Pelosi Mustering The Troops As Kucinich Turns From A No Vote On ObamaCare To A Yes

Loading

First Pelosi says:

“When we bring the bill to the floor, we will have the votes,” Pelosi told reporters yesterday. Leaders plan for the House to vote later this week, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters today.

Then we have this report:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is asking all female Democratic Members to attend a hastily called meeting Wednesday morning but isn’t saying what the meeting is about.

Pelosi’s office sent an e-mail out Tuesday evening requesting that all female Democrats come to the Members-only meeting at 10 a.m.

An aide to one Democratic Member said Pelosi’s office said the topic of the meeting was “to be determined.”

The meeting comes as Democratic leaders enter the final stretch of health care reform — and as they scramble to address fractures in their Caucus over abortion and immigration provisions in the bill.

And finally:

Five more House Democrats said Tuesday that they will vote against Senate health care legislation, which puts opponents of reform just 11 votes shy of the 216 needed to prevent President Obama from scoring a major victory on his top domestic priority…

A total of 27 House Democrats, including nine who supported the House plan in November, have indicated that they would join a unified Republican caucus in opposing the Senate plan, which passed in that chamber December 24 with the minimum required 60 votes…

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House plan in November, 17 have indicated that they will vote against the Senate plan as written, 11 remain uncommitted, and nine did not return repeated calls for comment.

One member, Parker Griffith of Alabama, became a Republican in December. An additional member, Rep. Eric Massa of New York, resigned his seat last week.

Wonder what that all female meeting is about eh?

Oh, and Kucinich has turned:

Fineman on msnbc: kucinich is a yes

And he’s calling a press conference to announce it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
45 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I could make some rude comment about what Pelosi intends to tell the Females Only members meeting but I won’t.

If true, the public option is back …. it will be hidden in there somewhere, count on it. I bet NObama pointed it out on his loaned airplane ride.

Just remember, Democrats made easy, they lie cheat and steal.

Well…

There’s always pointing and laughing at them.

@Patvann: Good find. I especially liked the bit starting at the 32 second mark “Part of this process was having conversations with Republicans for months.”

Does Obama really think we are that stupid?

Who: Female democrat house members only

What: Botox Party

Where: Nan’s Office

When: 10am St. Paddy’s Day

How: Rahm with the Botox needle and green Botox for the occassion

Yea, . We all know it’s impossible for Republicans to have conversations. All they know how to do is block.

Hey Dennis, every Benedict has his day in the sun. Enjoy it while you can.

I wonder what the average IQ in the latest Obama -care teleprompter seance was, 3-5? Are they sitting by the phone now waiting for their 3000% insurance reduction?

Stalin had a name for his Stalin voters in his Democracy, he called them useful idiots. Obama voters, same useful idiots. Kook-cinich fits right in.

The plane ride was to show Kooks how the public option is back in the bill. Useful idiots.

My, you guys are bitter! I just saw a stat that the number of uninsured people in California increased by 25%. I also heard some wingnut at the teabagger rally yesterday (attendance: 600,000 . . . er, sorry, 300) say “Obamacare will force people who do not have OR NEED HEALTH INSURANCE to buy it.” This, my friends, is insanity and the kind of dumb argument that proves the exact opposite of what the speaker is trying to say.

First off, in this day and age of $250,000 hospital bills for care after an auto accident, the $36,000 broken leg, or the $600,000 premature baby, unless you have seven figures at your ready disposal, you need health insurance. And even if you think you have the money . . . do you really? You would think Bernie Madoff and that Stanford crook and Dennis Kozlowski and the late Ken Lay would not have “needed” health insurance. After all, they were all worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Ditto the formed Bear Stearns giga-millionaires before that firm went under. But, in fact, every one of them had fortunes built on air and, in the end, would have needed a health insurance company to pay for dialysis care or prostate cancer treatments or to repair a broken hip after a fall playing tennis. Because if those former millionaires who did not “need” health insurance now need care, guess who pays for it? Yes, you and me!

No, cons, even if you are a health 20 year old, you need health insurance. Because no one plans on having a leg broken in a car accident, do they? Which is why you have auto insurance even if you are a “good driver.” Ditto health insurance: you simply don’t know.

Lastly, the idea of not allowing illegals to buy insurance is, in a word, insane. Again, if they don’t have insurance and break a leg, they will still get care in our hospitals . . . it just won’t be paid for at all. So cover everyone, charge a small fee and be done with it.

Heh, House Dems want Obama’s trip delayed again, may hold vote over until April 4th, after Easter vacay. Sounds like they don’t have the votes.

