Health care plan

[Trae%eh6]

Recently, they passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

so you tell me what you think and how you feel

[DelSolSweetie]

this is a very bad idea for a topic

 

 

 

very bad

[SpeedDemon]

this sh!t is gonna get ugly real fvcking quick

[Trae%eh6]

why yall think that i mean that is what this part of the site if for just to talk about whatever i mean lets face it we as a country are FU<KED

[Xeryon]

[SpeedDemon]

haha roffle! nice pic

[Trae%eh6]

wow come on ppl lets talk about this. this is somthing that is going to be effecting our life.. ^^^^ but very funny pic

[Xeryon]

Nothing to talk about. It is done. For better or worse. The only thing to be done about it now is to vote the people in or out of office as your beliefs see fit.

[SpeedDemon]

my grandpa came up with an idea. not tbe best but will result in change.

 

vote for whoever is not in office. vote the guy in office out lol

[Tubbith]

We have already discussed this... All im gonna say is this is Unconstitutional. Im not in the mood to get into it again outside of that.

[Trae%eh6]

you are right i had this in the rant thread but i just wanted to make a different one plus i like the way your grandpa thinks i think we should impeach his ass

[Xeryon]

Well tubbith, weren't we just making a comment about the sensationalists?

 

Here is the deal; it may be good or bad depending on what you believe but it is, in fact, entirely constitutional. I am merely stating a fact so don't shoot me. By the letter of the law it can be done exactly as it has been done.

 

The constitution is a fickle document. Both granting and repealing rights from one line to the next. The 10th amendment gives the states the rights to govern as they see fit under anything not expressly granted to the federal government. The constitution does not allow the feds anything other then a very vague General Welfare Clause which, apparently, would not have been strong enough to hold up in court if this had been tried in the past. But, there are provisions in the constitution which grant the federal government the right to override state governments in matters of which the states have proven incompetent in solving on an individual basis. One thing can be agreed is that so far the states certainly have not come up with a viable individual solution.

 

Several individual states are bring up suite against the federal government but the cases will not hold up. On the surface the bill violates the very moral fabric of the USA, but it is a legally binding document. They only recourse is going to be to repeal/amend it through voting.

[cmgogo]

As stated earlier

 

I could give 2 turds and a piss about it. I have healthcare for the rest of my life that I pay nothing into, and no matter what happens to me ill always have it, a 250K life insurance policy, and paid for burial. Only thing I had to do was sell my soul to uncle sam for 4 years. but hey, they pay for schooling, housing, and got me my A&P license, so i cant bitch.

 

PS Trae your a retard, yes lets impeach a president for telling us the truth for once and doing everything legaly. You know... as opposed to openly lieing to congress, falsifying intelligence reports, granting contracts that were never bid on, attempting to exempt ourselves from the geneva conventions, etc etc etc. Go worship Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh some more, and while your at it go watch the 700 club and all of the televangelists. Narrow minded asshat.

[lceah]

^how many times did Obama say during his campaign that tv reporters could report on what's going on during the talks in congress? at least 4 times that I remember!

 

Did he keep his promise or did he "close the doors" so no one would know? ya he closed the doors!

[cmgogo]

^^^

 

Cspan and the congress gov site have transripts if you really want to know what was said.

[Tubbith]

Well tubbith, weren't we just making a comment about the sensationalists?

 

Here is the deal; it may be good or bad depending on what you believe but it is, in fact, entirely constitutional. I am merely stating a fact so don't shoot me. By the letter of the law it can be done exactly as it has been done.

 

The constitution is a fickle document. Both granting and repealing rights from one line to the next. The 10th amendment gives the states the rights to govern as they see fit under anything not expressly granted to the federal government. The constitution does not allow the feds anything other then a very vague General Welfare Clause which, apparently, would not have been strong enough to hold up in court if this had been tried in the past. But, there are provisions in the constitution which grant the federal government the right to override state governments in matters of which the states have proven incompetent in solving on an individual basis. One thing can be agreed is that so far the states certainly have not come up with a viable individual solution.

