fact check Rush limbaugh leaving country i fheath care passes

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3244673
Remember who first proposed social security, a Socialist Candidate for president.
Mandatory participation in social security and medicare is a government program like the military or IRS, we all have to pay for both and "Participate" in the activity under proper circumstances. To say to a citizen you will buy health insurance from a private company is a whole different animal. If the government did take over health care then I believe they would be able to force us into the system.
True, but is it not the same as medicaid or medicare? The government has essentially said "you will purchase retirement health insurance from us.". Regardless of how it was originally proposed what it has morphed into has stood scrutiny.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/sea...query=medicare
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/index.html
Had the supreme court seen it as unconstitutional as a whole the first few cases would have been all we saw. Yet different aspects have been approached on these subjects.
Don't get me wrong, I am still against this. I just feel the better argument is how do you sustain and pay for this long term. The CBO only goes off the numbers provided by congress when they run their numbers. When was the last time a bill from congress that spent a lot of tax payer money met their criteria and worked? We are running the biggest deficits....let's cut some waste first...see how that pans out, then maybe approach things in small bills. Any bill that takes a year to write and redraft and that becomes over 1500 pages, I am skeptic about. The last time these guys said they would fix something we got strapped with a 787 billion dollar debt (which is now over 800) with the results not equaling what they claimed they would be.
Even if they didn't add to the debt......I am still against this for purely monetary reasons. If I am in debt 50,000 dollars each year.....I don't go out and buy a 10,000 dollar boat.....and then claim my second job I have now will cover the cost of the boat....

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3244682
True, but is it not the same as medicaid or medicare? The government has essentially said "you will purchase retirement health insurance from us.". Regardless of how it was originally proposed what it has morphed into has stood scrutiny.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/sea...query=medicare
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/index.html
Had the supreme court seen it as unconstitutional as a whole the first few cases would have been all we saw. Yet different aspects have been approached on these subjects.
Don't get me wrong, I am still against this. I just feel the better argument is how do you sustain and pay for this long term. The CBO only goes off the numbers provided by congress when they run their numbers. When was the last time a bill from congress that spent a lot of tax payer money met their criteria and worked? We are running the biggest deficits....let's cut some waste first...see how that pans out, then maybe approach things in small bills. Any bill that takes a year to write and redraft and that becomes over 1500 pages, I am skeptic about. The last time these guys said they would fix something we got strapped with a 787 billion dollar debt (which is now over 800) with the results not equaling what they claimed they would be.
Even if they didn't add to the debt......I am still against this for purely monetary reasons. If I am in debt 50,000 dollars each year.....I don't go out and buy a 10,000 dollar boat.....and then claim my second job I have now will cover the cost of the boat....

Again, Medicare, which I am not sure was ever challenged at the supreme court level as far as constitutionality of the system itself, is a government program so in my opinion doesn't really make for a relevant comparison.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3244714
Again, Medicare, which I am not sure was ever challenged at the supreme court level as far as constitutionality of the system itself, is a government program so in my opinion doesn't really make for a relevant comparison.
It does to a degree, as the courts have only seen partys of medicare. Which leads me to believe they would support medicare as constitutional since it has not been brought forth as a whole.
The only reason it was voluntary in the beginning is it was argued against as socialization...which is why the original bill was changed to voluntary...then later became mandatory when it ws no longer a hot button issue.

 

[darthtang aw]

