Democrats and the child health care bill

[dennis569]

GOAT LOCKER FOR PRES. !!!
I'm going to vote for whomever is giving me the most free shit.

[yamaha6000]

Originally Posted by GOAT LOCKER

Let's not stop there! Government can help in every part of our life!

I think guaranteeing housing for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing nutritious meals for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing a satisfying, high paying job for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing college education for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing happiness for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government
I think guaranteeing fill in the blank for all its citizens is a legitimate function of government

Well, you can't have that, but if you're an American citizen you are entitled to:

a heated kidney shaped pool,
a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook,
a Dyna-Gym--I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home,
a king-size Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum,
a foolproof plan and an airtight alibi,
real simulated Indian jewelry,
a Gucci shoetree,
a year's supply of antibiotics,
a personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth
and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number,
a beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick,
Rosemary's baby,
a dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams,
a new Matador, a new mastodon,
a Maverick, a Mustang, a Montego,
a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a meteor,
a Mercedes, an MG, or a Malibu,
a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck,
a Mazda, a new Monza, or a moped,
a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away,
or how about a McCulloch chainsaw,
a Las Vegas wedding,
a Mexican divorce,
a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot,
or a baby's arm holding an apple?

You are a very smart man. The government isn't here to take care of us, it is up to us to take care of ourselves. Nothing more greedy than someone thinking they deserve "free" health care.

[borndead1]

Originally Posted by Seanohue

Anarchy anyone?

Sounds good to me.

[WyoBob]

Originally Posted by Blueface

Fear not guys.
BTW, how many of us were alive 16 yrs ago and recall that healthcare platform and all the reform she was going to do if her hubby was elected?

Did you notice that Hillary pretty much forgot about health care since that time? Turns out the HC industry contributed major bucks to her.

WyoBob

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by Seanohue

Wow, I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I just read this:

http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/071001.html

Apparently, states are bring a federal case against the President's power to veto this bill. ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME??????? Denying a fundamental point in the check and balance system this country was founded on? Anarchy anyone?

Out of curiosity, does the use of signing statements cause you to have the same feeling of a "work around" to the checks and balances? I am not attempting to insight outrage or "stir up the pot" here. I truly do want to know how you feel about this practice.

[Kayak_Rat]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Out of curiosity, does the use of signing statements cause you to have the same feeling of a "work around" to the checks and balances? I am not attempting to insight outrage or "stir up the pot" here. I truly do want to know how you feel about this practice.

I think this is just ignorant. A presidents power involves veto.....not veto and be overuled. Anything they can do to make others look bad and themselves look better.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by Kayak_Rat

I think this is just ignorant. A presidents power involves veto.....not veto and be overuled. Anything they can do to make others look bad and themselves look better.

Do you think signing statement is ignorant or my question or the court case? My question was centered around the practice of adding a signing statement, not the veto at all. I know this is a bit off the specific topic, but it sort of goes along with the checks and balance part of the post I was referencing. A presidential veto can be overruled by a super majority vote, correct? I believe this works well.

[GOAT LOCKER]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Out of curiosity, does the use of signing statements cause you to have the same feeling of a "work around" to the checks and balances? I am not attempting to insight outrage or "stir up the pot" here. I truly do want to know how you feel about this practice.

Each "signing statement" must be looked at individually. All recent presidents have used them. In many recent cases, they have involved a power struggle between the Executive and Legislative branches. I know you didn't ask me, but no, I'm not outraged by this. Challenging the constitutional authority of a Presidential veto is a joke. No doubt there will be some hand picked judge who will support it, but I suspect the USSC will strike it down 7-0, if it makes it that far.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by GOAT LOCKER

Each "signing statement" must be looked at individually. All recent presidents have used them. In many recent cases, they have involved a power struggle between the Executive and Legislative branches. I know you didn't ask me, but no, I'm not outraged by this. Challenging the constitutional authority of a Presidential veto is a joke. No doubt there will be some hand picked judge who will support it, but I suspect the USSC will strike it down 7-0, if it makes it that far.

