us where you went to school so we can do everything in our power to keep our children and friends' children from attending.
Your homophobic slurs against the teapartiers are revolting and juvenile. You should really stop it.
"There's your fanbase, Althouse. Whacked out violence-prone nutjobs."
We've been reading "Rules For Radicals" and getting a lot of good ideas from our friend Saul Alinsky, who advised organizing shit ins and doing everything possible to make life miserable for your political opponents.
What, you didn't know about Saul Alinsky? He's a community organizer and a guy with some really good ideas about how to take down a political machine.
We're emulating Act Up! and Code Pink! and the lefty anarchists who have taught us that the only way to get people's attention is to be fucking assholes and make lives miserable.
So that's precisely what we're going to do to you and your fucking friends. By the time we're through with you guys, you won't have any friends because they'll be too scared to be anywhere near you.
Jeremy: As a business major you know that Anthem increased its premiums by 39% because healthy people were dropping their policies leaving the insurance company with a large pool of sick people to pay for the rest of the sick people. As a business major you understand that this had an undesirable effect on Anthem's profitability. They passed the cost on to the consumer. Just as all insurance companies will when the public elects to pay the fine rather than buy the mandated insurance. But as a business major you know all this.
Homophobe.
"Whacked out violence-prone nutjobs."
This isn't violence ... it's civil disobedience.
Bombing the Pentagon ... now that was violence. Bill Ayers, Barack Obama's home-grown terrorist friend, was violence prone.
Barack Obama is the violent one. He's using drones to murder people in Pakistan. That's violence, dude.
We're just breaking a few windows, and trashing a few campaign headquarters' to wake people up from their complacency. No real harm in that. That's tried-and-true lefty political organizing the likes of which Martin Luther King would certainly approve.
And there's going to be more of it, so get fucking used to it.
The Man has to be brought down.
You're the Man now, dude.
So you're the one we're bringing down.
Alpha Lib,
You must really hate Howard Dean, then (NTTAWTT!)
A few broken windows and some soiled shitty carpeting and some cut gas lines are the price of freedom you pay that enables you to steal from people and redistribute their money.
Just don't get all huffy when someone rightfully calls you terrorists. You linking up with Al Qaeda to take us all down? Al Tea Qaeda! Tea-Jhad! Tali-baggers!
What should have been a good year for the GOP ain't looking so good anymore.
What should have been a good year for the GOP ain't looking so good anymore.
Since when have a few lone goons ever had an effect on midterm elections? Keep up the delusion buddy. Unless of course you can prove Sarah Palin ordered the attacks.
Tali-baggers!! First it was the homophobic term teabaggers, now its the anti-Islam term Tali-baggers. What next? The left is just so mean.
Bag-Ohhh - "Of all the possible suggestions to solve that, the stupidest would be let the congress handle it for you."
Congress is merely making sure insurance companies will insure you in the first place.
Based on many of the comments here, I have the feeling many of those whining about the health care reform bill have insurance through their companies or are not looking...but that sure isn't the case with many who either have pre-existing conditions or just can't afford to pay the price.
For those of you who are happy with what you have...do what the bill allows: KEEP your current insurance.
NewHam said..."This isn't violence ... it's civil disobedience."
Throwing bricks through windows, cutting gas lines and hurling racist and homophobic slurs is far from civil disobedience.
If a cut gas line created an explosion or started a fire that killed some people...would you consider that a mere case of such disobedience?
Michael - Suck my dick, you little piece of shit.
And get off the constant yelping as if you're some kind of business expert.
You know exactly what I said and if you actually believe a company's market cap if somehow irrelevant...you're just too inexperienced to understand.
As for the homophobic bullshit...as I said before: YOU and your tea bagger buddies picked the name without researching what it can mean...
Now live with it.
Jeremy: As you know from business classes you will be able to keep your insurance until your insurance company quits offering insurance that you can afford. If your insurance company is suddenly "insuring" people with pre-existing conditions then it is possible they will have to throw in the towel.
Oh, and by the way. When people bring up things that others have written in other posts days ago that does not make them drunk. This blog is posted on the internet and like many readers the internet has a very long memory. So think about that feature before you post your homophobic slurs against people exercising their democratic right to protest against prospective policy.
@garage, if you're going to praise Saul Alinsky and his disciples, then you need to consider the possibility that the same tactics can be directed at you or people you respect.
