• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Wait...Who, How, When, What....???...I feel left out of the loop...

Also like the price tag, $875 billion health-care bill. The .gov aka "low ball express" has a history of accurate estimates to get things by.

- Iraq War original est. $50 billion. To date cost $700 billion.
- Medicare official forecast cost $12 billion/yr. Actual cost $500 billion/yr.
- Capital Hill Visitor center est cost $265 million. Actual cost $621 million.

- Estimated nationalized heathcare $875 billion, actual cost tens of trillions ... :headbang:
 
I don't like that either. Only silver lining I can see in this is if they do it, we'll have a national argument (and likely a lawsuit!) about the legality of 'deem and pass' in general.
I'm for the healthcare bill, but as contraversial as it is already, we need it to pass in a more legit way that can't be argued against.. (EDIT- I mean it's legitimacy can't be argued against not it's worth or 'the sense of it'. That can always be argued against.)
 
Just another example of Obama’s Government knowing best what is best for us and we need not be bothered by the details. Just ram it down my throat.
 
Well. What Wade said.

But I have always been made nervous by the chain of events that results in 1) the committing of an act , execution of an event.....becoming more important than the 2) substance or quality of the act/event.

And if getting the deed done has required Nancy Pelosi to examine every last artifice, over and under and around the table,...it tends to call into question her motives : that of helping the american people in general, in humanitarian efforts.....or in leaving her famous historical legacy for the history books.
 
All this is really about is people who want to vote for it are scared to have their names out there. BIG problem with our government when people are afraid to take the stands they believe they need to take. That's pretty sick really.
 
What does this mean exactly? From the yahoo article on the subject..

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate's health care legislation without voting on the bill itself. Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed."
 
Every day I feel sicker and sicker. I am loosing faith.
 

Attachments

  • War Posters 01.jpg
    War Posters 01.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 189
tom e said:
What does this mean exactly? From the yahoo article on the subject..

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate's health care legislation without voting on the bill itself. Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed."
Click to expand...
I do not know, Tom. I gather that is a paraphrasing on the business of :
The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass"
Click to expand...
by whoever wrote the yahoo article.
And I was reading the other day (now I am paraphrasing) about attaching/passing a number of 'alterations' acceptable to dissenters (beforehand?) that would make the voting on the original healthcare package afterwards more palatable to said dissenters.
Kind of like promising to serve a kid dessert first if he promises to eat his brussels sprouts afterwards. In this case, cyanide-laced brussels sprouts....but ohhhh....the dessert first is gonna be soooo daing good. ;)
 
I don't know Eric, I'm just a simple guy. Maybe I am not meant to understand these things at this time. I seems to me if this plan is so damn good and important to every American, put it out where everyone can see and and sing praises to the highest. Let the Senate as a whole vote and express their support of this document.
 
Where in the US Constitution does it grant the federal government the authority to even have ANY involvement in health care?
 
Obama seems to be going about this all wrong. He's not giving us anything else to focus on while pushes through his own agendas. My children's cousin has some advice for him.

Mike Polk's Handsome Blog​

My Advice To Obama: Knock Up Your Wife.

So I just came up with what can only be described as a brilliant political move for President Obama that would help him win back the favor of the country and aid him in getting more of his initiatives passed.

Here’s all he needs to do:

Get Michelle Pregnant.

Rather than running from this 24 hour news cycle that is picking apart everything that he does as they present tabloid news-like stories to the slack-jawed-yokel-reality-TV-hungry-moron-public every day at the expense of his work, he should embrace it. Use it to his advantage.

If Obama impregnates his wife, the focus instantly shifts from the day to day reality of his positions to this seemingly exciting and charming side story. 80 percent of all coverage of his administration would focus on the pregnancy because that’s what idiotic Americans would demand, and the media would, as is their custom, accommodate them.

Women would flock back to his defense in droves. And he would find a new appreciative audience in dumb women who, until now, have never paid attention to politics, instead devoting the majority of their time to baby and bride shows on The Oxygen Network.

If anything about the pregnancy is attacked by the right, they will be portrayed as cold and heartless, after all, everyone loves a baby!

Meanwhile, while the country is blissfully distracted with their exciting new reality show, Obama can discreetly go about his actual work of running and improving the country, without every one of his moves being over-analyzed and over-compromised to the point of insignificance. The media will be too busy appeasing the masses with more up to the minute White House baby news.

Here are just a few of the thousands of pointless “news” stories that the media would present to the public while far more important things were being accomplished:

-Who are the former White House Babies!?

-Will it be a boy or a girl? And how will that effect our relationship with China?

-Does the Obama pregnancy show weakness to Al Qaeda? A Fox News exclusive.