Here is a great article breaking down why the current proposal would be unconstitutional on multiple levels.
Is ObamaCare Constitutional?
Written by Rob Natelson on 17 August 2009
During the Bush administration, many within the dominant culture expressed concern about the constitutionality of detaining several hundred alleged enemy combatants in Guantanamo.
Whenever legal restrictions on abortion are proposed, many express doubt about the constitutionality of interjecting government between patients and their doctors.
But those voices have been mostly silent about the constitutionality of empowering the federal government with decisions over the life, death, and health of three hundred million Americans.
In fact, the constitutional difficulties are profound. This is certainly so for those who believe the Constitution means what our Founders understood it to mean. But it is even true for those interested only in modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Following are some of the ways in which current health care proposals potentially clash with our nation’s Basic Law:
Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories.
To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go.
The greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, once wrote that if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a “pretext” for assuming an unauthorized power, “it would become the painful duty” of the Court “to say that such an act was not the law of the land.” But health care bills such as the Obama-favored HB 3200 do not even offer a pretext. The only reference to the Constitution in HB 3200 is a severability clause that purports to save the remainder of the bill if part is declared unconstitutional. HB 3200 contains no reference to the Commerce Power or to any other enumerated power.
Excessive Delegation. The Constitution “vests” legislative authority in Congress. Congress is not permitted to delegate that authority to the executive branch. This is another realm in which the modern Supreme Court has been lenient, while affirming that there are limits. Thus, in Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), a unanimous court struck down a delegation of authority that looked much like the delegations in some current health care proposals.
Substantive Due Process. The Substantive Due Process doctrine was not contemplated by the Founders, but the courts have engrafted onto constitutional jurisprudence. The courts employ this doctrine to invalidate laws they think are unacceptably intrusive of personal liberty or privacy. The most famous modern Substantive Due Process case is Roe v. Wade, which struck down state abortion laws that intruded into the doctor-patient relationship. But the intrusion invalidated in Roe was insignificant compared to the massive intervention contemplated by schemes such as HB 3200. “Global budgeting” and “single-payer” plans go even further, and seem clearly to violate the Supreme Court’s Substantive Due Process rules.
Tenth Amendment. Technically, the Tenth Amendment is merely a declaration that the federal government has no powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. However, the modern Supreme Court has cited the Tenth Amendment in holding that Congress may not “commandeer” state decision making in the service of federal goals.
It is permissible for Congress to condition grants of funds to the states, if the conditions are related to the funding program and are not “coercive.” Thus, in 1986 the Court ruled that Congress may, because of highway safety issues, reduce highway grants by five percent to states refusing to raise their drinking ages to 21. But the mandates that some health care plans would impose on states certainly could be found “coercive,” both because they are excessive (HB 3200, for instance, would withdraw all Public Health Service Act money from non-cooperating states) and because they are unrelated to the program.

 

[darthtang aw]

A major goal of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit government power, especially federal power. National health care proposals would increase that power greatly, so it is not surprising that those proposals have constitutional difficulties. Whatever the merits of federal control of health care, moving in that direction is (as former Justice David Souter might say) a change of “constitutional dimension.” The proper way to make such a change is not through an ordinary congressional bill. The proper way is by constitutional amendment.
http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=4765

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3244671
Last year the gov't profited 35% from my labors without doing anything or taking any risk.
Where can I find a risk free, effort free 35% profit?!
They only profited 35% on your income over $372,00 (cry me a river). For the first $8,000 you only paid 10%, from $8,000 to $33K you paid 15%, from $33K to $82K you paid $25%, etc. Taxes are the cost of freedom and living in this great country. If you don't like, leave.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3244738
They only profited 35% on your income over $372,00 (cry me a river). For the first $8,000 you only paid 10%, from $8,000 to $33K you paid 15%, from $33K to $82K you paid $25%, etc. Taxes are the cost of freedom and living in this great country. If you don't like, leave.
That is not necessarily true, you're just talking income tax. Your employer pays 7.5% on top of what you pay, for FICA... So use your numbers then add 15% for the other income based taxes...

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3244748
That is not necessarily true, you're just talking income tax. Your employer pays 7.5% on top of what you pay, for FICA... So use your numbers then add 15% for the other income based taxes...
Only up to $102K. If you are in the 35% bracket, it represents about 1% extra tax, which is basically your contribution to the annuity you will be paid out later...

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3244738
They only profited 35% on your income over $372,00 (cry me a river). For the first $8,000 you only paid 10%, from $8,000 to $33K you paid 15%, from $33K to $82K you paid $25%, etc. Taxes are the cost of freedom and living in this great country. If you don't like, leave.

So then you would be fine paying 65% in taxes then? after all...that is the number needed to cover our deficit. The price you pay for living in this great country. That is before healthcare.......

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3244775
So then you would be fine paying 65% in taxes then? after all...that is the number needed to cover our deficit. The price you pay for living in this great country. That is before healthcare.......
The highest bracket at one time was that high. Would I like it? No. Would I pay it, yes. But, any tax rate over 50% would hinder the economy. Actually, if our tax rate averaged out to 16% of personal income we would be running massive tax surpluses and could actually begin paying down our debt. But to do this, we would have to have people in the lower brackets actually paying taxes.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3244726
A major goal of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit government power, especially federal power. National health care proposals would increase that power greatly, so it is not surprising that those proposals have constitutional difficulties. Whatever the merits of federal control of health care, moving in that direction is (as former Justice David Souter might say) a change of “constitutional dimension.” The proper way to make such a change is not through an ordinary congressional bill. The proper way is by constitutional amendment.
http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=4765
Good article but then again I might be a little biased, Rob is a friend of mine.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3244789
The highest bracket at one time was that high. Would I like it? No. Would I pay it, yes.

