Obama Care

[Stu]

I love politics, last night I listened to most of the GOP debates in Florida and was finally impressed with Gov. Romney. (I can't see why he wants to be president, that is the only thing that bothers me about him fundamentally)

The GOP is (in my Opinion) responsible for the Recession and the lackluster recovery. That said I notice that other than claiming that the Obama Administration's excessive raising of taxes (which did not happen), its near curtailment of extracting Gulf of Mexico oil during a moratorium it imposed after BP spilled nearly 500 million of crude, and its imposition of regulations on Business that is costing them money, the biggest gripe is The Affordable Health Care Act that was passed by the Democratic Party when it controlled the Senate and the House (no small feat).

So what is the deal? Are Republicans really opposed to everyone carrying health insurance? I for one am not. Nor do I appreciate being tethered to a relatively low paying job that provides it as a benefit. (I really see the current Employer based system as a subsidy to Businesses big enough to be eligible for the discounts)

These arguments have been made in a previous thread. (http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8923)

Frankly, I don't think most people who dislike the health care reform know what the hell they are talking about. But I want to give them an opportunity to prove otherwise....

-Should health care reform include requiring most Americans to buy health insurance? If someone uninsured ends up sick and in the emergency room, then the cost is spread out to everyone else anyways, so why is this a bad option? We have mandatory car insurance and that seems to work out fine. And a benefit is that the market will have millions of new customers. How would you make health care reform work if you didn't require everyone to buy insurance?......... .

Would Madison see protection against Cholera as promoting "general welfare" or providing for "the common defense"? I see diseases and environmental deterioration as enemies of the people. Ones that we may not be able to combat entirely but where we can we should. In the instance of Health Insurance, it has been made clear to me that an under funded system, morally obliged to provide care for the masses is untenable. Before Medicare, retirees who could not afford medical attention got it pro-bono or went without. Doctors felt morally obliged to assist them without payment. In our present (pre reform) situation, hospitals have a moral (and legal) obligation to provide treatment to the injured and ill that present themselves, often without payment. How is this tenable? Taxing those who refuse to carry carry medical insurance is a concept that Madison, in his day, would not be able to appreciate.

.............................. That the founders could not conceive of particular details or imagine future technological advances doesn't alter the aims of republican government. What makes the founders' experiment so unique is that the American regime is founded on the idea that a just government's premier goal is the preservation of its people's liberties and safety; therefore, no matter what new occurrences arise, these sacred things ought always to be protected.

Today we see the word "safety" or "general welfare" and assume that the federal government is entitled to extend its authority to all aspects of human life that come under one threat or another; which is why I've made the comment here before that the progressives' true aim is the elimination of hardship in toto. Because all hardship represents a threat to a life of absolute peace.

But contrary to your conclusion, Madison, for example, was very aware of the potential for massive federal interference. Indeed in his Republican Manifesto he lectures those who would use the terms "common defense" and "general welfare" to extend the federal government's authority beyond its constitutional bounds:

In other words, What is the point of enumerating powers to a government of limited authority when we take the phrases "general welfare" and "common defense" to be a grant to unrestrained government interference?

 

[Lerxst]

I have to brush off my not-so current events memory for this one. If I remember right, my gripe with it is that it still gave the private interests too much control over human health. It's not a universal healthcare coverage like the rest of the modern world enjoys, instead it was some bastardization of that, that didn't actually do what it should have been designed for.

 

[Stu]

that is the complaint from the left.

 

[This]

My complaint was how somehow "Free health care" became "Mandatory health insurance that you must pay for"

 

[Lerxst]

that is the complaint from the left.

Not really Left, if you look at most other countries and consider these types of programs are the norm. It would be more "Center" on the larger scale of politics.

 

[PrincessFirefighter]

I will say to this what I always say to people who believe this is too much government control:

If you are so against the government making you buy health insurance, then go to your capital and demand for the state to do away with the law that says everyone needs to have driver's insurance.

Simple as that.

 

[magister343]

There is a significant difference between laws that require individuals to buy insurance purely for being alive, and those that merely make insurance a prerequisite for the use of roads owned and maintained by the state. It is perfectly legal for the uninsured to operate a motor vehicle on their own private property.

To make the analogy fair you would have to make health insurance a prerequisite only for state operated clinics and hospitals. You would have to allow private healthcare facilities to operate outside of the public healthcare system and to ignore the insurance prerequisite (or set their own), even if the supply of public clinics reduces the demand to the point that private clinics are few and far between.

(It should also be noted that many libertarian types decry government intrusion in the transportation market as they do in healthcare.)

 

[Constant_Overstimulation]

i feel that marijuana should be legalized!!

(has nothing to do with the topic, but i just felt like stating that. carry on!!)

 

[myself]

Life is free! We should not be required to pay for anything.

Force people to pay for insurance?!

Politics/humanity is so twisted at this time.

Forced health insurance is madness.

 

[Stu]

To make the analogy fair you would have to make health insurance a prerequisite only for state operated clinics and hospitals. ...........

(It should also be noted that many libertarian types decry government intrusion in the transportation market as they do in healthcare.)

