Senate approves health care reform bill

[Tulane Skins Fan]

For the first time ever, our Fed Govt is forcing everyone to buy something. The argument is that the Constitution does not allow the Fed Govt to do this. Ergo, it is unconstitutional.

That's a poor argument.

[Buford]

When nothing seems different on election day, I wonder what those against will say has changed.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

LOL! and here I thought you were complaining about the spin! You weave quite a yarn!!

The only people who "stripped" the bill were the same ones who approved the bill. Yes, I told you from day one that the so-called "reforms" were nothing but garbage, yet you debated me everytime. Look closely at who was correct throughout this debate.

Own it libs! It's 100% your mess!!

Its actually 100% the mess of the very moderate blue dog dems, and Lieberman. Not the liberals who wanted a public option, antitrust exemption revocation, etc.

[Larry]

I admit that I've only heard the word "unconstitutional" thrown around and have no idea what the basis is (which means I'm not able to make any comment about whether it is constitutional or not). I would be surprised if I was convinced it was unconstitutional, but if you provide links, I'd be interested in seeing what the hullabaloo is about.

The argument is that they seem to be unable to find a clause in the Constitution which entitles the government to mandate that people spend their own money on something which the government thinks they ought to have.

(Although I could see a counter-argument of "Would you prefer it if the government simply taxed everybody by that amount, and then the government spent the money buying insurance for you?")

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The argument is that they seem to be unable to find a clause in the Constitution which entitles the government to mandate that people spend their own money on something which the government thinks they ought to have.

(Although I could see a counter-argument of "Would you prefer it if the government simply taxed everybody by that amount, and then the government spent the money buying insurance for you?")

Its pretty funny that people are claiming its unconstitutional when they were trying to introduce tort reform at the same time.

[Kilmer17]

No. And your post is neither inciteful nor helpful to the discussion. This is the kind of "loony tunes" stuff that distracts.

One more thing, I'm pretty sure the government could make smoking illegal.

No they couldnt. They could ban the sale of cigarettes, but they cant make it illegal to smoke.

The rest of your post is just the typical deny and deflect mode. How dare anyone question the motives of Obama. I must be racist.

[Kilmer17]

That's a poor argument.

Maybe. But that's the argument Im hearing. The first part is true. The Fed Govt is forcing us to buy something. That's never happened before.

[Hubbs]

Also the complaint on Bush is his healthcare bill of 2006 cost more than this one, and he didn't even attempt to pay for it. 100% of it was left off budget, and was borrowed. Worse it took the form of subsidies to large corporations and didn't ask for any meaningful concessions for those subsidies on the governments part.

You're enough of a political regular that you should know that I have more complaints about Bush than I can count. I just picked the first budgetary one that came to my head. You think I liked Bush's Medicare plan?

In the next ten years as a nation we will spend 35 trillion dollars on healthcare. This bill in it's entireaty accounts for less than 3% of that sum over that period.

You are complaining that with a jury riged litmas test you can see 4-7% of that going to the deficit? Makes no sense....

Fact is Obama said deficite neutral over ten years, and he found a way to get the ultra conservative non partisan CBO to agree he accomplished that.

Look, if you're gonna respond to me saying that using the "first ten years" measurement is moronic because that's not when the bill's spending becomes active by writing several paragraphs about how great the "first ten years" are, well, I'm not really sure what you hope to accomplish.

Valid point, but I think you picked a poor example.

Bush hid the costs of the war by claiming that they were zero.

He (and the Republicans) hid the costs of his tax cuts by pretending that they would only last for a year or two (and then averaging those few years over 10 years). (And then claiming that anybody who didn't vote to make them permanent, later, was "raising taxes".)

I think I may have written that poorly... I wasn't suggesting that this round of shenanigans is better than Bush's was. I pulled out that example because I knew that most of the partisan complaints would have been flip-flopped.

[SnyderShrugged]

Its actually 100% the mess of the very moderate blue dog dems, and Lieberman. Not the liberals who wanted a public option, antitrust exemption revocation, etc.

No sir! It's 100% owned by the left. Cant be debated.

Those so called "blue dogs" are nothing but Libs who pretended to have some conservative values in order to get elected.

The left had it's own congress and President in place, nothing is in place to stop them from passing whatever piece of crap they want to. And thats just what they did.

As I said, Own it Libs, its all yours. You get your Christmas wish of being able to pretend your compatriots in congress did something valuable for America.

