Let the law suits begin  

Claiming that someone doesn't have common sense for opposing such legislation and then dropping the most grossly overused, innacurate talking point in history seems to directly conflict.

I understand that progressives in America want to be both the land that takes the huddled masses and the land that gives entitlements, but common sense suggests that's a recipe for B-A-N-K-R-U-P-T-C-Y.

The problem with progressive vision, as lovely as it is, is that it sees from point A (bad, bad America) to point Z (utopia entitlement socially just society) without going through the other multiple dangerous points -- none the least of which is that it is A BAD IDEA to root for power-hungry politicians on the federal level to have gift-wrapped power and carte blanche to force upon states and citizens their will.

We are no longer America once that happens. It's no more melting pot. It's no more land of diversity, creation and determination and foresight, etc. It's the land where government says what's right.

If that's okay with you, so be it. But dropping that crud about people NOT wanting it being heartless or not having common sense is beyond ridiculous.


Progressives have been putting their pieces in place for decades now.

All I can say is, we all better hope that guys like matersfish aren't right about how inept and greedy and inherently suspect politicians are.

The majority of the democrats proved that they are not inept and greedy last night, while the entirity of the republicans and 30 rogue democrats proved they were.

Common sense can sometimes be observed in a primitive manner.

When a child plays "Operation", do they also say to the pretend patient, "Hang on a second, I have to see if your insurance will cover this." Their innocence has not yet been marred by capitalistic greed and enforced by the republican lifestyle.

When Barbie's head accidentally pops off, and we have to reattach it, do we teach our kids that she had a preexisting neck popping off condition and we can not reattach her head?

How is insuring every American somehow robbing us of our diversity? That's kind of an irrelevant argument. However, DODA and a monopoly on marriage does rob us of our diversity.

Can you believe people fought against mandatory use of the seatbelt with the same fervor and exaggerated views that they fought against universal healthcare with?

What about speed limits? Would you view that as unconstitutional? I mean, you are the owner of a vehicle that can achieve speeds of 120 miles per hour, but, the big bad dictatorship government protects the safety of everyone on the road by imposing a speed limit.

Some people would argue that mandating a purchase of something you don't need is unconstitutional. Well, what about situations where there are implied choices?

Like, for example, you move to a neighbourhood with a community pool that also has HOA fees. You don't want to pay for the use of the pool, but, it is a mandatory fee, otherwise the HOA could put a lien on your house, and foreclose on you.

Your other options are to rent, or move to another district. Renting does not allow you to build equity, and perhaps moving to another district compromises your transit to work, or even puts you in an unsafe community, or a lesser quality school for your children. Either way, the element of choice here is merely a facade.

What about the taxes that are taken out of your check? Those taxes go to pay for the oil war which I oppose. Henry David Thoreau did jail time for not paying a tax to support slavery or the Mexican-American war because he opposed it. While some could argue I could choose not to file my taxes, I simply can not afford to be placed in jail. So, that mandate stands, and the element of choice is clearly a veneer.

When 200,000 Haitians died, former presidents Clinton and W launched a fundraiser and many celebrities conducted telethons. Were we supposed to teach our children that such a communal effort at helping people who needed help was unconstitutional and the slippery slope to socialism? That is what greedy and inherently suspect people would do.

We saw 200,000 people die, and several more in desperate need for help, and we flocked to help Haiti, while we turn our back on 32 million of our own country's citizens, while 40,000 of them die annually.

Because we whimper about helping people stay alive being unconstitutional.

Wanton, heartless, greedy, and inherently suspect people would do that.

38 statess are not sueing to stop the healthcare bill. It passed. Most of it wills stand. There is only one thing that they are sueing to have taken out. The mandate. The part that says by FEDERAL law everyone must buy insurance.Because it is a state power. That is it. It won't effect the rest of the bill. If they win...then the judge just makes the feds take that one part out. The judge won't kill the whole bill. Just that one little part. So it won't effect the whole bill. The rest will stand as passed.
The feds could have avoided this by just taking the mandate out in the first place.

Removing that mandate helps to defeat the necessity of the bill and its effect.

Well congress could have done an amendent to the constitution to make it legal for them to do the mandate. Congress has the power to do it. But instead they chose to ignore it. That was wrong.
How about if I speed down the road and ignore the speed limit because I don't agree with it? Am I still going to get into trouble? Yep. The cop is still going to give me a ticket and a judge will still make me pay the ticket because I broke the law.
But if I follow the speed limit... but go to my government and make an arguement about how I don't agree with the speed limit and what I think it should be....and they agree and change it...then I am NOT ignoring the law or breaking it.

YOu can't just ignore laws or the constitution just because you don't like or agree with them. THere are processes set up to change laws when they need to be changed. Even the constitution can be changed or amended as needed. Congress failed to do that. They just ignored it. So are they now allowed to ignore the rest of the constitution? Are we allowed to now ignore laws we don't like or agree with? Without getting into trouble.

Just as many people are likely to die sitting around waiting on medical care in two years WITH mandated health care as they are to die now, without it. And why you ask?

