Diabetes Tax Provisions in the Senate Health Bill

Type 1 and LADA
21

Socialist Security IS unconstitutional, as is the EPA, the education system, and just about everything the government does anymore. Whenever a bill is introduced that would require Congress to cite its authority to create the legislation, it is never even allowed out of committee.

What is most sad is that the federal government exists only because the Constitution authorizes it to be so, yet this same government doesn’t abide by the Constitution, and is working very hard to get rid of it. When it is gone (pretty much gone now) then the serious question to answer is, where do the president and Congress get their authority to govern? The people allow them because that is part of the “contract between the states and the government” but when the government tears up that contract, whence cometh their power to govern? The answer is, the government ceases to exist, and those that we let stay, essentially become tyrants, kings and queens over us.

Just seems like a lot of people gave the ultimate sacrifice to boot the king out of here in the first place, and now most people are content to let the king take over again, and rule our lives, from the womb, to the tomb.

Very sad indeed.

John

22

We hardly know enough about each other to admit to fundamentally differing views :slight_smile:

I question the intelligence of anyone who fell for the baloney that king hussien and the media doled out during the campaign, and am concerned that any American would believe that we can have free health care. Nothing is free. The truth is, obama didn’t win by all that much, so his was not an overwhelming mandate from the people. The failure of the citizens was in populating the Congress with the liberal majority, thus guaranteeing a complete overhaul of our entire government, with no way to control them.

In the Constitution, Senators were elected by the state legislators, and subject to recall at any time, not just election years. This was a powerful tool for the citizens who found that their senators were liars because they could fire them at will. We could use that power now, but for reasons I have never understood, somehow, the 17th amendment was passed, and I would surely like to know what Americans were thinking when they gave up the power to control their representatives. It must have been quite an underhanded, poorly explained campaign that fooled the masses into agreeing to it, because the health care debacle, and many other lousy pieces of legislation would never come to fruition if we had retained the power to fire our senators on the spot.

The problems with our government go way past the last few administrations. The problem goes back to apathetic citizens who fall for the lies, and truly are only interested in what they can get for “free” like social security, welfare, bailouts, etc. I can’t retract my opinion of those people. They gave away our nation, and our children will be born as slaves to the federal authorities.

As for me disagreeing with others, all I did was express my point of view and opinion, and yet you would allow all others that right, but deny me. If they can have a viewpoint, so can I.

Seriously tho, have a great day, and a great new year. :slight_smile:

John

23

I am curious how one would go about making a case that health care reform has anything to do with interstate commerce. Seems like a long reach to get there from here.

Can you hit a few high spots that would help me see how that could be presented to a judge in a reasonable way? At the moment, the government forbids interstate commerce with health insurance policies, so that is 180 degrees from the idea that it can call health care, interstate commerce. I’m sure clever lawyers could lie their way into a case, but really can’t see how, at least not this early in the day :slight_smile:

John

24

well, I could see a couple of ways. Easiest, simply change the regulations regarding health insurers and state lines, then the ICC would apply. The other one that comes to mind is Eminent Domain since this “health-care crises” affects everyone in the country, not just the residents of a particular state and that may actually be an argument for the ICC as well. This would be similar to how the DEA is able to regulate medical marijuana in states where it is legal by state law. I.e. the health-care crisis constitutes “a clear and present danger to the United States and it’s Citizens”

25

well the republicans did such a bang up job on the medicare reform a couple years back guess it’s the dem’s turn

26

Interesting. Given that we can buy car and homeowner’s insurance across state lines, a precedent exists that disallows the ICC from having any control over other insurance being sold the same way.

As for the “health care crisis?” well, I am not seeing a crisis. I see the need to allow buying health insurance like we do car insurance, from anywhere, on a free and open market, and I see the need to deal with the TORT laws which would lower costs dramatically. Perhaps something to eliminate the pre-existing condition problem, and there is no “crisis” but who knows what a group of professional liars and cheats could dig up. That shouldn’t take 2000 pages and 2.5 Trillion Dollars

Eminent domain? If we go by the way the Constitution is written, it doesn’t apply, but then, since the Constitution no longer applies to America and is not used by the Supreme Court for its decisions, I guess anything could happen. Kind of goes back to what I said tho, if the Constitution is no longer in effect, the Supreme Court has no job, because their responsibilities are only defined, in the Constitution. Instead, there should now be a bunch of black robed liars and criminals out looking for work :slight_smile:

Either way, the game is over, and we have lost our country and our freedoms. Too late to change that.

John

27

It’s in the first paragraph - “general welfare of the United States”. I’m pretty sure that is what is used in legal instances to defend the constitutionality of SS. And a whole host of other things. How to define “general welfare”? Don’t know. It’s kind of like trying to define “obscene”. I think hairy backs and large beer guts are obscene, but I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court wouldn’t agree with me. 'Tis a pity, too.

28

I agree. You won’t find me defending any party, only individuals that I think are trying to do the job right, which doesn’t leave many to defend.

At least medicare is not 1/6 of our national economy, so the screwup was bad, but not devastating.

