Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[huKSer]

A tax on doing nothing? Roberts is an idiot and a traitor.

 

A logical solution to the problem of people who don't get insurance and the government ends up paying for it is to tax THEM for the services. This convoluted and idiotic ruling sets precedence that the communist government of the future can force you to participate in anything it deems worthy by taxing you for nonparticipation. It doesn't matter whether or not we vote out Obamatax.

 

Apu: Hello Mr. Simpson, I saw you looking at the beef jerky - would you like to buy some.

Homer: I'm not buying that crap, Apu. $5.00 is too much for that stuff.

Apu: Very well. That will be 35 cents tax.

[Comish]

Many have stated that there are some good provisions in the bill and that part is true. But it's also true that those provisions could have been implemented in a far, far simpler matter than this monstrosity that very few have even read.

 

After Clinton's reform efforts failed, it hurt him so badly politically that health care was not even a topic throughout the rest of his tenure. Then Republicans didn't do a damn thing about it for 8 years besides passing Medicare part D, which was basically a big handout that wasn't funded with new tax revenue or cuts. They have done absolutely nothing constructive for the past 3 1/2 years on the matter. So excuse me if it seems a little disingenuous to say well, there's some good things, but it's a monstrosity. Have you ever read a bill, or part of a bill? It takes a full "page" to express a rule for legal and clear definition reasons, and a full "page" is not a full page of tiny text. It's not fair at all to judge legislation on length. The 2400 "page" health care bill can be summarized in a few pages that almost anyone can understand. The actual text of the bill is more like a programming language; yes it's there to read, and you can act like it's voodoo magic, but the compiled output is much different and easier to understand.

 

Are you aware that there are a full 40 pages of basically "blank" pages that are open to the nebulous language such as.............as decreed by the secretary of HHS ??

I would suggest, contrary to your assertion that this is a basic document, that it is in fact............just the opposite. A true monstrosity crafted mostly by idealistic staffers and then passed as such with the salient parts to be filled in by the Secretary of HHS (after becoming law) !

[Hercules]

makes me wonder why some people think that government won't start taxing you for everything you don't have that they think you should.

Why do you wonder why? I don't think the posts I've made on it are complete drivel but you seem to gloss over them every time, so I guess I'll give up posting them so you can keep wondering.

If factual information conflicts with what someone already thinks, it's much easier to just ignore those facts than it is to actually consider them and come to a rational conclusion.

[Yossarian]

Many have stated that there are some good provisions in the bill and that part is true. But it's also true that those provisions could have been implemented in a far, far simpler matter than this monstrosity that very few have even read.

 

After Clinton's reform efforts failed, it hurt him so badly politically that health care was not even a topic throughout the rest of his tenure. Then Republicans didn't do a damn thing about it for 8 years besides passing Medicare part D, which was basically a big handout that wasn't funded with new tax revenue or cuts. They have done absolutely nothing constructive for the past 3 1/2 years on the matter. So excuse me if it seems a little disingenuous to say well, there's some good things, but it's a monstrosity. Have you ever read a bill, or part of a bill? It takes a full "page" to express a rule for legal and clear definition reasons, and a full "page" is not a full page of tiny text. It's not fair at all to judge legislation on length. The 2400 "page" health care bill can be summarized in a few pages that almost anyone can understand. The actual text of the bill is more like a programming language; yes it's there to read, and you can act like it's voodoo magic, but the compiled output is much different and easier to understand.

 

If Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, voted to enact the ACA without reading the bill, why should John Q. Public go to the trouble? She actually said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." and rammed it through the House without reading it. I realize that i am setting the bar very, very low by using Nancy Pelosi as an example, but hey, she was third in line to the Presidency so she has to be brilliant, right?

[krill]

Are you aware that there are a full 40 pages of basically "blank" pages that are open to the nebulous language such as.............as decreed by the secretary of HHS ??

I would suggest, contrary to your assertion that this is a basic document, that it is in fact............just the opposite. A true monstrosity crafted mostly by idealistic staffers and then passed as such with the salient parts to be filled in by the Secretary of HHS (after becoming law) !

 

Every bill is written by staffers, and every bill regarding executive departments grants latitude in implementing laws. That is the nature of an executive function...I don't understand what the shocking discovery is.

[Comish]

Are you aware that there are a full 40 pages of basically "blank" pages that are open to the nebulous language such as.............as decreed by the secretary of HHS ??

I would suggest, contrary to your assertion that this is a basic document, that it is in fact............just the opposite. A true monstrosity crafted mostly by idealistic staffers and then passed as such with the salient parts to be filled in by the Secretary of HHS (after becoming law) !

 

Every bill is written by staffers, and every bill regarding executive departments grants latitude in implementing laws. That is the nature of an executive function...I don't understand what the shocking discovery is.