This is it, I am guessing that there is no major medical facility that is not reliant on federally dispersed dollars.

Hospitals are also mandated to offer services to anyone who walks in the door.

The difference is that buying and operating a car is a deliberate act, becoming sick or injured is involuntary (and inevitable).

Why is the GOP not clamoring for the removal of the mandate to provide health care to the sick and injured?

 

[just me]

As of this week, they now require within a few months businesses(including non-profits that are not churches, etc) to provide for contraception for their female employees. That, in itself, crosses boundaries leading to more political calamity. I know people out of work: is Obama going to make them buy health insurance? Is the gov going to pick up the bill when folk cannot afford it? People are already doing without their meds.

"President Obama's Department of Health and Human Services announced on Jan. 20, 2012, that under the President's health care law, all employers – including most faith-based organizations – will be required to provide coverage of contraceptives for women. The rule exempts houses of worship such as churches or synagogues, but other nonprofits with religious affiliation will have to comply. Most employers will have until August 1, 2012, to meet the rule, but religiously-affiliated nonprofits will have an extra year before they have to comply. Such a requirement would force many individuals and religious organizations to forego strongly held religious beliefs in order to comply with these mandates. I believe that such requirements are wrong." copied from Senator Isakson.

Back at the ranch, Obama is appointing people to posts by stating the Senate is out to lunch at the time. These same folk have already been declined by the Senate or never even been screened. Obama cannot play by the rules, so why does he expect the nation to play by his? The man has no clue.

"Under the authority of the United States Constitution, the president and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. The president nominates an individual to a position and the Senate confirms the nomination, or denies it, through a floor vote.
Despite the fact that the Senate was in legislative session in January, President Obama circumvented the Constitution and the Senate by declaring that the Senate was in recess and moving forward with a "recess appointment" of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three others to the National Labor Relations Board. President Obama and his administration have, time and again, thwarted the will of the Senate with recess appointments of individuals that Senate has either already rejected outright or has never vetted. His flagrant disregard not only of the role of the Senate, but also of the foundation upon which our country stands, must be stopped." copied from Senator Johnny Isakson, Feb 3, 2012.


Lead by example....Senators will be fighting against this blatant abuse of power and lack of concern for religion....and people's rights.

 

[Stu]

Just me, thank you so much for voicing an opinion on this thread.

The Hospitals that are run by the Catholic church employ thousands of non Catholics and spend (judiciously) millions of federal dollars. It is hard to argue that they are not major healthcare providers and major employers. Should they really get a pass? Shouldn't those worker/citizens be eligible for the same benefits that workers in non religious medical care facilities get?

and...

Under the authority of the United States Constitution, the president and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. The president nominates an individual to a position and the Senate confirms the nomination, or denies it, through a floor vote.

The Senate Republicans are not allowing floor votes on Mr Obama's nominees.

 

[just me]

Just me, thank you so much for voicing an opinion on this thread.

The Hospitals that are run by the Catholic church employ thousands of non Catholics and spend (judiciously) millions of federal dollars. It is hard to argue that they are not major healthcare providers and major employers. Should they really get a pass? Shouldn't those worker/citizens be eligible for the same benefits that workers in non religious medical care facilities get?

and...


The Senate Republicans are not allowing floor votes on Mr Obama's nominees.

[MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION], Thank you for thanking me on a positive note while disagreeing. It says a lot about your mentality.

For the record, I am against federally-mandated contraceptive coverage for female employees. I do not like the sound of it. It has really nothing to do with what our Senator is talking about to me. I am just against more government telling more institutions what to do. People should be thankful for Catholic hospitals. Our local one is almost broke. The people treated there are being provided with healthcare, if I may say so on a different note. Most of the employees are thankful to have jobs. More expenses on institutions that are already financially strapped is a dangerous note to sing. Yes, the religious part makes its own sounds, too. More big brother telling more businesses what to do is helping to put more Mom and Pop businesses out of business. They need a break. Small businesses is not on Obama's slate, so it seems.

There must be reasons for what you insinuated regarding floor votes, or lack of them. Do you have any data regarding what you stated? Just curious, as I would like to see it. Thank you once again.

 

[Stu]

There must be reasons for what you insinuated regarding floor votes, or lack of them. Do you have any data regarding what you stated? Just curious, as I would like to see it. Thank you once again.

Of course there are reasons, a left leaning democrat is trying to install left leaning judges and execute left leaning policies.

I lifted these lines from a NYT editorial, sorry I couldn't find a news story but the times is fact checked.


"Filibustering Nominees Must End
Published: January 28, 2012 New York Times (editorial)

.........the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators.
Today, 18 judicial nominees wait for Senate votes even though they were approved by the Judiciary Committee, 16 unanimously......

When Congress created a vitally needed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the financial reform law, Republicans in the Senate decided to block confirmation of a chief so the agency could not exercise its full regulatory powers.

Senators also use filibusters to block nonpolitical positions, like the administrator of the General Services Administration

 

[just me]

It's called checks and balances, the way I see it. Rules are made and politicians play by them. For the President of the United States to lie and not play by the rules because he cannot control the Senate is illegal. He lied about what the Senate was doing and he pays no attention the the laws. The man is off the farm.

