It is about time sanity returned to this country. Now, more than half the states are against this monstrocity. Of course, the administration will hold this up in the courts and play 4 corner, but Congress is also going to be chipping away at the law. Sooner or later, the Progressive Socialists will get the idea that the folks don’t want this and we need to pass something that makes sense and does not add trillions to the deficit and will not punish people and kill jobs with business.
If we can’t require people to participate, how can we maintain the central role of private insurers in health care financing? Even before the law was enacted, government expenditures had grown to more than 50% of all health care spending.
RedState….no offense, but I hope they don’t. Ever since my husband was laid off after 32 years, we have been paying COBRA over $1500. a month in insurance premiums for health care coverage for just the two of us. I am so tired of the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies gouging us…fortunately, our office doesn’t cater to the health insurance communities so the impact of Obama’s health care plan won’t affect us as an insurance agency.
Please, don;’t judge me until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes….
So just how do you think Obamacare will help your situation? Do you really believe a government program that has not even addressed health care costs will reduce your cost for coverage. I like many have walked in your shoes because I purchase health insurance for my self and all my employees. Obamacare has done nothing to reduce my cost and in fact has increased my cost with some of the ridiculous provisions that have already gone into effect. Why should we be forced to cover dependents up to age 26 even if they are married and out of the house. Please be careful what you wish for!!!
You shouldn’t, but the idea of requiring private insurance companies to cover dependents in certain situations is extremely beneficial. I don’t believe that we should be taking care of those that live off of their parents without purpose, but I know that this one requirement was a bright spot for me in an otherwise grossly overgrown reform. I am a college student, and not being required to work full time to provide insurance AND go to school full time definitely makes my studies more worthwhile.
I have nothing good to say about much of the reform. REQUIRING us to have health insurance?! I have a hard time seeing how this was passed in the first place.
This being said, I think that it should have been designed to take care of those who are trying to make something of themselves. I’d much rather my insurance rates went up a bit to help a student succeed than having my taxes skyrocket to help someone that’s making no effort.
And your solution is to have government run the whole show? I’m sorry for your situation, but forcing this on everyone is wrong on so many levels, including violating the 10th and 14th amendments.
My costs went up incrementally, until now. The plan I was on at work went up 70% under the reform. Wasn’t it meant to cut costs? Well, it didn’t. So, I had to change plans.
Who do you think paid the bulk of that premium before your husband got laid off? It was his employer, no doubt. Are we supposed to foot your bill now?
February 1, 2011 at 7:22 pm
W R Lockhart says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Your plan costs have NOT gone up under the reform. Read the information about the bill. Nothing will really change until 2014 except a few things like being able to insure your kids up to 26, not being able to cancel a policy AFTER the policyholder becomes sick, etc.
February 1, 2011 at 7:18 pm
W R Lockhart says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re NOT forced to cover your dependents. It’s an option. Unfortunately, most of the people against the bill actually know nothing about it.
My plan costs have gone up under the reform. How would you know? There’s been NO change in the proportion of the employer contribution to the costs either.
Next time, point to facts rather than talking out your a**
A parent is not forced to cover their dependents, but the company itself is required to leave that option open. I believe that’s what mohabe was referring to, since he stated he makes insurance decisions for his company.
If you have pre-existing conditions you can NOT purchase insurance elsewhere…for conditions like life-long diabetes (type 1), heart attack, stroke…just try to find it…not happening. You have to be uninsured for at least 6 months to even be eligible for a last resort plan for most States. Our premiums also run OVER $2000 per month, and only option is to become uninsured, which we may soon have to be due to $$$.
Health insurance is easy to get if you are healthy or in a big work group…otherwise it is everybody for themselves.
Its silly to think the govt will gouge you less, I can’t think of any service you can get from the govt for less than the private market, govt doesn’t make anything cheaper, it just shifts to costs to somebody else.
The American people can get medical insurance premium relief through congressional action.
Here’s a small list of soem fo the ways Congress can lower medical costs off the top of my head.
A. Make it easier to open medical schools in America.
B. Reduce the time and effort for new drugs, $600 million is a bit much to get a drug though FDA approval, force drug makers to license their drugs to multiple manufacturers with limited liability, a patent is one issue, a monopoly an entirely differetn issue.
C. Reduce liability with tort reform, loser pays.
D. Allow medical insurers to sell across state lines so consumers can choose their coverages-rather than lefitsts state legislatures-I’m not interested in insuring for the prospect of transgendered operations or counseling.
E. Allow non-doctors to perform some medical services.
F. Allow medical device makers to train and license their own technicians with limited liability.
H. Allow American consumers to use self diagniostic tools and self prescribe drugs with limited liability on drug makers and device makers.
I. Make all hospitals “right to work’ facilities.
Of course all of the above would screw trial lawers, the medical cartels and the government power profiteers but medical care would become much more affordable accessible and available and America could regain its competetive advantage.
Think of the thousands of US companies driven offshore or into bankruptcy because they simply couldn’t afford the medical care of their employees.
Obamacare didn’t make anything cheaper-which is the fundamental problem with our medical system, it merely shifted the cost to others or the govt-which is others.
And etc. Please, stop just mindlessly spouting the drivel of the far right. Learn something about the bill, THEN offer your comments.
And, for your information, our cos. have moved their operations offshore because the costs of production are so much cheaper than using unionized labor to make labor intensive products – they can’t compete with foreign cos. with their high US costs. And that’s a fact, regardless of what the unions say.
According to the UAW themselves, the average wage for an assemblyline worker for the “big three” is $110,000 per year, and that’s after all the concessions they made to get the gov’t bailouts (actually loans, with co. stock as collateral -all repaid now except Chrysler)- that’s a lot for semi-skilled assembly line workers.
Chris C…..you obviously don’t live in California…..show me a policy that costs less than COBRA with the SAME COVERAGES and I’ll be the first one in line…..I’ve been shopping for over a year….
Excellent! Exactly as it should be. This would have been an enormous expansion of Federal powers, far beyound what the framers and states originally intended. There is a federal law that requires medical facilities treat anyone, even if they cannot pay including illegal aliens!! Now the prices skyrocket because of this, and the federal government wants to force people to buy coverage. Force everywhere. Reminds you of a rapist. I have the power, I have the guns, you have to just sit still while I have my way with you. Hooray for this Federal judge.
“He was referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional.”
This appears to imply either the judge was playing out a political agenda OR, if appointed by a Democrat, he would’ve ignored the unconstitutional nature of the mandate and “let it slide”? Really? Is this what our country has come to?
I thought this would be a place for knowledgable insurance people to repond. Where are you?? Did everyone forget Insurance 101 – “Law of large numbers” – How about “Adverse selection?” Why do you think states require auto insurance – its called “financial responsibility”. Everyone will use the system eventually (sorry – its not just illegal immigrants) – who is suppose to pay? This is the only way we have a chance of keeping health insurance in the private sector – if this is shot down – the next step will be “single payer” – put us all on medicare.
BG: You asked, Why do you think states require auto insurance – its called “financial responsibility”. This is financial responsibility toward THIRD PARTIES. States do not require you to carry physical damage coverage on your auto – that would be the equivalent of medical insurance, your first party coverage.
