Watch this excellent rundown of ObamaCare by Krauthammer and see what the results will be within the next year. It’s a little less than 5 minutes but well worth your time:
Krauthammer: The big picture I think is that within the 12 months we’re going to have a raging national debate on something I think no one has talked about and that is a national sales tax.
Yup….as soon as the supposed “savings” and “deficit reductions” of ObamaCare are proven to be false, which will be sooner rather than later, the taxes will come our way. Something we have been warning about for some time and something which will slow our economy down even more and thus will begin the cycle we might very well have to get used to unless we throw as many Socialist Democrats out of office this November.
A sneak peek? Look how well a country with Socialized medicine and the VAT is doing:
Just weeks before the country is due to go to the polls, the Chancellor warned the well off that they must pay their “fair share”.
Such is the scale of public debt, which Mr Darling forecast would rise to £1.4 trillion in the next five years, he was unable to announce substantial tax breaks or giveaways aimed at attracting voters.
Instead, he was forced to reveal a series of measures that would raise money.
And that’s not the worst of it. ObamaCare now makes it more attractive for businesses to just slow their growth, and slow the increase of salaries.
• Businesses with fewer than 25 employees that pay an average of no more than $40,000 will get a tax credit – up to 35 percent of the company’s share of their total health care premium.
• Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected.
• Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance.
But there are potential problems. Case in point: It would be much cheaper for Dick Bus to drop the generous coverage he now offers and take the hit at $750 a head for his 120 workers. The penalty would be $90,000 a year. He’s currently spending $480,000.
Bus would save $390,000, but canceling his plan would force his workers to the health plan exchange and could cost more than they’re paying now. The Senate is considering an increase in the $750 penalty to prevent that scenario.
More on the salary angle:
….small businesses only become eligible for the credits if their average salary remains below $40,000. That means a decision to give raises not only carries the cost of the raise itself to the business, but also a potential loss of that 35% subsidy ObamaCare grants. This will have the overall effect of suppressing salaries and putting experienced workers at a disadvantage in hiring decisions. It also provides an incentive to keep the workforce under 26 people; the 26th hire eliminates that 35% subsidy as well, making it a very expensive new position.
It’s quite sad really. We may all be witnesses to the decline of a great country. We have weathered many threats, many dangers, and many difficult times but this might very well be the decline we have all feared unless we have the fortitude, willpower, and strength to stop it.
I’m just not sure the growth of the “me too” entitlement crowd can be turned around anymore.
See author page
@Aye Chihuahua:
CB’s arguments remind me of…..
Maybe when he’s housebroken his antics will seem a little cuter?
@CBrown:
O Rly?
Sources please.
The Constitution has a very plainly established process by which it can be amended when necessary.
Perhaps you’re unaware that process has been followed a few times since 1787.
Really?
And your statement is based on your extensive knowledge of the thoughts, beliefs, and writings of which Founding Father precisely?
Madison and Franklin were rather plainspoken regarding their beliefs on charity etc. so please enlighten me on what you’re basing your statement on.
The Founders were also very plainspoken on their desire to keep the Fed Gov’t and uninvolved in the life of the People as possible….so tell me what you’re basing your presumptuous assumption on.
You’re not really trying to use the Preamble as a source of governmental power are you?
Are you?
Come on now.
If the Founders intended for the Preamble to be used that way then why did they go on to write the rest of the document?
Yeah, facts are inconvenient for you, eh?
Yonason, you are right in a sense. My first post did read “national sales tax” and I believe later I expanded that to include healthcare. But I guess I would wrong there as well because the title is “Get Ready For The National Sales Tax As ObamaCare Makes It More Attractive For Businesses To Stop Growing.” So I guess I should have written “national sales tax and obamacare” in my first post. My mistake (sarcasm so that this is not misconstrued either).
You stated “Yes, with you, such embellishments are to be forgiven and laughed off, but when someone else does it you flame them. No hypocrisy there, eh, Charley Brown?”
-I corrected my post so I don’t believe this follow-on comment has validity. When did I “flame” anyone? So far I have accused of “telling people to shut up,” entering with an “opening salvo” (which I believe I apologized for being misconstrued), being “hypocritical,” “flaming” people, and in your last paragraph as “nitpicking.”
So, if anyone construed my posts as “flaming” anything I apologize again because that was not my intention. I have never told anyone to shut up here. I explained myself with the so-called “opening salvo.” I’m not sure that I have been hypocritical yet, I could be wrong here. And how am I being a nitpicker again? If this paragraph is considered to be nitpicking it is because you are accusing me of being something I am not.
As far as my “embellishment,” that was not an embellishment of any facts. You are nitpicking my statement “I am pretty sure that the gov has not taken over healthcare, the public option has not passed.” You didn’t like the I put it so I corrected the statement in a later post. Now that I look back at the statement again I realize that, although it was a poor choice of words using “I am pretty sure” the statement overall is correct and I know that all participants here know that the public option did not pass in the health reform bill. So you are nitpicking my use of the english language and not the validity of the statement.