 

Several individual states are bring up suite against the federal government but the cases will not hold up. On the surface the bill violates the very moral fabric of the USA, but it is a legally binding document. They only recourse is going to be to repeal/amend it through voting.

 

I disagree. I do not believe the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause give them the right to FORCE me to buy a product or service from another private individual or group. They can regulate all they want, but they can not tell me i have to buy something. Which is why i believe it is unconstitutional. Your entitled to your own opinion, but i believe we will not have an answer from the SC for many years to come.

[lceah]

^I agree it's not constitutional...

[cmgogo]

neither is the patriot act or holding prisoners without right to trial. Whats your point, you act like he (BO) is commiting a war crime, oh wait, that was your beloved bush that did that.

[Xeryon]

Tubbith, I commented that the General welfare clause did not give them enough authority to do so. I wholeheartedly agree that forcing people to acquire insurance is not the thing to do. Ranks right up with making it illegal to not wear my seat belt.

 

The feds will get by with this simply because it can be proven, without a doubt, that the states have thus far been incompetent in implementing a viable solution on their own. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Tubbith]

Tubbith, I commented that the General welfare clause did not give them enough authority to do so. I wholeheartedly agree that forcing people to acquire insurance is not the thing to do. Ranks right up with making it illegal to not wear my seat belt.

 

The feds will get by with this simply because it can be proven, without a doubt, that the states have thus far been incompetent in implementing a viable solution on their own. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Hmm.. that's what my lack of reading comprehension gets me. lol. I also do believe that we are stuck with it. Seems that most states forgot they are more powerful than the feds a long time ago.

[Tubbith]

neither is the patriot act or holding prisoners without right to trial. Whats your point, you act like he (BO) is commiting a war crime, oh wait, that was your beloved bush that did that.

 

Hoping this wasn't directed at me. I absolutely hate the patriot act and am not fond on bush. he was a progressive and grew the federal government more in 8 years than anybody since FDR.

[DelSolSweetie]

Tubbith, I commented that the General welfare clause did not give them enough authority to do so. I wholeheartedly agree that forcing people to acquire insurance is not the thing to do. Ranks right up with making it illegal to not wear my seat belt.

 

 

 

 

i really do not want to get in this but coming from me who is dating a guy in the fire department and EMS those points are bs

 

 

 

people abuse the healthcare right now.. they have it all paid for.. and get rides to the hospital for no damn reason.. most of them get followed up there but people who could DRIVE them.. it doesnt help them get seen any faster but they are f'in stupid and lazy.. and for anyone whos had to pay for an ambulance ride knows it aint cheap.. when people actually have to pay for crap themselves they hopefully will quit abusing the system and wasting money.. (wasting tax money actually).. and i dont see the huge deal.. if you have a full time job and dont sit around on your ass on welfare then you should have insurance anyway.. if all else fails the military is always hiring and will hire damn near anyone

 

 

the seatbelt thing comes from safety.. whoever says 'well there are wrecks that not wearing a seatbelt has saved the person' its bs.. its so rare its crazy.. its easier and safer(less time on the side of the road) for the fire dept. cops and EMTs to put you in an ambulance and take you to the hospital and tow the car then do all the someone got killed paper work and to clean that crap up

 

 

nothing the government does will be perfect but there are reasons for doing it

[alisa]

I think its a nice to idea to think over it.Its so nice of you at least you people are thinking about health .I'm totally agree with you what you have said.

[cmgogo]

I think its a nice to idea to think over it.Its so nice of you at least you people are thinking about health .I'm totally agree with you what you have said.

 

???

[Xeryon]

Since we are on the topic: seatbelt laws are ridiculous. Laws to increase the general safety of people are not bad themselves though: i.e. car makers being required to install antilock brakes or seatbelts, but penalizing someone for not using the tools provided is just ridiculous. Under this new health care bill it would be the same as someone being fined for not going to the doctor when they have a cold.