Now where did I make such a statement: What I would prefer is that the Federal Government would get out of providing health care all together, the only roll of the Federal Government should be to make sure that, Insurances deliver on their contracts, and that the Health Care Industry is safe, it is not a Constitutional perview of the Federal Government to provide any health care.
Of what relevance is your statement? Section 431 (page 112 for those who care to read it) says that if requested the IRS can release certian tax information to the Health Insurance Exchange for determining insurance pricing. What is so evil in that? I'd say it is streamlining and efficient way of processing and validating entitlement and pricing. I take it you prefer something more expensive and inefficient? The whole point of the Health Insurance Exchange is to ensure that everyone can purchase afordable health insurance. The income and family size disclosure from the IRS prevents duplication and error. What is wrong with that, no defense is needed for this clause. It is the right wing whacko web sites making muck of something simple, logical and efficient and benign.
So you want the government to withdraw your government provided healthcare then or do you just want government to withdraw everyone elses government provided healthcare? Your wants, leave us exactly where we are today which is clearly unsustainable. The guise of safety has been and continues to be misused in order to protect industry oligopolies. Most recently, george II explaining to the nation that precription drugs purchased in Canada were potenitally dangerous...this in order to keep senior citizens from crossing the border and purchasing prescription drugs for a small fraction of the price that they can be acquired for in the US. The current roll played by the US government and local governments is not sustainable.
Why do you consider providing subsidies to certain individuals buying insurance in the individual markets to be the federal government "providing health care"?
Have you read the bill? in: I find nothing that refers to the Status of the Indians as States it sure isn't in SEC. 431. and here is page 851, 852, and 853 of HR 3200, and I don't find anything that addresses the status of the Indians as States:
And what the hell does any of that have to do with a sincere effort? Answer it doesn't. Care to try again? BTW I agree with the title of your response (....it should have been obvious), but not for the reasons you think.
You know what joe? You're right that response I gave went well over your head. In your drunken stupor you had forgotten what the discussion was centered around. Now please after you have trolled, obfuscated, and flamed report me to one of your favorite mods. This is why it is impossible to debate with you. When your ass has been toasted and you know it, you change the topic. Then accuse others of doing exactly what you haven't done or are doing. In this case reading the bill. BTW- after reading that nice twist to make the section seem benign. Are you sure you don't work for the administration? I have a hard time believing it....then again maybe not. One need not have intelligence or attempt to be factual to work for this administration. Which czar are you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RxKFkyt-I0 http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILL Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected. To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession. The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled. However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration, authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care. This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide. If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.” So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us. Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor Carrollton, Texas
If you follow that particular part of the discussion .... It's an answer to a specific question. You know, the one I quoted in that post. That question was based on my response to Madanthonywayne in a discussion that got merged into the present thread. • • • In late 2005, the head of the U.S. Army Reserve told President Bush that his service was in peril of becoming a broken force. We've heard much talk about stop-loss, the inappropriate use of Reserve and National Guard troops for extended overseas tours, and other personnel challenges such as diminishing standards for enlistment. We stretched far too thin for Iraq. The thing is that Iraq was a political choice. The significance of the Iraqi Bush Adventure in terms of the role of the American military is still unresolved. People famously recall Cheney, in 1994, saying that the reason we didn't go to Baghdad the first time 'round was, well, that it would lead to chaos, sectarian violence, and a quagmire. Even more important, though, of all the things I didn't like about Poppy Bush, he was correct when he said during the Gulf War that going to Baghdad was not the traditional mission of our services. Liberating Kuwait was one thing, but taking down Iraq something else entirely. By any reasonable custom of warfare, we had a proper reason to go to Afghanistan. Not so for Iraq. Had Bush focused on Afghanistan—e.g., a sincere effort—instead of diverting our primary focus to Iraq, I can't tell you what it would look like today. Nobody invades the Kush and wins. Maybe we would be the first. But I have a feeling that if we had 150,000 troops in Afghanistan from the outset, instead of 31,000 at the peak of the Bush administration's commitment to the theatre, I think we would have made better progress. But no. Iraq, the fraudulent war, was just that much more important.
Perhaps Perhaps. For that particular thread of the discussion, though, one can trace back through the quotes if they are so inclined. Might not cover every post in the original thread, but I think there's plenty there to establish context.
Galt, you again demonstrate you don't know the meanings of the words you use. As for the rest, it makes no sense what so ever!!! LOL, maybe too much of that limbaugh juice Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A brain is a terrible thing not to have Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm not the only literate person in this community, Mr. Roam Do you actually care? That is, would you like to participate in that discussion? Page 29 (#574-580) • #2358962/574 (Madanthonywayne, topic post) • #2358979/575 (Spidergoat) • #2358980/576 (Joepistole) • #2359002/577 (Startraveler) • #2359019/578 (Iceaura) • #2359068/579 (Gustav) • #2359088/580 (Madanthonywayne) Page 30 (#581-593) • #2359090/581 (Spidergoat) • #2359095/582 (Iceaura) • #2359114/583 (Spidergoat) • #2359148/584 (PJdude1219) • #2359183/585 (Tiassa) • #2359216/586 (Madanthonywayne) • #2359239/587 (Iceaura) • #2359399/588 (Tiassa) • #2359480/589 (Madanthonywayne) • #2359551/590 (Tiassa) • #2360064/591 (Iceaura) • #2360106/592 (Tiassa) • #2360354/593 (John T. Galt; post-merge) Turns out, they're pretty sequential (#574-593), even easier than I had presumed. And there's your context. Or were you just looking for something to complain about?
No problem then: the Supreme Court throws it out, if it ever gets that far. As Connelly himself has noted (see his website) even "one of the most liberal" justices on the current Court, Ruth Ginsburg, takes a dim view of the kinds of Constitutional violations Connelly fears. So surely with the rest of the Court in good Reaganite hands, as supported by Connelly over the years, we are safe from governmental intrusions of the apocalyptic type he envisions? Meanwhile, notice that all the worst parts of the law, the invasions of privacy and so forth - from Connelly's point of view worst - stem from attempts to protect the current private insurance corporations in the current way they do business. Under the French, Swiss, Canadian, German, Norwegian, etc, systems, there is no need to investigate incomes and employment, no need to carry intrusive and private information on one's medical insurance card, no need for IRS involvement in medical care. We could even kick out the current major IRS involvement - its role in auditing tax breaks and tax cuts involving medical care or insurance. For some reason, "conservatives" don't seem to be as worried about the necessary IRS involvement in tax cuts and breaks, but they are fully as intrusive and threatening. We could banish them.
Mod Note: Complaints can be made through PM'ing me or through creating a thread in the appropriate subforum. A quick point: Do not operate under the assumption that people and posts are not moderated just because you cannot see the private conversations between the mods and that member.
Furthermore, joe, I have and do. I can't help that you have issues with opposition and refuse to respond to the substance of posts. I gave you a factual portion of the H.C. twice and I got an infraction. I hope honest people will see this and stand up for the idea of debate and what is real trolling and flaming. I also think something should about done about runaway mods.