-So on to the CBO reference. Here was my post: “I have read the CBO report on healthcare and read the reports about how much it costs us.” So here is my link: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm. These are the actual numbers from the CBO office.
The reply I received from you was: “Which CBO report did you read? Evidently not the one that says it’ll cost $2 trillion?” In reply to your question again, I read the actual CBO report. The link you provided is an opinion piece and is NOT the CBO report like you are implying. Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-would-cost-over-2-trillion.
And you assume incorrectly, I am not untroubled by the doctors budgets compared to ours. Although if you read my post about the doctor fix this does partially correct that problem, although I am still troubled by that issue. Who said anything about supporting Obama? I have voiced my support of a universal health care system in the US.
“a mass of contradictions?” You are making good points about contradictions in my use of the words but I have not contradicted myself in any presented links or references. If you think so I would like to hear that. But I would much rather hear your discussion of why this bill is so bad or why someone thinks we are instituting a VAT. And so you know I have provided plenty of substance from my information about the “doctor fix,” to healthcare in other countries, to dispelling the cancer survival rates, to showing how our per capita cost of health care does nothing to improve our life expectancy. Is this not substance?
In response to the exit question again…..congress is not involved in the health care bill. Not sure how many times I need to express this. They are currently oversight of the program. I addressed the “forcing people to pay insurance” because I assumed that was what you were referring to. How else are they involved? Drafting the bill? Passing the bill? Telling the IRS to collect a tax? Regulating the insurance companies? Expanding medicaid?
@CBrown:
Wow.
The skull is really thick on this issue, eh?
The exit question again: Can you show me which of the enumerated powers allows Congress to get involved in health care in the fashion this bill does and how, specifically, that Power applies?
More plainly worded for those who appear to need it: Which of the Enumerated Powers allows Congress to a) regulate the insurance industry, b) mandate that the People purchase a consumer product as a condition of lawful citizenship?
The list of Enumerated Powers is rather short….seems you shouldn’t have too much of an issue here.
Medicaid source: Here’s a start: http://www1.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/
Buzzer sounds.
Your source does not say what you think it says.
Care to try again?
For the constitution, I have no idea what those guys thought and it sounds like you have a better grasp on that than I do. So be it. I still stand by my statement that if we were more advanced of a country during that time then the constitution would have covered things such as healthcare. For a comparison at the time our founding fathers believed that the quartering of soldiers was a pretty big deal. Damn right they should have thought so, because of the British troops. However, today this is not as big of an issue- times have changed. Many things important in those days aren’t as important anymore and vice versa issues important today weren’t important then or didn’t exist. Thus they were not addressed. I am not trying to imply that the constitution is not important but rather that our country has advanced. Another example would be slavery, not mentioned in the original draft of the constitution…really? Something as important as slavery? wow. But we as a country saw the errors of our ways and modified the constitution in 1865 to abolish it. Please don’t construe this as an inference by me to change the constitution for healthcare, because I don’t believe that either. Just providing an example.
Under the powers of congress (article 1 section 8):
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…” There’s that little statement again about the general welfare of the country conveniently located under “the power of congress.”
Again Medicaid: The original post I was referred to (
had a statement of:
“Under the house bill if you are below the poverty line you don’t have to buy health insurance. Medicaid will cover you.”
Your reply was: “Medicaid and/or state programs already cover people below the poverty line.”
My reply to that was: “The Medicaid answer is not quite complete. Under the rules of Medicaid those who are under the poverty line (I will just call them the poor) MAY qualify for Medicaid. They also need to be disable(d), blind, pregnant, or fall under a few other qualifiers. So that answer is not complete.”
My point was that Medicaid DOES NOT cover ALL people below the poverty line. Here is a statement from the link I provided: “In general, you should apply for Medicaid if your income is limited and you match one of the descriptions of the Eligibility Groups.” Those eligibility groups on in the list on the left in the website. There are many poor people (below the poverty line) who do not meet medicaid requirements because they are not in the eligibility groups.
BZZZZZZZ. I guess it does say what I thought it said. And I believe I answered the question.
I defer to conservative experts on that.
Because that’s their next objective, as Dr. Krauthammer pointed out in the subject of this thread. He clearly explains the shell game the CBO is playing, and which you are deliberately ignoring. He answers many of your silly questions.
They are spending like drunken sailors, and you believe them that they are going to save you money? Get real.
NONE of the changes they are imposing, or want to impose, will improve anything. They avoid dealing with real problems, and their faux “solutions” will only make the situation worse by compounding existing problems and adding to them.
PS – you aren’t related to “GaffaUK,” are you? Your “reasoning” is similar, and you’re about as accurate, and nearly as annoying.
CBrown, it’s taken me a while to get back to the blog, and I was perusing the latest hot comment thread here. While I’ve not delved into everything, I don’t find your commentary offensive, tho I may disagree with some of your points… which I put below. And forgive the length since I’m addressing your multiple post comments.
I can’t believe that you’d be disagreeing that both Obama and Congress are on a serious prowl for additional revenue. In fact, considering that the health care bill is not going to do anything to mitigate the rising costs of administering health care to patients, it is simply another dressed up revenue grab to bolster the bankrupt Social Security, and attempt to reign in insurance premiums by price fixing (since the HHS will have to approve any premium hikes, and they can’t be “unreasonable”… what ever that means…).
