sebstar wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:This is a joke. This is a bunch of history whores overextending the country. Implementing this system will probably cost another $ trillion+. While I'm in favor of greater equality, I am not in favor of putting an even greater burden on stat governments and an even greater burden on business (in terms of money paid into healthcare).

This is in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government is mandating state expenditure. New Jersey just clipped its education budget by just $900 million due to budget constraints and New Jersey is one of the wealthier states in the country.

This is bull****. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I want these ****ing politicians to take their thumbs out of their asses and stop pandering to history and its landmarks. I hope the DEMOCRAT from Tennessee is successful in leading the charge against this bull**** and proving this system is illegal.

Its not going to add to the deficit. Thats a republican talking point. The same republicans who cared nothing about our national surplus turning into a deficit during the Bush years.

The bill will be funded through taxing rich people by increasing the percentage that they have to pay into medicare and by including dividends as income. Given the extreme wealth inequality in this country, and the moral stigma associated with the "greatest industrialized nation" not providing health care for its citizens, this is a small price to pay.

"We got money for wars, but cant feed the poor" --- 2pac.

Time for America to man up for once.

It most certainly will cost Americans money in the short term, and am citing a New York Times article with my numbers (will search later, going out now).

We're talking about installing a completely new system and a complete overhaul. This will cost a fortune. It may save money decades out, but this will require a huge capital outlay up front. It's my belief that will (1) spread the government too thin financially, (2)make the federal government too big, and (3) prohibit the state government from providing services I care about, namely education and transportation.

There will be insane initial cash outlays to implement a new system because that's the case with any new system. You don't just change the way you do things and have that cost nothing. That's not a republican talking point that's just the way it is

And when those types of services falter and the transition isn't smooth (because when switching to new systems rarely is the transition smooth) people are going to get angry. And when some old man is spouting off about the DMV quality healthcare he is receiving because he's footing the bill for people that don't work, some of that venom will spread. Especially when the poor kids who aren't going to school--because what's the point of going to a **** school--come to a better town to hang and whose mom isn't putting into the system but taking out, there'g going to be a lot of bad news articles posted here

So, yes, I would much rather exercise some fiscal discipline and plan towards a healthcare solution when it is economically viable and doesn't sacrifice other social programs that quite frankly are more important.

SupremeCommander wrote:

sebstar wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:This is a joke. This is a bunch of history whores overextending the country. Implementing this system will probably cost another $ trillion+. While I'm in favor of greater equality, I am not in favor of putting an even greater burden on stat governments and an even greater burden on business (in terms of money paid into healthcare).

This is in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government is mandating state expenditure. New Jersey just clipped its education budget by just $900 million due to budget constraints and New Jersey is one of the wealthier states in the country.

This is bull****. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I want these ****ing politicians to take their thumbs out of their asses and stop pandering to history and its landmarks. I hope the DEMOCRAT from Tennessee is successful in leading the charge against this bull**** and proving this system is illegal.

Its not going to add to the deficit. Thats a republican talking point. The same republicans who cared nothing about our national surplus turning into a deficit during the Bush years.

The bill will be funded through taxing rich people by increasing the percentage that they have to pay into medicare and by including dividends as income. Given the extreme wealth inequality in this country, and the moral stigma associated with the "greatest industrialized nation" not providing health care for its citizens, this is a small price to pay.

"We got money for wars, but cant feed the poor" --- 2pac.

Time for America to man up for once.

It most certainly will cost Americans money in the short term, and am citing a New York Times article with my numbers (will search later, going out now).

We're talking about installing a completely new system and a complete overhaul. This will cost a fortune. It may save money decades out, but this will require a huge capital outlay up front. It's my belief that will (1) spread the government too thin financially, (2)make the federal government too big, and (3) prohibit the state government from providing services I care about, namely education and transportation.