Ouch!

“For the first time in eight months, the president is finally getting his hands dirty, and now he’s going to hop on the plane? Please,” said a Democratic congressman, requesting anonymity.

Double heh!

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0310/should_he_stay_or_go_f51c6d1f-ec07-49d7-9453-65ef646ec294.html

That CBO score they’ve been waiting for, they have it, but, it’s SECRET, shhhhh. The CBO numbers aren’t working out for them either:

Rank-and-file Democrats did not talk about the details, but said that the CBO scores had come up short. “They were less than expected” in terms of deficit reduction, said Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, who plans to vote for the bill.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/16/dems-still-dont-have-the-cbo-s

@BRob said: “I just saw a stat that the number of uninsured people in California increased by 25% ”

Really?

Did George Soros put out another press release?

Got a link to back this one up or is it just another of your phony numbers?

Oh, wait a minute… maybe there was an influx of illegal aliens overnight?

@BRob:

the idea of not allowing illegals to buy insurance is, in a word, insane. Again, if they don’t have insurance and break a leg, they will still get care in our hospitals . . . it just won’t be paid for at all.

You know what’s insane? Providing illegals with another incentive for coming and staying here, illegally.

even if you are a health 20 year old, you need health insurance. Because no one plans on having a leg broken in a car accident, do they? Which is why you have auto insurance even if you are a “good driver.” Ditto health insurance: you simply don’t know.

There’s a flawed analogy in there somewhere between health insurance and auto, BRob. What is it?

Mike

I’m not sure about the Cali uninsured numbers he is using, but I do know that he got his number for the TEA party rally yesterday from the DNC. Now, I don’t know how many were there, and neither does he, but I expect it was somewhere between the numbers told by the rally organizers and what the DNC is putting out there. What it does show is where he gets his “facts” from.

@bill-tb:

The plane ride was to show Kooks how the public option is back in the bill. Useful idiots

Was wondering what was promised on that plane trip. Kucinich turns out to be a pretty cheap date, a quick ride on AF1, and comes back changing his tune. Wonder if he’s a member of the “Mile High Club” now? Or if there was a cabinet position offered?

Sarge

Wordsmith

There is a flawed analogy in there, however, I wouldn’t hold my breath til BRob recognizes it. I have come to the conclusion that he wants a cradle to grave, entitlement giving government in the best imitation of the old Soviet Union he can dream of. I think that he really is upset that he was born in the US and not back in Stalin’s heyday over in Russia and will support whoever will remake our country into the USSA the soonest.

Barry and Nancy have used all their charm and some still remain resistant, “We have piped for you and you have not danced; we have mourned to you and you have not wept”.

Mike —

I don’t get yuour obsession with George Soros. You have a thing for older men or something?

UCLA did the study. And I said it was a 25% increase. They just corrected their press release. It was actually a 28% increase.

http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=50

These are the reasons health care reform should happen. Because, when all is said and done, we cannot have a system where uncompensated care is foisted on hospitals. It makes no sense, it puts a financial burden on the hospitals that is then spread out to the rest of us in more expensive care, which is passed on to the insurance companies through higher charges, which gets back to our employers througher higher premiums.

Wordsmith —

Reread what I wrote. You have auto insurance because you don’t know when you might have an accident and need to pay for the $40,000 car you totaled and the expenses of the other driver you hit. Yeah, if you were independently wealthy, MAYBE you could pay it out of pocket. But maybe you can’t. Same thing with health insurance, only more so. Because no one plans on having an operable brain tumor. And the $300,000 bill for surgery and hospitalization . . . most people don’t have that kind of cash lying around, event he very wealthy. So if you think there is a fallacy in the analogy, please explain what it is.

And on the illegals and health insurance: you responded to an actual real live problem with a talking point. So it’s an incentive for people to come and stay if we permit them to buy health insurance? Uh . . .how? How does that work, exactly?

And let’s consider the alternative. Pedro is illegal, has two kids and a wife. But you DON’T want him to buy into the insurance pool? How are we as a society better off if he does NOT have insurance for his own self and his family? So if his kid breaks a leg, it gets set at the hospital and because you cons had your way, that is $23,000 in uncompensated care? That’s what you WANT to have happen? You need to turn off your ideological sensor and use some common sense: the more people with health insurance coverage, the better off we all are . . . whether its public plan, or private. Doesn’t matter to me — let’s just get everyone covered, the way they are in all our comparator industrialized nations.

Well, given what I heard on the local radio today, Steve Driehaus (OH #1) sure sounded like he was a yes. Interviewed by Bill Cunningham. I only caught the last 5 minutes of it, but I’d be stunned if he voted again the bill, even though he’s said previously that he had not made a decision. If that is the case, his derrerier and that congressional seat he occupies may well part company come November.

Buying insurance is about how we choose to deal with risk. Everyone of us has various risks every day, some of which we insure for, and some of which we simply cross our fingers on. Those who are young and healthy often do not buy health insurance; it has always been this way. The need for health insurance is usually recognized in middle age. That is just the way the mind works.

What is wrong with the proposed Health Care proposal before congress is the idea that everyone be compelled to buy health insurance (among other things wrong with this bill). There is no basis in the Constitution for the government to ever compel Americans to buy anything. We should always be free to not buy; we are free Americans. No one, rich, poor, young, old, or otherwise, should ever be compelled by the government to buy anything.

There are countless other things wrong with this bill as well, such as the way it will force insurance companies to issue polices to uninsurable people (pre-existing conditions); that is not insurance, this is simply liability distribution to the whole group.

Probably worst of all is the way it will take control of medical care, the practice of medicine, determining who gets what care, from what doctors, and when. Our system will be no better than the miserable British NHS where patients wait many months to years for MRIs, CAT scans, and surgeries. Many drugs are simply not allowed; they are “too expensive,” and patients are simply encouraged to die soon. That is where we are headed with this “benevolent socialized medicine.”

@BRob: Gee, a study funded by a group whose sole purpose is to advocate for “affordable, quality health care for underserved individuals and communities, ” and you think those numbers mean something?

If you had spent as much time studying statistical analysis in public policy as I have you would know better.

But then, you’re only a parrot for George Soros so I can’t expect much.

Mike —

There is an old trial lawyers’ saying: “If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, attack your opponant.”

You criticize the source. You imply bias. OK. So show me what is actually erroneous about the numbers. Show me some data from con sources that show a lower number, or show the number of uninsured decreasing during the recession. Because unless and until you can show how that supposed bias influences the data, you are simply dodging the facts (i.e., the increase in uninsured) by criticizing the source. Weak sauce, that.

We know that there is nothing counterintuitive about the concept that the number of uninsured people would rise during a recession. Then there is this:

“Nearly two million Californians lost their health insurance during 2008 and 2009 – years characterized by a deep recession and mass layoffs – bringing the total number of uninsured in the state to more than 8 million, according to this policy brief that draws upon both 2009 and adjusted 2007 data.”

California has about 33 million people, if I recall correctly. But, you cons say “That’s one of those liberal Blue states.” So lets see what the numbers are in . . . oh, let’s take Red as a fire truck Texas:

“State with most uninsured residents: Texas”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33006860/ns/health-health_care/

Up to 40% of the residents in one congressional district have no health insurance.

I understand that you cons simply believe this is not a problem. But as I outlined above, that uninsured care eventually becomes an unpaid hospital bill. You may have wanted to pay that $36,000 broken ankle with pins and screws, but if you had $36,000 in cash laying around, you would have bought the insurance in the first place. So the bill is unpaid and the hospital passes it on to the next customer who has insurance.

This is, of course, why the more people think about the system, the more they realize we need reform. The Obama stimulus plan’s COBRA subsidies has probably saved us billions of dollars from uninsured medical expenses because it made it much cheaper for laid off workers to maintain their health care coverages even if they lost their job. Alas, if you cons had had your way, that would not have passed, either. Sometimes, though, we just get lucky . . . .

Dr. D —

Are you a physician? If so, you know the real problem with sloughing off the issue of the uninsured 22 year old female and her uninsured 24 year old brother. It’s not whether they are right or wrong in thinking they don’t need insurance. It’s what happens if she gets pregnant and is uninsured, for example, or he gets in a car crash and is hospitalized for a week and a half. Both of them will get health care. But neither of them will have the cash to pay their bill. It will get passed on to those who do have insurance, or the hospital will eat it and hope its fundraising or county money will close the gap.

How is this a better outcome for society as a whole than “compelling” them to get some insurance so the rest of us don’t get stuck with the whole bill? You are basically approving of a system where those two slackers get to save “their hard earned money” by not buying insurance, but they the costs are socialized on the rest of us! How does this make any sense? You advocate continuing what is a horrible free rider problem.