Certainly the national sales tax discussed as the thread topic is probably an obsolete idea. That’s because it’s far more lucrative to install a VAT tax… a ponzi scheme of taxation that is far more profitable for the government, and far more dangerous to the end consumer. Either one is simply another money grab to support out of control spending on domestic welfare programs.
I might agree that the move towards socialism is hardly new, and would actually correct you that it goes back to the New Deal days. However you are using a broad interpretation of “universal healthcare” for your argument.
Health PAC defines universal care quite adequately, and the concept involves both government involvement, and requires the population to pay for it. The details of how that happens varies from system to system, of course. Which brings me to your argument that 68 countries have some form of government provided healthcare via two tier or single payer, and/or mandates involved. And you are correct that these countries are a mixture of socialist/communist and Euro-socialist western nations.
Then, in comment #79, you bring up Germany as the quintessential example of success. What you may wish to ignore is the fiscal repercussions of a health care system you like… it’s fiscal unsustainability. For example Germany’s debt % of GDP is 189.4%, and they are the 14th largest debtor nation. As a matter of fact, of the top 20 biggest debt to GDP nations, the US is the 20th. All but two… the US and Hungary (who is 18th) have some form of single payer/mandate/two tier combo. But they are paying thru the nose for that large social net, combined with the rest of the social welfare packages they offer.
So allow me to give you the top 20 largest economy debtor nations in their order (as of 2009 CIA Factbook data source) – with debt to GDP expressed as the percentage. Then I ask you to think about how health care… which is a large part of any nation’s economy… fits into that equation:
In comment #81, you mention one of the highest costs of medicine is defensive practices and unnecessary tests that medical providers do to cover their litigation butts. However it was not necessary to “remake” the nation’s health care to remove this style of practice. Wisely crafted tort reform would have accomplished that same without adding to the nation’s debt. (although I might say using “wisely crafted” in reference to Congress is an oxymoron…)
The second – expensive ER rates – is also a solution that could have been addressed by providing incentives for private or nonprofits to create 24/7 clinics for the lesser ailments that people race to the ER for. One of the reasons the ER does get overloaded is because the ailment may be immediate and they can’t wait for the long appointment times with doctors, or it happens in off hours when docs are not working… golf course, weekends, whatever. However racing to the ER room for the smaller items… critter bites, flu/fevers, cuts, etc… is using overkill facilities for the injury. But there’s no where else to go. Starting clinics, and being able to buy supplies and equipment in bulk to keep the costs down, would prove to be a job creator for the private market.
But no… they had to “remake” health care.
I think we can all agree that tort reform and insurance across state lines… none of which had to be a taxpayer burden… would have been a good way to start. Also addressing how the costs of supplies and equipment could be minimalized to providers (since tetanus shots shouldn’t be costing $100…. plastic splints shouldn’t be costing $160). The Exchange, were it structured correctly, could have been the vehicle for this. Rather like a Lending Tree portal was for loans. All insurance companies could have provided a base coverage plan, and with add on tiers up from there – and riders that accommodate for each of the individual state mandates.
We don’t know how the Exchange will be structured yet. We just know there will be one, and that at least one participant must offer abortion coverage. There will be perks involved for those that purchase thru the exchange instead of privately. However the rest is just devil in the details we’ll have to wait and see when the regulators/agency finishing mutilating it.
In comment #94, you did the attempt to answer Aye Chi’s question about Congressional authority for this remaking of health care. Forgive me if I point out you did the Obama “run out the clock” trick… lots of text but not really an answer. Your defense was merely that if it’s been going on since Medicare/Social Security days, it’s probably okay. Truthfully, no one’s every taken the legitimacy of either of these programs to the SCOTUS. Until that happens, you’re working under assumptions. No legal challenge, no unConstitutional designation. Think of it this way… if you are robbed, but you don’t file a police report for remedy, does that make your robbery a “legal” or non criminal action?
But healthcare is not structured like Medicare/Social Security… not that I liked either of those programs either. But then, I wasn’t of voting age to put in any dissent back then.
Congress plans on pushing the Commerce Clause to the limits for health care. So much so that they built in their judicial defense on page 318 of the bill, stating they had the right to regulate health care activity because of it’s effects on commerce and the economy.
This has a couple of ugly truths that I’d like you to seriously ponder, CBrown:
1: Mandating citizens purchase a product is not regulating “activity”… rather it is the attempt to regulate “inactivity”. Health insurance policies are not resaleable items… I can’t resale my health plan to you, so it’s also not a tangible product of commerce for resale.
2: If the government can have the unmitigated power to regulate “inactivity” because it affects the economy, what doors does that open, and where is the boundary of their Congressional power? Can they mandate you purchase a car, mandate you report that purchase and maintenance of it on your IRS returns? What other product can they deem for “commerce stability” that you must purchase?
