Socialism One and All!

[bornl33t]

Actually most of the house and senate members and staff will have to buy from the "exchange". Only the whitehouse and certain members of the presidents cabinet are exempted... Which is causing much strife amongst the regular congressional aid's. Saying pretty mucht he same thing "wait... if this is so good why don't YOU have to get it". Senate democrats actually managed to avoid even voting on a provision that would have forced the President and all his favorites into the new system. This way they can't be pointed out as voting against it in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Once again, I agree but just wanted to clarify.

Now to make matters worse the dem's are actually stating their move towards socialism in this bill, Sen Baucus is quoted in foxnews as stating :


November seems an awful long way's away.

Iowa is becoming as corrupt as Illinois. The latest wave of scandals is hitting the fan and most Iowans aren't even paying attension. They are content in their bliss as the housing problems the rest of the nation is dealing with never really hit us. That said we do have a diamond in the rough.

To ensure delivery of these emails to your inbox, please add [email protected] to your email address book. Alternatively, click here to download as a business card (VCard). This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected][email protected] by [email protected] | Read our Privacy Policy US Senator Chuck Grassley - 135 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510, United States

[drg]

IF THIS "HEALTHCARE PLAN" IS SO DAMN GOOD, WHY IS EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, AND HIS CABINET ALL EXEMPT FROM HAVING TO ENROLL IN IT!!!!

You couldn't be more wrong. Congress is actually MORE required to use the exchange program than the American people. They are the only entity required to use it. President Obama will use it as well, though he is not required by law.

The interesting part about the "taxation" issue here is that its a tax on a non-transaction. Don't believe that has any precedence here. All of our taxes (truly taxes, not fees) are transaction based - income tax (the transaction is you exchanging your labor for money, giving someone else control of your money in exchange for interest, etc), sales tax (you buy something, a tax is paid on the sale), etc. There's no history (or authorization, frankly), for any of us to be taxed for not doing something. There have been fees and penalties (a parking ticket for not putting money in the meter, a fine for not getting a building permit, etc)... but those fees and penalties all have a judicial recourse. Not so with a tax, per se. Our income tax system (through which this "tax" will be administered) is based on voluntary compliance (not in the "I'm volunteering to pay" manner, but voluntary insofar as I figure and remit the tax, not someone telling me what I owe), meaning it will be up to the taxpayer to put on their return that they owe the additional tax. A government agency, not a court, will be the first level of enforcement on this. Before any shot at tax court, one generally has to wind their way through the levels of hell with the IRS.

The mandate is not going to be found unconstitutional on substance, and even if there were problems with its taxation structure, it can easily be rewritten to meet constitutional muster, by clearly structuring it as a tax on everyone, which you can be exempted from by buying insurance (that is effectively what it does now).

The irony here is that two things happen if the mandate were somehow successfully challenged on substance. It could be supplemented with a public plan option to make it unquestionable, or if the mandate goes away, private insurance risks insolvency and dissolution. Both of which are actually even more desirable, from a progressive standpoint, than the legislation, and less desirable for purported conservatives.

[Coralis]

They could remove the penalty for not carrying insurance and just give hospitals/doctors the right to refuse service to those without insurance (unless you can pay for service).

[CatoRockwell]

None of these things changed between Obama and Bush. Can you link to the protests you were lodging against Bush?

Well that was a while ago, don't even know if the threads would still be up, but if you want I can get you some testimonials. This isn't about Obama, this is about our freedoms which have been raped by Democrats & Republicans for the last 100 years.

It actually goes further back, but I don't want to get off topic with how much I hated Hamilton or Lincoln.

Oh great, undergraduates...

/off the lawn!

WTF is with the comment about "Undergraduates"? I wasn't aware that you had to have some pathetic degree in order to research, learn, develop & adhere to a philosophy. That is a pretty low blow.

Pray do tell, what credentials do you require to have an educated opinion? I'm not some disgruntled college student, I own a home, I have a career which the parasites sucked $27,000 of my hard-earned work last year (not including Medicaid or SS) , I love history so I study it. Hmm, I've actually read and studied the constitution (which pretty much makes me more educated on American Law than 90% of the morons in washington). So what qualifies me to stand up for my rights? My education? I have studied Law, Philosophy, & History more than most. Taxpayer? trust me, I don't qualify for any of the handouts everyone is getting (I make too little to be bailed out if I screw up, and too much to get a handout).