States only require 3rd party coverage for auto insurance, which meets the common good threshold-that’s why most states call their law a financial resposibility law–and notice I said states. On the other hand, government does not care (state or federal), nor should it, whether or not one insures his own vehicle. It is none of the government’s business.
I wonder how many of you are willing to give up your Social Security Benefits???????? If we are going to chuck Obama’s Insurance plan, why not chuck social Security while we are at it????
If I could, I would! Social Security is a ponzi scheme, by definition (i.e. money paid out comes directly from new investors, not returns from invested dollars. You know…LIKE BERNIE MADOFF!!!). Please, allow me to take my money and get a better than 2% return on investment! I’m begging for it.
The day SS is gone is the day I stop throwing away money. Actuarily, SS is belly up. It’s just a matter of time before that is gone. I am not willing to give it up – I have been voting for decades for politicians who support getting rid of it. Anyone who is relying on SS for retirement is a fool.
Social Security would not be in the mess it is in if the Politicians had kept their grubby hands off of it. LBJ and his Progressive Democrat friends voted to put the trust fund into the General Fund and have been robbing it ever since to fund their entitlement programs. Congress should pass a law that would keep the Social Security Trust Fund separate from other government programs and then it would have a chance to recover funds.
Social Security is supposed to still be solvent because the Federal Government is supposed to pay back the money it has “borrowed”. Actuarily it will be able to pay until sometime like 2040, as long as the Feds pay it back. It will run out then because the politicians have raised the benefits far faster than the contributions, i.e. buying votes for their re-election on the backs of all the people who will someday be retiring. And the people already on SS love it! They are getting far more out of SS than their contributions would ever pay for.
I’ll give up my Social Security “benefits” if I can also keep the $10,000+ of taxes paid directly by me or on my behalf annually for the next 30+ years until I would collect anything.
I will be 70 years old in 2037, the year they currently project Social Security to be exhausted. So, I’ll take my 4% today and do with it as I see fit, thank you very much.
Be careful what you wish for, SFOInsuranceLady. Since you brought it up, I would definitely chuck Social Security benefits lock, stock and barrel today if they allowed me to opt out and stop paying the tax (along with my employer match). This is a “no doubt about it” decision I could make in a millisecond.
Unfortunately, the fact we are not permitted to make such a decision is proof positive Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.
Bernie Madoff was vilified (and rightly so) and prosecuted for his egregious theft from individuals. However, members of the ruling class pontificate about the wonders of their sacred Ponzi scheme called Social Security and, instead of going to prison themselves, have homage paid at their political altars for supposedly caring about us. This hyprocisy (on the part of both the politicians and those in the electorate who are buying the snake oil) would be laughable if it was not so infuriating.
Even if you don’t include the tax confiscated from our employers, my wife and I would have bucket loads more money at retirement if we were able to invest our Social Security tax rather than have it confiscated by the federal government. Or, we could choose to take the additional money and assist our own family members who might fall on tough times or have already retired. The key word being “choose.”
It just seems that all issues on which we defer to the federal government ultimately become a mandate (i.e. loss of liberty and freedom) paid for via IRS confiscation or legal plunder. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are fiscal disasters. Anyone who argues the point is intellectually dishonest.
With the government already responsible for over 40% of medical expenditures via Medicaid and Medicare, it is also rather evident their involvment is a big part of the problem with health care costs. Even if you put the consitutional arguments aside, handing control of all health care over to the federal government would be a disaster simply from an economic standpoint. Again, intelluctual honesty should prohibit any debate.
I think Kennedy is still very annoyed with Obama so O better do some major fence mending to keep the law on the books….the law has some ggod points but I think what really galls so many is the mandatory purchase bit. Of course if the law goes down, does any one have a better plan to offer?
Yes. Allow for hospitalization only plans. Allow for bare-bones plans that don;t cover pregnancy, chiropractors, or other items that very few use. Then undertake tort reform and disallow lawyers from receiving any kind of payouts for punitive damages. This alone will immediately cause malpractice insurance to drop like a stone.
So, let’s review: Remove government mandates and leech lawyers. Only good things can come of that.
I can’t claim to understand the nuances and impact of the health care legislation. Frankly I’m not even sure whether or not I support an “individual mandate.”
I do personally find it quite hilarious that Republicans have pushed for an individual mandate for some time, and some pushed strongly for it during the original debate. Now that the law passed they are rabidly opposed to it.
My conclusion is that *both* sides are using a critically important issue as a political football. Nobody has any solution for the one thing which has more impact than anything else: our public health. If we as a nation continue to become less healthy then our costs will increase. If we do that while destroying our math & science education system and encouraging foreign students to leave after graduating, then our costs will increase even more rapidly.
Nobody has an answer for tens of millions of Americans becoming fat lazy sloths with Type II diabetes and heart disease. And the only government “solutions” are terrifying — we have the “shut up and stop calling us fat, ’cause we’re free and we’re gonna eat all the Big Macs we want” crowd, and we have the “government must control what and how you eat” crowd.
Michelle Obama encourages WalMart to sell healthier food instead of prepackaged sugar crap and the right calls her a Marxist.
It seems we’ve all gone totally nuts. I don’t listen to a darn thing any of these political hacks say anymore. Not a thing. They are all liars.
It seems we’ve all gone totally nuts. I don’t listen to a darn thing any of these political hacks say anymore. Not a thing. They are all liars
Sad but true in my estimation; I agree 100% Matt.
“I can’t claim to understand the nuances and impact of the health care legislation.” Yet you still feel it valid to comment on something you admittedly do not understand in any way, shape, or form.
Republicans have pushed for an individual mandate at the STATE LEVEL, where control over insurance legally resides (please, read the Constitution). This is in contrast to the federal government’s mandate, which is extra-Constitutional.
I have an answer for fat, lazy sloths: workout 4 times per week, as I do. Also, spend time supporting your children in sports and physical activities. My sons play club soccer 11 months per year and basketball and baseball. We are not fat. Well, what do you know?!?! We also maintain a ration of 2 vegetables for every meat at meals, which do not come out of a bag and are cooked by my wife and me.
So, get off your lazy butt and start taking control of your life. Believe me, this is far superior to counting yourself among the ranks of teat-sucking government slaves, living off the hard work of others. Think for yourself!
Au contraire, my friend, their attempt at national health insurance was under the Reagan admin., and included the mandatory purchase by everyone.
How can you be for allowing someone to get a free ride UNTIL they get sick, then allowing them to purchase cheap insurance to cover their condition? Who do you think would pay for that? The only way you can allow coverage for pre-existing conditions in is to have everybody buy now.
SFOInsuranceLady – For prescriptions try going to progressiverx.com. I get my generic asthma inhalers as well as my generic Naseonex and save big time. The medication is from overseas, but I swear it’s the same medication. If anything the government should do something about the cost of the meds in this country. I get the SAME medication for only $19.99! Naseonex is over $80 in this country. And, get this, the bottle is bigger!! Progressiverx.com has saved me a lot of money…
“Your insurance premiums will not go up 1cent”
-Obama
He was right, they didnt go up 1cent, they went up $180 a month…im 30, wife 29 2 kids. NO HEALTH issues, why do I get surcharged for people who dont take care of themselves, dont want to work and cant afford health care.