People often forget the Tea Act history when discussing the tea parties. Yes, taxes were involved. But there was yet another reason all that tea was dumped into the Boston Harbor, and that’s because England *mandated* that all tea must be purchased from the Crown’s favored pet trading company. Yessir…. England was mandating that the only way you could purchase tea was thru them.
Last I heard there was over 20 states signed on to some or all of the FL lawsuit. The idea is to consolidate all the arguments to put before the High Court. In one way, my heart is in my throat on this. If SCOTUS decides Congress does have the power to regulate inactivity and mandate citizens purchase products, goods, anything, you can count this nation into a fast flush toilet for spending. They are officially unleashed, and nothing is sacred anymore if Congress deems it important for the economy.
But SCOTUS must examine this. It is their appointed task to act as a check/balance to the other branches. They have avoided this direct question for quite some time… that being “are there any limits to Congressional authority to tax activities/inactivities”. It’s time we got them to weigh in. And I’m hoping they place extreme value on the Constitution and Federalist papers when they write that opinion.
Probably why Obama’s in a rush to appoint a new SCOTUS appointee during recess…. he knows this is coming up.
It’s hard to give a blanket answer since Medicaid is a State administered program and differs from State to State. However I have not seen any states that limit a Medicaid recipient because of exising health conditions… just income threshholds. And that includes those that own homes. They still qualify for Medicaid, and the states generally do not place a lien against the home until after the recipient’s death to collect.
So I have no idea where you are getting the idea that existing health conditions are a prerequisite for Medicaid.
And BTW, the Medicaid enrollment increase is part of the States’ lawsuit… it’s called an unfunded mandate.
Can you show me which of the enumerated powers allows Congress to get involved in health care in the fashion this bill does and how, specifically, that Power applies?
The clause cited quite frequently in regards to the regulation of anything by congress is the commerce clause. In 1824, Gibbons vs Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall states that commerce equals “…all the branches of commercial intercourse, including the manufacture and transportation of goods.” Manufacture is described as the production of all goods and services. At the time there was a lot of talk about steel production, agriculture, and other such industries as being the “goods and services” being referred to.
This a pretty good site for the “reach of congressional power”: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/congpowers.htm. The Gibbons vs Ogden link can be found in the left hand column down the page.
So, you are right that the constitution does not specifically allow congress to regulate much. However, supreme court decisions over the years have expanded the definition of the commerce clause to allow congress to regulate beyond what the constitution states.
A quote I found: Regrettably, but perhaps inevitably, “[t]he ink was not yet dry on the Constitution when its revision began.”[2] Almost immediately, Congress began pressing beyond specifically enumerated powers granted it in Article I. As a result, today, Americans encounter a national government far more expansive than the Framers and men of their generation could ever have imagined.
CBrown, Gibbons is a drop in the SCOTUS bucket on Commerce rulings. Suggest you search all SCOTUS opinions just using the keyword Commerce Clause, and you will find how vast a subject it is. It is so vast that I tried narrowing them down to just those that involved insurance… and was still innudated with opinions.
That said, SCOTUS does not make sweeping generalities. They rule on the specifics of the arguments presented to them in a single case. So there is no one opinion that either validates, or invalidates this bold step by Congress to
regulateapply mandates to purchase a product that cannot be resold on the market, and regulating inactivity…. a thought that I see you haven’t elaborated on.But I do agree, SCOTUS has been “expanding” the definition in that their opinions simply defined that in that particular instance, the authority under the Commerce Clause was present. They have never endeavored to define boundaries. And in this case, they may actually have to address that.
INRE the “general welfare” phrase… a term of much debate as to it’s meaning. I suggest that those who raise the “general welfare” blessing to programs they love would be equally appalled to find that same blanket thinking then crosses into Congressional tyranny. Precedents are important… and this healthcare structure is yet another dangerous precedent this O’admin has taken. (i.e. usurping bankruptcy laws to award unions ownership over the rightful shareholders in first place in the auto companies, assuming the ability to hire/fire CEOs, etc)
I believe your final quote states my case quite well…. that we now have “…a national government far more expanasive than the Framers and mend of their generation could ever have imagined. “ And I’m equally sure they’d be appalled at SCOTUS being so unwilling to reign them in as a respect between the branches.
@CBrown:
In your introductory flaming (YES it was) you said….
Yes, well I think we have already established that you are not, but if you were you would find that…
France sucks
Britain sucks
Canada sucks
EU sucks
And, see my last post for a good video comparing expenditures on health care as a % of GDP for European countries vs USA.
Yeah, they are, and always have been.
Government tells a private industry how to run itself, and makes it 100% accountable to government dictates, and for you that makes it “Less Socialist?!!!” You are totally OTL!
You have now exceeded your annual allotted responses by me, so good bye.
“I defer to conservative experts on that.” I defer to the facts and interpret them on my own. I don’t defer to either conservative or liberal experts unless I review them both and compare.
We haven’t discussed the VAT very extensively. I do agree that people are talking about a VAT in the media and at the fed chairman level. I have not personally heard anything from any other persons in a political position, maybe you have- I’d love to hear about it. I once again point out that the piece you are referring to is his interpretation of the CBO report (I can’t open the video from where I’m at, will have to do that again later). Is it a conservative point of view?