Please don't make personal attacks on my intelligence or my understanding of law. If you have an argument in favor of socialism, please make it.

Back to the previous comments, You are 100% right about Bush being just as crappy. However, most republicans that claim to love the constitution were so blinded by their party loyalty that they couldn't pull their heads out of the sand about how if a Democrat president had done what Bush did everyone would be howling back then too.

Thats not the point though, the point is: How much tyranny are we going to accept before we are willing to fight for our freedom?

[Lohman446]

Wonderful Cato... you cited research. I assume citing sources should not be any issue then.

/-10 points for every source that is not independent

//Fair and balanced as a PR system does not count as independent

///Actually agree that the healthcare "plan" is unconstitutional and our founding fathers would not accept it, but have agreed with that on various issues that have been in effect since about the 30s, so this new "OMG THIS is horrible" is amusing.

[teufelhunden]

The mandate is not going to be found unconstitutional on substance, and even if there were problems with its taxation structure, it can easily be rewritten to meet constitutional muster, by clearly structuring it as a tax on everyone, which you can be exempted from by buying insurance (that is effectively what it does now).

Even rewritten as such, it would still be the first time for such a tax. Income tax applies to everybody, but you are exempt from it if you have income below a certain level. Sales tax applies to everybody, but (in NJ at least), you are exempt from it if you are only buying necessities.

However its cut, this will continue to be a tax on a non-transaction, or on the absence of a transaction.

[chafnerjr]

Look...Let's just look at this from a financial perspective if we're to skip the whole bit about constitutionality. The financials are all pretty simple. We (our gov) are spending more than we're taxing on this. We (our gov) are now regularly voting to increase the national debt (now to a level higher than our GDP). We (our gov) has run Medicare and Medicade costs so hight that they are about to reach something near 1/3 of our annual budget and this will cost significantly more while fostering the demise of private healthcare plans. All this without reducing one single health care related cost along the way. This is unsustainable. Whether it's right by the people or not. In 10-20 years our entire economy is going to collapse and Obama and the congress who voted it in will be long gone. The congressional budget office has issued several statements stating this fact over and over and over again. We're going to destroy our country as we know it (yes, it's that serious). and for what?

Here's your socialism bit. Our politicians have (at a greater rate than any other time in history) learned to ignore and re-direct us. Almost every recent poll (which I tend to hate) shows that roughly 3/4 of the country does not want health care implemented as the current bill provides. Their elected officials are no longer listening to them, but to the President instead. The president and the whitehouse are already fundraising to help those politicians who've sacrificed all their clout with their constituents in order to help this law pass. I mean seriously! The President is PAYING congress in the OPEN to ignore the will of the people...

As far as this whole taxation rambling about whether or not a tax like this has been used before doesn't really matter. The tax (if you call it that) is not being applied uniformly to all states. This should kill it on a constitutional basis right out of the box... but I'm not convinced our court system can uphold the constitution... I'm not convinced that they've done that for a while. This is, however a states/peoples right and it's being usurped by our government.

To quote our Declaration of Independence.
To cap this off... I've got two small children. They are going to be saddled with this. No one is really in a revolt mood yet meaning that my children could be asked to fight in this future scenario. I'm a bit of a history buff enough to know that these sort of things take years and years to evolve into such feelings as to provoke the wrath of the people. I just wish we (as a people) could understand the ramifications of what 2010 is going to mean for our country so that we could react accordingly.

[athomas]

From the outside looking in, I find this quite amusing. Maybe I can give a different perspective. I know people don't like getting imposed with a forced tax, which is essentially what the force purchase of health care is. Lower income people will be subsidized. What this means is that lower incomes will be subsidized by higher earner. Unfortunately, that is what happens in all modern civilized societies. The good side of this, is that no matter what happens in your financial future, you will at least have access to the same health care that everyone else has. You will never be turned down based on your economic means.

Has anyone ever dealt with private health care companies or insurance companies when it comes to big dollar values. Let me tell you. They do not part with their money easily, even if your policy says you have coverage. They will wait you out, even if it means you die. The longer they hold onto their money, the more it makes them in investment value. Having legislation stating that coverage for any circumstances can not be denied is very powerful and should be applauded.

I see statements to the fact that people leave Canada to go to the US for treatment because it is better. The reason is due to the fact that they have money. In Canada, they are treated as equals and can't jump the queue. In the US system, having money gets you faster service because there is not as big a queue due to not everyone having the same access. As a Canadian, I have to pay for health care. I do it through taxes. Do I mind/ No. I know that I can always go to a hospital or doctor at any time for any ailment and I will be treated in a very short time.