I don't endorse what NewHam (who is pretty likely to be a moby anyway) is advocating, but his three-sigmas-away-from-normal comments aren't really much different from Jeremy, now, are they?
Stay classy, wingnuts:
Last week, the anti-reform advocacy group the Committee to Rethink Reform published an ad in The Cincinnati Enquirer featuring a photo of Dreihaus with his children. (Both the Committee and the Enquirer have retracted and apologized for the ad.) Now, conservatives are planning a Sunday protest outside of his house, after a conservative blog put his address--complete with directions--on the Internet.
Speaking to me and another reporter outside the House chamber this afternoon, Driehaus said Republican leaders are to blame for the vitriol--and implied that they will bear some responsibility if reform opponents' anger bubbles over into violence.
"I think if you look at some of the language that has been used by leaders on the Republican side, one shouldn't be surprised," Driehaus said. "Unfortunately many of us are now receiving threats, death threats.... These comments that have been made by Republican leaders can serve as--I don't know if I want to say an excuse or perhaps permission for people who may be unbalanced, who may be calling with these threats."
Silence from the Republican leadership, from the Tea Party leadership and from Ann Althouse who eggs on their sense of victimhood and helps to deny these actions even occur.
It's rank thuggishness.
Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center:
"This whole campaign challenging the constitutionality of health care reform is just the latest chapter in a long pageant of conservative right-wing scare tactics designed to frighten people into thinking health care reform is a horrific change for America," said Lazarus.
"It really is a natural heir to the 'death panels', a natural heir to the 'government takeover.' These lawsuits that are being filed now, if you take a look at them, frankly they're embarrassing from a legal standpoint. They're totally frivolous. I'm confident they'll be summarily dismissed even by conservative federal judges."
CBS reports on more rising threats from the sore losers of the right wing:
'The calls placed to Stupak's office reveal the extreme anger members of Congress are facing.
"Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f***er... I hope you bleed out your a**, got cancer and die, you mother f***er," one man says in a message to Stupak.
"There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill," a woman says in a voicemail, "and all of those thoughts that are projected on you will materialize into something that's not very good for you."
CBS News also obtained copies of faxes sent to Stupak, which include racial epithets used in reference to President Obama and show pictures of nooses with Stupak's name.'
@garage, if you're going to praise Saul Alinsky and his disciples, then you need to consider the possibility that the same tactics can be directed at you or people you respect.
I didn't even know who the hell Alinsky even was until the last election. Did Alinsky followers make death threats and vandalize homes of people they disagreed with? I'm asking, I honestly don't know.
AlphaLiberal: This is precisely the same tactic that was used against employees of AIG by leftie mobsters a year or so ago. Didn't offend anyone on your side of the aisle at the time. In fact, the AG of NY (or was it Conn?) was proposing to post on the internet the names and addresses of all AIG executives who received bonuses. But that, of course, was different.
Big Mike - There's nothing wrong with my comments. And I certainly love to slam some of the more ridiculous attacks or comments with profanity and whatever else I think will put them in their place.
It's called freedom of speech...look it up.
You and just happen to disagree about damn near everything, and you feel that anyone with whom you disagree is just always wrong.
95% of the people who post here are always in agreement (basically Obama haters), which in my opinion, makes for little if any real discussion or debate.
If you marked out the monikers, 90% of the comments here could have been written by the same wing nut.
And of course...you already know that...because you're one of them.
Michael - Posting names is one thing.
Cutting gas lines and throwing bricks through windows is another.
Remember when garage an AlphaLiberal were so deeply concerned with these people thugglishly protesting private home?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eBHGsBOSIo
Strange, I don't remember that either.
All this talk about violence and "terrorism" is bunk. First, calling people names is not a crime, it is free speech. It may not be tasteful or proper, but it is legal. you do not have to like it, you must accept it. Unless you want to strip the first amendment.
Secondly, you libs have no room to talk about terrorists when three of them are sitting in the US House of Representatives. Robert Byrd, life time member of the Ku Klux Klan, Luis Guiterrez, member of FALN, and Bobby Rush, former leader of the Chicago Black Panthers.
Michael - "This is precisely the same tactic that was used against employees of AIG by leftie mobsters a year or so ago."
So now you're defending AIG...and at the same time calling people who wanted to know who was getting all of that taxpayer money as "leftie mobsters?"
Good lord...take another Zanax.
I wonder if Madison Man thinks the Dem operatives who did this should have gotten *life* in prison.
http://www.wisn.com/news/3894795/detail.html
I'm guessing: not so much.