And I’m pretty sure that it is an opinion that “…their next objective…” is a VAT tax. Does he have any factual documentation? Does he show all sides of the argument? I’ve read his answers and he doesn’t divulge all of the information, once again that is why I did my own interpretation of the CBO report.
Spending: Bush did a bailout of 700 billion, right? Where is that money? Obama did a bailout of 700 billion, right? Here is a link for what is happening with that money: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604938.html. So the spending wrapped into that 700 billion dollar package has been reduced to less than 100 billion so far. This obviously does not cover all of the spending that the country has done over the past 3-10 years but it does address a big portion of the spending under the current administration. Do I like excessive spending? No, we agree on another point. Do I believe that healthcare will reduce the deficit like is claimed in the CBO report? Yes, unless there is a factual study that says otherwise.
I have no idea who “GaffaUK” is. I don’t know anybody in this forum as far as I know. Sorry to be annoying if you are reviewing to my rebuttals.
@CBrown:
You’re right on both counts.
You cannot point to a single thing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to do what they succeeded in doing with this health care bill.
Again, the list of Enumerated Powers is very brief and specific. The 10th Amendment further states that Powers not specifically granted to the Fed Gov’t are reserved for the States or the People.
Slavery isn’t mentioned in the Constitution?
Surely you jest cuz if you’re being serious you’re not proving to be a very good representation of the gubmint edukashun system.
See the following:
Article 1, Section 2
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1
Article 4, Section 2
And there you go with the silly “general Welfare” argument again.
The portion you quoted gives Congress the power to “collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” for the “common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
You’ll notice that the portion you quoted does not give Congress the power to tax for the “general Welfare” of the People, but rather the United States.
Of course this entire line of discussion is rather moot since you have already admitted that you “have no idea what those guys [the Framers] thought and it sounds like you have a better grasp on that than I do.”
As to the Medicaid qualifications issue, you’re viewing disability, blindness, pregnancy, etc as limiting factors vis a vis coverage when, in fact, they are factors which allow expanded coverage.
You have yet to cite a source which states that a recipient of Medicaid must specifically be disabled, blind, or pregnant in order to qualify hence the reason that I pointed out that your source doesn’t say what you think it says.
Mata,
“So I have no idea where you are getting the idea that existing health conditions are a prerequisite for Medicaid.”
From the US department of health and human services website (http://www1.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/):
“Medicaid is available only to people with limited income. You must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible for Medicaid. ”
The requirements, or eligibility list, is a link on the left side of that webpage.
I’m gonna try this again, CBRown… Medicaid is a State administered program, and each state has it’s own qualifications for eligibility. Even as the CMS states under it’s Medicaid overview page:
Therefore your assumption that you need to be blind, pregnant, disabled… whatever… is short sighted and somewhat anal in interpretation.
If you want to know your own State’s eligibility, you go to your state’s website and they’ll tell you.
“For the constitution, I have no idea what those guys thought and it sounds like you have a better grasp on that than I do. So be it.”
Point being that if healthcare were an issue back in the days of the framing of the constitution neither of us know what they would have done.
In a separate post I brought up the point about the supreme court decisions and the fact that a previous chief justice defined “commerce” as “…all the branches of commercial intercourse, including the manufacture and transportation of goods.” Agreed that the SCOTUS rulings are very extensive and don’t necessarily cover all things related to commerce.
“Slavery isn’t mentioned in the Constitution?” Not until the 13th amendment like I was pointing out before. References are provided in places but the term, the direct definition of, buying/selling of persons, foced labor, etc. was not. Although indentured service was.
“…silly “general Welfare” argument again.” Yeah, screw our general welfare.
The portion you quoted gives Congress the power to “collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” for the “common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
Agreed that congress does not have the power to tax for the “general welfare.” The healthcare system is a method of regulation. If we choose not to purchase the insurance as regulated by congress then you are in the position to be taxed for failure to pay.
Here is the link on the left of the Department of health and human services site: http://www1.cms.gov/MedicaidEligibility/02_AreYouEligible_.asp#TopOfPage. First sentence “Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these groups, though, certain requirements must be met.” Those requirements are spelled out on that page.
Then you have answered my question. You believe that Congress has the right to tax you for INACTIVITY. OMG…. what a Pandora’s panacea that opens. I didn’t eat a quota of veggies today, so I can be fined because I may become a drag on the health care system. I didn’t take public transportation x amount of days a year, so therefore I can be fined for increasing CO2 emissions. Where does it end, CBrown?
You are, IMHO, thoroughly incorrect as to that authority. And may I add, even despotic in your intent. Nor was that ever a concept envisioned by the framers/founders, who sought to limit the federal powers.
And yes, we do know about health care in the founding days of our country. It was accessible and affordable by all because they paid cash direct to the physicians, and there were no middle men. The physicians worked out their own credit payments, or bargaining credit swaps for their services. There is a reason health care was not mentioned in the Constitution. They did not conceive it was the government’s place to provide health care via mandate.