Actually, I am happy that you responded, E. I welcome anyone's opinion. I was not trying to say that signing statements were exclusive to any presidency. I merely want to know if this seemed like a way around the checks and balances. As far as the veto issue, in my opinion, the case presented may not have merit, but the ability to challenge something constitutionally does. I am not sure if anarchy is a leap I would make by someone attempting to do so, regardless of their motives.

[Corona Gigante]

Originally Posted by Seanohue

Wow, I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but I just read this:

http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/071001.html

Apparently, states are bring a federal case against the President's power to veto this bill. ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME??????? Denying a fundamental point in the check and balance system this country was founded on? Anarchy anyone?

Can someone explain to me how you can interpret the linked press release to describe "a federal case against the President's power to veto," because I just don't see it.

According to the press release, the case, brought by a coalition of states (Arizona, California, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and now Maryland) was brought to pursue legal challenges against new rules [issued in August by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services] that effectively prevent states from expanding health coverage for children through the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

The litigation alleges that these rules exceed the statutory authority set forth in Title XXI of the Social Security Act. It also argues that the federal Administrative Procedures Act was violated because CMS implemented the new rules without an opportunity for public comment. The Act mandates that the public should be given notice and a chance to comment.

Nothing at all to do with the President's right to veto that I can see.

[Da Klugs]

Health Care issues didn't start with this election cycle or with one party or another. No one is going to solve them anytime soon.

A few things from my perspective:

Health Insurance has evolved into heath care. Never a good idea in the context of folks being responsible with their utilization of services and cost is a concern.

Health Care premiums are out of wack with wages. An example from an employers perspective:

Current Premiums for employees in our state:

Single: $ 325 / Month
Family of 4: $ 1450 / Month

Translate that into an hourly cost @ 50 weeks worked @ 40 hrs = 2000 hours and you get the health insurance load per hour per employee...

Single: $ 1.95 / hr
Family of 4: $ 8.70 / hr

One of the may reasons that lower paying jobs get "outsourced". The consumer/taxpayer ultimately pays for all salary and benefits provided by any private or public entity in the US. They keep voting with their debit cards at Walmart and the like to buy foreign made goods at lower prices overtly or inadvertently voting for less funding of US benefits. If you want to assess a "fee" for health care, homeland security, etc, the only rational way to find $$$ is to tax the importation of goods. It becomes the equivalent of payroll taxes/employer paid health premiums regarding a nationally subsidized plan.

The last refuge of "fully paid" health and retirement benefits by employers remains for unionized workers (See what GM and Goodyear did this year with the retirees .. it's a dam that will break soon), Public school teachers and Federal, State and local government workers. Every other significant segment of our evolving economy has been forced to make changes/eliminate these benefits to stay in business in the face of low cost competition. If a reasonable portion of the premiums were paid by these folks, might go a long way toward funding new initiatives. Probably not a real popular item for any politician who wants to get elected to promote though. Throw in "public pensions" and now you are talking real money. Same caveat as before... lots of dependent public employee/voters suckling at this teat.

Use of illegal labor in the US and the lack of payment of SS and income taxes by their employers is also a large contributor to the shortage of funding. Cynically the argument centers on the wrong party... the illegal workers. Tougher enforcement on employers is a reasonable alternative that might actually accomplish something.

It is disheartening that the sole purpose of these debates in our government over health care is "political". Real solutions seem beyond a political compromise.

[glking]

Good point.

I don't know about all the companies, but I do know that for GM, the cost of healthcare is larger than the cost of raw materials for each car produced!

[Bigwaved]

To add to your post, Dave, the yearly increases in healthcare are changing the way contracts are being bargained regarding public teachers and many government employees. Those benefits are not being maintained at previous levels.

[Txdawg]

Originally Posted by Bax

Of corse not, I'm just saying it's tuff to draw a line. But, they must be drawn. I wish I had better answers and wish even more we had better politicians.

Well you can start drawing the line by determining whether or not you are a legal citizen of the United States! I know it's off subject but not really when you look at the whole conversation here. Someone else said it earlier, welfare should be a helping hand not a way of life and it should never go to someone not here legally.