There will be insane initial cash outlays to implement a new system because that's the case with any new system. You don't just change the way you do things and have that cost nothing. That's not a republican talking point that's just the way it is

And when those types of services falter and the transition isn't smooth (because when switching to new systems rarely is the transition smooth) people are going to get angry. And when some old man is spouting off about the DMV quality healthcare he is receiving because he's footing the bill for people that don't work, some of that venom will spread. Especially when the poor kids who aren't going to school--because what's the point of going to a **** school--come to a better town to hang and whose mom isn't putting into the system but taking out, there'g going to be a lot of bad news articles posted here

So, yes, I would much rather exercise some fiscal discipline and plan towards a healthcare solution when it is economically viable and doesn't sacrifice other social programs that quite frankly are more important.

Remember fam. This is universal health insurance. Not universal health care. Its not a complete overhaul like some with an agenda want to breathlessly imply. I like, many liberals, wanted the public option which would have had a considerable social impact and would have come at a more significant cost, admittedly. This is more about increasing competition for consumers, while not leaving those precious insurance lobbyists high and dry.

As far as the bolded, you're right. Thats why I provided the link to that moron Glen Beck. Rich, elitist antagonists like Beck and Limbaugh are determined to make this a racial issue and promote that "venom" to which you speak of. White people paying for lazy Blacks and Mexicans health care is the insinuation. This bill's passage and the reaction to it, is eerily reminiscent of the civil rights bill of '64.

firefly wrote:Congrats America. Welcome to civilization.

And SC, I hear what youre saying, but I mightily disagree. If you dont do it now, you probably never will. If the problem was not being able to afford it, how come you havent done it till now, when the grass was green? No, you finally have a guy in charge willing to lead you into the new millenium, dont spit in his face. Coming from a country with a national health service I can tell you, it might not work perfectly, it will bug the hell out of you when you have to wait days for an appointment,and it certainly has its bureaucratic limitations. But its still the greatest thing any country can have. And you guys not having one was a shame on your govornment and the people who elected them.

Congrats to Obama, he didnt have to try and solve world peace to get in the history books. He solved his own countries problems instead. And in years to come, he will always be remembered for this.

I agree with pretty much all of your language. Words like shame and phrases like welcome to civilization. Thats what this is all about to me as well. Morality.

But this isnt even close to your system of health care. Its just a widening of insurance coverage. As a matter of fact, I have issues with stuff like mandates and the like, but I cant argue with the fact that this is a huge leap in the right direction.

jazz74 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:This is a joke. This is a bunch of history whores overextending the country. Implementing this system will probably cost another $ trillion+. While I'm in favor of greater equality, I am not in favor of putting an even greater burden on stat governments and an even greater burden on business (in terms of money paid into healthcare).

This is in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government is mandating state expenditure. New Jersey just clipped its education budget by just $900 million due to budget constraints and New Jersey is one of the wealthier states in the country.

This is bull****. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I want these ****ing politicians to take their thumbs out of their asses and stop pandering to history and its landmarks. I hope the DEMOCRAT from Tennessee is successful in leading the charge against this bull**** and proving this system is illegal.

so you are saying we don't need health care for everyone? are we the only first world nation without some sort of health care for everyone? it is needed and tho it needs more money, it is money by tax increase of those making $250,0000 a year, 10% of this population. i do agree with education and that is why i didnt vote for that crook christie but that is also a case in point with the conservative way of budgeting: instead of getting rid of the countless administrative positions they get rid of education programs and teaching positions. well, that is another issue and we will see nj's education rank, which was 8th in the nation, which was the highest we have been in awhile, slide back to the way it was in the early 90's and they will still blame teachers.

From what I understand, everybody HAS to buy healthcare and if they don't, then they will be penalized. If this is true, then I am highly against this bill. That takes away our freedom to choose to buy health insurance and creates a burdon on people like me, who could use it, but doesn't truely need it at the moment. Same goes for everyone. Yeah, it's good if you lower the cost of it, but it's still not free.

