DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:38 pm**

Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;

Well, looks like this is part of the new health care bill. That's at least one step in the right direction, among many in the wrong.

Posted: **Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:05 pm**

Kilarin wrote:<link>
Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
Well, looks like this is part of the new health care bill. That's at least one step in the right direction, among many in the wrong.

Can someone please explain why this was not illegal in the first place, or at least why anybody would sign a contract that says…when you get sick, we can drop your coverage?

Posted: **Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:20 pm**

Spidey wrote:Can someone please explain why this was not illegal in the first place,

Not me, this is completely baffling to me.

Spidey wrote:or at least why anybody would sign a contract that says…when you get sick, we can drop your coverage?

My understanding is that most people do NOT sign contracts that say we can drop you when you are sick. The Insurance agency just does it anyway. Which is why this could have been fixed without a new bill by just enforcing existing "breach of contract" laws.

BUT, I freely admit that this stuff is a tangled mess and I may have the details wrong. If someone has a better understanding of the legal situation and can explain it, I'd be more than happy to be corrected.

Posted: **Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:42 pm**

Spidey wrote:
Kilarin wrote:<link>
Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
Well, looks like this is part of the new health care bill. That's at least one step in the right direction, among many in the wrong.
Can someone please explain why this was not illegal in the first place, or at least why anybody would sign a contract that says…when you get sick, we can drop your coverage?

Well, my wife had cancer and the bills were costs were very high and she didn't get dropped. This is employer provided health insurance. I suppose if she were to have a relapse, and the bills hit the life time max you could call that being dropped? That's the only way I can think of. I have never heard of anyone getting dropped because of getting sick.

Posted: **Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:27 pm**

VonVulcan wrote:This is employer provided health insurance.

Different situation. The drops don't generally happen for employer provided insurance, but for private policies.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:02 am**

Bet51987 wrote:I'll have to wait for Spidey to answer my question because the other's gave me, well... nothing which reminds me of the republican plan for health reform.

Bettina

I think you are in denial. Have you bothered to look at the cost and blatant fraud the democrats are using to be able to claim they will pay for the plan? You seem to not care at all that the legislation is unsustainable and the amount of tax increases that will have to be used to cover the costs will be crippling to our economy. When the economy is crippled it is the poor that suffer first and the middle class that quickly slip into the ranks of the poor.
Wait and see when the democrats ram through immigration 'reform' the same way and add in the millions of new healthcare recipients to be paid for that are NOT counted in the budget right now!

According to the legislation my family of four qualify for medicaide now so instead of paying for my insurance as I do now I can keep my $6000 a year and let you pay for my insurance and you can bet I and millions of others will do that. I don't expect it to last long but I'll take what I can get back from the Fed every chance and every penny I can.

The pendulum will swing back the other way and as far as Obama has pushed to the left it will swing to the right. Do you want to know who the polar opposite of Obama is on the right? I don't want to know but he's coming, probably make Dick Cheney look like Ghandi...maybe Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.... The same ignorant mob mentality that washed Obama into office on the anything but Bush tide will wash Obama and the liberals out and the uber-conservative replacement will be ramming his 'fix' through congress just like the current congresses has done.

thanks alot

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:44 am**

national heathcare is clearly not Consitutional according to the Tenth Amendment. many states have already said it will be challenged in court as such. meaning this will end up in the SCOTUS, where it will most likley be deemed unconsitutional, which will give people like Bettina more ammuntition to follow blindly with the Progressive Liberal socialist mantra of blaming conservatives for the lack of healthcare and the ills of her world.
maybe if healthcare is SO important to her she and people like her, they should work on a state level to get it passed. I would have no problems with that.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:18 am**

You know my boss already told me he would drop coverage since the company I work for has only 6 people he has no federal mandate to make him buy it. He says it will be cheaper on him to drop us and let the Government provide for us.