 

[Stu]

NO YOU'RE THE LIAR no you are no its you no you no you noyouoyou

It's called checks and balances, the way I see it. Rules are made and politicians play by them. For the President of the United States to lie and not play by the rules because he cannot control the Senate is illegal. He lied about what the Senate was doing and he pays no attention the the laws. The man is off the farm.

Ok, thanks again for your opinion. You want me to concede your point that the President is a Liar. I am not going to do that, you have a rudimentary understanding of how the government works. It is probably no more sophisticated than my own. I see a GOP that is hell bent on not allowing the President exert executive power to carry out the laws enacted when the Dems were in control of both houses of the legislature an the Presidency. I do not begrudge them that. Laws like Health Care Reform and the Dodd-Frank bill attack the fundamentals of GOP business interest. The entire green energy initiative funded by the Federal gov is counter to the GOP policy of burning fossil fuels.

Republicans often present arguments for what they are doing in different and contradictory ways. I have no use for labeling them liars and pillory them as being bad people. I do not believe they are bad. I believe the benefactors of their policies number too few and those policies jeopardize the health and prosperity of the Nation. That is not to say that many of the policies that the Dems Champion are not aimed at pleasing small powerful interests.

I think Health insurance should be comprehensive, cheap and not tied to a particular job.

I am open to many systems but the GOP refused to do anything about it when they controlled the three branches. So I support the law that was passed. I support the Presidents attempts to enact that law.

I also think that the financial institutions need to be regulated like they were after the Great Depression. The GOP wants to double down on the Clinton-Bush dismantling of the barriers between Banks and Investing firms. I think that mentality is foolish but I do not think that those who believe that's the way to go are bad.

 

[just me]

Ok, thanks again for your opinion. You want me to concede your point that the President is a Liar. I am not going to do that, you have a rudimentary understanding of how the government works. It is probably no more sophisticated than my own. I see a GOP that is hell bent on not allowing the President exert executive power to carry out the laws enacted when the Dems were in control of both houses of the legislature an the Presidency. I do not begrudge them that. Laws like Health Care Reform and the Dodd-Frank bill attack the fundamentals of GOP business interest. The entire green energy initiative funded by the Federal gov is counter to the GOP policy of burning fossil fuels.

Republicans often present arguments for what they are doing in different and contradictory ways. I have no use for labeling them liars and pillory them as being bad people. I do not believe they are bad. I believe the benefactors of their policies number too few and those policies jeopardize the health and prosperity of the Nation. That is not to say that many of the policies that the Dems Champion are not aimed at pleasing small powerful interests.

I think Health insurance should be comprehensive, cheap and not tied to a particular job.

I am open to many systems but the GOP refused to do anything about it when they controlled the three branches. So I support the law that was passed. I support the Presidents attempts to enact that law.

I also think that the financial institutions need to be regulated like they were after the Great Depression. The GOP wants to double down on the Clinton-Bush dismantling of the barriers between Banks and Investing firms. I think that mentality is foolish but I do not think that those who believe that's the way to go are bad.

Like your response. Reminds me of "Liar, Liar, Pants on fire."
I do not want you to concede to anything. I wanted to say he was lying about what the Senate was doing in his excuse for his appointments against the laws. I wanted to bring what he did to the surface for all to see. I wanted people to see how he did what he did. I do not feel that is presidential material, nor an ideal role for leadership.

I believe the way I believe. If it differs from the way others believe it is alright with me. Place someone in authority with power and he should play by the rules. The way I am it must be by the rules. I cannot help being like that. Heck: it's part of who I am. Everyone should at least pay a little attention to what is going on. Maybe I pay a lot of attention to the details. If a man lies, he is a liar. If he goes against the rules, he is breaking the rules. Why bother having a Senate(rhetorical)?

Try running a business and letting the government make you give them access to your checking account. Things are just getting out of hand. I feel like I'm working for the government without the benefits.

 

[Stu]

I wanted to say he was lying about what the Senate was doing in his excuse for his appointments against the laws. .

Perhaps you could be a little more specific. What was his statement and how did it qualify as a lie.

 

[just me]

"Despite the fact that the Senate was in legislative session in January, President Obama circumvented the Constitution and the Senate by declaring that the Senate was in recess and moving forward with a "recess appointment" of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three others to the National Labor Relations Board."

by declaring the Senate was in recess
when it clearly was not

I'll be fair to your thread and back away if you wish. I do apologize for visiting your thread in negativity. I respect the fact you and many others think this is great. There are but a few paying for the many, and one more straw on the camel's back makes life even more difficult. Carry on. Thank you for being so kind with your words; it is not commonplace nowadays irl.

 

[Stu]

Confirmation vote by the floor of the Senate on Mr. Cordray was blocked from happening by filibuster by the minority, not on the basis of his character or qualifications but in an attempt to keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from operating. That in itself is a bold piece of obstructionism.

I find it interesting that you accept the introduction of a recess proof legislature, specifically designed to thwart the appointment of a chief of agency as constitutional but consider challenging this novel introduction as unconstitutional.