health insurance passes the house 220-215

well, is it a good thing or a bad thing? the house passed it saturday night. It now will go to the senate. The house bill claims to offer coverage for 96 percent of americans. Why not all 100? What are your thoughts, and how much are you willing to pay for it? How much do you want your children or grandchildren, the ones that will feel it most, to pay?

I say the devil is in the details

oh, the story is on the drudge report, you know, the one you claim is biased. it provides a link to the story there

This will force many more families onto assistance, and that limits the amount of wealth you can create for yourself, making you totally dependent on government, which is what the socialist left want. tax rates will be at least 60 percent for future generations, which is a barrior to wealth. Big government does not work well!

ok, most of you are in deep sleep right now, except for the busy judger. I will say, I am glad that the pre existing condition rule was included in this bill, that is something in it I can support. I don't like government running things private companies should run, but that pre existing condition rule was wrong, and i am glad the house bill gives it the boot.

The senate bill may be very different after it passes, and then the committee will draw up final legislation, I do hope the senate shows more fiscal discipline than the house! They can pass a pre existing condition ban in seperate matters.

hOTHEAD uGLY wrote:

It now will go to the senate. The house bill claims to offer coverage for 96 percent of americans. Why not all 100? What are your thoughts,

That make no sense to me? Why pass a bill that does not cover 100% of the American citizens? What will happen the last 4% of uninsured people? Do they go to jail? Does our government not care about them? That's still over 1,000,000 people who won't be insured.

3 nil wrote:

<quoted text>
That make no sense to me? Why pass a bill that does not cover 100% of the American citizens? What will happen the last 4% of uninsured people? Do they go to jail? Does our government not care about them? That's still over 1,000,000 people who won't be insured.

Contrary to popular belief, some people are uninsured by choice. Should we force them into having health insurance?

Hiker 2009 wrote:

<quoted text>
Contrary to popular belief, some people are uninsured by choice. Should we force them into having health insurance?

We do it with car insurance. If by being uninsured it cost the rest of us then it should be a requirement. Should there be jail time? Only for fraudulent activites.

The how do we handle it? What is the penalty going to be for not buying insurance? They cannot make it too lenient, but cannot make it too harsh either.

Most of the the people who can afford health insurance and do not, are younger single people. There are some that are up to their eyeballs in debt that make 3 times the poverty level. How do we address that?

3 nil wrote:

<quoted text>
That make no sense to me? Why pass a bill that does not cover 100% of the American citizens? What will happen the last 4% of uninsured people? Do they go to jail? Does our government not care about them? That's still over 1,000,000 people who won't be insured.

You make an excellent point, what if you fall into that 4%? What then?

Hiker 2009 wrote:

The how do we handle it? What is the penalty going to be for not buying insurance? They cannot make it too lenient, but cannot make it too harsh either.
Most of the the people who can afford health insurance and do not, are younger single people. There are some that are up to their eyeballs in debt that make 3 times the poverty level. How do we address that?

Does the state worry about those who can't afford car insurance?
There are priorities in life, it's not all about partying,new cars, and flat screens. First things first.

Olivier wrote:

<quoted text>
We do it with car insurance. If by being uninsured it cost the rest of us then it should be a requirement. Should there be jail time? Only for fraudulent activites.

driving is a privilage, you don't have to drive. the constitution does not give congress the authority to force anyone to buy health insurance. if this reaches obamas desk it should be challenged.

OU8I2 wrote:

<quoted text>
driving is a privilage, you don't have to drive. the constitution does not give congress the authority to force anyone to buy health insurance. if this reaches obamas desk it should be challenged.

Maybe you would like to tell me what you think the constitution says.
I supoose you're one of the ones who believes it says that everyone is entitled to own an arsenal.

This is how it works! You can't believe any of them!!

http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php...

I guess this explains some things. Pelosi is one nasty b----.

http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php...

Olivier wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you would like to tell me what you think the constitution says.
I supoose you're one of the ones who believes it says that everyone is entitled to own an arsenal.

if that power isn't given to them in the const., they don't have it. they coundn't tax peoples income until that amendment was added, and another prohibiting it was repealed. it's not about proving it doesn't exist, it's about showing the power given to them in the const. that allows them to force everyone to buy healthcare ins.
what do you consider an arsenal? gun ownership is a right. and yes people should be able to own as many or few as they choose. if you choose not to thats your business.

it's time for the people in this country to stop looking to the gov't to fix all thier problems, and start looking to themselves. just because something is a necessity doesn't make it a right that someone else is responsible for providing.

alexander tyler 1787
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:"

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

OU8I2 wrote:

<quoted text>
if that power isn't given to them in the const., they don't have it. they coundn't tax peoples income until that amendment was added, and another prohibiting it was repealed. it's not about proving it doesn't exist, it's about showing the power given to them in the const. that allows them to force everyone to buy healthcare ins.
what do you consider an arsenal? gun ownership is a right. and yes people should be able to own as many or few as they choose. if you choose not to thats your business.

So arsenals are ok and health care isn't?
The majority of American voters voted for Obama, he ran on health care reform. Seems to me this is what the people want.
People voted for George Bush and got what the voted for, he called the constitution a goddamn piece of paper.
Obama taught constitutional law.

Olivier wrote:

<quoted text>
So arsenals are ok and health care isn't?
The majority of American voters voted for Obama, he ran on health care reform. Seems to me this is what the people want.
People voted for George Bush and got what the voted for, he called the constitution a goddamn piece of paper.
Obama taught constitutional law.

so you're not going to answer the question i asked as to what constitutes an arsenal? ok fine.

the majority of voters may have voted for obama, but that doesn't give congress, or obama any more authority than what is layed out in the constituion. you can't vote away mine, or anyone elses rights by voting for a peticular candidate.
where did i defend bushs' trashing of the const.? i don't agree with the patriot act, and the funny thing is that the dems screamed about it the loudest, but now that they are in power it doesn't seem to be an issue. why? why haven't they repealed it?

OU8I2 wrote:

<quoted text>
so you're not going to answer the question i asked as to what constitutes an arsenal? ok fine.
the majority of voters may have voted for obama, but that doesn't give congress, or obama any more authority than what is layed out in the constituion. you can't vote away mine, or anyone elses rights by voting for a peticular candidate.
where did i defend bushs' trashing of the const.? i don't agree with the patriot act, and the funny thing is that the dems screamed about it the loudest, but now that they are in power it doesn't seem to be an issue. why? why haven't they repealed it?

Anything over what you would need to hunt or protect yourself with.
People don't need AK47's or 30 or 40 weapons.
Shotgun,rifle,pistol or two should be enough for anyone.
Any more than that get's into the I have a small penis syndrome.

ok and what about the people that love to collect guns? i have family members that are very much into collecting guns and have lots of them, but do not act crazy with them. oliver i dont want to get into a pissing match with you before you even start. i just have a question and want everyones thought on this since YOU brought it up! thanks