I told him I would quit. Since we own our house outright I can go back to under the table pay jobs and have all those suckers pay for me too. I might as well go on the dole.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:23 am**

All I care about is freedom. This bill takes a lot of it away from me. How does that help me?

...and no, Bet, we don't know each other. So what gives you the idea you know what's best for me?

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:35 am**

*SilverFJ wrote:So what gives you the idea you know what's best for me?

By Me wrote:Progressive Liberal Socialist Mantra

page 436, paragraph 2, sub paragraph 3.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:48 am**

...
.
[edit]

Whoo kinda flew off the handle there for a moment...

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:05 am**

You know, I'm convinced that we were all mad to Bush for the wrong reasons. What didn't we like: The war stuff. So, we voted for someone who promised peace.

I think the real root of the problem was having a president that was bent upon growing federal government and overstepped his bounds to create a war. Who did we vote in? I president who is even more bent upon growing government and is overstepping his bounds, too, just in different areas.

I'm convinced that the problem is a bloated government that is overly susceptible to lobbyists. The Repubs and Dems are both subject to the same problems.

I think companies are too big these days, too. Something needs to be done to shrink business, and to shrink government. Make the local government the primary place where things really get done.

(Sorry for the libertarian rant)

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:10 am**

snoopy wrote: What didn't we like: The war stuff. So, we voted for someone who promised peace.

The Irony is that, on the "war on terrorism," Obama has been pretty conservative.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:13 am**

snoopy wrote:(Sorry for the libertarian rant)

But a correct rant

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:02 pm**

Cuda wrote:
snoopy wrote:(Sorry for the libertarian rant)
But a correct rant

Yep. It's not about Republicans vs Democrats. It's about our own government, all parties, against us. Now, I know that sounds like I'm about to go all conspiracy theory and gun's in the cellar on you, but I'm not. Because I believe that this government that is against us, is quite representative of the people being governed. We are self destructing.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:34 pm**

I think this sums up my position on the healthcare issue quite nicely

Schaefer I think we probably share the some beliefs in that health care reform is necessary and people, especially children, need some form of health care. Where we disagree is on whether it is a right and if this legislation is the answer.

If health care was a right someone would have to provide for that 'right'. The only possible way to provide for that right is to:

1. Force someone to perform medical procedures on you

or

2. Force people to pay taxes which in turn would be used to pay someone to provide health care for you.

NO RIGHT can or should supercede other people's rights. That is why health care is not a right.

Again, a right can not by its very nature be provided by the government. The only laws pertaining to rights are restrictions of the government on those rights. The first ammendment does not give people the right to free speech, you are born with it. The first ammendment is a restraint or limit on government from infringing on your right.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:43 pm**

Kilarin wrote:
Cuda wrote:
snoopy wrote:(Sorry for the libertarian rant)
But a correct rant
Yep. It's not about Republicans vs Democrats. It's about our own government, all parties, against us. Now, I know that sounds like I'm about to go all conspiracy theory and gun's in the cellar on you, but I'm not. Because I believe that this government that is against us, is quite representative of the people being governed. We are self destructing.

x2, I also feel the political parties (and their massive corporate/special interest sponsors) have way too much power.

Watching the vote last night, not a single republican voted for any of this. Not even one. Statistically at least a few of them should have voted for it. I can't imagine in real life just having an R on your name on TV means you personally for your own reasons are compelled to vote against health care reform.

Also the only Democrats that voted no were on shaky election ground so the Democrat leadership helped shuffle around yes and no votes so they could vote no without having to worry about it not passing... That is ridiculous! It makes me think that Republicans AND Democrats don't even THINK for themselves anymore, everyone just lays down and does what the party leadership tells them to do so they have a better shot at re-election. There is absolutely no integrity or representation in a process like that!

I didn't vote for the Democratic or the Republican party, so why are they the ones running the show instead of the candidates I DID vote for?

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:56 pm**

well it appears that the 9th amendment also says that the new healthcare bill is un-consitutional

The Ninth Amendment has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution

Justice William O. Douglas wrote that, \"The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.\"

passing healthcare into law will be tantamount to a federally enforceable right.

WASHINGTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:27 pm**

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:41 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:I have to go do some lab work but I wanted to say [enter apples to oranges analogy here]blah blah blah[/partisan rant]
Bee

Heh! You probably think the money for those other programs is just cash the fed sends to the states as if the states would be giving up free money if they did drop the program. IT'S TAX PAYERS MONEY that pays for that stuff! It just goes to the Fed first because all Pimps take a cut before distributing it back to the workers...with stipulations and beatings of course.
I hope you do better at lab work than you do examining your politics! but if not don't worry too much Pelosi thinks we should pay for you to be wrong and unemployed indefinitely so just keep voting democrat and cross your fingers and hope for the best....because that's what Hope and Change are really about

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:22 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:I have to go do some lab work but I wanted to say this before I go. If the party of no are successful at refusing health reform for their individual states by claiming it's a violation of the 10th, or any other ammendment, then they should also be required to give up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other Democrat championed social programs for their state that are in same violation.

You shouldn't be allowed to be selective in what violations you find acceptable or not.

Bee

AHHHHH but here's the difference. Medicare is paid for by Taxes along with SS and Medicare. the new healthcare will not ONLY be paid for by new taxes. it will be mandated by law that you purchase the coverage or be fined if you dont, not quite the same now is it. ALSO this will allow congress to regulate interstate commerce which is a violation of the commerce clause in the consititution. so blame the party of no as you put it. but its better than the Party of Bettina

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:30 pm**

To follow up on Cuda's response, now ask yourself who will be responsible to check that you have coverage and if you don't, who will be charged with collecting the fine. Hint: IRS will be hiring 17,000 new employee's

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:40 pm**

Anybody that thinks this law will go down on constitutional grounds, better take a good long look at history.

Also, anybody who thinks this will be fine tuned later…I have a bridge for sale. (never happens)

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:50 pm**

Spidey wrote:Anybody that thinks this law will go down on constitutional grounds, better take a good long look at history.

Also, anybody who thinks this will be fine tuned later…I have a bridge for sale. (never happens)

Depends on the definition of what fine tuned is.
More restrictive regulations, in some's eye could be considered fine tuned.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:23 pm**

Spidey wrote:Anybody that thinks this law will go down on constitutional grounds, better take a good long look at history.

Also, anybody who thinks this will be fine tuned later…I have a bridge for sale. (never happens)

There is precident

Forced participation or commandeering
The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional

isnt this exactly what they are planning on doing??? there are already 5-6 states that have threatened law suits against the feds if they pass this law

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:36 pm**

Cuda, I'm very impressed at your ability to bring forth the information you do.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:12 pm**

CUDA wrote:there are already 5-6 states that have threatened law suits against the feds if they pass this law

Up to ten:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/ ... tml?hpt=T1

Ten states plan to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform bill, Florida's attorney general announced Monday.
...

He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
...

McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services.

"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."

McCollum also said that portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:16 pm**

Well CUDA I hope you’re right, but you don’t mind if I don’t hold my breath.

EDIT: and if you read some of my rant posts, I’m one of the first people to say the government has to be sued over this, and even threatened to start a class action suit myself.

But, I’m getting too old and sick to fight the good fight, so I’m just going to give uncle sam the finger, when they try to make me buy insurance.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:36 pm**

woodchip wrote:Cuda, I'm very impressed at your ability to bring forth the information you do.

Thx, I always "TRY" to present facts and I always "TRY" to have my facts correct

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:42 pm**

CUDA wrote:
woodchip wrote:Cuda, I'm very impressed at your ability to bring forth the information you do.
Thx, I always "TRY" to present facts and I always "TRY" to have my facts correct

i.e. he has nothing better to do these days than to post here and chase grandkids around!

