New US Heathcare Reform Legislation Passed by Legislature

[Saru Inc]

Can't the argument be made that the military "makes our lives better" us by "protecting" us? So should we still fund that or what?

Obviously we should still fund our military, the point some posters were making was that the money we spend on the military is waaaay more than necessary, and should be reduced.

 

I support this bill, I suppose. But it really doesn't affect me personally at all, except for the part about being under parents insurance until I'm 26. So woo. :thumbup:

 

 

I do agree we should cut back our military, as well as our humanitarian efforts around the globe, but how much should we cut back, is the question. I think our troops are in lots of places where they simply aren't needed, and combat pay is a lot of money, and for every single person in the army getting combat pay (thats in a combat zone) is simply too much.

[Flyingjj]

The problem with states' rights is that theoretically the states have a right to make a law against federal law, but it has a problem on three parts:

1. They (states) don't often have the resources to enforce such a restriction.

2. The federal government can enforce penalties on those states which do not follow their laws. (i.e., the feds won't give them as much money for other stuff)

And, finally,

3. That's what the civil war was fought over, whether federal law could override state law. Guess what? The Union (aka the national government) won.

 

 

The Union won because Lincoln shredded the Constitution and because the south was less developed (ie less railroads).

 

 

I hope the bill gets banned by more states, as it does violate our tenth amendment. Hopefully the Supreme Court will look into it, though I doubt that would happen.

The point wasn't about how the Union won, it was about the fact that the Union won, meaning that the federal government was going to do whatever the heck it wanted with states' rights, which it has been doing ever since.

[Tacos]

This is why we don't trust the Democrat's with the Senate ;)

[champion]

This is why we don't trust the Democrat's with the Senate ;)

When you say we don't trust them, I'm sure you mean you personally don't agree with their decisions, right?

[Flyingjj]

We don't even necessarily need to cut military spending, just military waste. If we redirected the money we wasted, we'd have plenty. Ever watch a documentary on how much we waste, especially when we contract jobs? I saw a special once where they trashed an entire heavy duty semi simply because it had a flat tire.

 

And I have people I know in the military who use and abuse all sorts of stuff simply because the government will buy them a new one if they break it.

 

Needless to say, government agencies, military especially, do not operate on a shoestring.

[fakeitormakeit2]

We don't even necessarily need to cut military spending, just military waste. If we redirected the money we wasted, we'd have plenty. Ever watch a documentary on how much we waste, especially when we contract jobs? I saw a special once where they trashed an entire heavy duty semi simply because it had a flat tire.

 

And I have people I know in the military who use and abuse all sorts of stuff simply because the government will buy them a new one if they break it.

 

Needless to say, government agencies, military especially, do not operate on a shoestring.

If a bureau was added in the government called the bureau of waste reduction, I'm positive the money it would save would exceed its cost by at least tenfold.

[Bloodstain]

if i understand the bill (not a safe bet by any means) the poor really don't have any more access to health care than they did before. the big issue is that insurers cannot refuse to insure someone for a preexisting condition and they cannot drop someones coverage just because they are unprofitable to cover.

 

Small steps America, small steps. One day you'll have a good medical system, but holy crap I thought I'd never see the day when insurers couldn't drop someone for that reason

[stevepole]

This is why we don't trust the Democrat's with the Senate ;)

 

I also don't understand how we've become a society that we can't 'trust' people of opposite parties. There is so much hatred for one another that it gets us nowhere.

 

We don't even necessarily need to cut military spending, just military waste. If we redirected the money we wasted, we'd have plenty. Ever watch a documentary on how much we waste, especially when we contract jobs? I saw a special once where they trashed an entire heavy duty semi simply because it had a flat tire.

 

And I have people I know in the military who use and abuse all sorts of stuff simply because the government will buy them a new one if they break it.

 

Needless to say, government agencies, military especially, do not operate on a shoestring.

 

Cutting the 'waste' would be a good step in cutting military spending but you can't take every documentary for their word. The creators have created their film to convey some sort of message so the information that they present could be biased towards their objective. I'm not trying to say the documentary you watched was wrong just wanted to make that you are aware of this if you weren't already.

[PoorLepRecon]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[hide]

(CNN) -- Ten states plan to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform bill, Florida's attorney general announced Monday.

 

Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

 

All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.

 

Also Monday, Virginia's Republican attorney general said his state would file a lawsuit challenging the health care bill. It was unclear if Virginia would join the other states or proceed on its own.

 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill on Sunday night, and Obama intends to sign it Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.

 

McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services.

 

"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."

 

McCollum also said that portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill," he said.

 

McCollum said he expected the lawsuit to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Later Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama administration expected to win any lawsuits filed against the health care bill.

 

The Democratic governor of Washington criticized her state's attorney general, Rob McKenna, for being part of the planned lawsuit.

 

Gov. Chris Gregoire issued a statement that said she disagreed with McKenna's decision and that the attorney general was not representing her. Gregoire's statement also said she would actively oppose the lawsuit.

[/hide]

 

 

11 states are challenging the constitutionality of the bill: Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Viriginia, and Washington. It will be interesting when this does reach the Supreme Court. I think some of the bill will have to be revised before it is put into law.

[champion]

Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

 

All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.

Of course he would say that. :rolleyes:

[fakeitormakeit2]

Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

 

All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.

Of course he would say that. :rolleyes:

I find partisan politics and factionalism so stupid, once you're elected you should vote American not Republican, not Democrat, not whatever you want to call yourself. That being said though, the bill is under violation of the 10th amendment (an amendment I particularly don't like but it is still valid in the law system therefore it must be yielded to) and I find this health care bill foolish, a waste of money and it will shrink the budgets of average American families who will not receive a benefit but will pay for people who can't afford health care. This will also decrease states' ability to spend money on other things and it will probably decrease the salary of doctors. This bill is a bunch of foolishness consolidated onto paper which I bet the Democrats didn't even read before they voted for it. And although I'm completely against it, I bet many Republicans didn't read it either before they voted nay.

[krimi]

Do the articles of the constitution outweigh the amendments? Does the power vested to the states outweigh Congress's powers given by the inherently-broad General Welfare Clause?

These questions aren't directed at anyone.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Well I'd say it depends on the wording of the amendment because since an amendment is a touch up on the constitution, it could carry a lot of weight, or it could not. Generally an amendment is added because it is needed because the Constitution has not made provisions or specifications for what the amendment deals with, therefore it would generally it would not supersede or be inferior to the Constitution articles themselves because they are to express the same line of thought. They should be extensions rather then overrides, but if an override is needed to extend the train of thought, then so be it. I think that the first amendment supersedes the general welfare clause because that would give the government power to take away people's expression under the justification that its for the safety of everyone or benefit, and we all know the Benjamin Franklin cliche about liberty and safety.

 

As for the 10th Amendment I feel it overrides the last line of Article 1 section 8.

[stevepole]

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[hide]

(CNN) -- Ten states plan to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform bill, Florida's attorney general announced Monday.

 

Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

 

All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.

 

Also Monday, Virginia's Republican attorney general said his state would file a lawsuit challenging the health care bill. It was unclear if Virginia would join the other states or proceed on its own.

 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill on Sunday night, and Obama intends to sign it Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.

 

McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services.

 

"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."

 

McCollum also said that portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill," he said.

 

McCollum said he expected the lawsuit to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Later Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama administration expected to win any lawsuits filed against the health care bill.

 

The Democratic governor of Washington criticized her state's attorney general, Rob McKenna, for being part of the planned lawsuit.

 

Gov. Chris Gregoire issued a statement that said she disagreed with McKenna's decision and that the attorney general was not representing her. Gregoire's statement also said she would actively oppose the lawsuit.

[/hide]

 

 

11 states are challenging the constitutionality of the bill: Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Viriginia, and Washington. It will be interesting when this does reach the Supreme Court. I think some of the bill will have to be revised before it is put into law.

 

 

The state of Washington doesn't actually agree with our Attorney General Rob McKenna who is one of the people challenging the bill.

 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/199041.asp?from=blog_last3

[Flyingjj]

Cutting the 'waste' would be a good step in cutting military spending but you can't take every documentary for their word. The creators have created their film to convey some sort of message so the information that they present could be biased towards their objective. I'm not trying to say the documentary you watched was wrong just wanted to make that you are aware of this if you weren't already.

Yes, I realize documentaries shouldn't be taken at face value. I am in college, ya know. That means I know stuff. Yeah. :-P Now that I think about it, I think it was a CNN special or something, not that that's necessarily any better.

 

As for states suing the government, I'm sad to see South Dakota on the list. Yes, I know we're a fairly heavy Republican stronghold, but two of our three Senators and Representatives are Democrats, so it disappoints me. SD, I love yea, but you're too freaking conservative.

 

As for the actual constitutionality of the bill, an argument can and will be made in support of the bill from the loose interpretation side of things that this law falls under the power of Congress to provide for the "general welfare of the United States." Given current leanings of the Supreme Court, it could likely go either way, but as it is so silly and you don't see anyone challenging social security, for example, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the challenge.

[Kenshinjapan]

The problem with states' rights is that theoretically the states have a right to make a law against federal law, but it has a problem on three parts:

1. They (states) don't often have the resources to enforce such a restriction.

2. The federal government can enforce penalties on those states which do not follow their laws. (i.e., the feds won't give them as much money for other stuff)

And, finally,

3. That's what the civil war was fought over, whether federal law could override state law. Guess what? The Union (aka the national government) won.

 

 

The Union won because Lincoln shredded the Constitution and because the south was less developed (ie less railroads).

 

 

I hope the bill gets banned by more states, as it does violate our tenth amendment. Hopefully the Supreme Court will look into it, though I doubt that would happen.

 

If they do end up looking into it, we might be in for a surprise since we currently have a conservative majority in the supreme court.

[Pirate_Felix]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[hide]

(CNN) -- Ten states plan to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform bill, Florida's attorney general announced Monday.

 

Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

 

All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.

 

Also Monday, Virginia's Republican attorney general said his state would file a lawsuit challenging the health care bill. It was unclear if Virginia would join the other states or proceed on its own.

 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill on Sunday night, and Obama intends to sign it Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.

 

McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services.

 

"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."

 

McCollum also said that portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill," he said.

 

McCollum said he expected the lawsuit to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Later Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama administration expected to win any lawsuits filed against the health care bill.

 

The Democratic governor of Washington criticized her state's attorney general, Rob McKenna, for being part of the planned lawsuit.

 

Gov. Chris Gregoire issued a statement that said she disagreed with McKenna's decision and that the attorney general was not representing her. Gregoire's statement also said she would actively oppose the lawsuit.

[/hide]

 

 

11 states are challenging the constitutionality of the bill: Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Viriginia, and Washington. It will be interesting when this does reach the Supreme Court. I think some of the bill will have to be revised before it is put into law.

If im not mistaken the american civil war was about states having their local laws prioritized over federal laws. And we all know who won the civil war so now you have to take the federal laws in your state.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

 

All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.

Of course he would say that. :rolleyes:

I realize I'm going to sound biased because I'm obviously Republican but just because they are republican and think it is unconstitutional doesnt make them wrong.

[Saru Inc]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[hide]

(CNN) -- Ten states plan to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform bill, Florida's attorney general announced Monday.

 

Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

 

All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.

 

Also Monday, Virginia's Republican attorney general said his state would file a lawsuit challenging the health care bill. It was unclear if Virginia would join the other states or proceed on its own.

 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill on Sunday night, and Obama intends to sign it Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.

 

McCollum said the lawsuit would challenge the bill's provision requiring people to purchase health insurance, along with provisions that will force state government to spend more on health care services.

 

"This is a tax or a penalty on just living, and that's unconstitutional," he said of the mandate to purchase health coverage. "There's no provision in the Constitution of the United States giving Congress the power to do that."

 

McCollum also said that portions of the bill would force states to spend money they don't have, which he called a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

 

"There's no way we can do what's required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill," he said.

 

McCollum said he expected the lawsuit to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Later Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama administration expected to win any lawsuits filed against the health care bill.

 

The Democratic governor of Washington criticized her state's attorney general, Rob McKenna, for being part of the planned lawsuit.

 

Gov. Chris Gregoire issued a statement that said she disagreed with McKenna's decision and that the attorney general was not representing her. Gregoire's statement also said she would actively oppose the lawsuit.

[/hide]

 

 

11 states are challenging the constitutionality of the bill: Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Viriginia, and Washington. It will be interesting when this does reach the Supreme Court. I think some of the bill will have to be revised before it is put into law.

If im not mistaken the american civil war was about states having their local laws prioritized over federal laws. And we all know who won the civil war so now you have to take the federal laws in your state.

 

 

And here's the "loophole" if you wanna call it that:

 

 

That only applies if the gov't keeps within it's constitutional bounds, which this healthcare is far out of bounds. Thus, the States don't have to listen to the gov't.

[Zygimantas]

The democrats and republicans are like having a war. Its pissing me off that two different political parties can't come to a consensus about anything. This government seems flawed. :|

[The Dark Lord]

The democrats and republicans are like having a war. Its pissing me off that two different political parties can't come to a consensus about anything. This government seems flawed. :|

 

 

That's why we need to abolish the "two-party" system and make it like the UK in terms of how the parties work. Of course, it's better to just abolish all factions and add an amendment to the Constitution stating that no one shall create a political party. Then, we can only vote for people rather than parties.

[1_man_army]

The democrats and republicans are like having a war. Its pissing me off that two different political parties can't come to a consensus about anything. This government seems flawed. :|

 

 

That's why we need to abolish the "two-party" system and make it like the UK in terms of how the parties work. Of course, it's better to just abolish all factions and add an amendment to the Constitution stating that no one shall create a political party. Then, we can only vote for people rather than parties.

 

The UK system is essentially a two party system as well. The Lib Dems (our third party) can get a decent amount of the vote but they have no chance of ever being elected.

[Pirate_Felix]

Lets see how many parties holland got

GroenLinks

PVV (with the blonde haired guy)

CDA (with the harry potter guy)

SP

CU

PVDA

PVDD

D66

VVD

SGP

OSF

 

i think that covers it, too much choice for the simple people so they dont vote

[tortilliachp]

This topic has so many intersting opinions there's just too much to comment on. It's also probably nicer and more productive to generalize.

 

political system: look to Norway. 7-10 ish political parties work fine, coalition governments consist of 3-4 parties, those of other opinions (smaller parties) gain significant leverage, as they are often the deciding interest groups required to pass legislation. You have options, if "your" party does something you dislike, as there is a similar, yet somewhat different party: i.e. politicians are more accountable. Smaller parties also anihilate extremism, as these parties get excluded by the center, meaning change is gradual, less polarized, and the centre majority of the population almsot always find themselves catered to. cooperation neccessitates compromise. One has to ensure the chaos of italy and too many parties does not ensue though, which can easily be controlled by a 3-4% vote neccessity for a party to hold seats in parliament. Now if only norwegian voters weren't so silly and short-sighted...

 

"I have to pay X dollars more" selfishness: the bane of America, the price of the American Nightmare for all those being exploited so the very few can get very rich. When no one is willing to pay anything to ensure the well-being of others, society has lost its sense of ethics. The general american opinion contradicts "in God we trust" on a daily, and ideological level. Christianity and religion practice selflessness and alturism as a creed of life, Americans envision a society where the right to exploit their surroundings and peers is grounded more strongly in the constitution and its amendments than the ethics worshipped every sunday. The empty rituals of religion are sidetracked by the worship of materialism and oneself as an individual.

 

I wonder how often we, as modern men, reflect upon our own lives, if ever. The west seems lost in national debt that finances extravagant spending, while not paying the taxes for the services we gain. Spending the money of future generations, it's sickening to find that we are so entranced by our own sacreligious greed that we object when the money is spent on someone other than our immediate selves, as the deficits pile up. This "dining and dashing" through life is dispicable.

 

Pay back the defict of the last 20 years, the same people benefiting are still alive. Cut military spending drastically, but most importantly raise the taxes. Healthcare is a human right.

[OldJoe]

^Nothing to do with the US healthcare, but your system in Norway is crap. The votes out in the country-side are worth more than those in the city. If the votes were equal, you would have the blue side governing.