 

Understood.

 

However, I find a huge chasm between "latitude" (which may include parsing, interpretations, semantics, etc.) vs. blank pages to be filled in after the fact which may reflect an individual's inherent biases and personal interests and motivations.

 

If you are comfortable with an existing LAW being tailored by the current and transitory philosophies of a cabinet executive (regardless of which political affiliation he/she represents now or in the future), you exhibit far more faith in the definition of a statesman vs. a politician than I can muster.

[Yossarian]

Are you aware that there are a full 40 pages of basically "blank" pages that are open to the nebulous language such as.............as decreed by the secretary of HHS ??

I would suggest, contrary to your assertion that this is a basic document, that it is in fact............just the opposite. A true monstrosity crafted mostly by idealistic staffers and then passed as such with the salient parts to be filled in by the Secretary of HHS (after becoming law) !

 

Every bill is written by staffers, and every bill regarding executive departments grants latitude in implementing laws. That is the nature of an executive function...I don't understand what the shocking discovery is.

 

It is one thing to vote on a bill that you have never read, but is it too much to ask for a member of Congree to at least know what is in the bill? Nancy Pelosi appeared to not have read it and actually stated that she (and the some members of Congress) didn't know what was in it. I'm not shocked...just disgusted.

[krill]

 

However, I find a huge chasm between "latitude" (which may include parsing, interpretations, semantics, etc.) vs. blank pages to be filled in after the fact which may reflect an individual's inherent biases and personal interests and motivations.

 

I have been looking for references to these blank pages, but I assure you that after a bill is signed into law it can only be amended by the legislative process...there's no literal fill in the blank. If you are referring to something that is specifically "at the discretion of", again that is an executive function. Many of the battles in Washington are rooted in how the executive branch executes laws.

 

It seems in general there are some grave misconceptions about this. On the horror of representatives not reading bills in their entirety, do you think Bill Gates ever read the millions of lines of code for Windows? He doesn't have to read every line to have an intimate understanding of how it works. I guess we can romanticize about the good old days of pre-industrial America, when there were only a few million people and it was relativly strait forward to govern, but our country is nothing like that now. You have to think of legislation as a very large system, like an operating system that interacts with many other programs (other laws). Even if you read the bill it wouldn't mean anything.

[Yossarian]

I have been looking for references to these blank pages, but I assure you that after a bill is signed into law it can only be amended by the legislative process...there's no literal fill in the blank. If you are referring to something that is specifically "at the discretion of", again that is an executive function. Many of the battles in Washington are rooted in how the executive branch executes laws.

 

I suspect that the reference was to all of the "rules" that have not been written for implementation of the ACA some two years after the bill became law.

[knapplc]

I just want confirmation by those so opposed to this bill that they were equally opposed to the Patriot Act back when Bush ramrodded that through congress. Yes? No hypocrisy, right?

 

This is all about big government, not about Democrats vs. Republicans, correct?

[JJ Husker]

I just want confirmation by those so opposed to this bill that they were equally opposed to the Patriot Act back when Bush ramrodded that through congress. Yes? No hypocrisy, right?

 

This is all about big government, not about Democrats vs. Republicans, correct?

 

How is somebody elses perceived inconsistency any type of argument, for or against the issue at hand? I for one didnt raise a big stink at the time the Patriot Act was passed. I felt fairly comfortable that it was needed, would not adversely affect many innocent citizens, and I just plain wasn't paying that close of attention at that time. And yes, it was a little partisan in that I personally trusted Bush a lot more than I ever will Obama. But the purchase or tax mandate in the ACA is different. That directly involves e every citizen. They are not the same and whether or not someone was opposed to the Patriot Act doesn't have diddly squat to do with the ACA.

[Comish]

I just want confirmation by those so opposed to this bill that they were equally opposed to the Patriot Act back when Bush ramrodded that through congress. Yes? No hypocrisy, right?

 

This is all about big government, not about Democrats vs. Republicans, correct?

Correct. This is about BIG GOVERNMENT. This is about states rights vs. federal intrusion.

 

And you make a good point about the Patriot act, but "providing for the common defense" would seem to be a more logical extension of federal power than an unprecedented grab of the private sector.

 

Your tag about dems vs pubs comes into play mainly because states rights and smaller government are more closely aligned with pubs. However, characterize it however you wish.

[Hercules]

I just want confirmation by those so opposed to this bill that they were equally opposed to the Patriot Act back when Bush ramrodded that through congress. Yes? No hypocrisy, right?

 

This is all about big government, not about Democrats vs. Republicans, correct?