Now that everyone has health care, the supply of medical professionals will NOT be able to keep up with the demands of the industry. The average doctor spends 10-12 years, if not more, in college. Many of those who are in college for medical professions are extremely in debt from college loans until they become employed, and just as many who would like to attend college and excel in medical professions cannot due to the cost - Especially now. College costs are soaring, employment rates are falling for many reasons, yet, cuts to educational funding for those who were not lucky enough to have completed school in previous years or have parents that provide them with the means of attending college are among the many reasons that those would be interested never make it.

For every person who wants health insurance and cannot afford it or are denied service due to existing factors, there are those who are seldom ill who would much rather pay the $50 per visit tab out of their pocket when they receive the services. My roommate rarely needs medical assistance. In fact, he rarely catches the flu. Is it fair or even logical that he should be forced to carry health insurance for $100 a month, when his actual cost of medical services per year averages $75 (if you include prescriptions!)... No! That money could be going to help provide his child with food, clothing, or a happy birthday instead of satisfying the need for certain members of the government to play god to millions!

How many small businesses will now be put out of business because they cannot afford the cost of providing each employee with health coverage? In small towns like the one that I live in, the loss of even ONE employer is a devastating blow! Multiply that number a few times and now the government has another problem on their hands. Unemployment rates have increased, business owners too will lose their livelihoods, and cities and states will be losing tax revenue. Populations will shift, now that some areas can no longer provide enough suitable job opportunities.

Also is the interesting factor of those of ages 18-26 being covered under their parents insurance policies if they cannot find their own health insurance. Who will define the "cannot find their own" from the simple laziness of "I dont want to look and have to pay for my own"? While this will help recent high school graduates and college students tremendously, why should their parents, or the taxpayer dollar for that matter, be forced to pay for those who are of legal age to relatively do as they please, which includes participating in dangerous, reckless activities and occupations. So.. Johnny graduates high school and decides to be a lazy git. Johnny spends his weekends going to hardcore rock concerts, abusing drugs and alcohol, and riding his motorcycle while under the influence. Johnny has an accident, breaks both his legs and arm, collapses a lung and spends 22 days in the ICU in a coma. Why should ANYONE else have to be responsible for that?

Unless you like swiss cheese ladybugmagic, please consider for a bit rethinking your logic, because it's full of holes.

Zoey -

Perhaps you missed the part about small business being given tax credits so they can help to insure their employees?

Why should I help to pay for people who are going to party like a frat-boy on the weekends? Or people who eat at McDonald's three times a day? Or people who smoke?

It is interesting your hypothesis includes a collapsed lung. My boyfriend has cystic fibrosis, and, that could be an actual scenario, and he may not survive either to see a lung transplant, or to accommodate one. His body could reject one, as many victims of cf have.

So, for every college kid taking risks, there is someone like my boyfriend who works hard, pays taxes, pays for his medical benefits, and simply can’t afford to pay $40,000 for a two week stay in the hospital, when we hardly even make that a year.

I, like a true patriot, see that with the bad comes the good. I will be supporting some people’s gluttony, but I will help to be saving many lives, as only a true patriot would.

I’d take a look in the mirror if you want to talk swiss cheese logic.

irish - Wasn't it you in another thread who posted that while politicians can get really immature, they can be equally as snarky as people on mylot?

I actually have not insulted anyone to the degree you have insulted me these last few days.

Hi lil,

I can't help smiling at your comment.

You did say you wouldn't stand for anyone "micromanaging" your life.

But "you can't ignore laws or the constitution just because you don't like or agree with them."

I am pleased to see we now agree!

I follow the laws...but if I don't like them or agree with I fight them legally to get them changed. That is the way to do it. YOu contact your elected officials on a state or federal level..which ever the law applies to...and work to get it changed.

So ya...I don't want my life micromanaged...but I won't break the law by ignoring it...I work to change it.

So...anyway...how do we agree?

"The majority of the democrats proved that they are not inept and greedy last night, while the entirity of the republicans and 30 rogue democrats proved they were"

What does passing a bill have to do with effectively carrying out legislation?

You pretty much proved my point about seeing from A to Z without anything in between.

Matersfish - without any rhetoric - exactly, how did I prove your point?

Well, in the context of a debate, you can't really write/speak without rhetoric. It's language. I think what you're looking for is a good adjective to go in there before the noun. At first I thought you were using it as "hyperbole" or "bombast," but I wasn't overstating anything. My rhetoric was very concise and well within the framework of the discussion.

Okay, now that I'm done giving you a hard time, I can tell you what I meant.

You seem to see the mere passing of a bill as the saving grace for every victim's plight your mind has ever pondered.

Point A was the lack of affordable insurance and the meager options--beside the emergency room and Medicaid and free clinics, etc--people had. Point Z is the utopian, socially-just, entitlement America where these mythical bottomless-pocketed wealthy pay for everyone's healthcare and the government runs it without incident or without becoming a strain to the country.

Any and all concerns about politicians not handling this correctly is moot now. To you, it works simply because it's passed -- because they acted and wrote uberlegislation.

The majority of Democrats in office cannot disprove their ineffectiveness by simply passing legislation. How does voting for more government, essentially, prove that they are not inept or greedy? Theoretically, there's a lot more in it for the government now; a lot more goodies to be had.

You're looking straight through it all and to a feigned and wished for end result, ignoring everything that goes in between.

Being on the right side (in your opinion) of a vote doesn't "prove" anything of the sort, especially considering the intense atmosphere of strong-arming, bribery, etc, that went into coercing people to vote for this.