Now, if you go one more time into the CMS site to state they they are the guideline standard bearers for the state admin programs, I am simply going to have to stop addressing you for your obstinacy. It cannot be more plain by the quoted excerpts I have provided…. that the eligibility requirements are left to the individual states. Therefore the CMS cannot “spell out” requirements for every state on a page. They link to the individual states so you can find out your own state’s requirements.
Nor do you have to meet *every* group requirement. i.e. you can qualify for income, you can qualify for pregnancy, blindness, disabilities, etc. There are auto-enroll conditions that exist. However the specifics of each and every one of these are left to the states because IT’s A STATE ADMINISTERED PROGRAM, AND THE STATES SET THEIR OWN ELEGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS! Can you hear me now?
Mata,
In response to your lengthy post, you have provided a ton of good information and links to digest and it may take me a lot longer to review the information then I will have time for to get back properly on anything. However, a few points I must clear up:
1. I agree that I am using broad interpretations of health care but I was trying to point out that we have had “socialized” healthcare for quite a while. I was using LBJ as my reference because of his institution of the Great society. Back to the new deal days is more appropriate.
2. The 68 countries I made reference to wasn’t a point of saying that they were all socialized, I was pointing out that 64 of them are not considered to have a socialist or communist governments.
3. I did not say that Germany has the “quintessential” system. Someone asked for an example of a successful system and that is the one I provided in response. There are plenty of successful program and plenty that are not successful.
4. The comments from #81 (I’m glad they are numbered here, most sites don’t do that) were not my words they came from an article cited at the bottom of the post. I have agreed that tort reform is a good idea and “wisely crafted” is appropriate there. Although there are certain forms of tort reform at the national level and I think we would be hard-pressed to institute tort reform at a national level. And once again I will say that now that we have a bill I believe that is something that should seriously be considered.
5. Lastly, I don’t personally believe that the administration is in a rush to find a replacement for Stevens, they’ve basically know about his impending retirement since he only hire 1 intern instead of his requisite 4 last fall.
CBrown, you pointed out that Germany was a “successful” system. I have pointed out that Germany is in fiscal jeopardy, of which their health system is a major part of their debt to GDP. I hardly call fiscal ruin “successful”. Which, of course, puts us on opposites sides of the ring INRE a bill that you believe “should seriously be considered”. I’d say that’s a bit late and johnny come lately. They didn’t bother to “seriously considered it” prior to passage.
And of course Obama is in a rush to find a replacement for Stevens. You don’t leave SCOTUS with eight justices for very long. And just as the Dems did with Bush’s nominees, Obama knows getting an appointee thru will not be easy… especially an appointee he is likely to favor.
@MataHarley:
He is far more annoying than GaffaUK, though their styles are similar. Like with the Gaffster, this guy just wants to bicker. He pretends he’s interested in facts, though he’s mighty short on them. (he criticizes us for relying on balanced interpretations of the CBO report, and says they are wrong, but only produces a link to the CBO site without citing specifically WHAT about it “proves” his point(s). i.e. his whole argument is: “I’ve read it and what I say should hold more weight than those whom you know and trust” – an appeal to authority, with him being the alleged authority.) Not very knowledgeable, but very long on opinion, and heavily faith based; he uses the word “believe” about 20 times in all his posts.
I’m done with him. If you want to keep running out his line and playing him, good luck. You’re doing great, but I suspect you will tire of his games soon enough. It seems you once gave me some good advice about taking bait, and I just don’t have the time to chase all the dead meat this guy keeps slinging out. I’ve said what I have to say to him. Let readers come to their own conclusions.
Here’s a good imitation of him
@CBrown, I’m not sure how I missed this truly uninformed comment of yours…
Oh my… gosh darn I hope you’re an old person with short term memory. Bush only used half of the $700 bil. Obama hadn’t even finished his three day victory lap enroute to the coronation when he had already asked Bush to release the second half of the funds to Congress so it was ready to spend on day one of this reign.
Even had Bush spent the entire $700 bil, that doesn’t come close to what Obama and his Congressional cronies have done in a single year with the not so stimulating “stimulus”, the jobs bill, the omnibus and now health care. And point of fact, Congress holds the purse strings. So let’s give you a dose of reality… Here’s an easy Treasury site search for you. You fill in the blanks from Jan 20th of 2001 when Bush took office as the starting point and take it to today.
Then I want you to start doing some math…. I want you to note just how fast that public debt started rising from Jan 2007, when the Dems and their big spending leaders seized the zipper of the purse strings in 2007 to today.
I do believe you will find that bulk of the spending happened once the change of Congressional command happened, and that in a single year Obama’s spent 40% of Bush’s entire eight years of spending.