People having major illness, no health insurance and previous long term employment. Those situations are VERY unqiue compared to the mass pool theu are referring to of lazy incompetent people who dont take care of themselves, their family and everything in between including their finances.
This is ridiculous…I’d be better off if I got fired, lost my job, got free health care and let someone else pay for mine, unemployment and welfare.
I’d then have MORE money then I do now, with food stamps AND less out of pocket health care costs etc, gas to work, lunch money…PLUS less stress no 40 hour+ work days.
SO…my life would be less costly, less stressful, more time with the kids and enjoying life versus stuck in an office and I would make more money and pay out less? WOW, welcome to AMERICA…reward the LAZY! YEAH!!!!!!!!! I’m gonna go play on FB until I get fired for not doing anything! Thats the way of life now huh?
Some of it is. If PR is on a group plan, it now has to cover “dependants” up to age 26 and remove lifetime and annual limits. Those pieces do result in increased premiums.
Yeah, but my premium went up for extra coverage that I would have rejected given the choice, and to cover other people’s 26-year-old “dependents.”
February 1, 2011 at 7:49 pm
W R Lockhart says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No cost factors from “Obamacare” have yet taken effect, and they won’t until 2014. Learn about the bill before you start commenting on it (from a source other than the far right).
40 hour + workdays? Wow, that’s a lot of overtime. No wonder you don’t understand the issues, who has time to read?
This won’t be popular on this site but I disagree with this judge’s ruling. The healthcare reform law may be bad policy or bad politics and you may disagree with it but that doesn’t make it unconstitional. The necessary and proper clause lets Congress do a lot, some of it unwise. Congress could enact legislation to tax everyone at 75% of their income, or even to require everyone to buy broccoli, and doing so would be constitutional, but Congress would never do these things. If Congress did act so stupidly, the recourse would be at the ballot box, which is where opponents of the healthcare reform should target their efforts. This is not like a law that infringes on first or second amendment rights; it involves the sweeping commerce clause and there is a ton of precedent for Congressional action. The healthcare law was passed and signed into law by duly elected representatives and president. While opponents of course have every right to pursue their remedies in court, judicial activism, whether from the left or right, is not the way to repeal a law we don’t like. The judge argues that if the government can require us to buy insurance then it can require us to do anything. That’s a political, not a constitutional argument, against it; so, by the way, is arguing that the mandate is necessary to contain costs. Both arguments are irrelevant to the constitutional issue. If you go by the full language of the constitution and generations of court precedents, it is. Just because it’s unpopular doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. Now, please, if you disagree, that’s fine, just be civil about it, please.
The Constitution specifically states that the tax must be uniform and used to pay debts, defense, and welfare – not today’s welfare. Welfare as we know it did not exist back then. I think the founders would rise up and overthrow our government today.
“Congress could enact legislation to tax everyone at 75% of their income, or even to require everyone to buy broccoli, and doing so would be constitutional, but Congress would never do these things.”
I think you really need to read up on history and statism. If you think Congress wouldn’t do these things, think again. The marginal income tax rate in the top bracket used to be 70%. Are you so sure the Progressives in this country don’t want it to be back at that level, or beyond?
We have a federal government, not a national one. That’s a big difference. The mandate violates both the 10th Amendment (states rights) and the 14th amendment (Equal Protection Under the Law) – with the latter, unions get exemptions – this unequal.
“While opponents of course have every right to pursue their remedies in court, judicial activism, whether from the left or right, is not the way to repeal a law we don’t like.”
So by your arugment, people who wanted California’s Proposition 8 (Outlawing Gay Marriage) to be repealed should not have sued in court? Should the gay judge therefore have recused himself?
Frankly, I don’t see upholding what is already clearly outlined in the Constitution as judicial activism.
Unions get exempted because the plans they already have (paid for by us every time we buy a union made product)are far broader. They would have to give up a lot if they were required to take this plan.
So? Why should they get an exemption? If you want everyone to be forced into buying coverage, make everyone have the same coverage.
And people already in group plans aren’t giving up more $ to pay for this? Seems like the unions get a pass both in plan mandate and having to pay for others.
It is a funny argument that Obama and his blind followers use when they say that the bill depends on all individual Americans to purchase this health care coverage in order to “fund” the entire project. However, at the same time, they are busy exempting huge companies, unions, teamsters, influential groups, etc from this very same mandate that are necessary for “you” and “me”!
I don’t think that it is funny at all, unless we’re laughing at their stupidity. I’m troubled by the fact that what’s good for the proverbial goose isn’t good enough for the gander.
Unfortunately for your argument, only the unions and teamsters (they are the same thing by the way) are exempted, because their benefits (paid for by you and me every time we buy a union made product) are already far broader than what this bill requires.
Isn’t the essence of the bill about ‘equality’? So, shouldn’t the unions have to give up their plans, to make their coverage like everyone else? This is otherwise equal and fair to whom? The unions. Thank you for proving my point.
Judicial sanity is the counterweight to this attempt at socialistic expansion of what should be a totally private choice. This genie needs to be kept in the bottle or the repercussion once precendent is set would be catatrosphic. After all, if this succeeds, when the Republics capture the White House and both houses of Congress in 2012, could they mandate every citizen over 18 be required to own a gun? Could they mandate and withhold like federak income tax and FICA, that every citizen contribute 10% of their income to a charitable “trust” fund your government willadminister?? Utterly ridiculous.
guns: Actually, yes. and it would be Constitutional. The Enumerated powers of the congress include “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”
There is, in fact, no limit at all to the reach of the Comemrce Clause in helping effectuate the transition of the United States to a socialist entity.
Paul Bedard, On Thursday January 20, 2011, 12:48 pm EST
Moving aggressively to make good on election promises to slash the federal budget, the House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama’s healthcare reform program.
What’s more, the “Spending Reduction Act of 2011” proposed by members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, chaired by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, would reduce current spending for non-defense, non-homeland security and non-veterans programs to 2008 levels, eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cut the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and cut some $80 billion by blocking implementation of Obamacare.
Some of the proposed reductions will surely draw Democratic attack, such as cutting the Ready to Learn TV Program, repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, the elimination of the Energy Star Program, and cutting subsidies to the Woodrow Wilson Center. Here is the overview provided by the Republican Study Committee:
FY 2011 CR Amendment: Replace the spending levels in the FY 2011 continuing resolution with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels. The legislation will further prohibit any FY 2011 funding from being used to carry out any provision of the Democrat government takeover of health care, or to defend the health care law against any lawsuit challenging any provision of the act. $80 billion savings.
Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years.
Federal Workforce Reforms: Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition. Allow the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave federal employment until the reduction target has been met. (Savings included in above discretionary savings figure).
“Stimulus” Repeal: Eliminate all remaining “stimulus” funding. $45 billion total savings.
Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings.
Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the “State Bailout” (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings.
More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).
Here is the full list of cuts:
Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
Save America’s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
It sounds good to cut funding but what is the impact? How many jobs will be lost because of all of these budget cuts? What long term impact will there be to this country’s development if we take away these programs? (I.e. Engery Star impact on reducing energy consumption & foriegn oil dependancies)
Why is defense, homeland security, & veteran spending off the table? Waste is waste and should be addressed in all segments of our budget.
