Article 1, section 8

greenreefer

greenreefer

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3092899
WRONG! Which version of the bill are your reading now, the fifth, the sixth? If the intention is to put the cost of this reform on businesses, which it's not, then why wasn't this brought up ion his speech last night? He allowed multiple people to ask him questions. Why didn't ANY ONE OF THEM bring this up? If this were true, why isn't it being reported in every post speech and news article out there? Did you bother listening to Obama last night when he stated exactly how he planned on paying for this? Open your ears and LISTEN before spewing babble out of your mouth...
They screen the questions and the questioners before hand. Do you honestly think they'd let someone ask a question that wasn't a lob or a question that might seem tricky but that they already have a canned answer to spin it to something "positive". My wife use to work for CNN behind the scenes with Wolf Blitzer and some of the other ego maniacs there. They are on a leash when it comes to questions asked directly to a sitting president. You get a little more honesty when you see them ask questions of the press secretary, but even then the questioners are given acceptable subjects and if they ask something unfriendly they don't come back or get moved to the back of the room.
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/3092953
Google "Taxing and Spending power of the US Congress" and "Necessary and Proper Clause".
This seems to be more of a commentary than a request for the legal authority. But if you want to find the authority, check the above.
Sincerely,
The guy taking the bar exam next week.
Oops... forgot to mention the General Welfare Clause. Damn, would have missed a point for that.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by GreenReefer
http:///forum/post/3092967
They screen the questions and the questioners before hand. Do you honestly think they'd let someone ask a question that wasn't a lob or a question that might seem tricky but that they already have a canned answer to spin it to something "positive". My wife use to work for CNN behind the scenes with Wolf Blitzer and some of the other ego maniacs there. They are on a leash when it comes to questions asked directly to a sitting president. You get a little more honesty when you see them ask questions of the press secretary, but even then the questioners are given acceptable subjects and if they ask something unfriendly they don't come back or get moved to the back of the room.
Most of the questions that were asked were hardline questions refuting many of his claims on what his intentions were on this reform. The problem here is most of you didn't even bother watching the speech, but want to criticize based on anti-Obama news blogs. Darth's over here posting outdated video snipets that are only intended to put a negative spin on the guy. I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't know each and every line of the proposed bill. Mainly because it changes on a daily basis, and the two parties can't agree on which provisions should be added. Obama is there to make suggestions and proposals to Congress on what he'd like to see regarding healthcare reform. It's up to Congress to take those suggestions and come up with a viable plan everyone can agree upon. With everything the President is responsible for, do you think the guy can spend 24/7 on this one issue? If you do, you need a big reality check on the way politics work.
 
greenreefer

greenreefer

Active Member
I'm not even a republican, let alone read far right blogs all day. That being said I'm not a libral either, but they've pulled the wool over your eyes if you think those were "hardline questions". I've seen this business from behind the curtain and almost everything you see in the media is BS, special crafted for you viewers at home
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
This is the latest of what I've read that's in the bill:
His plan would insure more Americans, partly through government subsidies; provide a government-run option to compete with private insurers; require large employers to contribute to health coverage one way or another; and control Medicaid costs by empowering an executive branch agency to set reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals, subject to a congressional veto.
So Darth, I guess you need to get a definition of 'large employers'. I can tell you that doesn't fit my small business.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3092934
FWIW there is currently 36 states working on or already have passed 10th Amendment Resolutions in protest of the Federal Governments violations of its rightful duties.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...y-resolutions/
So are we going to have to get passports or special border crossing permits for all these independent countries that are being created?

These must be spearheaded by all these Tea Baggers I see standing on the side of the road. I almost did a Death Race 2000 on a bunch of them the other day. I wouldn't have gotten many points though. Too many geriatrics in walkers...
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3092998
So are we going to have to get passports or special border crossing permits for all these independent countries that are being created?

These must be spearheaded by all these Tea Baggers I see standing on the side of the road. I almost did a Death Race 2000 on a bunch of them the other day. I wouldn't have gotten many points though. Too many geriatrics in walkers...
Apparently you haven't read the 10th Amendment or understand what it does.Ill let you read it first before i comment further.
BTW I went to the Tea Party in Chicago and was standing right next to the CNN reporter that was recently fired for misrepresenting what we where doing there ,But while checking her out i was thinking about tea bagging that big fat lieing mouth of hers.
Ahhh she got fires anyway so justice has been severed.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3092935
The Supreme Court used the XIV amendment to permit income taxes. Upholding the law is a function of the constabulary - the role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law to each situation that arises. Many such situations cannot be enumerated in advance, so the role of the court is to be reactive in novel circumstances (IMHO, but I'm not a lawyer). Most of the things the government does are not listed in the Constitution specifically, because they did not exist at the time of the Framers - biomedical research, for example. Slavish adherence to the exact words of a 200 year old document simply guarantees that your society will be 200 years out of date. Ask anyone living under the Taliban (or any extreme religious doctrine) how that works out in the long term.