Now… you want to talk about spending again? Let’s go…
Yonason, on the CBO report. I provided a link TO THE ACTUAL CBO REPORT. You provided a link to an opinion piece about the CBO report. That is pretty clear. I base my own personal opinion on the report itself not on someone else’s opinion about the report. Sorry, but if you don’t like the report that is your prerogative.. I have also provided you with plenty of facts, links, etc. and of course opinion. To express that all I have is opinion not based on fact is not entirely correct. As far as being “done with me,” that is also your prerogative, it’s still a free country, right?…..upon quick review I have provided plenty of information that is backed by references and unfortunately your information is not the same. Two of your last 2 links, “france sucks” and “canada sucks” were blogs and the link for the CBO report you provided me was a conservative review of the CBO report. I have provided links such as health and human services, the actual CBO report website, CIA world fact book, etc. If you have actual studies or non-biased links I would love them. Mata has provided some exceptional information and data, particularly about the gross GDP of countries throughout the world related to healthcare and I appreciate that. Those GDP numbers have already influenced me. Thanks Mata (not trying to be on your side or vice versa, just noting you have provided quality information).
You’re welcome, CBrown. A note to remember about the debt to GDP of other nations. They do not have our military defense budgets, which only enhances their outrageous spending numbers.
If the US chooses to go the route of social healthcare, our military suffers. And thereby, so does the rest of the world who depends upon us for securing freedom.
I don’t want to talk spending. I was providing a link to show that for the 700 billion bailout package that we (being the country) spent last year has mostly been recovered. I was pointing out that the similar 700 billion that preceded the bailout package has not been covered. Good point about using only half. But that still illustrates the point that I provided with the link- that we have recovered nearly 600 billion of the Obama money but there was no way to track (as far as I know) the 350 billion from the Bush administration. Agreed that it wasn’t necessarily Bush alone, congress had a lot to do with that as well. I believe in closing the spending post we were on the same page- I don’t like the spending either. Overall, the spending from the 700 billion bailout package didn’t turn out to be as bad as a lot of people envisioned. As for the stimulus package, that is debatable as for how much that has helped. There are tons of people on both sides of the fence for that one.
CBrown, the TARP spending was “recovered”, but is still used for sundry other reasons for spending… including the auto manuf bailout. That is something that the original legislation never covered as it’s not financial institutions… but they used it to take over auto companies nonetheless.
So “recovered”? By whom? Congress to re’spend? Did you see it put against our public debt? Nope… it’s a revolving “credit account” for Congress to use at will while we.. the taxpayers… pay the interest.
I’m glad to hear you don’t like the spending either. It is in that arena were we conservatives and moderate liberals find our common ground. This affects us both… and affects us negatively. Hence the “tea party movement” that is comprised of conservatives, indies and liberals concerned with the fiscal issues.
@MataHarley:
I.e., their economy and “success” is dependent on America, and if America collapses, they can’t sustain themselves. Pointing to them as models for our behavior is like saying the host should be more like the parasite.
Here’s another link to an article on what O’Bomber has succeeded in “accomplishing”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/obamacares_key_to_the_kingdom.html
with the help of short sighted, and/or malicious Mr. Browns.
Matta, you are, IMO, being entirely too nice to Charley Brown.
Yon, mon ami…. you have heard about the success of catching more flies with honey, yes? You never know…. we can reveal something to CBrown he/she has never thought of. However the reception hall must have an open door. One person at a time. That’s all we can do in the education world.
I might add that I did not point to the more indebted nations as a “model” to emulate. They were models for paths not to follow. Are you and I having a “failure to communicate” week??? LOL
Well, imagine that:
Those darned intrusions of Reality are so blasted inconvenient.
No one could have seen that one coming.
But of course we could “see this coming, Aye Chi. Nothing in this legislation did anything to control the costs of health care providers tot he patient. This is no surprise. Only to the johnny-come-lately news hounds.
Sorry to get back to Medicaid but….Sec. 1902 of the Social Security Act states “A State plan for medical assistance must” This is a pretty lengthy piece but you will find in there that in order for a state to have a medical plan for its residents it must include the boatload of stipulations listed in that section that includes all of the issues I referenced from the Health and Human services website. Each states’ plan must be also be approved by the Health and Human services department. So if the plan doesn’t include those basics, the plan would not be approved.
Link: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1902.htm
Agreed that Medicaid is run at the state level but the states plan must meet the requirements as set forth by the federal guidelines or the state does not receive federal funding.
So once again we are back to the health and human services link along with any additional guidelines the states desire.
Look, CBrown… I don’t know where you are coming from, but I know people on MediCal (California Medicaid), and a few other state versions of Medicaid. I have personal firsthand knowledge of at least four state versions. And I assure you that none of these people are “blind, disabled or pregnant”, and still have the Medicaid benefits.
This is my last warning to you on this particular subject. I will not engage you when I’ve repeatedly, and nicely, tried to point you into the right direction. You speak from places you do not know simply because you parse words instead of reading and do not comprehend. But you still insist upon clinging to your original first misimpression… for whatever reasons. I’m guessing pride – to save face.
From here on out, you portray yourself to be a blithering idiot on this subject. And I’m quite content to let you do that.