Since the feds couldn’t deal with medicare, by all means, let’s give them the whole enchilada so they can %*$# that all up as well.

The only difference today is that the time you refer to, republicans did not have the majority in the house and senate that the dems do today, so they had to fight with and at least get some balance from the other side. As it stands today, our entire federal government is 100% democrats, and that doesn’t bode well. Any more than if it was 100% elephants.

John

29

Its easy to define, if you read the whole document. The federal government is charged to “provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare”

Understanding English tells us the difference between providing, and promoting. Unless we cannot decide what “is” is…

In addition, the federalist papers go to great lengths to define what is intended by those words. Sadly, few read them, and even fewer politicians even know they exist.

John

30

well eminent domain applies primarily to property so if I am forced into a contract (a property) and forced to pay for it (also property) by government mandate…

I’m not defending the measure in any form because it scares me to death, but when you look at how it is being “marketed” to everyone it is portrayed as a “crisis”. Remember Goebels from WWII? “If you say it enough, it becomes the truth”

31

I guess I basically believe that the only way to force us into this contract is to exert eminent domain

32

Not to mention some of the taxes that could be imposed on durable medical equipment - or is that a red herring? It could be an issue for pumpers or those who use CGMS…

33

By the way, it’s no longer 2000 pages with little pork, Dec 2 it was 2400 pages, and now it’s something like 4700 pages with all of the new pork. The pork we know about includes, but is not limited to, the following:

$100 million for NB (they get the benefits but don’t pay for them)
$300 million for LA
$500 million for NC (for a peanut museum)
$100 million for Conn (for a medical center in Conn. Why does Chris Dodd need a kickback if he helped author the legislation?
$250 million for VT

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new bill costs $871 billion, raises federal revenue $498 billion, cuts Medicare $438 billion, and at the end of ten years still leaves 23 million uninsured. The bill assumes huge cuts in doctor reimbursement rates that Congress will never accept, balances 10 years of revenues against just 6 years of spending.

If the legislation was so great, why to the politicians need to be paid off to vote for it?

34

Another thing is that the numbers assume tax neutrality, i.e. everyone will continue to pay taxes as they do now and not adjust their behavior to pay less tax…

35

didn’t know folks hated medicare so much. but I’m not up to date with the bills so far but thought the public option was dead so the govt is only mandating everyone gets insurance not taking over the industry. no expansion of medicare to younger folks

agreed I don’t like one party controlling the executive and legislative branches at the same time. think they system works best when the two parties split these two branches

36

Because many of them have small consciences, and so even tho they don’t want to vote for it, they will, if there is something in it for them. Kind of like when the D senators said they knew Clinton was guilty, but would not vote to remove him, even tho it was the right thing to do.

Once the Senate accepted the bill from the House, I pretty much gave it up, so what you are reporting about size and pork is kind of new info to me. How pathetic. This is what I meant by the people voting for folks who lie, cheat, and steal. The apathy is what kills the freedom. No one deserves to be a senator or house member for three and four decades. Very seldom do we see those people threatened with being voted out. I would put out a comment about cleaning house, but I don’t think it matters much. Its pretty well game over in DC. Still, getting them out would at least be a modicum of revenge.

John

37

Back to the core issue at hand, aside from the concerns that the bill does very little to reign in runaway healthcare costs, but merely adds another 47 million people to an already dysfunctional healthcare collection of special interests (to use the word “system” implies that the pieces work together towards a common objective, and that certainly does not describe U.S. healthcare today), we should be concerned about the net impact, namely that states rights to regulate insurance providers within their borders are being usurped, which will result in lowest-common-denominator coverage. As of mid-2009, 46 states and the District of Columbia had some law that requires health insurance policy coverage for diabetes treatment. Laws in Mississippi, Missouri and Washington require only that insurers offer coverage, but not necessarily include the coverage in all active policies. Most states require coverage for both direct treatment and for diabetes equipment and supplies that are often used by the patient at home. The four states that do not have a mandate or insurance requirement are Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota and Ohio; we can guess that with healthcare reform, most policies will be governed under the laws of one of those states!

38

Unfortunately, some people did not realize what they were voting for, and a large number of others are too narrow minded and focused on getting absolutely anything passed to realize that they are giving up a system that gives the best care in the world, satisfying the vast majority of people, for something that hugely increases the number of government administrative employees and delivers crappy and bureaucracy laden care to a somewhat larger number. To pass this monstrosity in the name of eliminating preexisting conditions would be laughable if it weren’t so mind bogglingly destructive.

In 20 or 30 years, when the standard of care is much lower than it is now under an underfunded single payer system, when development of new treatments has slowed dramatically because there is no one to pay for them, and trying to get medical treatment is like dealing with the DMV or the IRS, the people who voted and pushed so hard for this will conveniently forget that this is exactly what we said would happen and will try to blame the people who are against it today. Do not forget, and, I would suggest, look for somewhere else to live - the U.S. is on track to have all of the worst features of Europe and none of the upsides.