Problem is Obama has just got us into 4 trillion more debt since taking office in two years. GOP plan would save us 2.5 Trillion over 10 years. I think we need ” real change” we can believe in at the top.
No one commented on this as far as I can see. But, does everyone know that by 2012 your employer has to put the cost of health care insurance they pay for you on your W2. Now why on earth do you think they have to do that??? Because it is going to be a benefit that you are taxed on, that is why. How else do you think this is all going to be paid for? It’s all coming out of us hard-working people who have a job. We get one benefit from our company (because pensions are a thing of the past) and now we’re going to be taxed on it.
US Senator Reid (D) and Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA are singing their liberal songs. They don’t realize the government and its welfare state have pushed our private healthcare system into this financial crisis.
The current financing of routine maintenence of chronic diseases such as diabetes is not substainable. Spending millions of dollars during the last year of life is not substainable. The government mandating more benefits that drives up costs and prices is not substainable. The increased coverage pushes the cost beyond the reach of more people.
Much like the substandard mortgage crisis that was created by President Clinton’s administration, the sixty (60) liberal social agenda created by President Kennedy started with good intentions but has left us in the moral and healthcare financing mess. The welfare state has taken away self reliance and responsibility.
Welfare took away the role of the father in the family. It replaced him with Social Services. Now fifty (50) percent of children are born to unwed mothers. Fifty-nine (59) percent of young couples opt to cohabitate rather than marry.
As the government expanded its bureacracy, medicare and welfare (medicaid) roles, it reduced payments to healthcare providers. These providers had no choice but to cost shift these charges onto the private individual and group benefit plans. This tidalwave has been coming our direction for the last twenty (20) years. Alarms were sounded. But the socialist agenda of the liberal Democrats failed to yield and take notice.
Last year, Mr. Don Boldt, retired CEO of Wallenk Corp and retired Dean of East Carolina University MBA program stated, we have national healthcare. It’s just that the average citizen doesn’t enjoy it’s benefits. When you look at federal, state, county, municipal, military, postal, civil servants, inmates or prisoners, tricare, medicare and medicaid recipients; we have national healthcare.
The United States has no choice; it must become financially responsible and self-reliant. Our families, state and local governments must wing themselves off the welfare plantation of Uncle Sam. Or, Aunt IRiS (IRS) will tax us more and drive jobs out of the country.
The federal government needs to do a few things very well. Socialists are known for trying to control everything and manage them poorly.
Well, John Smithers, I guess you’re going to have to forfeit Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicade when the time comes. I hope you will voluntarily forfeit them because of your strong beliefs. Oh, and I guess you won’t be driving on “our” roads (not yours you note)or enjoying the defense our armed services provide us, or any of the other benefits provided by the Federal Government that you are currently “forced” to participate in.
Keep in mind the suits that have been filed were filed in certain places for a reason – it’s called “venue shopping”. The Virginia Federal Judge was known to be particularly “friendly” towards the cause – how did they know? Seems he has part ownership of a Virginia company whose purpose is to sell their lobbying services to Congress to those who oppose the law – by law he should have recused himself, but didn’t. That means his ruling will have little impact when the case reaches the Supreme Court.
The only way we will benefit from Healthcare Reform is if we have no sacred cows.
1. Doctors should not make a million dollars a year, Lets subsidize their education rather than their salary. They need fee schedules. They should not be able to own rehab and testing labs where they send us for test to prove something they already know. Why do we have to pay one doctor to get a referral to another doctor? That’s crazy. Give us a prescription that lasts for our life if we have a disease that requires we take medicine for life.
2. Insurance companies need to use standard policy forms like we have in personal auto and Homeowners policy. HO3 H05 HO8. etc. They also need an excess profit law where they must return a certain profit back if they make too much money. Last year they made an estimated 2%, Establishing affordable premiums should be easy to develop, due to the law of large numbers and mortality tables and an extraordinary amount of statistical data available to actuaries. Carriers are entitled to a fair profit, key word fair when it comes to health insurance. I don’t care if the make a fortune on my car insurance I can always find someone to insure my car.
3. Pharmaceutical companies need to sell us their medicine for the same amount they sell to Canada and only make a certain profit margin after R & D.
4. Lawyers- We need to get them out of the business of sucking on society. We need National mandatory Tort reform for those blood sucking leaches.
5. Congressmen are not allowed to take any political contributions from any entity which is involved in heathcare. Insurance Companies, Lawyers, Doctors. Etc. You see what happened when Dodd and Frank got sweetheart deals from Countrywide and expounded how Freddie and Fannie were in great financial shape as federal regulaters were warning them about collapse . We all almost went broke. Oh by the way all congressmen and senators will be required to take whatever plan they establish for us and pay half the premium. While we are at it they have to forgo their current retirement plan of %100 percent of their annual salary and replace it with Social Security. But they shouldn’t worry; we as their employer will pay half of this benefit like our employers do for us. Welcome to being and American citizen.
6. Get Chiropractors out of healthcare. For goodness sakes my vet has more training than they do. News flash! They are not doctors..
7. Hospitals can’t charge $3000 for an emergency room visit. They should be paid by the hour and that does not include the waiting room. $15. Aspirin. Give me a break. If someone is going to die and believe me doctors know this, don’t keep me alive for 3 miserable days with life support so you can charge my insurance or my family 25k more.
8. Computerize our health records and allow us to send them to any doctor we want, whenever we want. Health insurers and any other entity including the government can not obtain them without our written consent every time they are retrieved. That does not mean we sign it or not get insurance. Doctors seem to think this will save a tremendous amount of money and be able to treat patients better. Oh well, they get it, if it saves us money.
9. All employers are required to pay half the health insurance premium for their employees, all employees will be required to pay the other half. This would lower cost due to the ones who have it now pay for the uninsured. We should be able to take our insurance with us when we leave an employer and the previous employers plan not affected regarding our claims, etc. No group rates based on age, everyone pays the same. That includes the poor or the rich. Healthcare is not a right it is a privilege remember no sacred cows and that includes us.
10. NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AFTER THESE ITEMS ARE DONE. LETS SEE WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE COST’S AFTER SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS.
YeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! I just pray to God that the Supreme Court rules likewise.
Congress can no more force me to buy an insurance policy than it can force me to buy a GM car or Tide detergent.
And the fools made it non-severable. Then let it all crash and burn. We have had enough socialism in this country. Time to turn the beat around.
Our government at this point is not capable of selecting anything for us– reform is needed.
It is about time sanity returned to this country. Now, more than half the states are against this monstrocity. Of course, the administration will hold this up in the courts and play 4 corner, but Congress is also going to be chipping away at the law. Sooner or later, the Progressive Socialists will get the idea that the folks don’t want this and we need to pass something that makes sense and does not add trillions to the deficit and will not punish people and kill jobs with business.
If we can’t require people to participate, how can we maintain the central role of private insurers in health care financing? Even before the law was enacted, government expenditures had grown to more than 50% of all health care spending.
RedState….no offense, but I hope they don’t. Ever since my husband was laid off after 32 years, we have been paying COBRA over $1500. a month in insurance premiums for health care coverage for just the two of us. I am so tired of the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies gouging us…fortunately, our office doesn’t cater to the health insurance communities so the impact of Obama’s health care plan won’t affect us as an insurance agency.