In business, I set my rates based on doing the least amount of work and getting the greatest amount of money. If I can get the same amount of money by keeping my rates up, it reduces my work load and I am happy. Why would I service the poor people that can't afford it. In a forced health care system, I can't deny the poorer people my services, so everyone is treated equally. As a big corporation, I will complain because it affects my bottom line, but in the end it is better for all people.

In the end, it is a mindset. Nobody wants to be told what to do and when to do it. Healthcare is a basic necessity that should be free in all societies. It is expensive, and the majority of the burden will always fall on the more fortunate and wealthy. In the end I think this is good for society as a whole. Being that it directly affects the way everyone does things right now, people don't like it because it takes about 5 years to accept change. It will be fine. You just can't see it yet.

[chafnerjr]

From the outside looking in, I find this quite amusing. Maybe I can give a different perspective. I know people don't like getting imposed with a forced tax, which is essentially what the force purchase of health care is. Lower income people will be subsidized. What this means is that lower incomes will be subsidized by higher earner. Unfortunately, that is what happens in all modern civilized societies. The good side of this, is that no matter what happens in your financial future, you will at least have access to the same health care that everyone else has. You will never be turned down based on your economic means.

It will be subsidized... meaning yet more money will be taken from hard working american and given to me. That's right, me! My wife and I can't afford health insurance for her, though I'm covered through work and my children are covered by a local plan. The reason I can no longer afford coverage for my wife is because of the policies my state imposed on insurance companies here have caused costs to skyrocket almost 1000% in the past 10 years. Eeventually this will lead to a lower quality of overall care as it has in Canada and the UK (the two places I'm most informed about) because no one... not even our state gov. can afford to pay for it now.

Has anyone ever dealt with private health care companies or insurance companies when it comes to big dollar values. Let me tell you. They do not part with their money easily, even if your policy says you have coverage. They will wait you out, even if it means you die. The longer they hold onto their money, the more it makes them in investment value. Having legislation stating that coverage for any circumstances can not be denied is very powerful and should be applauded.

Yep, not only has a co-worker of mine had a down syndrome child which cost over 2 million in medical bills. She also credits our health insurance company and the hospitals with saving her daughters life! Also my nephew was born with another significant birth defect (which I will leave out of this). Insurance didn't cover it all but my brother the truck driver has everything well under control. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. More than 80% covered by insurance.

I see statements to the fact that people leave Canada to go to the US for treatment because it is better. The reason is due to the fact that they have money. In Canada, they are treated as equals and can't jump the queue. In the US system, having money gets you faster service because there is not as big a queue due to not everyone having the same access. As a Canadian, I have to pay for health care. I do it through taxes. Do I mind/ No. I know that I can always go to a hospital or doctor at any time for any ailment and I will be treated in a very short time.

Also not true. Another co-worker of mine is Canadian, and a friends wife is Canadian. My friends wife has chronic back pain caused by two damaged vertebrae which cannot be repaired. In Canada, not only would they refuse to prescribe her ANY pain medication because they could not specifically diagnose the disease causing the degeneration (by gov. regulation they CAN'T) but she also lost her job because of the pain and inability to sit in a chair for any period of time. Because the gov. run health system there didn't give a specific diagnosis she could not claim medical disability or receive any protection from losing her job on the basis of her medical condition. She's getting great care here in the US though it does cost a lot. You see health care is expensive.

In business, I set my rates based on doing the least amount of work and getting the greatest amount of money. If I can get the same amount of money by keeping my rates up, it reduces my work load and I am happy. Why would I service the poor people that can't afford it. In a forced health care system, I can't deny the poorer people my services, so everyone is treated equally. As a big corporation, I will complain because it affects my bottom line, but in the end it is better for all people.

An unchecked private system is just as bad as an unchecked government system. Since we've never had an unchecked or unregulated medical insurance system here in the US I don't see your point. You're saying that the gov. knows better than private companies watched and regulated closely by gov agencies?

In the end, it is a mindset. Nobody wants to be told what to do and when to do it. Healthcare is a basic necessity that should be free in all societies. It is expensive, and the majority of the burden will always fall on the more fortunate and wealthy. In the end I think this is good for society as a whole. Being that it directly affects the way everyone does things right now, people don't like it because it takes about 5 years to accept change. It will be fine. You just can't see it yet.