As long as we have the anti-dumping laws on the books, hospitals will have to treat people who show up, regardless whether they have insurance. If you want hospitals to be able to turn away anyone who cannot show $x worth of insurance coverage, be my gues, cons! Run your next campaign on that platform! But if you maintain the care mandate, you need to address and alleviate the problems created by those mandates and those expectations.

Perhaps the answer is to do what they do in China, which is, if you ain’t got the cash, you just don’t get served. Sub-Saharan Africa has the same system. But we are the largest economy in the world with very high per capita incomes. Can’t we have a better system than a Third World country, especially given what our comparators in France and Germany and Britain have? I say yes.

In addition to the fact that all our comparators have universal health care systems, and their employers are not expected to provide that, I also need to remind you that there was a REASON we had the Medicare and Medicaid and military hospitals and VA hospitals and federal clinics in the first place — there were horrid gaps in our system that led to people needlessly suffering and dying. You ignore history if you pine for the “good old days” back when there was no socialized medicine; because the good old days, in fact, sucked. Which is why we made the change in the first place and which is why all the other industrialized countries have universal health care.

Turning to the claim that the health care bill is unconstitutional, no one has presented an argument based in the text of the Constitution or any case precedents supporting such a claim. I have pointed this out time and again: the Constitution does not stand for what you cons seem to think it does; which is why no one can point to any clause of the Constitution that is offended by Obamacare.

Lastly, when the US health care stats are better than Britain’s, we can look down our nose at their socialist system. But we are not there yet, not even close. Cons always seem to want to ignore this fact, but I don’t think it is a fact lost on the American people.

Good view on why this is an inside coup de tat, in the same manner as the Bolshevik Revolution was.

http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2010/03/revolution-or-coup-detat.html

No shots fired, just bunch of elitist’s using the poor as a lever to gain power.

A reminder in that Hitler was elected, as well, using similar methodology.

I’m going to make this a separate comment, because it is as much or more important to read than the one above.

Please take the time to read the thoughts of the thinkers of our age.

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/reflections-on-the-revolution-in-america/?singlepage=true

Patvann

Thank you! I’d seen the Hanson piece but not the other.

@BRob: Blather on all you want. It won’t change the fact that you are playing fast and loose with the numbers.

I have no doubt the number of uninsured has increased dramatically SINCE OBAMBA TOOK OFFICE AND LEFT MILLIONS MORE WITHOUT JOBS.

But the solution to that problem is not to put more people out of work by passing a bad bill.

There is no argument you can make here that has the slightest credibility. You’re flawed talking points have been debunked time and time and time again.

I’m not even going to waste any more time on a socialist clown like you.

BRob

No, I am not a physician.

For your two hypothetical twenty-somethings that need medical care, let me offer two comments:

1) Not all medical care has to be paid by insurance. My first child was born in a hospital with no insurance involved at all. I and my family paid the full bill, and we were not broken by the bill. I know that cost have risen since that time (that was 43 years ago), but my point is that insurance is not a requirement for all medical care.

2) For people who must leave the hospital unable to pay their bill, there should a judgment enter against them that will follow them wherever they go such that their future earning can be garnished until it is paid. In the short term, this does mean that the hospital does have to pick up the slack. If pursued, this could lead to many more collections after a time. I am unaware of this being done, but I think it certainly should be, and these folks should be ridden hard until they pay.

You seem to be unclear on the idea that the Constitution states very clearly the LIMITED power of the federal government. It states that all powers not expressly given to the feds is reserved to the states and to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about compelling the people to buy anything at all. And please don’t try to stretch the “general welfare” that far; you will tear the fabric!

Mike’s America,

” I am not going to waste anymore time on a socialist clown like you.”

Thank you

He’s just trying as hard as his little mind can to get rise out of you. Ignore the little fellow and he will go back to his basement hideout and come out when Mom is frying bacon. Or of course, when he is working on another ‘lawsuit’.

Tom in CA

@Tom in CA: You’re right Tom. He’s what I call a “time waster.” He’s neither interested nor capable of having an honest discussion of these important issues so I swat the lies away in short order and move on to doing something more productive.

@BRob #17:

Wordsmith –

Reread what I wrote. You have auto insurance because you don’t know when you might have an accident and need to pay for the $40,000 car you totaled and the expenses of the other driver you hit. Yeah, if you were independently wealthy, MAYBE you could pay it out of pocket. But maybe you can’t. Same thing with health insurance, only more so. Because no one plans on having an operable brain tumor. And the $300,000 bill for surgery and hospitalization . . . most people don’t have that kind of cash lying around, event he very wealthy. So if you think there is a fallacy in the analogy, please explain what it is.