(j/k bro)

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:11 pm**

Duper wrote:
CUDA wrote:
woodchip wrote:Cuda, I'm very impressed at your ability to bring forth the information you do.
Thx, I always "TRY" to present facts and I always "TRY" to have my facts correct
i.e. he has nothing better to do these days than to post here and chase grandkids around! (j/k bro)

Well I've found through the years in my Professional life and in my Spiritual life, if you cannot base your stance on an issue with the facts, then you are just offering an opinion and really have little or no ground to stand on.

and FYI playing with the GrandKids ROCKS, my daughter is expecting her 2nd son in June this will be #5

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:16 pm**

As much as I know they are wrong for this and much of it is purely self serving power grabbing by liberals I'm glad it passed because now the core issues must be dealt with. If you remember how reforming Social Security almost passed but became a political suicide move for the republicans so they bailed on it...well, no one wants to touch that now so it festers like a cancer until it becomes critical and we will have to pay double for it then....

So in a way it might be good that Obama and his minions succeeded with such recklessness. Much of this will be re-re-formed and no one will want to undo the good parts of it. Hopefully it will lead to the downfall of many liberals in congress.

One strategy the dems must be figuring on is the fact that the actual health care/coverage doesn't kick in until after the next Presidential election. Convenient for Obama but also helpful to the dems because if they lose this Nov so badly that the repubs gain control and undo much of this bill before that next election then the dems can say \"Well...we gave you healthcare but the republicans took over and took it away from you!\" they may never face the blame for the monumental screw up their system would have been and they can pimp their voter/whores all over again!

You can stop the cycle people. Just stop accepting the status quo, throw them all out. There has never been a more appropriate time for it and we may not survive one if, no, not if but when it comes.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:29 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:One strategy the dems must be figuring on is the fact that the actual health care/coverage doesn't kick in until after the next Presidential election. Convenient for Obama but also helpful to the dems because if they lose this Nov so badly that the repubs gain control and undo much of this bill before that next election then the dems can say "Well...we gave you healthcare but the republicans took over and took it away from you!" they may never face the blame for the monumental screw up their system would have been and they can pimp their voter/whores all over again!

You can stop the cycle people. Just stop accepting the status quo, throw them all out.

YA I was just thinking much the same thing this afternoon, the left has a political win, win, win, here. if this passes, then they can say they fulfilled their promise, WIN. if it doesnt then people like Bettina will say the "party of no" stopped it and robbed you of your NON_EXISTANT right to healthcare, WIN. even if it does pass it doesnt go into effect until AFTER Obeyme is possibly out of office. WIN. not to mention the the SCOTUS could declare this Un-Constitutional and Bettina will be again screaming about the right wing court

Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutly.

these people really dont care about us, their only wish is to stay in power

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:39 pm**

hehe.. they were throwing around the "C" word again and saying "SEE? we toldya we would bring change".

As a better half of the country went kicking and screaming resoundlingly "NO! DON'T". but hey. that doesn't matter.

CUDA wrote: and FYI playing with the GrandKids ROCKS, my daughter is expecting her 2nd son in June this will be #5

I concur! and congrats!

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:44 pm**

CUDA wrote: Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

Well I only know of one entity that has Absolute power and he ain't in Washington.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:54 pm**

Insurrectionist wrote:
CUDA wrote: Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
Well I only know of one entity that has Absolute power and he ain't in Washington.

True but the one in Washington thinks he does

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:09 pm**

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/I ... &end=29446

Spot on.

Posted: **Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:14 pm**

Insurrectionist wrote:
CUDA wrote: Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
Well I only know of one entity that has Absolute power and he ain't in Washington.

No, but if I get this website over and done with soon he may be in BI3 a few nights a week!

Posted: **Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:55 am**

Sergeant Thorne wrote: No, but if I get this website over and done with soon he may be in BI3 a few nights a week!

LOL!

Posted: **Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:33 am**

Well he signed it. let the lawsuits begin

DescentBB

So this is what it has come to...

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: