House passes health care bill on 220-215 vote

fired up and ready togo wrote:

<quoted text>
Spare the platitudes. You're spouting Beck-isms. Servitude...?
Imprisonment.....? No one is dictating a medical plan and no one will put you in prison. Another example of the right-wing's fear-mongering. You get what ever medical plan you want...you get to keep your present medical plan OR choose a government plan.8476

you have already been proven wrong .

the plan is actually this "get insurance or be fined or go to jail or both."

there is no choice there is no representation.

no matter what obama says these words do in fact mean something , they are not just words !

nono wrote:

<quoted text>No, we need another Revolutionary War. Read the Declaration of Indepenance(only in english). When a government becomes oppresive it is the right and duty to overthrowit. Signed Johnny Hamilton and others on 4th July 1776

Maybe so. What this country really needs is to be invaded and taken over.

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
you have already been proven wrong .
the plan is actually this "get insurance or be fined or go to jail or both."
there is no choice there is no representation.
no matter what obama says these words do in fact mean something , they are not just words !

The bill states that people who do not have health insurance AND ALSO WILLFULLY refuse to pay the tax imposed on them for such an action can face civil or criminal penalties.
Section 501 of the bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependants, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium":
"Hardship cases" are exempted from the tax. From Section 501(f):"
All of us need to be covered by some form or health ins. Nothing wrong with that.

fired up and ready togo wrote:

<quoted text>
ok. let's start contacting our reps. I agree with this completely. Then let's start taking care of our own!

I have contacted my reps multiple times on this matter.

fired up and ready togo wrote:

<quoted text>
Another thought ......providing critical care to illegals is still the costliest care. What is A 3-5 day stay at the hospital could run upwards of 70-80K. Who then pays? You still have the same problem. If you give them basic critical care without treating the problem you leave each physician with a moral dilema. A physician will not put a sick patient out on the street.

The problem is that the law requires the critical care be given that is why the illegals flock to the emergency rooms for everything they can not by law be turned away. My point is that you can not turn them away but once the life threating danger has been averted then they should be deported back to their own country. I don't think that the critical care will exceed the cost of insuring all of them.

Fired up;

As to my location it depends on how my signal is routed trough our server. As you can see now it says I am in California. You may also see Arizona, or Indiana or Maryland at times. The most common are Mass, California, or Arizona. It is all in the server.
My actual location is El Paso Texas on the border with the murder captiol of the world, Juarez Mexico.

Kerry221421, you're exactly right!
Jitney is the type of idiot from the extreme right, and moronic tea baggers, that the right wing republicans want to stir up to create trouble, but it isn't working!
They're too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated and used for their own political purposes! The GOP's only goal is to ensure that the current administration fails, that's why they are obstructing and opposing everything the democrats are trying to fix!
All the right wing loons, and commentators have let us know just where they and the GOP stand, and they clearly want the entire country to fail! How patriotic of these traitors, they should be called the Benedict Arnolds of America!
They have managed to create a subculture of insanity, that has been bred to reject facts to the point of beyond craziness!
Fortunately the Jitneys of the U.S. make up a very tiny percentage of idiots that listen to, and take to heart, the right wing GOP's divisive and polarizing bilge!
It's pointless to argue with them because they are too delusional to have their opinions changed, so don't even try!

Just Info wrote:

Fired up;
As to my location it depends on how my signal is routed trough our server. As you can see now it says I am in California. You may also see Arizona, or Indiana or Maryland at times. The most common are Mass, California, or Arizona. It is all in the server.
My actual location is El Paso Texas on the border with the murder captiol of the world, Juarez Mexico.

One place I would never want to be is anywhere near Juarez. I hear it's like the Wild West out there.
Getting back to you point tho, I don't know anyone who wants to insure illegals.. even here in CT. Just remember that this bill, if it passes, is just a start. I'm sure there will be plenty of changes along the way.

fired up and ready togo wrote:

<quoted text>
The bill states that people who do not have health insurance AND ALSO WILLFULLY refuse to pay the tax imposed on them for such an action can face civil or criminal penalties.
Section 501 of the bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependants, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium":
"Hardship cases" are exempted from the tax. From Section 501(f):"
All of us need to be covered by some form or health ins. Nothing wrong with that.