Driving is a privilege. You can CHOOSE to own or not to own an automobile. Same thing can’t be said about your health.

And on the illegals and health insurance: you responded to an actual real live problem with a talking point. So it’s an incentive for people to come and stay if we permit them to buy health insurance? Uh . . .how? How does that work, exactly?

Sorry for the confusion. I should have snipped my earlier blockquote down to this:

Again, if they don’t have insurance and break a leg, they will still get care in our hospitals . . . it just won’t be paid for at all.

That’s what irks. The issue for me isn’t about whether or not they should be allowed/required to buy health insurance but that they are even here at all.

@Dr.D:

1) Not all medical care has to be paid by insurance. My first child was born in a hospital with no insurance involved at all. I and my family paid the full bill, and we were not broken by the bill. I know that cost have risen since that time (that was 43 years ago), but my point is that insurance is not a requirement for all medical care.

My parents were farmers in Wisconsin, had two farms and three children at the time, everything was going well for their young family. My brother and father came down with polio, my dad recovered, my brother didn’t. They lost the farms to the bank, we went to live with the grandparents, my dad went to Illinois and found work, eventually brought the rest of us down, we lived in a two bedroom apt. with no hot water for six years. He paid every dime of the medical bills, paid every dime of another asthmatic brother’s medical bills out of pocket, and still saved to build our home. He was still paying after we moved, but the doctors and the hospital didn’t force him to pay a set amount, they trusted him and accepted what he could pay, they understood he was earnestly trying to pay off that debt.

People can and do recover from catastrophes that visit their lives. Back then government wasn’t so entrenched in healthcare or the insurance industry, hospitals and doctors were patient and worked with you.

When I had my first daughter we were also paying out of pocket for each prenatal visit, his work insurance was going to pay for the birth and hospitalization. When my husband went into the Army and the benefits kicked in, the doctor raised his fee per visit by $10.00 because it was then being picked up by the government. $10.00 was quite a jump back then, but, he knew he could get it. We saw what he did when we got our copy of the billing records after she was born. Change you can believe in when government gets involved.

Mike —

I showed you a number and in response you show . . . b.s. That is the problem with you cons today: you are long on talk and very short on facts or solutions. I would LOVE IT if you would address the problem I highlighted instead you blather on about George Soros or “socialism.”

Dr. D. —

Hospitals do those kinds of collections all the time. The problem, of course, is what are the odds of ever collecting on a $100,000 bill run up by someone who could not swing the $200 per month for health insurance? Slim and none. Yeah, that 20 year old maintains what you would call “freedom from government interference” and he is “free” to not have insurance; but the rest of us who are insured pay for it. I will not even get into the comparative cost of having insured prenatal care for the pregnant woman throughout the pregnancy, as opposed to her showing up in labor where they have to do $30,000 in tests to make sure her baby is OK . . . because she had no care because she had no doctor because she had no insurance.

I had a client, a public school district, that self insured using a service company to set reserves. In one year, they had two heart attacks and a premature baby hit their experience. That was more than $1 million right there. And, no, the school teacher with the premie did not have the $450,000 to pay her kids bill — that is what they cost now, an amount that is simply unfathomable. It is simply RARELY possible for people to have in their saving s the money to pay for a delivery. Especially seeing as you never know what care the baby and mom might need.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, we are forced to buy things all the time that we may not want or think we need. There are tax protesters who refuse to pay any taxes because they think it supports ZOG. But those kinds of arguments have nothing to do with what is actually in the Constitution. Likewise, you might personally think it is somehow improper or unfair for government to force you to buy insurance so that your unpaid bills are not a burden on society or on the non-profit or for profit hospital that is forced to provide medical care to your “unconscious and unable to provide proof of insurance” self when you are wheeled into a hospital bleeding from a wound. But as I see it, for the benefit of laws guaranteeing your unconscious body some needed health care, it is not “wrong” of government to require you to take some of the financial burden before you need that care.

There is a free lunch mentality on the right where this health insurance issue is concerned; I find it rather disturbing. If conservatives were arguing for a true “free market” with no hospital mandates to provide care to all comers, then I would agree that no one should be “forced” to insure their own health or the health of their children. If Johnny dies because Dad chose not to buy insurance, “so be it” and “sucks to be Johnny” would be the result under that regime. But you are arguing to continue a system where Johnny gets the care on my dime, but Johnny’s dad still gets to go without insurance and rail against “government interference in our freedoms.” This makes no sense and it is bankrupting hospitals.