Doc, I think you got your X's confused :). It's XVI that allowed income taxes, not the 14th
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Bionic, you are losing it. seriously. My video was from 2 days ago, exactlt one day before his enlightening speech. I have yet to watch his speech, I will tonight as I had to DVR it since I was at the TOOL concert. But I have seen some "highlights" if you will, and none of those questions were hard.
reefraff, I saw the 250 proposl but getting Bionic to even deal with and admit to the 400 proposal is ridiculous, so why bother getting him to see his "boy" is willing to go after even smaller fish.
Ohy, Bionic, you keep speaking of the fourth fifth and sixth draft.....You never even read the first, which is to my knowledge the stage it is still at since it hasn't gotten past committee because the democrats keep blocking it......
 
ophiura

ophiura

Active Member
All I can say is he is right on the tonsilitis thing.
My nephew in Canada, with the universal healthcare we all desire, has been waiting nearly 6 months now for his "date" for a tonsilectomy, to treat sleep apnea.
So they definitely don't rush into treatment just for the payoff there. And what is a little sleep apnea in a 7 year old.
My brother/sister in law have been waiting anxiously for that date, and just hope it isn't during their planned vacation.
Of course should you miss the appointment...you get to wait again, as my Mother in law has because she forgot an eye doctor appt. She should be happy to get any care at all, after all.
I have had 3 surgeries in the past 6 months and am very pleased with the insurance coverage I have. I understand that this does not help those without it, but that is not to say it needs to be the same thing across the board. I am quite concerned with the proposals, and overall the RUSH to get everything done so fast.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3093055
Bionic, you are losing it. seriously. My video was from 2 days ago, exactlt one day before his enlightening speech. I have yet to watch his speech, I will tonight as I had to DVR it since I was at the TOOL concert. But I have seen some "highlights" if you will, and none of those questions were hard.
reefraff, I saw the 250 proposl but getting Bionic to even deal with and admit to the 400 proposal is ridiculous, so why bother getting him to see his "boy" is willing to go after even smaller fish.
Ohy, Bionic, you keep speaking of the fourth fifth and sixth draft.....You never even read the first, which is to my knowledge the stage it is still at since it hasn't gotten past committee because the democrats keep blocking it......

The House Bill is only one of many proposals on this healthcare plan. If you bothered to read the article, it even states that the bill is still up for debate and further amendments. Nothing is etched in stone. Considering the Senate announced today that they won't even touch this reform before the end of August, the whole thing is dead until this fall (which ticks me off that they get some useless 3 month vacation while this important and controversial legislature goes 'dormant' as usual).
Let's say this did get passed debate and pushed to the Senate. Here's the part of the proposed House Bill that you have your panties all in a bind about:
Employer responsibility. The proposal builds on the employer-sponsored coverage that exists today. Employers will have the option of providing health insurance coverage for their workers or contributing funds on their behalf. Employers that choose to contribute will pay an amount based on eight percent of their payroll. Employers that choose to offer coverage must meet minimum benefit and contribution requirements specified in the proposal.
Assistance for small employers. Recognizing the special needs of small businesses, the smallest businesses (payroll that does not exceed $250,000) are exempt from the employer responsibility requirement. The payroll penalty would then phase in starting at 2% for firms with annual payrolls over $250,000 rising to the full 8 percent penalty for firms with annual payrolls above $400,000. In addition, a new small business tax credit will be available for those firms who want to provide health coverage to their workers. In addition to the targeted assistance, the Exchange and market reforms provide a long-sought opportunity for small businesses to benefit from a more organized, efficient marketplace in which to purchase coverage.
Based on these formulas, most small businesses who pay their employees $10 or less will be exempt from this 'penalty' or even providing health coverage. It would put a dent in my bottom line, but it's something I can deal with. Not to mention, it states there will be a 'small business tax credit' availble if I do have to contribute. Knowing what I know about other tax credits I've received, I may actually make money on the deal.