LOL not this way we don't .

the government does not have the constitutional authority to tax the people for not buying a sevice that they (read that WE ) pay for though our tax dollars.

lets start with that small sentence and see if you can understand it before we get into the meat of the plan .

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL not this way we don't .
the government does not have the constitutional authority to tax the people for not buying a sevice that they (read that WE ) pay for though our tax dollars.
lets start with that small sentence and see if you can understand it before we get into the meat of the plan .

You have been listening to the propagandists of hate radio and the Fox Falsifiers way too, much. That constitutional argument is simply a RepupliCON talking point. But you can bet there will be some kind of challenge. Hell the income tax deniers are still figuring out ways to get to the Supreme Court....and still going to jail.

But if there is the slightest way to find a way to rule for the insurance. hospital, or drug companies, you can damn well bet the 2 latest corporatist appointees to the Supreme Court will find a way to go along with Scallia & his lapdog.

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
...the government does not have the constitutional authority to tax the people for not buying a sevice that they (read that WE ) pay for though our tax dollars....

I forgot to ask - Where did you get your law degree?

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL not this way we don't .
the government does not have the constitutional authority to tax the people for not buying a sevice that they (read that WE ) pay for though our tax dollars.
lets start with that small sentence and see if you can understand it before we get into the meat of the plan .

Let's start with YOUR sentence.In fact, the government (you and me) does in fact HAVE the authority to tax (you and me). period. Whatever is taxed must be approved first and this is what we are in the process of passing. We vote our reps in to be our voice in the matter.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

<quoted text>
You have been listening to the propagandists of hate radio and the Fox Falsifiers way too, much. That constitutional argument is simply a RepupliCON talking point. But you can bet there will be some kind of challenge. Hell the income tax deniers are still figuring out ways to get to the Supreme Court....and still going to jail.
But if there is the slightest way to find a way to rule for the insurance. hospital, or drug companies, you can damn well bet the 2 latest corporatist appointees to the Supreme Court will find a way to go along with Scallia & his lapdog.

read it again , its called taxation without representation, the government ends up in a situation where they profit from taxing the people at the threat of fines or imprisonment while paying for the plan by taxing the people , the plan is unconstitutional .

lets see how I can get this through to you ?

the government issues you a car that they have taken taxes out of your paycheck to purchase, everytime you drive it they charge you 45 cents a mile and if you don't drive it they arrest you, give you a big fine and put you in jail for 5 years .

sound fair to you ?

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL not this way we don't .
the government does not have the constitutional authority to tax the people for not buying a sevice that they (read that WE ) pay for though our tax dollars.
lets start with that small sentence and see if you can understand it before we get into the meat of the plan .

Fox news, beck, hannity, plush limpballs (my own fav) like to talk about the 'GOVERNMENT' as this scary, boogeyman-like entity that we should all be afraid of when in fact, the govenment is you, me, and all of 'US'. You need to focus on the idea that we are all in this together, we sink or swin together, a house divided cannot stand....etc....etc. etc. This US vs. THEM mentality does no one any good.

Rigid wrote:

<quoted text>
read it again , its called taxation without representation, the government ends up in a situation where they profit from taxing the people at the threat of fines or imprisonment while paying for the plan by taxing the people , the plan is unconstitutional .
lets see how I can get this through to you ?
the government issues you a car that they have taken taxes out of your paycheck to purchase, everytime you drive it they charge you 45 cents a mile and if you don't drive it they arrest you, give you a big fine and put you in jail for 5 years .
sound fair to you ?