 

How is somebody elses perceived inconsistency any type of argument, for or against the issue at hand? I for one didnt raise a big stink at the time the Patriot Act was passed. I felt fairly comfortable that it was needed, would not adversely affect many innocent citizens, and I just plain wasn't paying that close of attention at that time. And yes, it was a little partisan in that I personally trusted Bush a lot more than I ever will Obama. But the purchase or tax mandate in the ACA is different. That directly involves e every citizen. They are not the same and whether or not someone was opposed to the Patriot Act doesn't have diddly squat to do with the ACA.

 

Both acts directly involve every citizen, it's just that republicans freak out about taxes and not so much about civil liberties. The Patriot Act was a WAY bigger invasion of individual rights than Obamacare - it's not even close.

 

I just want confirmation by those so opposed to this bill that they were equally opposed to the Patriot Act back when Bush ramrodded that through congress. Yes? No hypocrisy, right?

 

This is all about big government, not about Democrats vs. Republicans, correct?

Correct. This is about BIG GOVERNMENT. This is about states rights vs. federal intrusion.

 

And you make a good point about the Patriot act, but "providing for the common defense" would seem to be a more logical extension of federal power than an unprecedented grab of the private sector.

 

Your tag about dems vs pubs comes into play mainly because states rights and smaller government are more closely aligned with pubs. However, characterize it however you wish.

 

This is just bs semantics. You can call the Patriot Act "providing for the common defense," while I can call it an "invasion of privacy." You can call Obamacare "an unprecedented grab of the private sector," while I can call it, "providing for the common well-being."

 

This entire debate, and this entire thread has been polarized along partisan lines, not truly ideological ones. Republicans have no friggin idea who they are anymore, and that point is reinforced by the fact that their presidential nominee passed health care legislation as a governor which is virtually indistinguishable from what Obama passed as president.

[Comish]

I just want confirmation by those so opposed to this bill that they were equally opposed to the Patriot Act back when Bush ramrodded that through congress. Yes? No hypocrisy, right?

 

This is all about big government, not about Democrats vs. Republicans, correct?

 

How is somebody elses perceived inconsistency any type of argument, for or against the issue at hand? I for one didnt raise a big stink at the time the Patriot Act was passed. I felt fairly comfortable that it was needed, would not adversely affect many innocent citizens, and I just plain wasn't paying that close of attention at that time. And yes, it was a little partisan in that I personally trusted Bush a lot more than I ever will Obama. But the purchase or tax mandate in the ACA is different. That directly involves e every citizen. They are not the same and whether or not someone was opposed to the Patriot Act doesn't have diddly squat to do with the ACA.

 

Both acts directly involve every citizen, it's just that republicans freak out about taxes and not so much about civil liberties. The Patriot Act was a WAY bigger invasion of individual rights than Obamacare - it's not even close.

 

I just want confirmation by those so opposed to this bill that they were equally opposed to the Patriot Act back when Bush ramrodded that through congress. Yes? No hypocrisy, right?

 

This is all about big government, not about Democrats vs. Republicans, correct?

Correct. This is about BIG GOVERNMENT. This is about states rights vs. federal intrusion.

 

And you make a good point about the Patriot act, but "providing for the common defense" would seem to be a more logical extension of federal power than an unprecedented grab of the private sector.

 

Your tag about dems vs pubs comes into play mainly because states rights and smaller government are more closely aligned with pubs. However, characterize it however you wish.

 

This is just bs semantics. You can call the Patriot Act "providing for the common defense," while I can call it an "invasion of privacy." You can call Obamacare "an unprecedented grab of the private sector," while I can call it, "providing for the common well-being."

 

This entire debate, and this entire thread has been polarized along partisan lines, not truly ideological ones. Republicans have no friggin idea who they are anymore, and that point is reinforced by the fact that their presidential nominee passed health care legislation as a governor which is virtually indistinguishable from what Obama passed as president.

Of course you can call it whatever you like.........that's what's great about this country. We can have open and heartfelt debate.

But if you truly want to characterize it as "providing for the common well-being", then you might want to explain how there will still be millions uncovered after passage. And, why the popular provisions that found traction on both sides (across state lines, children remaining on parents plan until 26, preconditions, etc.) weren't forged into a truly transparent and sensible bill.

And the answer is because it really wasn't about health care. It's about federal power and health care was simply the vehicle.

['SkersRule]

I rarely eat meat. I eat less grains than I eat meat. Most of my diet is legumes, vegetables, and fruits. Yet the taxes I pay toward agriculture are going mostly toward subsidizing meat, dairy, and grains.

 

We have taxes taken out of our checks and other taxes mostly based on usage or consumption. What Congress does with those tax monies collected may or may not be used to subsidize something we may or may not use. That's not the issue. The issue is, government is telling us buy healthcare or we'll tax you.

 

And since you say you rarely eat meat, it would be akin to the government telling you to start consuming more meat or pay higher taxes.