You seem to be stuck on the assumption that this House Bill is the defacto bill for the entire healthcare plan. It's only one proposal of many. Reading the article, this is the Senate's version of the employer-assisted part:
The HELP Committee bill will require businesses with 25 employees or more to offer health insurance or pay a fee (currently slated at $750 a year per full-time worker) to the federal government. Individuals would be required to obtain coverage.
So based on the Senate version, it wouldn't apply to me. Even if it did apply, $750/year per employee is chump change to the benefits I get in return - healthy and satified employees that won't walk on me when a bigger company can provide them the healthcare they need.
Bottom line, everything is still up for debate. If Obama gets his way, this controversy will be moot point. He wants to use subsidies and tax credits that already exist to pay for 2/3rds of the plan. The other 1/3rd will come from individuals who make more than $280K/year by reducing their tax exemptions. You just keep on fuming about PROPOSAL'S. I'll wait until the FINAL bill is etched in stone and sent to Obama to sign before I pass anymore judgements on it.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3093019
Apparently you haven't read the 10th Amendment or understand what it does.Ill let you read it first before i comment further.
BTW I went to the Tea Party in Chicago and was standing right next to the CNN reporter that was recently fired for misrepresenting what we where doing there ,But while checking her out i was thinking about tea bagging that big fat lieing mouth of hers.
Ahhh she got fires anyway so justice has been severed.
I know what the 10th Amendment states. Problem is, these states can't have it both ways. They want the Federal Govt. to stay out of their business EXCEPT when it come to Federal funding. Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it to. It'll take the wacko Gov. Rick Perry's proposal of seceeding the State of Texas before that'll happen. Get ready for your Texas Passport!
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
So now instead of reading the first version of a bill that is currently in it's 4th or 5th revision we are to assume it will be changed, Talk about wanting to have it both ways

Sorry, couldn't help myself.
I think this proposal is dead. They are going to have to make so many changes I think it would be easier to just start over. With Harry Reid running scared there is no chance the Senate will take this up before the recess and right now all the momentum is against the bill. Time is definitely not on this bill's side.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3093180
I know what the 10th Amendment states. Problem is, these states can't have it both ways. They want the Federal Govt. to stay out of their business EXCEPT when it come to Federal funding. Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it to. It'll take the wacko Gov. Rick Perry's proposal of seceeding the State of Texas before that'll happen. Get ready for your Texas Passport!
The 10th amendment is pretty clear. It isn't having it both ways to expect to receive your share of federal funding while reserving the powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government to the state or local government.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
I was channel surfing, and I see Limbaugh being interviewed by Greta What's Her Name. He of course is railing about Obama's healthcare bill, and Greta stops him and asks. "So, what would you do?" Limbaugh looked at her with this deer in the headlights look and said, "Uh...." Fortunately I stopped laughing long enough to hear the rest of his solution. "We have the best health insurance in the world. Americans get the best care, and don't go anywhere else for services. Americans don't go to Cuba or England for healthcare. We don't need all these fancy services that are provided in today's healthcare system. The only insurance the government should provide is catostrophic insurance. I think insurance costs should be the same as when you go to a hotel. You want to stay at the Ritz? You pay those prices. If you can only afford Motel 6, then that's the kind of service you get. Americans have been spoiled with all these coverages they recieve with these insurance policies that cover everything. If you have a cold or need a physical, pay for that yourself out of your own pocket. You don't need insurance for those services...."
Has this guy ever gone to a doctor in his life? Let's see, I just went a few months ago for an annual checkup and physical. Being over 50, it's recommended I get the old Prostate Test (ugh), then I need full blood work to check my PSA, Cholesterol, thryoid, etc. I got the 'pre-insurance' bill, and the total cost was $680 ($60 - office visit, $200 - annual physical, blood work - $420). I'd also like to see this doctor's office, clinic, or hospital that had 'Motel 6' prices. So this is the Great Conservative Messiah you're waiting for to take us out of what you call Obama H-e- double hockey sticks?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3093221
The 10th amendment is pretty clear. It isn't having it both ways to expect to receive your share of federal funding while reserving the powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government to the state or local government.
Fine. You want your highways and roads updated and repaired? Fix them yourself. Make sure you have a REAL good State militia. You won't be receiving any protection from the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. Got military bases in your state? Not anymore. Better find a way to keep your elderly healthy and provide them some type of income. Say goodbye to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top