Young people can indeed buy high deductible, very low cost insurance, but with "catastrophic" coverage to make sure they're covered if something really bad happens.
They can....voluntarily...for now.
When the Obamacare plan kicks into full swing and they are going to be forced to buy what the Government mandates and it will NOT be a high deductible plan. The young will be forced to buy insurance for things that they may never need and may not want.
Name any "group" that purchases services or products en masse...that pay MORE than individuals.
Group insurance always costs more per individual than equivalent coverage for a healthy individual of the same age, because the group is assumed to contain high risk individuals who MUST be covered at the expense of the rest of the group.
Welcome to Obamacare and rising premiums for everyone to cover the uninsurables that we will be forced to subsidize.
vw: refri hmmm now I want Mexican food.
Petey - "Robert Byrd, life time member of the Ku Klux Klan."
That's nothing but a bald-faced lie.
As usual.
And I do agree that name calling is nothing to get too upset about, but sometimes it does get a tad over the top (not for people here), but when screaming at people who represent our government or in the case of a few, calling people who fought for racial equality...niggers.
Petey - "Robert Byrd, life time member of the Ku Klux Klan."
That's nothing but a bald-faced lie.
As usual.
And I do agree that name calling is nothing to get too upset about, but sometimes it does get a tad over the top (not for people here), but when screaming at people who represent our government or in the case of a few, calling people who fought for racial equality...niggers.
Jeremy - your teeth wouldn't be green if you'd just brush them once in awhile.
(Chip - a shining model for the noble role of kid brother.)
Peter, you are very detached from reality.
I didn't say calling names was illegal. I am meeting speech with speech and pointing out that it is a tactic approved and applauded by Republicans and the Tea Party movement.
Luis Guitierrez is not a part of FALN. What do they post their membership? Where do you get these ideas?
Robert Byrd denounced the KKK and his membership over 4 decades ago. Meanwhile, the KKK, the CCC and white supremacists are active in right wing politics today.
Peter Bella is deeply dishonest, ain't he? Just another full of shit sore loser rationalizing bad behavior.
Dust Bunny Queen said..."They can....voluntarily...for now."
And they always will be able to.
The mandates coming down the line don't stop anyone from buying high deductible, low cost insurance.
What would make you think it does?
When you buy mandated auto insurance, does each state tell you who you have to buy it from?
Your argument is just more right wing, erroneous drivel.
I didn't say calling names was illegal.
You did say it was "wrong," which I don't really think you believe.
NewHam = OldIdiot
A real keyboard warrior, that one.
Jeremy: You may recall that people were bused to the homes of the AIG executives whereupon they began to hurl insults and worse at the homes. Many of these executives relocated their wives and children during this period. It actually happened. As to the throwing of bricks and the cutting of gas lines those are leftie tricks. As you look back at actual (as distinct from imagined) events over the last 30 or 40 years most of the political violence was from the left and certainly all of the presidential assassinations of the 20th century were committed by lefties.
Moira Breen said..."Jeremy - your teeth wouldn't be green if you'd just brush them once in awhile."
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, I have always had great teeth.
As for the Chipper...isn't he cute? And why can't he post more pictures of HIM??
Damn!!
Luis Guiterrez has been a member of the FALN since he was a young thug in Chicago. He has never disavowed them. He was on an FBI watch list over thirty some years ago, and he was directly or indirectly- depending on who you talk to- responsible for bombings in Chicago. He was almost indicted with others for terrorist acts. He spent the rest of his life and career getting pardons for his convicted brothers in arms- thnak you Billybobfestus Clinton.
I live here. I was a cop here. I should know. Unlike you, who spouts unproven nonsense and drivel. But, at least you are somewhat civil, unlike Jeremey who has a toilet bowl vocabulary.
Sofa King said..."You did say it was "wrong," which I don't really think you believe."
Do I think it's wrong to call Peter a lying asshole?
Sure, but what fun would it be if I didn't take the opportunity to do it?
Is Michel so full of himself I think he may explode...sure, I think he's a bloated gas bag...why not?
Is Da Dust Bunny really just a cranky old lady who's full of shit most of the time...of course.
But do I think name calling is bad.
Sometimes.
Jeremy - I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, I have always had great teeth.
You wouldn't be so ugly if you weren't so stupid.
(Chip - your kid brother Alinsky Rules are genius.)
Post a Comment