I don't know what would be worse. People being forced to buy health insurance, or that debauchery known as the No Child Left Behind Act.

jazz74 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

jazz74 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

jazz74 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:This is a joke. This is a bunch of history whores overextending the country. Implementing this system will probably cost another $ trillion+. While I'm in favor of greater equality, I am not in favor of putting an even greater burden on stat governments and an even greater burden on business (in terms of money paid into healthcare).

This is in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government is mandating state expenditure. New Jersey just clipped its education budget by just $900 million due to budget constraints and New Jersey is one of the wealthier states in the country.

This is bull****. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I want these ****ing politicians to take their thumbs out of their asses and stop pandering to history and its landmarks. I hope the DEMOCRAT from Tennessee is successful in leading the charge against this bull**** and proving this system is illegal.

so you are saying we don't need health care for everyone? are we the only first world nation without some sort of health care for everyone? it is needed and tho it needs more money, it is money by tax increase of those making $250,0000 a year, 10% of this population. i do agree with education and that is why i didnt vote for that crook christie but that is also a case in point with the conservative way of budgeting: instead of getting rid of the countless administrative positions they get rid of education programs and teaching positions. well, that is another issue and we will see nj's education rank, which was 8th in the nation, which was the highest we have been in awhile, slide back to the way it was in the early 90's and they will still blame teachers.

SupremeCommander wrote:While I'm in favor of greater equality, I am not in favor of putting an even greater burden on stat governments and an even greater burden on business

I am not in favor of spending at a huge deficit while we are already at a huge deficit. Like I said, this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's bull****. Another $ trillion+ in deficit is not the answer. The federal government mandating states to do **** is not the answer.

Furthermore, this is an ENTIRELY new system. It will not be implimented correctly the first iteration. that will cost more money to fix. I agree that we need healthcare reform. But we need a lot of things and financially we are, uh, strained.

As for education, taking an ax to administrators isn't an answer either. What are we going to do then? Pay healthcare for people that aren't paying in? Give them unemployment? Come on

sooo we need two principals making six figures in one school? we need a district that has three superintendents when we could have one to do the job? but instead we cut homework club, tutoring, breakfast programs, bsi teachers, classroom funding, teacher's positions? will that benefit the kids? i teach and i see this in our district of a lower middle class town and we worked hard to get the kids where they are at with these programs and now they will go away. something needs to be done and cutting these programs that benefit the reason we are there for isnt the answer either.

you have anything to say regarding healthcare?

true, i need to get off my pulpit when it comes to education. sorry. well, we can agree that it is necessary and it was an integral part of what the obama campaign was pushing. it is needed and clinton should have pushed more for it in the 90's but he knew it wouldnt pass the congress whcih was mostly republican at the time. i applaud the act and obama didnt buckle down. he stuck to his guns no matter the backlash. you mention the deficit which is true. however, didnt reagan increase the nations deficit astronomically and he is regarded a hero? debt will always be here. we will constantly spend and cut corners in some cases to spend more. this was an issue that if it isnt tackled now, it will never get tackled and the republicans claiming they wanted more time knew that the longer this lingers, the least chance it will have to pass at all. so we are going to roast a president who fought and did what he promised throughout his campaign for once?

I think me and you are closer in opinion than it first seemed... I love it when that happens. The government needed to spend money because the credit crisis made markets illiquid blah blah blah and that caused a lack of work. I just think the government is spending too much, and I think a lot of it was needless.

JFK injected the country with a boatload of cash. But he said "PUT A MAN ON THE MOON, AND TAKE THIS DUMP TRUCK HOME FULL OF CASH!!!"

And that space race essentially drove innovation, which is a human resource driven excercise. I think what was important was to give people something to do, as Americans are a resilient bunch. Had Obama challenged the nation to come up with a solution for, say, oil dependency, I think the American people would have again drove innovation.