-Psychics go on the Today Show to prognosticate the gender of the child.

-Michelle Obama’s pregnancy workout tips!

-Conspiracy theorists citing ancient quatrains, proving that the child will be the antichrist. A Fox News exclusive!

-Good will visits and gifts from other world leaders. What presents did they bring? What does it say about their diplomatic relationship with the U.S.?

-The maternity fashion choices of Michelle Obama! Where did she get that dress!!??

-Has anyone considered Sasha and Malia’s feelings?

-Should U.S. taxpayers be on the hook to pay for the health care of a family member that did not exist when Obama was elected? A Fox News exclusive!

-Baby Names! Celebrities such as Anne Heche and Shakira offer their suggestions.

-Should America be allowed to name the Obama baby?

-Tea party leaders insist that the child will not be a legitimate U.S. citizen, since Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. A Fox News exclusive!

-Barack’s late night ice cream run. “I just had to have some Moose Tracks!” Michelle says.

And while all of these pointless stories are dominating the airwaves, Obama will be free to do all of the things that he wants to do but can’t, because he lacks the cajones, the political capital, and the public favor to push through his agenda.

We can curse the fact that this is what our media has become until we are hoarse, or we can embrace it and manipulate it to our advantage. So my advice to Barack is to get into that Lincoln Bedroom and start giving Michelle the ol’ Executive Privilege. It will make his next 3 to 7 years that much more effective.
 
Here's a little math lesson...

A 15 mpg clunker driven 12,000 miles a year uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A 25 mpg new vehicle driven 12,000 miles a year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 clunkers were turned-in, so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars on Cash for Clunkers to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved.

I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though!
 
The fact is there is no support for the "Plan" and that is why Pelosi is trying to come in the back door. It doesn't take a Rocket Surgeon to see how the gov handles our money in their other businesses.
 
jazzgeek said:
As "health care" in the USA is still - for the most part - a for-profit enterprise, that would fall under "commerce".

In other words, Article I, Section VIII.


Dale
Click to expand...

I assume you are referring to the "commerce clause".... With the extremely broad interpretation that the federal government reads into this power granted to them, there really is NOTHING that they can't take control over. However, I don't believe that the founders of this country's intent was anywhere near what the feds want to believe that clause means.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Click to expand...

I believe the intent was to regulate commerce BETWEEN states as agencies, and NOT between every individual within each state. But I doubt there are very many instances where any government has voluntarily restrained their desire for having more and more power when it is within their grasp to take it.
 
airenlow said:
Here's a little math lesson...

A 15 mpg clunker driven 12,000 miles a year uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A 25 mpg new vehicle driven 12,000 miles a year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 clunkers were turned-in, so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars on Cash for Clunkers to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every $1.00 we saved.

I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though!
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that missed the point of Cash for Clunkers. You know it too right? You're just kidding or something? :p
 
Rich Z said:
Where in the US Constitution does it grant the federal government the authority to even have ANY involvement in health care?
Click to expand...

My impression is that most laws aren't granted by the constitution, just can't be forbidden within it. Where in the Constitution is the gov forbidden involvement in healthcare?
 
Rich Z said:
I assume you are referring to the "commerce clause".... With the extremely broad interpretation that the federal government reads into this power granted to them, there really is NOTHING that they can't take control over. However, I don't believe that the founders of this country's intent was anywhere near what the feds want to believe that clause means.


I believe the intent was to regulate commerce BETWEEN states as agencies, and NOT between every individual within each state. But I doubt there are very many instances where any government has voluntarily restrained their desire for having more and more power when it is within their grasp to take it.
Click to expand...

Your belief of the founder's intent doesn't matter - nor does mine. It's the Judiciary's call, and actually, they made that call rather quickly.

Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) that commerce was to be defined as "every species of commercial intercourse".

The time span from the year of ratification of the constitution to the year of the decision is roughly 37 years. In perspective, that's not too long a time - in 1824, Monroe was POTUS, and of the four Presidents preceding him, only Washington had died; Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were all still alive at the time of the decision. Or, to put a more contemporary perspective on it, 37 years ago from today, it was post-Watergate break-in, but pre-Nixon resignation. Shoot, more time has passed since The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - which was rendered "constitutional" by the Supreme Court because of the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964).

I'm glad I did the homework on this one, because my standard reply to "Where in the Constitution does the government have a say in health care?" has normally been a snarky "Where in the Constitution does the government have a say in creating the Air Force?".

Point being - obviously neither of the questions are addressed literally in the base document; it's the case law precedents and SCOTUS decisions that grant the government the powers in both cases. We are, after all, a nation of laws, not men.


Dale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top