It's certainly your right to choose to see only the possible good points down the road, to herald the yays as heroes and ignore the entire process past and henceforth. But it's seeing only A and Z, like I said.

Just a quick update, there are currently only 13 states who filed suit. While your team plays the delay tactics and places all their energy into that, our team is progressing and will be certain to keep the majority in the office this November and 2012.

This stunt they are pulling will only backfire as people begin to realize what good is coming from this bill. The prophecy your team is trying so hard to self-fulfill is not going to happen, but, will indeed highlight who is working for the country, and who is playing politics, with their constituents money footing the bill.

While we have all this debate and the dust settles, and the 32 million democrat votes we just gained last night, the remainder of the country will gradually appreciate the bill passed into legislation.

Well at least he voted the will of his people. That is always a great thing. Too bad he did not listen on cap and trade.

I guess they don't want Washington to waste their money, they want to waste their OWN money. At least we know OUR Governor won't be suing, right?

Annie

Read the Constitution those powers not given the federal government nor denied the states belong to the states. The Federal Government has no right to force you to buy something or pay a fine. No Due process here.

IF you are going to rely on the commerce clause of the constitution then remember it could lead to mandatory state control of you heating and cooling because you get the power from another state so the government can regulate it. By the way the Technology is there to do it. What if they decide that you have to buy a new American made car every 3 years to keep the Government Motors in business because they are too big to fail? Sound foolish, that what people said about smoking now look at the smoking bans even in private clubs and private property. Soon you will not be able to drive anything larger than a Mini Cooper because of the government mandates on fuel economy.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

Taskr - you make it too easy for me all the time, always arguing my points for me. Yes, energy companies are for profit, which I actually stated. And we have seen the corporate greed take over in those instances, much like we have with the privatized health insurance companies.

I don't even want to gloat, or say "zing", because this issue is bigger than you, and bigger than me.

We just saved millions of lives, and you think that this should be undermined by some words written 200 years ago? I am pretty sure it was written by candlelight on hemp paper. They have never seen what radiation therapy is, nor have they seen that someone could be deprived of it, and they would roll over in their graves if they knew people were trying to use the constitution as a way to let people die.

We didn't save anything but larger corporation bankrolls and the egos of 219 people who already don't have to worry about the cost of health care.

Um, Zoey - we, the taxpayers, are the underwriters of their health-care. That, and they make upwards of $176,000 per year, because we pay them comfortable salaries. Those 220 people decided it was high time we shared in the same health coverage they have.

Those 220 people decided it was high time we shared in the same health coverage they have.

LOL...LOL....LOL...um..ok..I got myself under control. Ladybug...you HAVE NOT read the bill or you would not be saying that or half the stuff you are saying. I have..trust me..it is not all that you are making it out to be. Plus you are using just as much fearmongering as the republicans. Kids are not dying from cancer because they don't have insurance. There ARE government programs for kids with cancer or other live threatening illnesses. they get covered for free by us tax payers. Also charity hospitals that don't charge at all for children. Name me one case of a kid dying because of not having health insurance...or access to health care. You are just as bad as the republicans...they use death panels...you use kids.

Here is one of 40,000. Actually, go to google, and put in “health care horror stories” and see what comes up. I didn’t want to post anything too slanted, out of fear of being accused of finding leftist views.

http://www.health.com/hea...

You say I am fear-mongering. Well, I’d be scared, too, if a company I entrusted, rather, paid a monthly premium to, allowed my daughter to die.

These are actual, documented, facts, by the way. There is such a thing as a death certificate, so these situations are verifiable. This is not the land of make believe that the republicans make up about armageddon, or, my favourite, referring to social security as the "lash of the dictator".

You know there is NOTHING in the bill that MAKES insurance companies cover all procedures or pay out on claims. They now have EVERYONE having to buy insurance...but nothing to actually make them cover your procedures or pay for your bills. they can still choose what procedures they want to cover and what they won't.
So how in the world is this bill going to solve that problem. I know plenty of poeple who have insurance and STILL have horrible medical bills they have to pay. That won't change. Congress did nothing to stop it.

I have seen a death certificate that read "cause of death "lack of insurance".

"Actually, go to google, and put in “health care horror stories”

Oh give me a freaking break. Google will just link you to whatever crap people have made up. If you believe everything Google links to than just type in "universal healthcare horror stories". If you're really that gullible than those stories should change your mind.

"Well, I’d be scared, too, if a company I entrusted, rather, paid a monthly premium to, allowed my daughter to die. "

Oh and you don't think the government would let your daughter die? Our own president used the death of someone who WORKED FOR HIM to sell this crap, yet he never spent a penny to help her when she was dying he just said she died because she didn't have insurance (which was a lie since she did have insurance). Seriously, if you want a nanny-state, you're in the wrong country. Our nation was specifically designed NOT to be a nanny state.

Taskr -

Okay, slowly now, and I will walk you through this. Take your mouse, scroll up on the window, see what I said - I did not hand select any of the particular search results because I did not want to be accused of choosing anything biased.

The numbers speak for themselves: 40,000 people per year are dying due to insurance abuses. You did watch the health care summit, right? And yesterday's debate, right? The congress people showed pictures of people that had written them and they personally knew that had died due to health care abuses.