Please, don;’t judge me until you’ve walked a mile in my shoes….
So just how do you think Obamacare will help your situation? Do you really believe a government program that has not even addressed health care costs will reduce your cost for coverage. I like many have walked in your shoes because I purchase health insurance for my self and all my employees. Obamacare has done nothing to reduce my cost and in fact has increased my cost with some of the ridiculous provisions that have already gone into effect. Why should we be forced to cover dependents up to age 26 even if they are married and out of the house. Please be careful what you wish for!!!
You shouldn’t, but the idea of requiring private insurance companies to cover dependents in certain situations is extremely beneficial. I don’t believe that we should be taking care of those that live off of their parents without purpose, but I know that this one requirement was a bright spot for me in an otherwise grossly overgrown reform. I am a college student, and not being required to work full time to provide insurance AND go to school full time definitely makes my studies more worthwhile.
I have nothing good to say about much of the reform. REQUIRING us to have health insurance?! I have a hard time seeing how this was passed in the first place.
This being said, I think that it should have been designed to take care of those who are trying to make something of themselves. I’d much rather my insurance rates went up a bit to help a student succeed than having my taxes skyrocket to help someone that’s making no effort.
Mohabe…it was 8 years of the bush administration that we saw DOUBLING of health care costs…..where have you been???
And your solution is to have government run the whole show? I’m sorry for your situation, but forcing this on everyone is wrong on so many levels, including violating the 10th and 14th amendments.
My costs went up incrementally, until now. The plan I was on at work went up 70% under the reform. Wasn’t it meant to cut costs? Well, it didn’t. So, I had to change plans.
Who do you think paid the bulk of that premium before your husband got laid off? It was his employer, no doubt. Are we supposed to foot your bill now?
Your plan costs have NOT gone up under the reform. Read the information about the bill. Nothing will really change until 2014 except a few things like being able to insure your kids up to 26, not being able to cancel a policy AFTER the policyholder becomes sick, etc.
You’re NOT forced to cover your dependents. It’s an option. Unfortunately, most of the people against the bill actually know nothing about it.
My plan costs have gone up under the reform. How would you know? There’s been NO change in the proportion of the employer contribution to the costs either.
Next time, point to facts rather than talking out your a**
A parent is not forced to cover their dependents, but the company itself is required to leave that option open. I believe that’s what mohabe was referring to, since he stated he makes insurance decisions for his company.
No offense but, “Why the He** are you still on Cobra!?” You can purchase a plan for yourself and your husband for less than that.
If you have pre-existing conditions you can NOT purchase insurance elsewhere…for conditions like life-long diabetes (type 1), heart attack, stroke…just try to find it…not happening. You have to be uninsured for at least 6 months to even be eligible for a last resort plan for most States. Our premiums also run OVER $2000 per month, and only option is to become uninsured, which we may soon have to be due to $$$.
Health insurance is easy to get if you are healthy or in a big work group…otherwise it is everybody for themselves.
Again, someone who knows not anything about what they are talking.
Its silly to think the govt will gouge you less, I can’t think of any service you can get from the govt for less than the private market, govt doesn’t make anything cheaper, it just shifts to costs to somebody else.
The American people can get medical insurance premium relief through congressional action.
Here’s a small list of soem fo the ways Congress can lower medical costs off the top of my head.
A. Make it easier to open medical schools in America.
B. Reduce the time and effort for new drugs, $600 million is a bit much to get a drug though FDA approval, force drug makers to license their drugs to multiple manufacturers with limited liability, a patent is one issue, a monopoly an entirely differetn issue.
C. Reduce liability with tort reform, loser pays.
D. Allow medical insurers to sell across state lines so consumers can choose their coverages-rather than lefitsts state legislatures-I’m not interested in insuring for the prospect of transgendered operations or counseling.
E. Allow non-doctors to perform some medical services.
F. Allow medical device makers to train and license their own technicians with limited liability.
H. Allow American consumers to use self diagniostic tools and self prescribe drugs with limited liability on drug makers and device makers.
I. Make all hospitals “right to work’ facilities.
Of course all of the above would screw trial lawers, the medical cartels and the government power profiteers but medical care would become much more affordable accessible and available and America could regain its competetive advantage.
Think of the thousands of US companies driven offshore or into bankruptcy because they simply couldn’t afford the medical care of their employees.
Obamacare didn’t make anything cheaper-which is the fundamental problem with our medical system, it merely shifted the cost to others or the govt-which is others.
And etc. Please, stop just mindlessly spouting the drivel of the far right. Learn something about the bill, THEN offer your comments.
And, for your information, our cos. have moved their operations offshore because the costs of production are so much cheaper than using unionized labor to make labor intensive products – they can’t compete with foreign cos. with their high US costs. And that’s a fact, regardless of what the unions say.
According to the UAW themselves, the average wage for an assemblyline worker for the “big three” is $110,000 per year, and that’s after all the concessions they made to get the gov’t bailouts (actually loans, with co. stock as collateral -all repaid now except Chrysler)- that’s a lot for semi-skilled assembly line workers.
Been there — as an independent agent, I had to handle my own health care. I still think obamacare is unconstitutional and needs to be thrown out.
Chris C…..you obviously don’t live in California…..show me a policy that costs less than COBRA with the SAME COVERAGES and I’ll be the first one in line…..I’ve been shopping for over a year….
Excellent! Exactly as it should be. This would have been an enormous expansion of Federal powers, far beyound what the framers and states originally intended. There is a federal law that requires medical facilities treat anyone, even if they cannot pay including illegal aliens!! Now the prices skyrocket because of this, and the federal government wants to force people to buy coverage. Force everywhere. Reminds you of a rapist. I have the power, I have the guns, you have to just sit still while I have my way with you. Hooray for this Federal judge.
All of this is preliminary. The outcome will rest on the decision of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.
“He was referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional.”
This appears to imply either the judge was playing out a political agenda OR, if appointed by a Democrat, he would’ve ignored the unconstitutional nature of the mandate and “let it slide”? Really? Is this what our country has come to?
So much for “we have to pass the bill to know what’s in the bill”.
Nancy Pelosi + Harry Reid = Epic fail.
I thought this would be a place for knowledgable insurance people to repond. Where are you?? Did everyone forget Insurance 101 – “Law of large numbers” – How about “Adverse selection?” Why do you think states require auto insurance – its called “financial responsibility”. Everyone will use the system eventually (sorry – its not just illegal immigrants) – who is suppose to pay? This is the only way we have a chance of keeping health insurance in the private sector – if this is shot down – the next step will be “single payer” – put us all on medicare.
BG: You asked, Why do you think states require auto insurance – its called “financial responsibility”. This is financial responsibility toward THIRD PARTIES. States do not require you to carry physical damage coverage on your auto – that would be the equivalent of medical insurance, your first party coverage.
States only require 3rd party coverage for auto insurance, which meets the common good threshold-that’s why most states call their law a financial resposibility law–and notice I said states. On the other hand, government does not care (state or federal), nor should it, whether or not one insures his own vehicle. It is none of the government’s business.
You mean the same insurance 101 which states, as one element of an insurable risk, that “insurance must not be mandatory.”?
I wonder how many of you are willing to give up your Social Security Benefits???????? If we are going to chuck Obama’s Insurance plan, why not chuck social Security while we are at it????