You need to brush up on Civics 101. This is not 1776. We do HAVE representation ...it's called Congress.

fired up and ready togo wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to brush up on Civics 101. This is not 1776. We do HAVE representation ...it's called Congress.

not when they are taxing us to pay for a healthcare plan that covers even those who do not contribute and then threaten us to be fined or imprisoned if we dont use the plan .

do you think only the british can tax without representation , the simple fact that we have a congress does not mean we are represented when it is in fact the congress that will be the ones who gain from this paln , which by the way they are not required to use because we pay for gold plated insurance for them .

its time you get your head out of thr sand !

fired up and ready togo wrote:

<quoted text>
Fox news, beck, hannity, plush limpballs (my own fav) like to talk about the 'GOVERNMENT' as this scary, boogeyman-like entity that we should all be afraid of when in fact, the govenment is you, me, and all of 'US'. You need to focus on the idea that we are all in this together, we sink or swin together, a house divided cannot stand....etc....etc. etc. This US vs. THEM mentality does no one any good.

The government hasn't been about you or me for a long time. It's a handful of crooks ensuring their power at the expense of you and me. The difference between you and me is that you empower them to do it and I want them to go back to serving their constituents. Not raping their liberty and their pocket books. It's not the governments job to alleviate you of any of your personal responsibility by being your slavemaster through the entitlements you've come to depend on.

fired up and ready togo wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's start with YOUR sentence.In fact, the government (you and me) does in fact HAVE the authority to tax (you and me). period. Whatever is taxed must be approved first and this is what we are in the process of passing. We vote our reps in to be our voice in the matter.

trythis , if its our reps that are passing this plan and they speak for us .

who owns the plan when its finished , the government or the people who sent the reps to washington ?

if we own the plan does it seem logical that we would further impose a tax on ourselves for not using our plan ?

and if its the government who owns the plan who spoke for us ?

fired up and ready togo wrote:

<quoted text>
Fox news, beck, hannity, plush limpballs (my own fav) like to talk about the 'GOVERNMENT' as this scary, boogeyman-like entity that we should all be afraid of when in fact, the govenment is you, me, and all of 'US'. You need to focus on the idea that we are all in this together, we sink or swin together, a house divided cannot stand....etc....etc. etc. This US vs. THEM mentality does no one any good.

I have a little bit of a problem with this one fired up. The Us against Them was started with obama and his boys class warfare. Their repeated bashing of anyone that succeeds has made this an advisarial climate. The Reps that are in Washington are not representing us anylonger for the most part. A case in point would be when one of the Democart Congress men was asked about the fact the a majority of the, Peolpe, did not want this bill he responded by saying that they were going to pass it for the peopoles own good even if they didn't realize it. That is not representing us any longer that is telling us that we are too stupid to know what we want.
On the Constitutionality one of the Democrat Senators was asked that very question, I pick one because his statement was representative of what has been echoed by his fellow Reps, he stated that it was not specifically granted in the Constitution that the Gov can require a person to have health insurance or use tax dollars to pay for it, but we have good intentions. That is his justification, we have good intentions. Remember that the Constitution was a restrictive document. It held all rights not specifically granted to the Feds with the States. So if it is not specifically granted to the Fed in the Constitution it is not legally allowed.

Proponents of so-called reform -- it's not really reform unless it makes things better -- have shamefully avoided criticism of their proposals. Often they just dismiss their opponents as greedy corporate apologists or paranoid right-wing loonies. That's easier than answering questions like these:

1) How can the government subsidize the purchase of medical services without driving up prices? Econ 101 teaches -- without controversy -- that when demand goes up, if other things remain equal, price goes up. The politicians want to have their cake and eat it, too.

2) How can the government promise lower medical costs without restricting choices? Medicare already does that. Once the planners' mandatory insurance pushes prices to new heights, they must put even tougher limits on what we may buy -- or their budget will be even deeper in the red than it already is. As economist Thomas Sowell points out, government cannot really reduce costs. All it can do is disguise and shift costs (through taxation) and refuse to pay for some services (rationing).

3) How does government "create choice" by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their "minimum" coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.

4) How does it "create choice" by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let's call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what I mean by choice and competition. Rep. Barney Frank is at least honest enough to say that the public option will bring us a government monopoly.

Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that's impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won't talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?

Many people are priced out of the medical and insurance markets for one reason: the politicians' refusal to give up power. Allowing them to seize another 16 percent of the economy won't solve our problems.

Freedom will.