I agree with that, I wasn’t disputing your example. I was defending my position that the basic eligibility requirements from the health/human services site were valid……..I have always understood there were other categories and you pointed that out repeatedly. But you seemed to be suggesting that the requirements delineated on the HHS website were not valid. I think many posts ago I pointed out those specific categories + others which I didn’t expound on (I said “fall under a few other qualifiers” which turned out to be more than a few). If you are trying to point out the other categories I don’t believe I ever disagreed with that. The basic guidelines are a starting point and must be included in the plans. And yes a bunch of other categories are out there……in the section of the SSA I provided in the last post. I’m afraid that we missed a connection somewhere. I was pointing out the HHS minimum standards required in state plans and you were trying to point out the boatload of other qualifying stuff. I agree.
@MataHarley:
“something CBrown has never thought of” isn’t the part of the order we are having trouble filling. It’s getting him to admit to and accept it that’s the hard part, all the more so since that is completely out of our hands. He’s lost in the forest, and arguing over details that have nothing to do with the “Big Picture,” as C.K. puts it. I commend you on your patience, and would probably do well to emulate it, …at least a little more than I do.
“However the reception hall must have an open door. One person at a time. That’s all we can do in the education world.”
Some of them won’t even “get it” even after reality smacks them up side the head. Perhaps if they were were to take a good hard look into a mirror…? (he appears to fit the description given between from about 7 minutes to 9 minutes 15 seconds of that tape. And in order to reach those who have been indoctrinated from youth to “think” the way he appears to, then you will have to completely deprogram them. Just speaking nicely and rationally to them won’t work, because they are neither. “rational and moral thought is, to them, a ‘hate crime’. … truth, fact, reason, logic, and evidence are not employed by the modern liberal… “ – They are constitutionally incapable of it, at least not without a painful transition that can only come from within, virtually assuring they won’t initiate it on their own.)
“I might add that I did not point to the more indebted nations as a “model” to emulate.”
No, but THEY invariably Do, which is what I was referring to.
“They were models for paths not to follow.”
Precisely, which is what I was implying. I was attacking his “proof” that Obamacare is “good” because Germany’s is allegedly “good,” and so we should follow their lead.
“Are you and I having a “failure to communicate” week??? LOL”
LOL. It would seem so. I’ll try to work on being clearer in future posts. I’ve lately been trying to be more economical with my verbiage, and may be overdoing it at times. On rereading, I can see where I wasn’t clear enough. Sorry.
No, no and more nos. You are trying to defend the undefensible, CBrown.
@CBrown: Let’s remind you of what you said in your @comment above
Let’s repeat your error, shall we? “They also need to be….”
No… they do not “also need to be…”.
Game, set, match. Period.
@MataHarley:
Well, I’ll say this for ya, if you can’t get through to him, I don’t know who can. (please tell me I didn’t do it again? It’s really funny, if you get it. Well, I think so, anyway.)
YONASON,is anyone ready for NATIONAL TAXE?well i think it will hurt the business,and they will let go employes and it will cause a lot of suffering ,i don’t think the government will even repay its IOU, they will spend it themself,,once a big spender alwys is a big spender ,bye 🙄
@Aye Chihuahua:
A couple of other gems in the lineup this morning:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Back to “Get Ready For the National Sales Tax As Obamacare Makes It More Attractive” Obama’s EO “must have” team is getting ready to do his dirty work. Sigh, all is well in the world of CBrown:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N.htm
CBrown ,
SEPTEMBER 5TH 2011, THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS CRUMBLING MISERABLY IN CANADA,
JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES WHERE TELLING YOU LAST APRIL 2010
THE SAME WILL FAIL, AND IT IS ALREADY BEGINNING AND THE BUSYNESS DON’T LIKE IT,
SO WHEN THE BUSYNESS ARE UNHAPPY, THERE IS A DOWN ECONOMY RIGHT NOW,
SORRY TO HAVE THIS BAD NEWS FOR YOU, YOU BELIEVED IN OBAMA COULD NOT FAIL ,
BUT HE DID, AND THE JOBS ARE SCARCE NOW,
WHAT DID YOU DO TO HURT AMERICA SO MUCH, BY FAILING TO ELECT THE BETTER PEOPLE FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB OF THE FREE WORLD,
HOPE YOU WILL MAKE UP FOR IT IN2012, AND GIVE THE BEAUTIFUL AMERICA THE RIGHT LEADERSHIP SHE DESERVE,
BYE
OLD TROOPER 2
HI, HOPE TO SEE YOU HERE AT FA SOON,
WE HAVE MISS YOUR COMMENTS SINCE LAST MIDDLE OF MAY,
WE ARE CONCERNED AND WE ARE THINKING OF YOU,
BEST TO YOU,
MAY GOD PROTECT THE MILITARY IN THE WAR ZONE,
AND HOLD YOU IN THE PALM OF HIS HAND.
Whenever someone does not have to pay for something out of their own pocket, they are typically not concerned about the cost. They will often be wasteful and unappreciative of it as well. People now who go to the hospital with no insurance are being treated for minor ailments such as the common cold that do not require medical attention. Many people have self induced medical conditions because they refuse to eat a healthier diet or exercise (60% of Americans are overweight/obese). Some smoke, drink too much alcohol, and engage in other reckless, irresponsible behavior. We are going to have a big mess on our hands because there will be no accountability for people to take responsibility for their own health and well being. Very sad. Those of us who do will be paying for everyone else.