Now, I know you don't know these people, so it is hard to feel much loss for them, but, if this happened to your child or loved one, even 1 of 40,000 needless deaths each year would be one too many.

It's human nature - like, really. How many times have you cried for a five year old gunned down in Iraq by our military when we missed a target?

It's hard to care when we don't feel it personally.

I know you are incapable of doing more than googling these things, but at least TRY to get your facts straight. It was a study done on the care of people WITHOUT insurance, not people dying due to "insurance abuses".

Even so, it was ONE STUDY, specifically designed to elicit support for the bill, that 40,000 people MIGHT be dying every year due to lack of insurance.

Now being as you couldn't even get your own cited study right, tell me how you are so sure that this bill, which you clearly know very little about, will fix the problem.

So you spent an entire post personally attacking me because you lack any facts to back up your claims. See googling garbage that supports what you want is all fine and dandy, but I'm a librarian and I have higher standards than that.

Of course you really don't respect the constitution or the governmental system of this country unless it provides a little nanny state that gives you cradle to grave care, chooses your meals, and forces people to obey the will of the machine. All you can do is pull personal arguments and deliver personal attacks to those who disagree with you. It may work with people who are as emotionally driven as yourself, but your attitude doesn't shake my knowledge in the fact that this bill was in direct violation of the 10th amendment, and that without the constitution this country would not be what it is today. Perhaps a country like Cuba would better fit what you want from your government.

Taskr -

I am actually sitting on my hands doing my best NOT to personally attack you, though I think your creator beat me to it. There is something so infuriating about you - you really don't grasp reality, and I can't pinpoint why.

No wonder our schools are going to sh*t. You are a librarian and don't even know when a word has an ambiguous definition (feel free to look that one up.)

So, as a librarian, you do realize that google and other search engines are similar to an online library. This is the information highway. When you do a search, yes, you will find some biased sites, which, I reiterate, is why I did not do a specific search, out of fear of being accused of finding something slanted too far to the left.

I was of the opinion you would know how to conduct your own internet search. I gave one mere example out of a google examples.

You may need to look up the word google, too.

You can hold on to your 10th amendment all you like, as you are, for dear life. But, somehow, you deny yourself the truth that by doing so, and making any effort to delay or hobble this bill only allows fewer people to see the bill enacted.

People are dying because of insurance abuses. People are dying because of lack of insurances.

Can you comprehend that much?

Have you ever called a sibling a tyrant? Or told someone your boss was tyrannical? Words can be used in different contexts, and, as a librarian, you had better know that.

I am doing my damnedest not to be rude, because I think there is something wrong with you either mentally, or developmentally, and I don't want to be insulting to you.

But you drive me mad, because you are making such ridiculous statements.

The definition of tyranny is not ambiguous in the least. If it were I wouldn't have been able to provide three independent sources all giving you the same definition.

As a librarian I know full well that google and other search engines are not remotely similar to a library. There are absolutely zero standards for what search engines link to with the exception of countries like China with, yes tyrannical governments that control what does and doesn't come up on search engines. Unlike a library you can not limit your searches to included only journals or valid reference materials. I could go into more detail, but you come off as someone who knows very little about libraries so I don't have time to explain it all now.

"Have you ever called a sibling a tyrant? Or told someone your boss was tyrannical?"

Nope.

"Words can be used in different contexts, and, as a librarian, you had better know that."

Yes, they can. You used tyranny in the wrong context though as you've done with other words in other threads. It's sad that you're too stubborn to realize that.

Oddly, freetaskr - you favour free market. Big companies like At&T and Comcast are currently lobbying congress to impose severe limits as to what you can view online, almost similar to book-burning and censorship. Free enterprise is threatening to dissolve web nuetrality.

Surely, a librarian would never want to see anyone deprived the right to access information.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Oh, and I went to snopes. Being the ever brilliant librarian you have proven yourself to be, surely you know how reputable they are for either verifying or debunking myths.

http://www.snopes.com/pol...

Apparently you prefer corporate supremacy to government regulation.

You do realize that was from 4 years ago don't you? Did you also realize that the threat there was the threat of congress passing a bill? Those corporations do not, and will not have such power unless the government gives it to them.

The reason AT&T has so much power is largely due to their partnership with the government. At times they border on being a government entity themselves. Do you remember back when they had massive monopolies granted by governments that forced you to use them as your telephone provider? SNL even did a skit once joking about how rude they were to customers where at the end they basically said "AT&T, we treat you like crap because you don't have a choice."

They are also part of the Obama/Bush wiretapping and big supporters of the Patriot Act which was the biggest step towards a tyrannical government we had under Bush.

Net nuetrality is still being discussed in congress, as recently as 2010.

The reason that healthcare industries held so much power was due to the 8 lobbyists per congress person. As you will see, the democrats escaped that stranglehold while the republicans remained the healthcare industries pets.

The healthcare industry basically told its paying patrons, "We treat you like crap, because you don't have a choice."

Thanks, again, for proving my point.

Oh, and the first website has current information listed on it, dated 2010. Surely a librarian knows how to read?

Yes, it's being discussed in congress because THEY are the ones who could threaten it, not private companies. Thank you for proving my point.

People do have choices with insurance. The problem is that not everyone has the best choices. Of course you don't want people to have a choice so if the choice the government makes for them sucks, oh well.