See... now we're getting somewhere. Idealism is useful as a goal, but unrealistic in practice. NOTHING IS EVER FREE. Even the air you breath costs way more money than you can imagine (just ask the EPA and their budget). Look... the issue with healthcare is COST and COST alone. If it were cheap then no one would be talking about it. Please look at what the gov did to medicare and medicade! They are broke! They have to keep allocating more and more pretend future budget money to them. This is no different. We're going to go from a system where 90% of people can afford great healthcare to a system where 100% of people are forced to get moderate to low quality healthcare (ask the UK).

Here's the kicker. Everyone making big$$$ will simply pay cash for great healthcare from doctors that no longer working for the general public because of the red tape and slow slow slow gov reimbursement schedule. This just isn't going to work for more than a few years. Why? Because NOTHING is being done about the cost! Even the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) called this plan... and I quote: "A ponzi scheme even Bernie Madoff would have been proud of".

[Lohman446]

Once the government is involved it will only be a matter of time before costs associated to

A) Drug advertising (drug companies spend more in marketing then in research)

B) Costs associated with legal fees / insurance. As the government is picking up the tab for "pain and suffering" (inevitable) the reimbursement for these will be limited. No longer able to collect millions of dollars some of these lawsuits will magically disappear.

are limited. The government does very well protecting its own programs through new laws that are long overdue.

[chafnerjr]

Once the government is involved it will only be a matter of time before costs associated to

A) Drug advertising (drug companies spend more in marketing then in research)

B) Costs associated with legal fees / insurance. As the government is picking up the tab for "pain and suffering" (inevitable) the reimbursement for these will be limited. No longer able to collect millions of dollars some of these lawsuits will magically disappear.

are limited. The government does very well protecting its own programs through new laws that are long overdue.

Sure... if it were a government program. Right now the gov is creating an "exchange" where private companies get to "compete" for your business... well sort of. They refuse to pass any sort of tort reform so lawsuits will continue. Should a public option been part of the bill (which I'm glad wasn't) then you undoubtedly would be correct on both counts. Just don't see it here.

[Lohman446]

Sure... if it were a government program. Right now the gov is creating an "exchange" where private companies get to "compete" for your business... well sort of. They refuse to pass any sort of tort reform so lawsuits will continue. Should a public option been part of the bill (which I'm glad wasn't) then you undoubtedly would be correct on both counts. Just don't see it here.

Its not, but the government now has a stake in forcing this to succeed. And as you pointed out success requires control of costs. Is this bill perfect? No. Is it even really good? No. Is it within the powers of the federal government to mandate what this bill does? No. Can it, over time, be made to work? Yes.

[VailSkibum]

Some here may have seen these already, but for those of you that haven't, it will be a real eye opener. BOTH videos are a MUST WATCH.

25 yrs ago, Ex-KGB officer Yuri Bezmenov gives some chilling predictions about Big Government and the Progressive/Socialist idiology. He talks of demoralization and subversion. It appears that the campaign has met with enormous sucess lately.
Also, he often refers to "useful idiots" in his interviews and lectures. How many Politicians, public figures (mass media, Hollywood types), and even the guy in the next cubicle, do you know? Send them these links. It could only help.

This first link is the best one. 81 min. Ted Kennedy also has a cameo.
<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2307456730142665916&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

The second is the first part from a lecture he gave at an L.A. campus.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0kQMgMJYNUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0kQMgMJYNUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
The L.A. lecture in full, Here:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9077D97CE423EF9B

[chafnerjr]

Its not, but the government now has a stake in forcing this to succeed. And as you pointed out success requires control of costs. Is this bill perfect? No. Is it even really good? No. Is it within the powers of the federal government to mandate what this bill does? No. Can it, over time, be made to work? Yes.

Well I guess that we see eye to eye one this... with perhaps exception to the final point, but I hope your right. I just don't think they can do anything without bankrupting the economy and this country in the process.

Damn, now I have an hour and a half of video to watch. I hope they're good!

In the mean time... here's a funny link just because http://techpb.com/?p=709 (seriously just watch it and ignore the chick on the from screen. It is work safe. (What does this have to do with socalism or healthcare... nothing, but I think we all need a laugh. I know I did!)

[teufelhunden]

Interesting: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63435

Logical, as well. If the federal government can compel us via tax penalties to buy health insurance, why can they not do the same for cars? Or life insurance? Or x, y, and z?