As if you would have a choice...lol.
But, any tax rate over 50% would hinder the economy. Actually, if our tax rate averaged out to 16% of personal income we would be running massive tax surpluses and could actually begin paying down our debt. But to do this, we would have to have people in the lower brackets actually paying taxes.
True on the economy, I would surmise to say that percentage would be lower.
Where do you get 16%? The tax burden per capita just to cover current spending and budget is at about 13,000 per. The median income per person is 27590.16. Even if we went with average (after all those really rich guys throw the curve way off) the salary jumps to 50,000.

 

[reefraff]

I'd love to see someone run on the platform of pushing zero base budgeting. Be pretty entertaining to watch politicians try to justify some of the crap the government is spending us broke on.

 

[beaslbob]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3244527
Ahh, I remember now, You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Don't think we were talking the German system by name. My bad,
But anyway the objection is still the same. You can't just go to Blue Cross and say "you are now a non profit".
I like the idea of making everyone buy health insurance. Can't do it here, at least I seriously doubt it will stand the promised constitutional challenge. Maybe Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can get together and start a not for profit insurance company.
My father worked for and retired from the Iowa blus cross plan. In fact it was non profit.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by beaslbob
http:///forum/post/3244845
My father worked for and retired from the Iowa blus cross plan. In fact it was non profit.
There are different companies operating as "blue cross". Some might be non profit but I know of several that are publicly traded companies.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3244565
The problem with the bismark system is that it doesn't address the root problem. The end user is not the buyer.
Instead it banks on removing the profits from various entities, which isn't that much anyway...
I'm not sure that argument makes sense. The Bismarck system has been around for 80ish years longer than our, about to go bankrupt (or so the reform detractors would have you believe,) system has and is still functional at almost 50% less per capita of GDP than ours is.
It's not just a matter of removing investor profits from the equation. It's a matter of efficiency as well. Our system loses a substantial percentage of gross capital in unnecessary administration because it refuses to standardize procedure costs. As a result, they have to be administered individually, even within geographical locations, for different providers, physicians, networks, etc. It'd be one thing if a tonsilectomy cost more in NY or CA than it did in MI or MS. The actuality, however, is that it's priced differently depending on who the provider, the Dr., the hospital or clinic and their respective and multiply interactive agreements regarding any given procedure are, within the same area. A substantial portion of gross costs are used to push that completely unnecessary paper.
That makes no sense either.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3245076
The Bismarck system has been around for 80ish years longer than our, about to go bankrupt (or so the reform detractors would have you believe,) system has and is still functional at almost 50% less per capita of GDP than ours is.
Comparing what they have and what we have is pretty much useless. The Government owns a lot of the hospitals and clinics there which partially explains their tax rates. Not saying that is a bad idea but where does our government get the funds to start buying up the hospitals here? Do you think there is a politician with the guts to propose bumping our current income rates plus adding a national sales tax to support that system?

 

[stdreb27]

This GDP argument doesn't hold water unless you're willing to assume that the service between the American system and the German system is comparable. I'm not willing to accept that... Unless you have seen info that I haven't...

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3245475
This GDP argument doesn't hold water unless you're willing to assume that the service between the American system and the German system is comparable. I'm not willing to accept that... Unless you have seen info that I haven't...
Service meaning results? If so, then there is plenty of info out there.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3245475
This GDP argument doesn't hold water unless you're willing to assume that the service between the American system and the German system is comparable. I'm not willing to accept that... Unless you have seen info that I haven't...
You shouldn't accept that. You should investigate it for yourself.
The service is in no way comparable. The German, aka Bismarck, system (which is not relegated to Germany, it is just so named because they invented it) is superior to ours in rates of: Life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer survivability, incidence of heart disease, per capita rates of specific cancers and per capita treatment costs.
The system, although privately administered, is mandatory, single payer and non-profit. It is, however, overseen and, when necessary, arbitrated by the government.
Oh, and what would here be logically considered "frivolous" lawsuits are laughed out of court there.
I don't know what else to tell you beyond that. The stats are easily and readily accessible and I have posted them on numerous occaisions. Please look them up. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd love to see it.