I just received an email from my daughter who sells insurance benefits for a huge provider in DC. She has an excellent job that pays well and is with a very reputable company. But she is officially switching parties because she feels she is now on the termination time clock and feels she will be out of a job by 2013. I have not ascertained if that is what she was told by her boss or if she just feels that way. Certainly as a small business owner I didn't love this bill but thought it was better than the first one. However, my daughter says if a change in power could happen she thinks there could be a change. She agrees with Shadow--remember the yes votes come November.
It may be becoming "law" today, but the fight isn't over.
While some are considering it a "done deal", there are a LOT of states gearing up to bring constitutional challenges to it. Some say it will not work, it's too late. I say, you're wrong.
Some say that federal law trumps state law, in all cases. Sorry folks, I don't believe that's true, here's why. Something called the Tenth Ammendment:
Quoted Text
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people. (Undisputed, text found on Wikipedia).
That being said, a number of state laws trump federal law. One in particular, medical marijuana. 14 states now allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, even though it is prohibited under federal law. California's medical marijuana industry took in about $2 billion a year and generated $100 million in state sales taxes during 2008. On 19 October 2009 the US Deputy Attorney General issued a US Department of Justice memorandum to "All United States Attorneys" providing clear clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in US States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. The document is intended solely as "a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion and as guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities." (1)
The argument can be made that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has a right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, even for medical purposes. However, in 2009 the Attorney General directed federal prosecutors to back away from medical marijuana patients in those states with local laws legalizing medical use.
So, here we have a federal "law" that is not only selective in enforcement, but also allows the states to sell, but also to collect sales tax revenue on it's proceeds. In effect, federal law has been superseded by state law - it'll never go back to federal govt. control, in fact, more states are getting ready to "legalize" with in their state boundaries, which will, void federal law completely.
Quoted Text
In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Budget Office studied that plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.
“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO concluded. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.” (2)
Imagine now, if you will, the federal government REQUIRING you all to purchase and drive a new vehicle manufactured after 2008 because it's in the best interest of the "environment". Is THAT constitutional? This is the exact same thing.
We know that the health-care bill is unconstitutional but will the Supreme Court take the case and rule in favor of states rights or will they wimp out and back down.
So there, you were all so anxious to toss all the Republicans out so you got your dream come true. Hope you are happy! Did it feel good to vote for the third party and abstain from voting at all? You get the government you deserve each and every time.
WHOA!!!!! I voted for McCain...... reluctantly! It basically was a 'no' vote for obama. I happened to like Palin but it was clearly a suicide mission for McCain. Who were the brilliant minds who chose to give the presidential endorsement to McCain and Pailin in the first place?
The dems would have pulled it off anyway, no matter who they endorsed. Let's face it....people were tired of Bush, the 'Iraq war to nowhere', the overspending and the lack of immigration reform.....just to name a few issues.
Do I, personally like the changes this country is going in? Of course not. But it was inevitable. Now the reps have their work cut out for them. This country has flip flopped like this for hundreds of years. It was the dems turn this cycle. It will be the reps next. It's just the way it goes! There are only so many ways to invent the wheel!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
ALBANY - Senate Democrats are counting on a pot of gold!
They want to legalize medical marijuana as a way to generate nearly $15 million in licensing fees to help plug the state's $9 billion budget gap.
"It is the right thing to do and there is revenue attached to it," said state Sen. Thomas Duane (D-Manhattan). Duane and Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan) are behind the plan to make it legal for folks with serious medical woes to score limited amounts of weed from state-certified distributors - or grow it themselves.
The Senate still needs to approve the provision, though Dems included revenue projections from the sale of medical marijuana in their 2010-2011 budget proposal. "It's ludicrous," needled Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn).
So there, you were all so anxious to toss all the Republicans out so you got your dream come true. Hope you are happy! Did it feel good to vote for the third party and abstain from voting at all? You get the government you deserve each and every time.
You dont really honestly think that both parties aren't involved do you????......I see a half-hearted try by the reps, at best..... there is more under the surface of the water and it aint pretty colored coral either......
the web hasn't changed,,,,,,,just the shape of it.....but it continues to support the 'half-dead status quo flies'......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
We know that the health-care bill is unconstitutional but will the Supreme Court take the case and rule in favor of states rights or will they wimp out and back down.
I hope the supreme court can tell the difference between a right/responsibility and a product.....
AGAIN
HEALTH CARE---PERSONAL CHOICE/RESPONSIBILITY(doesn't matter what your dealt, that's life as a human) HEALTH INSURANCE----PRODUCT ONE CHOOSES TO WORK FOR TO PURCHASE(like a tv, lasik surgery etc)
IDEA--------we all stop paying our premiums---RIGHT NOW.....and start over.........bet we cant take the bull by the horns....nah we're too freakin' lazy, fearful, lied to etc....making bricks without straw for the pyramid of lies........
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Obama Administration Awarded Hundreds of Thousands in Airport Grants to Stupak’s District Two Days Before Vote
Was this Yet Another Backroom Deal to Force Obama’s Bill Down the American People’s Throats?
Three airports in the district of infamous fence-sitting and ultimately kowtowing Democrat Bart Stupak were awarded $726,409 in grants by the Obama Administration just two days before a vote on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare.
Did Stupak compromise his supposed principled stand against taxpayer funding of abortion in exchange for taxpayer dollars for pet projects?
Alpena County Regional Airport received a $85,500 grant, but had only 7,519 passenger boardings in 2008 (the most recent year for which there is information) according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data. Alpena County Regional Airport serves fewer passengers than even the late Rep. John Murtha’s famous “Airport for Nobody.”
Delta County Airport has even less customers than that, but still received a $179,209 grant.
Chippewa County International Airport received a $461,700 grant, but had only 13,733 passenger boardings in 2008.
Will Stupak come clean about this apparent backroom deal for his vote?
Call Stupak’s district office at (989) 356-0690 and ask.
Obama's health insurance rule _ it was a GOP idea Republicans were for Obama's health insurance rule before they opposed it
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Last updated: 7:16 a.m., Saturday, March 27, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it. The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.
Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed. Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.
Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.
Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.
Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans -- the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.............>>>>...............>>>>...............Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=915966#ixzz0jNlm8sEV
Re Joe Conason’s March 30 column [“The wingers who cried wolf on health care”] about Obamacare and the “rightwing nuts” who oppose it: Is this bleeding heart, left-wing liberal for real? He should be put in jail, along with the rest of the mainstream media for not doing his job. It is certainly not the job of the media to be on the sidelines, cheerleading for the president! I understand he is a columnist and is entitled to his opinion. He states that talk radio and Fox News is all up in arms over the changes in health care. And he goes on to mention a few of the positive changes that will take place early on. What he fails to mention are any of the points that bother the 56 percent of Americans who oppose this bill and believe it is bad for the country. Everyone pretty much agrees that we need some fixes and changes. We just don’t like this bill — which nobody has read. Why does he suppose that some of the largest businesses in the world are coming out against this bill? AT&T says it will cost them $1 billion, John Deere $150 million, Caterpillar $100 million, just to name a few. And now Rep. Waxman is calling them in front of Congress to testify as to their allegations of being a job-killing bill. This is total intimidation by this administration to try to quiet the opposing factions. This bill is a just the start of a government takeover of one-sixth of our economy. It needs to be looked at from a constitutionally legal point of view. I believe, I pray, that ultimately the Supreme Court will reverse this travesty and restore the power to the people — where it belongs.
Reporting from Washington Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.
And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.
Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.
Many state governments -- which traditionally had responsibility for regulating insurance companies -- also do not have such authority. And several that do are now being sued by insurance companies.
"It is a very big loophole in health reform," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.
At least in the short term, regulators will be able to do little more than require insurers to publicly explain why they want to raise rates. Consumer advocates think that will not be an effective deterrent against premium increases such as the 39% hike that Anthem Blue Cross sent some California customers last year.
"The irony here is that it was the Anthem rate increase that breathed new life into the healthcare bill," said Jerry Flanagan, medical policy director of Consumer Watchdog, a longtime supporter of tougher premium regulation. "But there is nothing in this bill to guarantee that it doesn't happen again."
The lack of muscle is stoking concerns that more rate jumps -- and an angry backlash from ratepayers -- could undermine support for implementing the healthcare overhaul.
Insurance industry officials say that talk of more regulation is misguided and have urged federal officials to focus instead on containing rising medical costs, which help drive up premiums.
"Politicians are much more comfortable looking at healthcare premiums," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm.
Ignagni, as well as some independent healthcare experts, said policymakers should look at ways to control what hospitals and other providers charge, although few elected officials have shown much appetite for doing so.
Obama endorsed Feinstein's insurance proposal this year, including it in the healthcare blueprint he unveiled in February as Democrats were struggling to revive their proposals. But congressional rules prevented Democratic leaders from including the rate control provision in the final healthcare package.
Many consumer advocates think this enhanced regulation -- known in the industry as "prior approval" authority -- is the only real way to protect ratepayers from insurers, particularly for-profit companies under pressure to generate returns that satisfy Wall Street investors.
Prior approval requires insurers to submit proposed rate increases to regulators, who can then comb through companies' financial and actuarial data to see if the proposals are justified.
Insurers cannot raise premiums without explicit permission from the regulator.
Some states have given prior approval authority to their insurance commissions and have used it to force down premiums.
In New York, the state insurance department reduced nearly a quarter of the proposed premium increases between 1990 and 1995, according to a recent department analysis.
More recently, state regulators in Kansas successfully pushed Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas to reduce a proposed premium increase for some of its elderly customers, according to state Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger.
California, which does not have the power to block health plan increases, has been using similar authority to control property and auto insurance premiums for more than 20 years, said Dwight M. Jaffee, a real estate and finance professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "It has been very successful," said Jaffee, who studied the state's experience.
Health insurance, however, is more complicated than property and auto coverage. And even the most active state regulators typically cannot investigate every proposed change in every segment of the insurance market.
Logged