Missy —

Great story. Only now make that medical care cost $373,000 and tell me how anyone with a farmer’s wage would be able to pay that over time. You can’t put a 1958 solution to a 2010 problem. And wishing that things cost what they used to cost “before government interference” doesn’t solve the problem, either. Indeed, the reason we have Medicare ad Medicaid is because, back in the 1950s, there were a lot of people who were not getting the care that your family luckily got.

Wordsmith —

I get that you are irked that illegals are here. That anger does nothing to solve the problem that I just outlined, which is whether Pedro gets to buy insurance for his family, or whether we will have a law that, stupidly, forces him to go butt naked on possible medical expenses. And you miss the point about auto insurance. Forget the part about whether you “need” to drive. Focus on the risk assessment part. You may not think you need car insurance because you are a good driver; but you do need it. Likewise, everyone needs health insurance, even if they are the picture of health.

@BRob:

That anger does nothing to solve the problem that I just outlined,

True, but sometimes it’s nice to just vent.

And you miss the point about auto insurance. Forget the part about whether you “need” to drive. Focus on the risk assessment part. You may not think you need car insurance because you are a good driver; but you do need it. Likewise, everyone needs health insurance, even if they are the picture of health.

Actually, I think you’re missing my point. I get yours. But I see the comparison between needing auto insurance and needing health insurance to still be flawed, because saying “one is a requirement, therefore why not the other?” sidesteps the difference: That you only “need” auto insurance if you happen to drive- not whether or not you think you’re a good driver and can skate by without it. We are born with our health- whatever state that may be in- but we aren’t born with cars to drive.

@BRob: You’re a time waster with ZERO CREDIBILITY.

I did address the issue you raised and you simply ignored it. The problem of an increase in those without insurance can be easily addressed by providing those Americans WITH JOBS. Instead, Obama has wasted over a year talking about a government takeover of health care.

If you really cared about the increase in uninsured you would address the root problem.

But obviously your George Soros talking points are all you know and you do not possess the critical thinking skills to move beyond them.

You are a parrot!

Since you obviously did not get the message from my Wizard of Oz audio clip above this one will make it more clear for your small mind:

B-Rob the Liar… Waster of time… Loser of proportions epic

Nothing further to say…. just love the moniker that B-Rob has earned.

@B-rob “Turning to the claim that the health care bill is unconstitutional, no one has presented an argument based in the text of the Constitution or any case precedents supporting such a claim.”

Because a copy of the bill has not been posted for review.

However, from previous versions, I can state this: The federal governmnet cannot regulate health insurance companies that do not do business across state lines. So, if the insurance companies are collecting premiums in a single state from residents in that single state, they are protected by the Tenth Amendment as they are currently regulated by the states. 10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ” Which means that forcing companies to accpet pre-existing conditions will not be enforcable.

9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The government is going to require us to buy health insurance or levy a fine against us? I think not.

http://www.scottfactor.com

@BRob: You have auto insurance because you don’t know when you might have an accident and need to pay for the $40,000 car you totaled and the expenses of the other driver you hit.

Now billy bob… even I have hard time believing you are this stupid, so I’m going to have to assume you are spinning facts to justify the unjustifiable.

1: You only *have* to have liability insurance to protect others if you own a car and plan to drive it. Don’t want to comply? Find alternative transporatation. Strike one for you.

2: You only *have* to have comprehensive and collision if there is a lienholder on your car. That is the company’s mandate for the loan to protect their investment. No lienholder? You can drop your comprehensive and collision by choice. That’s your second strike.

3: Auto insurance mandates for liability (not comp or collision) are state mandates… not a federal mandate. Why? Out of their constitutional jurisdiction. Three strikes, you’re out.

more billy bob gems: Turning to the claim that the health care bill is unconstitutional, no one has presented an argument based in the text of the Constitution or any case precedents supporting such a claim.

First of all, you can’t challenge a law that hasn’t been passed. duh….

Secondly, as I pointed out in my Dec 26th post, your premature glee will be met with sundry lawsuits that have been in preparation for the moment.

Added to that, three states have already passed bills that declares a federal mandate, or other details to be illegal in their states, and 35 more have bills introduced in their State legislatures. Would you like the source for that? It your DLCC.

Click here to see full size.

Mata —

As I said, no one has presented a plausible argument. Here is your problem, as pretty much outlined in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History_and_case_law

The Tenth Amendment, in the last 200 odd years, has been used to strike down VERY FEW STATUTES. In fact, as I sat there, I could not even think of one statute that went by the wayside due to the Tenth Amendment. But per wikipedia, the Brady Bill back in the early 90s was declared unconstitutional

See, these are your problems . . . which I keep pointing out but you cons refuse to acknowledge:

a) The Obamacare bill is really alterations to several statutes and adding a few new statutes. So

b) Even if one or two of the statutes are found to be unconsitutional, that would not undo the others.

c) There is VERY LITTLE CASE LAW if any actually supporting the Tenth Amendment theory. Which is why you don’t see any cons actually offering any precedents supporting the theory that “government cannot get involved in health care.” They just say “Tenth Amendment.” But my next question would be “OK. What about it? What court has ever relied on the Tenth Amendment to strike down a general welfare statute rooted in the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause, and the Due Process Clause?” You will then see blank stares as the cons repeat the same thing again, as if that would answer the question.

d) All statutes are presumed to be Constitutional, so there is a very high bar to get one invalidated per se. As applied to a particular situation? Possibly a better argument. But then you run into the problem that . . .

e) You still need to establish standing, meaning the individual statute actually harms you in some way, thus establishing the right to sue.

f) I really don’t give a sh*t if some Red State has passed a bill “nullifying” Obamacare before the fact; the Supremacy Clause means that such a statute is better used as toilet paper. Indeed, the fact that Obamacare will come after passage goes to prove that the Feds intentionally chose to preempt those wingnut statutes. And you don’t think that the Obamacare bill won’t have some “this statute supercedes” language in it? Yes, it will.

In short, you still don’t have an answer. But don’t feel bad. None of the Red State AGs who are itching to sue have come up with a plausible theory, either. In fact, I can hear the federal court judge now:

Judge: “Mr. AG, according to the intervenors, under this statutory scheme, approximately 56,000 citizens of your state now have health insurance where they did not have it before. So how, exactly, has your state been harmed by this statute?”

Unless and until you can show how Obamacare actually injures you, you simply don’t have a case. And that is the problem with opposing the mandate: how do you show that you are injured by being required to insure your own health, rather than have society as a whole be left responsible for the health care you would receive if your uninsured a$$ gets hit by a minivan delivering pizzas?

Mata —

Your ignorance of the law is showing . . . again.

I’ll first dispense with your claim (naked and baseless) that auto insurance is “not a federal mandate. Why? Out of their constitutional jurisdiction.” This is simply wrong. There is no federal mandate for auto insurance because they have CHOSEN NOT TO exercise responsibility under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause to creat a uniform system of liability insurance requirements. They could even have put the mandate on states as part of their Spending Clause authority: “Want highway money? Pass a statute requiring liability insurance for all drivers. Don’t want to do that? Fine . . you must not need the highway money.” They, of course, could have followed either course if they wanted to. But for policy reasons they have not. It has nothing to do with them not having “constitutional jurisdiction” (a phrase I have NEVER HEARD in my years of practicing law).

As to auto insurance: you are missing my point. Ignore the part about it being mandated. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the personal NEED to have insurance, for your own risk management reasons. Even if there was no mandate, 99% of people would still NEED auto insurance because they don’t have the cash lying around to pay for a car they totalled and the injuries sustained by the other driver. The mandates come from the fact that states found that people drove without insurance, injured people, and could not pay the damages.

People, likewise, NEED health insurance, because very few people have the $200,000 in a checking account to pay for their treatment from an auto accident, for example. And why are we even discussing whether we need a mandate? Because of the number of people who get injured, get $200,000 worth of medical care, then can’t pay the bill, leaving it for the hospital to pass on to you, me, and Medicare.

Turn off your legalistic “mandates are unconstitutional” blinders. I am talking about the actual, real life problems that hospitals are faced with today, and the problems people have who cannot pay that $200,000 bill even if they wanted to. And I am talking about the people facing a $200,000 bill because they were able to pay for their health insurance when it was $4,000 to cover their family, but a 25% increase that next year priced them out of the market. Wouldn’t it have been better for everyone if they could still get that $4,000 coverage? You betcha!

Nasty, vile commented deleted!

@BRob: Your ignorance of the law is showing . . . again.

I’ll first dispense with your claim (naked and baseless) that auto insurance is “not a federal mandate. Why? Out of their constitutional jurisdiction.” This is simply wrong. There is no federal mandate for auto insurance because they have CHOSEN NOT TO exercise responsibility under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause to creat a uniform system of liability insurance requirements.

How rich to get a lesson from a 2nd rate paralegal, who tends to rewrite SCOTUS opinions to suit his talking points agenda. So let’s give you a little current events lesson, billy bob.

Ever heard of the GOP Congress passed law, the Real ID act of 2005? Probably not. It was an attempt at a national ID by standardizing all state drivers licenses requirements. Note… they knew very well that states have the right to regulate their own road rules requirements, so they did not attempt to usurp the state DMVs power. Instead, they chose an indirect route by trying to create minimal standards. Why? Out side of their federal powers.

Even the ACLU was opposed to such, because it created a nationwide database with too much privacy information contained. And since you seem to favor Wiki education for your needs, half of the states have opted out with legislation or resolutions as of Oct 2009. Very much the same thing they are doing today with O’healthcare. Why? 10th Amendment. Feds operating outside their Constitutional jurisdiction and powers.

Considering that Janet Napolitano was an opponent of this legislation, it’s enforcement is unlikely and there have already been several attempts to introduce legislation to repeal or amend that that Act

Speaking of a phrase you seem to be unable to interpret, Constitutional jurisdiction, may I remember you of the meaning of jurisdiction?

1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

If I tell you something is outside of the federal Congressional’s jurisdiction via the Constitution, they have no authority to legislate or govern is those arenas.

This takes care of two of your legal challenged propaganda. Not only has there been an attempt to create what is tandamount to a “national drivers license”, that attempt has been thwarted by states rights, passing legislation that says “no way, Jose”.

As to auto insurance: you are missing my point. Ignore the part about it being mandated. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the personal NEED to have insurance, for your own risk management reasons. Even if there was no mandate, 99% of people would still NEED auto insurance because they don’t have the cash lying around to pay for a car they totalled and the injuries sustained by the other driver. The mandates come from the fact that states found that people drove without insurance, injured people, and could not pay the damages.

First of all, mandates is precisely the subject when it comes to federal legislation, forcing citizens to purchase a product.

Have you never heard of what 15 states have done INRE uninsured? It’s called no fault insurance. Also, the other option is that most states have a requirement the auto policies provide for uninsured motorist coverage.

There’s another of your ignorant theories shot to hell.

People, likewise, NEED health insurance, because very few people have the $200,000 in a checking account to pay for their treatment from an auto accident, for example. And why are we even discussing whether we need a mandate? Because of the number of people who get injured, get $200,000 worth of medical care, then can’t pay the bill, leaving it for the hospital to pass on to you, me, and Medicare.

and from another comment above…

First off, in this day and age of $250,000 hospital bills for care after an auto accident, the $36,000 broken leg, or the $600,000 premature baby, unless you have seven figures at your ready disposal, you need health insurance.

Perhaps if your grey matter could multitask and assimilate properly, you might be able to put together your two statements and figure out the real problem.

Why does a broken leg cost $36,000? Why does a premmie cost $600K? Because the real problem of health insurance reform is to control the skyrocketing costs of providers’ overhead. The cure is not to price fix insurance premiums, dictating the most they are allowed to charge, regardless of risk. That is a prescription for driving any private insurer out of business because of the lack of ability to pass along the rising costs, or balance their risk management.

But that’s the cure your bozo leadership offers, and only the brain dead can’t peer into the abysmal future it offers.

You keep hugging talking points of dementia.. that the conservatives don’t want reform. We just don’t want your version of reform because it’s a model for failure, and does nothing to cure the problem of risking costs of medical services, equipment, labs, etal. What is needed is affordable insurance. And it can only be affordable if what contributes to the actual costs of administering medical aid is reduced.

In other words, a broken leg shouldn’t cost $36,000.

Maybe if you jokers would actually address the base problem, you’d get more cooperation. But it’s never been about cost reduction. Otherwise the Obama legal eagles wouldn’t be fighting the attempt to allow wealthier Medicare participants to opt out of their mandates without giving up their Social Security retirement funds, and save the system’s overhead. Ever ponder that one? Again I say to you, Hall v Sebelius. Read it. Learn. And then you’ll figure out that a guarantee savings in Medicare is being fought in the courts by your precious and destructive POTUS.

It’s not about savings. It’s about power and control. No, no and yet another no. And your ass is likely to be handed to you on a platter this weekend. A desperate Obama goes on Fox? Still “campaigning” a day or two before the vote? The back room deals for bribery are still going strong?

Yeah… they got the votes as much as I have the GOP Presidential nomination locked up for 2012.

@MataHarley:

Dodge ball, you bonked him and he’s out till next game? Frozen tag, you tagged him and he won’t be back til some idiot unthaws him? Hide and seek? Maybe you just scare him.

Atta girl!!!