Everyone that can use their brains to think knows better.

[twa]

Only all of us can, individually. Its certainly a judgment call.

The point I'm trying to make is that the bill was not written by "evil" people trying to take over your freedom. The bill did get ****ed in the process of trying to help people though.

Also, it does seem like premiums will fall, not rise, for most people. Maybe not everyone, but most. See politifact.com link above.

I admit that I've only heard the word "unconstitutional" thrown around and have no idea what the basis is (which means I'm not able to make any comment about whether it is constitutional or not). I would be surprised if I was convinced it was unconstitutional, but if you provide links, I'd be interested in seeing what the hullabaloo is about.

I don't consider them anymore evil than any politician,but good intentions do not translate into good laws nor policies.
It does result in loss of freedom

Every study I have seen shows my rates increasing,frankly I don't think ya'll are worth it.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/columns/ar...king-in-he.php

Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional

By Richard A. Epstein

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Leg...049.cfm#_ftn49

[Hubbs]

No they couldnt. They could ban the sale of cigarettes, but they cant make it illegal to smoke.

Technically, the government could probably at least attempt to ban all tobacco via the same method it used to create federal marijuana prohibition - claiming that the Interstate Commerce Cause grants the power to regulate against the potential for the price of an illegal substance to change in a neighboring state. Of course, there's a good chance that this would only lead the Supreme Court to strike down federal claims on both substances (and other illegal drugs), which is one of the many reasons it will never happen.

Speaking of the Constitution, Tulane, why are you comparing mandated insurance to tort reform? I don't see how they would be related in a constitutional sense.

[JMS]

You're enough of a political regular that you should know that I have more complaints about Bush than I can count. I just picked the first budgetary one that came to my head. You think I liked Bush's Medicare plan?

I think you were quiet about them. I think all conservatives were quiet when their man was doing the spending. I think the entire cost argument of this healthcare plan is a red herring. Spending 3% of what the nation will spend on the market to reform the market is not high spending.

Not that there aren't other things one can complain about on this bill.

Look, if you're gonna respond to me saying that using the "first ten years" measurement is moronic because that's not when the bill's spending becomes active by writing several paragraphs about how great the "first ten years" are, well, I'm not really sure what you hope to accomplish.

My point is the CBO's budget numbers are very very conservative. They are non partisan, and they don't have a crystal ball. If they can't see 100% of how something will save money, then it costs money. Most medical economic forcasters don't think their numbers are accurate. But that's really why the CBO exists. And the Dems got under that hurdle.

Who knows what will occur in 10 years? but argueing over the possibility that 6% of the healthcare reform bill in it's total is 3% of the Healthcare costs of the country might end up on the deficite if you jurry riged the beginning dates of programs which are stagered doesn't seem like a very big concern to me.

I think I may have written that poorly... I wasn't suggesting that this round of shenanigans is better than Bush's was. I pulled out that example because I knew that most of the partisan complaints would have been flip-flopped.

I don't think the big complaints on Bush's healthcare "reform" was on cost. At least from the left. The big complaint was he asked for and was given an 8% roll back on perscription drug prices in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars worth of subsidies. The drug companies raised perscription drug costs 12% in the year it took the bill to make it's way through congress so the roll back amounted to a 4% increase. More than double the rate of inflation in 2006. That was the big complaint from the left. He didn't get anything, he didn't really ask for anything.

[JMS]

No sir! It's 100% owned by the left. Cant be debated..

Thats silly. This bill is a total compromise. It's got huge concessions ot the insurance companies. I agree it's a 100% democratic owned bill. But it's not the lefts.

[Kilmer17]

Thats silly. This bill is a total compromise. It's got huge concessions ot the insurance companies. I agree it's a 100% democratic owned bill. But it's not the lefts.

A compromise of the far left and the not so far left.

This has ZERO GOP support. The fact that you on the left WANT people to think everyone is involved tells me how much you know its a piece of crap.

[SnyderShrugged]

Thats silly. This bill is a total compromise. It's got huge concessions ot the insurance companies. I agree it's a 100% democratic owned bill. But it's not the lefts.

There is no difference between Dem and Left right now. Lets not keep up the pretense and illusion that the so called "blue dogs" are anything but libs in conservative districts. They showed their true colors for their constituents with this abandoning of their supposed "values" that we now know they never really had to begin with.

This is 100% owned by the left.