The first website you posted is meaningless. It's run by a left wing guy who spends his time with people like Van Jones (Obama's favorite communist). I looked at his posts and most of the time, he writes just to keep writing. There really aren't any new developments. Companies like AT&T still want the power to filter and they still don't have it.

"democrats escaped that stranglehold"

So forcing people to buy health insurance is escaping that stranglehold? The democrats just guaranteed those evil insurance companies MILLIONS of new customers with the promise that they would fine or jail anyone who refused to buy insurance.

Congress is actually protecting net nuetrality, particularly that pesky Obama you despise so much. It is the companies who are trying lobby congress to give consent to allowing them to remove the freedom to access it, basing their reasoning on things like expansion and free enterprise.

Now, when you say you are a librarian, is this in real life, or on some SIMS game?

Ok, I know you're slow, so I'll spell it out very clearly for you.

THE PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN NOT DO IT WITHOUT CONGRESS LETTING THEM. So unless congress lets them, and it didn't when republicans were in charge or when democrats were in charge, it just can't happen.

You can mock my occupation all you want, but unlike you I worked hard to educate myself so I could have a good job and care for myself and my family instead of sponging off the government begging for a nanny state.

I am going to guess you don't understand how lobbying works?

A generous campaign fund for um, a new, um, hospital, yeah, yeah, wink wink, secret nod, in exchange for allowing more power to the phone/cable companies.

Now, was this a mail order certificate you received as far as your education goes?

Librarians are supposed to be the token smart people, and, yet, I am baffled. You defy all odds.

I work hard, I have actually advanced to the head of my department at my job, and we work with a lot of high profile clientele. I pay for my own health insurance, having been fortunate enough to get some through my employer.

I have never sponged off the government, but, if I saw people needed the help, which, I have seen in the cases of those getting denied coverage for having a preexisting condition, then, I will do my damnedest to get them the help they need, in terms of having the government regulate the big business depriving them of what they need.

You really are thick aren't you? Lobbyists can try all they want, but the power is still with the government.

THE PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN NOT DO IT WITHOUT CONGRESS LETTING THEM.

I do find it amusing that as a highschool dropout you keep criticizing my education. Pardon me for not choosing ignorance and dropping out as you did.

What you are asking the insurance companies to do is to take on more risk with less money. It would be like telling you that you have to work at a job for no increase in pay but you have to supply all the raw material and the tools and other supplies.

How many people will drop their insurance to save money and pick it up when they need it? IF I were young and healthy I would gladly pay the few hundred dollars and wait until I got something serious and then get insurance. A small business can drop their insurance and pay the 8% up to the max and still be cheaper. Then the person gets insurance on their own and more than likely we will help them and pay more taxes.

Annie they violated the law when they put the mandate in there. They had the power to change the law so they were not violating the constitution. THey could have amendented it. But they chose to ignore it instead. You can't do that. You can't just ignore the constitution and the laws of this land. It is a state power.
There are a lot of states that have passed laws in the last year making it ILLEGAL in their state to require people to buy insurance. So the mandate is already dead.
The people in those states can ignore the mandate and not get into trouble.
I think it is around 25 states that passed one. So right there you have a half the country that even with this bill passing....do not HAVE to buy insurance.

You would advocate sending money to "help them", but somehow turn your back on 40,000 people who die each year, many of them children?

Shame shame.

I will keep you posted. So far I have not heard of any filing yet...but it could take them a few days to do it. If they are smart all 38 will get together and sue as a one group. It would save them money than 38 individual lawsuits.

And yes I am advocating people standing up for our constitution. Congress and Obama are NOT above the law. They have to follow it just like we do.

And I do believe murder and torture are illegal. Can you fathom what cancer feels likes, particularly to a child?

I am advocating people to stand up for those who desperately need healthcare and to stop selfishly looking for loopholes in a 200 year old constitution whose writers never saw the medical progress or capitalism we see today.

South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alabama, Washington, Pennsylvania, Utah, Texas ,Nebraska, Virgina, and Florida have all announced they are all preparing the paperwork now. They won't file until Obama signs it. Ohio should be soon after them.
I am happy to see my state listed as going up against this. As I find out more information I will pass it along.

If all the states that say they are going to file do...this is going to be BIG. 38 states is well over 1/2 the states that make up this country. There is no way a court can ignore that .....or the constitution.

My state's Attorney General is one of them but my Governor disagrees. The "surprising" thing - NOT - is that the AG is running for the Republican nomination for Governor. I guess we can't say how the courts will rule but from what I've been hearing these suits aren't likely to go anywhere.

Annie

Don't misunderstand the exaggerated original post. Some republicans in 38 states are threatening to do that. Not all states are doing this unanimously. These people are grasping at straws, because they will no longer be the healthcare industry's pets.

I agree with you, all this wasted money would have paid for this health care thing over and over.

Henniesaunders, my colegue beneath you is mistaken. It is not an exagerated point. These law suits are in fatc being brought by the states as well as many of these states poassing their own legislation banning the enforcement of this bill in their states. It is the states' governments themselves doing this and not just hyperbole from a few republicans.

220 democrats are granted to be spread amongst all our states. Certainly more than 38. This is just a great waste of time - why delay people getting the medical care they need? That's what we had insurance companies for.

Ladybug...No, you are confusing state governments with federal congressional members. these congressional members aren't the ones brigning these lawsuits, it is the governments of the various states, not congress.

You guys get my point? I have been following USA politics on CNN for the last 15 years and still do not understand it! But seeing this I do not feel too bad - ha ha. In fact, my confidence is boosted and I will participate more freely in these political discussions.

henniesaunders- the problem is that a lot of people in our country do not understand how the different levels of government work or the laws governing them.
They don't understand the division of power or who is responsible for what.
As you can see from Ladybug...she does not understand the difference between the powers of our federal officials and the role of state officials. It can get confusing if you have not learned it all. Schools don't teach it like they should.

A victory that will help keep 40,000 people alive each year, and protect an additional 32 million who could have fallen prey at any time sounds like common sense to me.

Germany, Japan, Sweden, the Uk, (the list goes on) and now even Iraq, with one billion of the US dollars, have universal health coverage.

You think the Americans don't deserve to live?

Did I say that? Huh - I wonder how my post got translated into "poor American's deserve to die".

I was kind enough not to use talking points in my post - do me the same favor by keeping them out of yours.

Anyone in opposition to this bill supports the death of Americans. Sorry.

Right, and anyone who supports it supports the tyranny.

Now that that's established, we can all go back to our usual lives - until 2014 when you and me have to make sure we have an adequate plan lest we find ourselves neck deep in penalty fees.

Oh goody, I can't wait for 2012.

2012 won't be much different from now. President Obama will remain in office.

"Tyranny" could also be described as lawfully allowing insurance companies to deny chemotherapy to a four year old who needs it.

I'd rather support a state mandate than allow a kid to die.

I'd rather support a state mandate than allow a kid to die.


So would I...because the "STATE" has the power to make the mandate...not the federal government.
If it were the states making this law individually I would not complain at all. because it is there right to do so. But it is NOT a federal power. So therefore I can't support the feds doing it.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to, right?

I understand you feel the federal government is trumping the state governments, but this is of absolute urgency - people are dying.

This is not a cosmetic or gratuitous bill. People are being buried every single day.

And, I think the mandate has something to do with this being country-wide, across state borders, which is something the republicans wanted.

Well how about this one.

I'm a poor American with a few ailments that are gradually robbing me of my motor skills, cognitive ability, and slowly.. Very slowly, has transformed me from an over achieving workaholic to using speech to text programs on sites like Mylot as a main source of income - and I don't agree with this health care reform!

I do not believe that the care of my health problems should be imposed upon others - Period. There are also a great many of people that such health care will only prolong the inevitable. Forcing health insurance upon me, as well as a great deal of others, will not provide any kind of solution... It only buys time. Another day. Another week. Another year. At the expensive of my income, that could be used for other things... like visiting Australia like I always wanted to do before I died, or providing my family with a small savings after my time has passed. Instead, the government first wants to rob me of my money by forcing me to have health insurance that I pay for from my pocket, or by robbing it from other taxpayer that have their own needs to meet as well. Has the government offered any feasible LONG term solutions as to how people will pay for this?

Nope.

Do I really need health insurance when I'm going to ignore the doctors orders just so that I can do in peace instead of prolonged agony?

Nope.

And I'm sure that I'm not the only one that feels that way.

""Tyranny" could also be described as lawfully allowing insurance companies to deny chemotherapy to a four year old who needs it."

Ladybug, you need a dictionary BADLY. I've never seen anyone completely misdefine words as often as you do. Next time you get a payout form mylot, invest that in a nice little pocket dictionary so we don't have to constantly tell you how wrong you are and link you to online dictionaries.

Tyranny is about controlling people. This bill controls people by forcing them to buy insurance whether they want it or not, or whether they can really afford it or not. That's in addition to the extra taxes included that punish people for being successful to reward those who are not. "Allowing" insurance companies to do anything is, by definition, the opposite of tyranny as it is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Ladybug, how do you feel about all the people who will die awaiting care because homeless and poor people will now be able to clog up hospitals with made-up ailments just to get a good nights sleep in a hospital bed? If you are ignorant enough to think that won't happen I suggest you talk to the doctors who already get those people claiming to have all forms of maladies just to get free drugs.

Zoey -

While you do not believe your health problems should be imposed on anyone else, I am socially responsible enough to gladly take on your problems, and those of 32 million Americans who also need health insurance.

I have ridiculous medical debt myself, and I would never request anyone to pay my bills. And because of that, I will never want anyone else to be in my same position, and I will support a government bill that will also keep people out of my situation.

Perhaps you prefer the administration that sends us to war for ten years?

ladybug...read the bill. Please. there are something in there that you don't understand. People are still going to have horrible medical bills. There was nothing in the bill that makes the insurance companies pay out on claims. YES..they have to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions...but htey dont' have to cover the pre-existing condition. They will still have to pay their own medical costs on their pre-existing condition. But other things like check ups will be covered. Insurance companies take in as much money as possible and pay out as little as possible....this bill does not stop that. It just makes everyone HAVE to buy the plans. it also does not put price controls on it. So they can charge whatever they want...and cover what they want. People will still have to get approval from their insurance companies to get procedures done. If the insurance company decides not to cover it...they have to pay for it themselves. there is nothing in this bill to force insurance companies to cover everything....or pay out on every claim. They do not have restrictions on them...except that htey can't drop people..and they have to offer insurance to everyone. But no one in congress told them they had to pay out. We are all being forced to pay for insurance....but the insurance companies are NOT being forced to pay for the services we need.

So how again is this going to "save" us all? Save lives? Save money? We are just making the insurance companies richer.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

It is experimental.

I have read the bill...where in there does it say that insurance companies can not deny a claim because they deem it "experimental"? I did not see it. Infact I read all the versions of the bill and did not see anything about insurance companies having to cover ALL procedures your doctor recommends you get. There is NOTHING to stop them refusing to pay on things they call "experimental" or that they don't want to cover when they write your policy. Give me a page number...because that was a big pet peeve of mine when I read the bill...NOT enoug accountability for the insurance companies. So please....if it is there I want to know...give me a page number. Where does it say they have to pay out on claims? Where does it forbid them from refusing "experimental" procedures?

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

Scrolling up: I said "Tyranny" could also be described as lawfully allowing insurance companies to deny chemotherapy to a four year old who needs it."

That also infers that I acknowledged that tyranny can apply to an oppressive government, but also shows that I am aware that it has other definitions, without necessary referring to the government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny

And you are so cute, because you are trying so hard.

Explain to me what part of the definition applies to your claim? At best you could say depraved indifference, but even that would be inaccurate as the government has programs to insure that a four year old would get chemotherapy.

Seriously, why must you keep inventing bogus and impossible scenarios to back up your argument? Is that your way of acknowledging that facts are your enemy?

I just want to squish your cheeks, you are so cute.

Look - our little taskr is trying to be witty. Awwww.

How is the proper definition of a word somehow getting lost on you?

No wonder you can't understand anything Obama says.

What Obama says is irrelevant since his actions so often contradict his words. If you listened to what he said do you remember him saying he opposed mandating that all Americans purchase health insurance?

http://www.politifact.com...

Taskr- I don't know why you argue with her. She has a very limited understanding of how our government works on both the federal and state level. She does not understand the division of power. You cna make all the arguements you want...but she does not see the constitution or the bill of rights as important. As shocking as all of that is...it is the way things are with her. YOu are never going to "show" her how it all is suppost to work either. She does not care to learn.

Stop wasting your time. All of her arguements are based on emotion. Not the law...Not the constitution. But on what she "feels" is right. You are not going to change that. Move on.

Lil - I feel you know moderately what you are talking about, and X is our resident authority on the subject matter, but, seriously, taskr has absolutely no clue. I have been as polite as I could with him/her, but, there is something wrong upstairs with him/her.

I am going out of my way to engage taskr in elementary conversation, so that s/he can actively participate with us.

As for the frivolous lawsuits, we are prepared, and when the federal mandate is declared constitutional and trumps the states, I gather we will gain your support for the bill?

You're right Lil, I'm rally just feeding a troll at this point by trying to explain how government works to her when she has no interest in or knowledge of the constitution or all the things it's done for this country on a functional and moral level.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised our members of Congress are being threatened and harassed, should we? It sure is sad when people can't discuss and debate an issue without insulting each other's intelligence and accusing anyone who disagrees of not knowing what they're talking about! My opinion is that these suits will be thrown out and the mandate will stand. It may seem to be cut and dried to those of you who opposed the bill to begin with but when countless people with law degrees don't find it quite so simple I'm not prepared to simply take your word for it. I happen to agree with my governor who said the suits would be fine except for it's wasting money our state doesn't have to waste. I find it interesting that Senators Hatch and Grasley proposed a mandate back in 1993 but now say it's unconstitutional. They both said they "didn't think of it" back then. Mitt Romney is not also saying it's unconstitutional, although he was FOR it during the GOP Presidential debates in 2008.

I guess we'll see soon enough how the courts rule but for now I'm glad the bill passed and I believe it was the moral thing to do. To me, that's what it boils down to, it's an issue of morality and saving lives. Unfortunately, it all doesn't kick in immediately so there will still be people dying needlessly until it does which is exactly why we couldn't afford to "start over" as the Republicans kept saying. This is something that should have happened forty or fifty years ago but it didn't so the important thing is that it's happened now.

Annie

I hope they stand strong. I am already trying to see what my state is going to do. I am hoping we will be in on the law suit. We have legislation in right now on making it illegal to require health insurance in our state...but it has not been voted on yet. I am hoping it gets pushed up now.

Well I think lawsuits are probly the best first move for now. It depends...if they spend from now to November just cramming everything they can down our throats...well we all know what will happen. People will only stand for so much of it before they scream enough.

Shall we arrest all the CEOs of the insurance companies for allowing the murders of 40,000 of their clients every year, due to their negligence and misappropriation of funds?

This could actually be considered a hired hit, when we pay those high inflating premiums each month, so they can deny us the service we are paying for. We are actually paying them to kill us.

Those wrongful death lawsuits need to start happening.

----

What is it with you two? Seriously - am I missing something?

We have, in law, a policy that will now protect all citizens from insurance abuse and lack of preventable medical care. And somehow, this is so outrageous to you that you think lawsuits and arrests should be made? Basing this on the assertion that federal law can not trump state law?

That's all it takes for you to sacrifice 40,000 civilian lives each year?

Look - I am all for the proper balance in power, but I think this mandate makes it so we can go state to state and still get coverage. If the option is to eat it on this one little formality, and potentially save millions of lives while doing so, then we need to do what is right.

What kind of life is there when constitutionalists will fight for power before they fight for life?

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both....Ben Franklin.


YOu wonder what is up with us...we wonder what is up with you. Let's face it. We look at things differently. We will never agree.

We don't fight for power...we fight for freedom.

Ladybug just wants a cradle to grave, nanny state. She really believes we have some sort of huggable government that would never abuse their power and only lives to provide us with everything we desire at the expense of those horrible people who had the audacity to succeed and provide for themselves.

I'd rather live in a cardboard box on the street than live in a cradle to grave nanny state...I don't need or the government to "take care of me". I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself.


Wonder what is going to happen when her rose colored glasses come off and she realizes how bad and corrupt things are in our government. The Republicans are just as corrupt as the Democrats. there are no "good guys" and have not been for a long time.It will be a sad day when it happens. I know when I realized it...I was shocked, hurt and mad...then I got smart.

Ladybug....
"Seriously - am I missing something"
Yes and sorely I might add. What you are missing is an understanding of the constitution and and founding basics of this country. And by this, you are only able to argue things of this nature in an emotionaly based manner rather than constitutional facts, or even the merrits of this actual bill.

X- schools just don't teach those things like they used to. There are a lot of people in this country that do not understand the basics of how the different levels of government work. Or what powers are divided between them and why. How many really study the constitution and the bill of rights. How many are really explained to how and why the items in them were put there.
It is like LadyBug said...it is just a old piece of paper that no longer matters...at least to her and others like her.

It is shocking and sad.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution, so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Amen Taskr...thank you for sharing that great quote.

X - It is quite obvious that I am not a constitutionalist, but you and Lilwonders know a good deal on it. Taskr pretends and I have to give him/her kudos for trying to play ball. It's cute. Like a baby's first sneeze.

So - what could happen if we put this plan into action - without the lawsuits, and any other methods of delay, (obviously only used to force this bill and the democratic administration to fail.)

One of two things could happen. People will find they love it, they get care when they need it, the deficit comes down, etc. All is happy.

Or, people hate it. Couldn't they use the constitutional advantage of then trying to initiate a vote to repeal it?

Methinks if they are able to rewrite the definition of marriage to lawfully discriminate against an entire community of people, surely, they can repeal a law that just didn't work out well.

Lil - I am for a relevant constitution. One that incorporates the vision of future. When this was written, they did not foresee the technology or disease we have now, the economy and poverty we have now, the capitalistic greed, etc.

Which brings me to another interesting question about this revered constitution. I am guessing we only think it should apply to Americans, right?

I am sure other countries would deem our invading them against their constitution. Or employing them for a bowl of rice a day, while we usurp their natural resources against their constitution.

If we did those things in the US, does our constitution protect our citizens against that criminal activity, that we so callously do on a daily basis in third world countries, and actually profit from?

You don't need to be a "constitutional lawyer" to understand the constitution. It's written in such simple language that even you could read it ladybug. Seriously, give it a shot sometime.

"(obviously only used to force this bill and the democratic administration to fail.)"

Actually these are being used to force an authoritarian federal government to respect the power of the state governments as the constitution gives the individual states health care powers, NOT the federal government.

Regardless of whether people love it or hate it, the bill is still unconstitutional. They could pass a bill saying that the KKK can no longer meet. Many people would support it seeing the KKK as horrible and racist, but it's STILL unconstitutional.

You seem to have questions on the constitution. READ IT. There is nothing in the constitution barring us from declaring war on another country or setting wages in a foreign country. You claimed we are employing people for a bowl of rice a day. Go ahead and show me exactly where the US Government employs someone for a bowl of rice a day. You make a lot of accusations but always fall short on proof.

Ladybug...he's right it isn't rocket science. "Consitutional lawyer" is almost a contradiction in terms. If one needs to hire a team of lawyers (as congress does) to determine whether or not a bill is constitutional....then it probably isn't.

So, I guess you are both saying that the constitution does not have to support any type of morals, right?

And, somehow, we are allegedly a nation under "god"?

What a laugh. On all counts. I could smoke a joint wrapped in the constitution and never feel bad.

Your completely dodging the argument ladybug....quit being flippant and get back on topic. I mentioned nothing about god. As to the morals, they're there. Morals such as the right to live with out opression of civil liberties, morals as in we all have the right to try and succeed with out the government stifling that success. The right to not be subjected to whim of those who think they no better than you how to live. All in there if you read it in the propper context.
What it DOES NOT contain are things like the guaranty you will be successful, only the right to make your attempt at it with out opression, interference or undue hinderence. And undue hinderence is NOT someone who has been more successfull than you, an example of undue hinderance would be people who would take what you gained by being succesfull and giving it to someone who has not been so succesfull, or even tried. Government is not charity, it is an entity that allows charity to flourish in it's society. An unconstitutional government and a charitable society are two things that cannot co exist.
Now, back to the topic. I want to ask you some direct questions and get some simple, non emotion based answers.
1. what do you believe the federal government should be responsable for providing specificly? , not in generalities.
2. what do yo think the federal government should be forbidden from doing?