If I could, I would! Social Security is a ponzi scheme, by definition (i.e. money paid out comes directly from new investors, not returns from invested dollars. You know…LIKE BERNIE MADOFF!!!). Please, allow me to take my money and get a better than 2% return on investment! I’m begging for it.
Actually, it’s worse than a Ponzi scheme — Madoff’s investors retained the legal right to get their money back.
The day SS is gone is the day I stop throwing away money. Actuarily, SS is belly up. It’s just a matter of time before that is gone. I am not willing to give it up – I have been voting for decades for politicians who support getting rid of it. Anyone who is relying on SS for retirement is a fool.
Social Security would not be in the mess it is in if the Politicians had kept their grubby hands off of it. LBJ and his Progressive Democrat friends voted to put the trust fund into the General Fund and have been robbing it ever since to fund their entitlement programs. Congress should pass a law that would keep the Social Security Trust Fund separate from other government programs and then it would have a chance to recover funds.
Social Security is supposed to still be solvent because the Federal Government is supposed to pay back the money it has “borrowed”. Actuarily it will be able to pay until sometime like 2040, as long as the Feds pay it back. It will run out then because the politicians have raised the benefits far faster than the contributions, i.e. buying votes for their re-election on the backs of all the people who will someday be retiring. And the people already on SS love it! They are getting far more out of SS than their contributions would ever pay for.
I’ll give up my Social Security “benefits” if I can also keep the $10,000+ of taxes paid directly by me or on my behalf annually for the next 30+ years until I would collect anything.
I will be 70 years old in 2037, the year they currently project Social Security to be exhausted. So, I’ll take my 4% today and do with it as I see fit, thank you very much.
Be careful what you wish for, SFOInsuranceLady. Since you brought it up, I would definitely chuck Social Security benefits lock, stock and barrel today if they allowed me to opt out and stop paying the tax (along with my employer match). This is a “no doubt about it” decision I could make in a millisecond.
Unfortunately, the fact we are not permitted to make such a decision is proof positive Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.
Bernie Madoff was vilified (and rightly so) and prosecuted for his egregious theft from individuals. However, members of the ruling class pontificate about the wonders of their sacred Ponzi scheme called Social Security and, instead of going to prison themselves, have homage paid at their political altars for supposedly caring about us. This hyprocisy (on the part of both the politicians and those in the electorate who are buying the snake oil) would be laughable if it was not so infuriating.
Even if you don’t include the tax confiscated from our employers, my wife and I would have bucket loads more money at retirement if we were able to invest our Social Security tax rather than have it confiscated by the federal government. Or, we could choose to take the additional money and assist our own family members who might fall on tough times or have already retired. The key word being “choose.”
It just seems that all issues on which we defer to the federal government ultimately become a mandate (i.e. loss of liberty and freedom) paid for via IRS confiscation or legal plunder. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are fiscal disasters. Anyone who argues the point is intellectually dishonest.
With the government already responsible for over 40% of medical expenditures via Medicaid and Medicare, it is also rather evident their involvment is a big part of the problem with health care costs. Even if you put the consitutional arguments aside, handing control of all health care over to the federal government would be a disaster simply from an economic standpoint. Again, intelluctual honesty should prohibit any debate.
I think Kennedy is still very annoyed with Obama so O better do some major fence mending to keep the law on the books….the law has some ggod points but I think what really galls so many is the mandatory purchase bit. Of course if the law goes down, does any one have a better plan to offer?
Yes. Allow for hospitalization only plans. Allow for bare-bones plans that don;t cover pregnancy, chiropractors, or other items that very few use. Then undertake tort reform and disallow lawyers from receiving any kind of payouts for punitive damages. This alone will immediately cause malpractice insurance to drop like a stone.
So, let’s review: Remove government mandates and leech lawyers. Only good things can come of that.
Not the Republicans! Actually, mandatory purchase was in their previous attempts to pass reform under Reagan. Wonder why they are so against it now?
Wonder when they will offer an alternative plan? Never, cause they ain’t got one.
Wow, finally some sanity is prevailing.
I can’t claim to understand the nuances and impact of the health care legislation. Frankly I’m not even sure whether or not I support an “individual mandate.”
I do personally find it quite hilarious that Republicans have pushed for an individual mandate for some time, and some pushed strongly for it during the original debate. Now that the law passed they are rabidly opposed to it.
My conclusion is that *both* sides are using a critically important issue as a political football. Nobody has any solution for the one thing which has more impact than anything else: our public health. If we as a nation continue to become less healthy then our costs will increase. If we do that while destroying our math & science education system and encouraging foreign students to leave after graduating, then our costs will increase even more rapidly.
Nobody has an answer for tens of millions of Americans becoming fat lazy sloths with Type II diabetes and heart disease. And the only government “solutions” are terrifying — we have the “shut up and stop calling us fat, ’cause we’re free and we’re gonna eat all the Big Macs we want” crowd, and we have the “government must control what and how you eat” crowd.
Michelle Obama encourages WalMart to sell healthier food instead of prepackaged sugar crap and the right calls her a Marxist.
It seems we’ve all gone totally nuts. I don’t listen to a darn thing any of these political hacks say anymore. Not a thing. They are all liars.
It seems we’ve all gone totally nuts. I don’t listen to a darn thing any of these political hacks say anymore. Not a thing. They are all liars
Sad but true in my estimation; I agree 100% Matt.
“I can’t claim to understand the nuances and impact of the health care legislation.” Yet you still feel it valid to comment on something you admittedly do not understand in any way, shape, or form.
Republicans have pushed for an individual mandate at the STATE LEVEL, where control over insurance legally resides (please, read the Constitution). This is in contrast to the federal government’s mandate, which is extra-Constitutional.
I have an answer for fat, lazy sloths: workout 4 times per week, as I do. Also, spend time supporting your children in sports and physical activities. My sons play club soccer 11 months per year and basketball and baseball. We are not fat. Well, what do you know?!?! We also maintain a ration of 2 vegetables for every meat at meals, which do not come out of a bag and are cooked by my wife and me.
So, get off your lazy butt and start taking control of your life. Believe me, this is far superior to counting yourself among the ranks of teat-sucking government slaves, living off the hard work of others. Think for yourself!
Au contraire, my friend, their attempt at national health insurance was under the Reagan admin., and included the mandatory purchase by everyone.
How can you be for allowing someone to get a free ride UNTIL they get sick, then allowing them to purchase cheap insurance to cover their condition? Who do you think would pay for that? The only way you can allow coverage for pre-existing conditions in is to have everybody buy now.
SFOInsuranceLady – For prescriptions try going to progressiverx.com. I get my generic asthma inhalers as well as my generic Naseonex and save big time. The medication is from overseas, but I swear it’s the same medication. If anything the government should do something about the cost of the meds in this country. I get the SAME medication for only $19.99! Naseonex is over $80 in this country. And, get this, the bottle is bigger!! Progressiverx.com has saved me a lot of money…
The generic for nasonex is $5 for me…at Walgreen’s. Wal-Mart also has great deals on generics.
Costco is the cheapest of all according to Consumer Reports. Unfortunately, we’re 70 miles from the nearest Costco.
Funny, the republicans didn’t think the health care mandate was unconstitutional when they came up with the idea.