Right now, I just think everything is spread too thin and our debt ratios are going to be insanely high. Right now the USA is at its highest debt levels since World War II, which is insane, because think about how many weapons were required to topple Hitler and a force that killed 20 million Russians on top of everyone else

You mention the 10th amendment but the Republicans using this statue are not doing their home work and haven’t study history. The Constitution is pretty clear about Federal law trumping State law. Article 6 of the Constitution states that Federal Law is supreme and if there is conflict the Federal statute prevails. Challenging Federal law was done back in the 50s and 60s at the height of the Civil Rights movement and it failed. So I think this lawsuit is just more political posturing and symbolic (though with this Supreme Court I don’t take anything for granted).

It's my belief that will (1) spread the government too thin financially,(2)make the federal government too big, and (3) prohibit the state government from providing services I care about, namely education and transportation.

The government via taxpayer money is already paying for the uninsured. Where do you think the medical bills of people who are not insured goes to? Those bills do not evaporate into thin air the taxpayer is still paying for medical care. However I think it's entirely too premature to state what the ultimate cost of this bill would be right now, you are operating strictly on conjecture.

How is creating a Health Care Bill expanding the Federal government? The Federal government provides tons of subsidies how is a health care subsidy any different

Transportation is more valuable to you than Health Care? We’ll have to agree to disagree on this front because for me transportation does not even rate when it comes to saving lives. But that’s just me.

If you read the bill the House actually tacked on a provision for Education. Namely they are removing Student loans out of the hands of private lenders and using the $36 billion dollars in saving to expand the Pell Grant Programs. Beginning 2014 borrowers would be allowed to devote no more than 10% (current cap is 15%) of their income towards student loans debts. Now I think there is much more that can be done in regards to Education but this a start and it's disingenuous for you to say that the Health Care Bill is taking away from Education when in actuality it's the opposite.

Now I have many problems with this Bill namely it has just created a bigger pool of (un)willing customers and without a robust public option the Insurance companies will jack up their premiums. But I cannot in good conscience say that a Health Care bill should be pushed aside when 45,000 of my fellow Americans are dying every year due to lack of access to health care. Put it in this perspective if 45,000 Americans were dying each year due to Terrorism NOT one member of Congress or Senate would be blocking anti-terrorism bill. Will this Bill prevent numerous of senseless deaths by providing private health insurances only time will tell.

From what I understand, everybody HAS to buy healthcare and if they don't, then they will be penalized. If this is true, then I am highly against this bill. That takes away our freedom to choose to buy health insurance and creates a burdon on people like me, who could use it, but doesn't truely need it at the moment. Same goes for everyone. Yeah, it's good if you lower the cost of it, but it's still not free.

Actually if you are employed your employer is mandated by law to provide health insurance and for small business owners there is subsidies in place for companies. How can you say you don't need health insurance anyone at anytime could be hit with a serious illness or injury (I hope you stay healthy) but health insurance is absolutely essential to EVERYONE.

bitty41 wrote:SC,

You mention the 10th amendment but the Republicans using this statue are not doing their home work and haven’t study history. The Constitution is pretty clear about Federal law trumping State law. Article 6 of the Constitution states that Federal Law is supreme and if there is conflict the Federal statute prevails. Challenging Federal law was done back in the 50s and 60s at the height of the Civil Rights movement and it failed. So I think this lawsuit is just more political posturing and symbolic (though with this Supreme Court I don’t take anything for granted).

It's my belief that will (1) spread the government too thin financially,(2)make the federal government too big, and (3) prohibit the state government from providing services I care about, namely education and transportation.

The government via taxpayer money is already paying for the uninsured. Where do you think the medical bills of people who are not insured goes to? Those bills do not evaporate into thin air the taxpayer is still paying for medical care. However I think it's entirely too premature to state what the ultimate cost of this bill would be right now, you are operating strictly on conjecture.

How is creating a Health Care Bill expanding the Federal government? The Federal government provides tons of subsidies how is a health care subsidy any different

Transportation is more valuable to you than Health Care? We’ll have to agree to disagree on this front because for me transportation does not even rate when it comes to saving lives. But that’s just me.

If you read the bill the House actually tacked on a provision for Education. Namely they are removing Student loans out of the hands of private lenders and using the $36 billion dollars in saving to expand the Pell Grant Programs. Beginning 2014 borrowers would be allowed to devote no more than 10% (current cap is 15%) of their income towards student loans debts. Now I think there is much more that can be done in regards to Education but this a start and it's disingenuous for you to say that the Health Care Bill is taking away from Education when in actuality it's the opposite.

Now I have many problems with this Bill namely it has just created a bigger pool of (un)willing customers and without a robust public option the Insurance companies will jack up their premiums. But I cannot in good conscience say that a Health Care bill should be pushed aside when 45,000 of my fellow Americans are dying every year due to lack of access to health care. Put it in this perspective if 45,000 Americans were dying each year due to Terrorism NOT one member of Congress or Senate would be blocking anti-terrorism bill. Will this Bill prevent numerous of senseless deaths by providing private health insurances only time will tell.

From what I understand, everybody HAS to buy healthcare and if they don't, then they will be penalized. If this is true, then I am highly against this bill. That takes away our freedom to choose to buy health insurance and creates a burdon on people like me, who could use it, but doesn't truely need it at the moment. Same goes for everyone. Yeah, it's good if you lower the cost of it, but it's still not free.

Actually if you are employed your employer is mandated by law to provide health insurance and for small business owners there is subsidies in place for companies. How can you say you don't need health insurance anyone at anytime could be hit with a serious illness or injury (I hope you stay healthy) but health insurance is absolutely essential to EVERYONE.

bitty, the second quote is from Allanfan...

I'll respond to your post after I shower. I just got done KICKING ASS in tennis and I smell.

But from what I understand--and I'm no constitutional lawyer--mandating state governments participate and purchase universal health coverage violates the 10th amendment, which essentially restates that constitution is king.

SupremeCommander wrote:

sebstar wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

sebstar wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:This is a joke. This is a bunch of history whores overextending the country. Implementing this system will probably cost another $ trillion+. While I'm in favor of greater equality, I am not in favor of putting an even greater burden on stat governments and an even greater burden on business (in terms of money paid into healthcare).

This is in violation of the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government is mandating state expenditure. New Jersey just clipped its education budget by just $900 million due to budget constraints and New Jersey is one of the wealthier states in the country.

This is bull****. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I want these ****ing politicians to take their thumbs out of their asses and stop pandering to history and its landmarks. I hope the DEMOCRAT from Tennessee is successful in leading the charge against this bull**** and proving this system is illegal.

Its not going to add to the deficit. Thats a republican talking point. The same republicans who cared nothing about our national surplus turning into a deficit during the Bush years.

The bill will be funded through taxing rich people by increasing the percentage that they have to pay into medicare and by including dividends as income. Given the extreme wealth inequality in this country, and the moral stigma associated with the "greatest industrialized nation" not providing health care for its citizens, this is a small price to pay.

"We got money for wars, but cant feed the poor" --- 2pac.

Time for America to man up for once.

It most certainly will cost Americans money in the short term, and am citing a New York Times article with my numbers (will search later, going out now).

We're talking about installing a completely new system and a complete overhaul. This will cost a fortune. It may save money decades out, but this will require a huge capital outlay up front. It's my belief that will (1) spread the government too thin financially, (2)make the federal government too big, and (3) prohibit the state government from providing services I care about, namely education and transportation.

There will be insane initial cash outlays to implement a new system because that's the case with any new system. You don't just change the way you do things and have that cost nothing. That's not a republican talking point that's just the way it is

And when those types of services falter and the transition isn't smooth (because when switching to new systems rarely is the transition smooth) people are going to get angry. And when some old man is spouting off about the DMV quality healthcare he is receiving because he's footing the bill for people that don't work, some of that venom will spread. Especially when the poor kids who aren't going to school--because what's the point of going to a **** school--come to a better town to hang and whose mom isn't putting into the system but taking out, there'g going to be a lot of bad news articles posted here

So, yes, I would much rather exercise some fiscal discipline and plan towards a healthcare solution when it is economically viable and doesn't sacrifice other social programs that quite frankly are more important.

Remember fam. This is universal health insurance. Not universal health care. Its not a complete overhaul like some with an agenda want to breathlessly imply. I like, many liberals, wanted the public option which would have had a considerable social impact and would have come at a more significant cost, admittedly. This is more about increasing competition for consumers, while not leaving those precious insurance lobbyists high and dry.

As far as the bolded, you're right. Thats why I provided the link to that moron Glen Beck. Rich, elitist antagonists like Beck and Limbaugh are determined to make this a racial issue and promote that "venom" to which you speak of. White people paying for lazy Blacks and Mexicans health care is the insinuation. This bill's passage and the reaction to it, is eerily reminiscent of the civil rights bill of '64.

Fair enough on the insurance/care point. The agenda from the other side though is cost. There were some entries double entered in the CBO report, as well as savings factored in which had nothing to do with the plan.

I am a God Damned Independent as well. I am a liberal capitalist, pure and simple. I am big on social programming but agian I just think we are spreading ourselves thhhhhhhhhhin.

End of the day everyone is better off if everyone is at least taken care of. But state governments are in fiscal crises and there will be an awful burden placed on them. We may be able to keep kids healthy at the expense of juvenile programming or programs that improve commerce. I hate that.

Anyway, its not about the service that is chapping my ass, it's the timing of the expenditure

Naw, naw. I've read your posts over the years. I know where you stand. You're a good, smart dude. If you weren't, that blob idiot wouldnt have made that infamous quote. LOL. We can disagree without thinking one or the other is evil.

I just get frustrated because this debate has been hijacked by the loudest and most obnoxious. This is a serious and moral issue, but like everything its been fractured into partisan-friendly soundbites. Sad, because this is health at the end of the day, not a flat screen.

bitty41 wrote:

mandating state governments participate and purchase universal health coverage violates the 10th amendment, which essentially restates that constitution is king.

I think you misconstruing the language in the Bill is not mandating that States purchase health insurance this Bill pertains to the individual not States. Furthermore, the bulk of the funding from this Bill as Sebstar mentioned is coming from repealing the tax cuts to the over $250,000 bracket so unless you are saying that the Federal Government does not possess the right to fund certain subsidies this argument is a non-starter and is mostly serving as a symbolic gesture more than a legitimate legal challenge. Also read Article 6 of the Constitution the Supremacy Clause.

Yea the second part of my post was meant for Allanfan.

So I am going to school and working part time. Does that mean my employer has to provide me with some form of health insurance, even though it would come out of my my check? Or does that mean my employer HAS to give me health insurance and I have to accept it?

Bitty, you're right, anything can happen at anytime, and nobody should take anything for granted. Perhaps I came off as arrogant when I said that, but rest assured, I know anything can happen to me, both good and bad, and it can be my fault!

Allanfan20 wrote:Well, I am a waiter at Friendlys. All of the Friendly's on Long Island are owned by a company called J&B Restaurant Partners. They also own some of the Taco Bells (Not sure how many, or if they own all of them) the food court in Nassau Community College, the food courts in Nassau Colliseum and other noteworthy places. My restaurant is pretty big. I'm not sure if there are 50 people working in it, but there are I believe 29, 30 servers. Definitely at least 40 total workers. And they are hiring more people.

They will be required to purchase you and your fellow co-workers insurance or pay a penalty but keep in mind portion of the bill does not go into effect till 2014.