LOL.. The Apollo Alliance wrote the bill, stupid.
“Your insurance premiums will not go up 1cent”
-Obama
He was right, they didnt go up 1cent, they went up $180 a month…im 30, wife 29 2 kids. NO HEALTH issues, why do I get surcharged for people who dont take care of themselves, dont want to work and cant afford health care.
People having major illness, no health insurance and previous long term employment. Those situations are VERY unqiue compared to the mass pool theu are referring to of lazy incompetent people who dont take care of themselves, their family and everything in between including their finances.
This is ridiculous…I’d be better off if I got fired, lost my job, got free health care and let someone else pay for mine, unemployment and welfare.
I’d then have MORE money then I do now, with food stamps AND less out of pocket health care costs etc, gas to work, lunch money…PLUS less stress no 40 hour+ work days.
SO…my life would be less costly, less stressful, more time with the kids and enjoying life versus stuck in an office and I would make more money and pay out less? WOW, welcome to AMERICA…reward the LAZY! YEAH!!!!!!!!! I’m gonna go play on FB until I get fired for not doing anything! Thats the way of life now huh?
Your premium increase wasn’t due to ACA.
Some of it is. If PR is on a group plan, it now has to cover “dependants” up to age 26 and remove lifetime and annual limits. Those pieces do result in increased premiums.
I would expect an increase in coverage or number of people covered on the same policy to result in an increase in premium.
Yeah, but my premium went up for extra coverage that I would have rejected given the choice, and to cover other people’s 26-year-old “dependents.”
No cost factors from “Obamacare” have yet taken effect, and they won’t until 2014. Learn about the bill before you start commenting on it (from a source other than the far right).
40 hour + workdays? Wow, that’s a lot of overtime. No wonder you don’t understand the issues, who has time to read?
This won’t be popular on this site but I disagree with this judge’s ruling. The healthcare reform law may be bad policy or bad politics and you may disagree with it but that doesn’t make it unconstitional. The necessary and proper clause lets Congress do a lot, some of it unwise. Congress could enact legislation to tax everyone at 75% of their income, or even to require everyone to buy broccoli, and doing so would be constitutional, but Congress would never do these things. If Congress did act so stupidly, the recourse would be at the ballot box, which is where opponents of the healthcare reform should target their efforts. This is not like a law that infringes on first or second amendment rights; it involves the sweeping commerce clause and there is a ton of precedent for Congressional action. The healthcare law was passed and signed into law by duly elected representatives and president. While opponents of course have every right to pursue their remedies in court, judicial activism, whether from the left or right, is not the way to repeal a law we don’t like. The judge argues that if the government can require us to buy insurance then it can require us to do anything. That’s a political, not a constitutional argument, against it; so, by the way, is arguing that the mandate is necessary to contain costs. Both arguments are irrelevant to the constitutional issue. If you go by the full language of the constitution and generations of court precedents, it is. Just because it’s unpopular doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. Now, please, if you disagree, that’s fine, just be civil about it, please.
The Constitution specifically states that the tax must be uniform and used to pay debts, defense, and welfare – not today’s welfare. Welfare as we know it did not exist back then. I think the founders would rise up and overthrow our government today.
So you’re saying that the second amendment applies to weapons in existence at the time the constitution was written?
Having the right to bear arms does not mean you have to. Forcing you to buy health insurance is much different.
“Congress could enact legislation to tax everyone at 75% of their income, or even to require everyone to buy broccoli, and doing so would be constitutional, but Congress would never do these things.”
I think you really need to read up on history and statism. If you think Congress wouldn’t do these things, think again. The marginal income tax rate in the top bracket used to be 70%. Are you so sure the Progressives in this country don’t want it to be back at that level, or beyond?
We have a federal government, not a national one. That’s a big difference. The mandate violates both the 10th Amendment (states rights) and the 14th amendment (Equal Protection Under the Law) – with the latter, unions get exemptions – this unequal.
“While opponents of course have every right to pursue their remedies in court, judicial activism, whether from the left or right, is not the way to repeal a law we don’t like.”
So by your arugment, people who wanted California’s Proposition 8 (Outlawing Gay Marriage) to be repealed should not have sued in court? Should the gay judge therefore have recused himself?
Frankly, I don’t see upholding what is already clearly outlined in the Constitution as judicial activism.
Unions get exempted because the plans they already have (paid for by us every time we buy a union made product)are far broader. They would have to give up a lot if they were required to take this plan.
So? Why should they get an exemption? If you want everyone to be forced into buying coverage, make everyone have the same coverage.
And people already in group plans aren’t giving up more $ to pay for this? Seems like the unions get a pass both in plan mandate and having to pay for others.
It is a funny argument that Obama and his blind followers use when they say that the bill depends on all individual Americans to purchase this health care coverage in order to “fund” the entire project. However, at the same time, they are busy exempting huge companies, unions, teamsters, influential groups, etc from this very same mandate that are necessary for “you” and “me”!
I don’t think that it is funny at all, unless we’re laughing at their stupidity. I’m troubled by the fact that what’s good for the proverbial goose isn’t good enough for the gander.
Unfortunately for your argument, only the unions and teamsters (they are the same thing by the way) are exempted, because their benefits (paid for by you and me every time we buy a union made product) are already far broader than what this bill requires.
Isn’t the essence of the bill about ‘equality’? So, shouldn’t the unions have to give up their plans, to make their coverage like everyone else? This is otherwise equal and fair to whom? The unions. Thank you for proving my point.
Judicial sanity is the counterweight to this attempt at socialistic expansion of what should be a totally private choice. This genie needs to be kept in the bottle or the repercussion once precendent is set would be catatrosphic. After all, if this succeeds, when the Republics capture the White House and both houses of Congress in 2012, could they mandate every citizen over 18 be required to own a gun? Could they mandate and withhold like federak income tax and FICA, that every citizen contribute 10% of their income to a charitable “trust” fund your government willadminister?? Utterly ridiculous.
guns: Actually, yes. and it would be Constitutional. The Enumerated powers of the congress include “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia…”
Interesting how health care and guns are used in comparison.
There is, in fact, no limit at all to the reach of the Comemrce Clause in helping effectuate the transition of the United States to a socialist entity.
Right on!!! 5 to 4 ruling on the horizon to rule unconstitutional. After that, a real fix can be started.
House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts
Paul Bedard, On Thursday January 20, 2011, 12:48 pm EST
Moving aggressively to make good on election promises to slash the federal budget, the House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama’s healthcare reform program.
What’s more, the “Spending Reduction Act of 2011” proposed by members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, chaired by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, would reduce current spending for non-defense, non-homeland security and non-veterans programs to 2008 levels, eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cut the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and cut some $80 billion by blocking implementation of Obamacare.
Some of the proposed reductions will surely draw Democratic attack, such as cutting the Ready to Learn TV Program, repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, the elimination of the Energy Star Program, and cutting subsidies to the Woodrow Wilson Center. Here is the overview provided by the Republican Study Committee:
FY 2011 CR Amendment: Replace the spending levels in the FY 2011 continuing resolution with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels. The legislation will further prohibit any FY 2011 funding from being used to carry out any provision of the Democrat government takeover of health care, or to defend the health care law against any lawsuit challenging any provision of the act. $80 billion savings.
Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years.
Federal Workforce Reforms: Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition. Allow the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave federal employment until the reduction target has been met. (Savings included in above discretionary savings figure).
“Stimulus” Repeal: Eliminate all remaining “stimulus” funding. $45 billion total savings.
Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings.
Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the “State Bailout” (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings.
More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).
Here is the full list of cuts:
Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
Save America’s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.
HUD Ph.D. Program.
Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
I like this. Keep going!
It sounds good to cut funding but what is the impact? How many jobs will be lost because of all of these budget cuts? What long term impact will there be to this country’s development if we take away these programs? (I.e. Engery Star impact on reducing energy consumption & foriegn oil dependancies)
Why is defense, homeland security, & veteran spending off the table? Waste is waste and should be addressed in all segments of our budget.
Let’s face it. Federal employees do not generate revenue, they use it.
Problem is Obama has just got us into 4 trillion more debt since taking office in two years. GOP plan would save us 2.5 Trillion over 10 years. I think we need ” real change” we can believe in at the top.
2012 An end of an Error!
Good. Now we can continue to have more and more uninsured flooding our ERs. Because THAT is such a better solution.
No one commented on this as far as I can see. But, does everyone know that by 2012 your employer has to put the cost of health care insurance they pay for you on your W2. Now why on earth do you think they have to do that??? Because it is going to be a benefit that you are taxed on, that is why. How else do you think this is all going to be paid for? It’s all coming out of us hard-working people who have a job. We get one benefit from our company (because pensions are a thing of the past) and now we’re going to be taxed on it.
Um, not if the bill is deemed void and unconstitutional.
US Senator Reid (D) and Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA are singing their liberal songs. They don’t realize the government and its welfare state have pushed our private healthcare system into this financial crisis.
The current financing of routine maintenence of chronic diseases such as diabetes is not substainable. Spending millions of dollars during the last year of life is not substainable. The government mandating more benefits that drives up costs and prices is not substainable. The increased coverage pushes the cost beyond the reach of more people.
Much like the substandard mortgage crisis that was created by President Clinton’s administration, the sixty (60) liberal social agenda created by President Kennedy started with good intentions but has left us in the moral and healthcare financing mess. The welfare state has taken away self reliance and responsibility.
Welfare took away the role of the father in the family. It replaced him with Social Services. Now fifty (50) percent of children are born to unwed mothers. Fifty-nine (59) percent of young couples opt to cohabitate rather than marry.
As the government expanded its bureacracy, medicare and welfare (medicaid) roles, it reduced payments to healthcare providers. These providers had no choice but to cost shift these charges onto the private individual and group benefit plans. This tidalwave has been coming our direction for the last twenty (20) years. Alarms were sounded. But the socialist agenda of the liberal Democrats failed to yield and take notice.
Last year, Mr. Don Boldt, retired CEO of Wallenk Corp and retired Dean of East Carolina University MBA program stated, we have national healthcare. It’s just that the average citizen doesn’t enjoy it’s benefits. When you look at federal, state, county, municipal, military, postal, civil servants, inmates or prisoners, tricare, medicare and medicaid recipients; we have national healthcare.
The United States has no choice; it must become financially responsible and self-reliant. Our families, state and local governments must wing themselves off the welfare plantation of Uncle Sam. Or, Aunt IRiS (IRS) will tax us more and drive jobs out of the country.
The federal government needs to do a few things very well. Socialists are known for trying to control everything and manage them poorly.
Very well put!
Well, John Smithers, I guess you’re going to have to forfeit Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicade when the time comes. I hope you will voluntarily forfeit them because of your strong beliefs. Oh, and I guess you won’t be driving on “our” roads (not yours you note)or enjoying the defense our armed services provide us, or any of the other benefits provided by the Federal Government that you are currently “forced” to participate in.
Keep in mind the suits that have been filed were filed in certain places for a reason – it’s called “venue shopping”. The Virginia Federal Judge was known to be particularly “friendly” towards the cause – how did they know? Seems he has part ownership of a Virginia company whose purpose is to sell their lobbying services to Congress to those who oppose the law – by law he should have recused himself, but didn’t. That means his ruling will have little impact when the case reaches the Supreme Court.
We PAID for SS all our lives, WR! It’s not “Free” like welfare.
“No sacred cows!!
The only way we will benefit from Healthcare Reform is if we have no sacred cows.
1. Doctors should not make a million dollars a year, Lets subsidize their education rather than their salary. They need fee schedules. They should not be able to own rehab and testing labs where they send us for test to prove something they already know. Why do we have to pay one doctor to get a referral to another doctor? That’s crazy. Give us a prescription that lasts for our life if we have a disease that requires we take medicine for life.
2. Insurance companies need to use standard policy forms like we have in personal auto and Homeowners policy. HO3 H05 HO8. etc. They also need an excess profit law where they must return a certain profit back if they make too much money. Last year they made an estimated 2%, Establishing affordable premiums should be easy to develop, due to the law of large numbers and mortality tables and an extraordinary amount of statistical data available to actuaries. Carriers are entitled to a fair profit, key word fair when it comes to health insurance. I don’t care if the make a fortune on my car insurance I can always find someone to insure my car.
3. Pharmaceutical companies need to sell us their medicine for the same amount they sell to Canada and only make a certain profit margin after R & D.
4. Lawyers- We need to get them out of the business of sucking on society. We need National mandatory Tort reform for those blood sucking leaches.
5. Congressmen are not allowed to take any political contributions from any entity which is involved in heathcare. Insurance Companies, Lawyers, Doctors. Etc. You see what happened when Dodd and Frank got sweetheart deals from Countrywide and expounded how Freddie and Fannie were in great financial shape as federal regulaters were warning them about collapse . We all almost went broke. Oh by the way all congressmen and senators will be required to take whatever plan they establish for us and pay half the premium. While we are at it they have to forgo their current retirement plan of %100 percent of their annual salary and replace it with Social Security. But they shouldn’t worry; we as their employer will pay half of this benefit like our employers do for us. Welcome to being and American citizen.
6. Get Chiropractors out of healthcare. For goodness sakes my vet has more training than they do. News flash! They are not doctors..
7. Hospitals can’t charge $3000 for an emergency room visit. They should be paid by the hour and that does not include the waiting room. $15. Aspirin. Give me a break. If someone is going to die and believe me doctors know this, don’t keep me alive for 3 miserable days with life support so you can charge my insurance or my family 25k more.
8. Computerize our health records and allow us to send them to any doctor we want, whenever we want. Health insurers and any other entity including the government can not obtain them without our written consent every time they are retrieved. That does not mean we sign it or not get insurance. Doctors seem to think this will save a tremendous amount of money and be able to treat patients better. Oh well, they get it, if it saves us money.
9. All employers are required to pay half the health insurance premium for their employees, all employees will be required to pay the other half. This would lower cost due to the ones who have it now pay for the uninsured. We should be able to take our insurance with us when we leave an employer and the previous employers plan not affected regarding our claims, etc. No group rates based on age, everyone pays the same. That includes the poor or the rich. Healthcare is not a right it is a privilege remember no sacred cows and that includes us.
10. NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AFTER THESE ITEMS ARE DONE. LETS SEE WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE COST’S AFTER SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS.