L'Occhio Onnisciente

The biggest problem with the new bill is that it does not cost less. It will cost more in jobs and services. People will be disqualified from getting treatment due to age or previous known illness. The Government will now decide who gets treatment and who does not. It will take away our personal choice of what we wish to have. If and when this bill comes in to effect it will kill the private insurance agencies and will cost 1000s of people their jobs. Not only will it cost people there jobs but because the gov will provides sub par health care options companies will be dropping insurance for there employees and everyone will be worse off. People in the United States are entitled to one thing and one thing only. It is the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not a right it is something that needs to be worked for no one here is entitled to be taken care of on some one else s hard work. I have no problem with fed money helping the under insured or uninsured but this plan will only destroy a good model of health care. Why do you think people from Canada and all over the world come to America for treatment it is because its available here with no wait. My self and my for fathers did not fight for a socialist country we fought to defend liberty and the American way. This bill spits in the face of the constitution by forcing people to purchase something they may not want. It is a dangerous step in a direction our founding fathers escaped over 200 years ago.

It seems the mis information campaign has worked wonders. Tell me where in the bill does it state people will not get treatment? Do you have a choice with your current insurance company? How much do you pay? Considering that small business get sizable tax credits for providing health insurance in the bill and the fine for not providing is less than the cost how is that not a choice?

Where's your liberty rant against the health insurance industry deciding who gets care and who doesn't? Where's the liberty rant against those who want to use a biblical book to decide what services should be provided or researched?

And the flow of medical tourism is much more out of the US than into it.

You should read a bit more about our founding fathers, providing the basics and starting kids out on a good foot was a common platform.

It seems the mis information campaign has worked wonders. Tell me where in the bill does it state people will not get treatment? Do you have a choice with your current insurance company? How much do you pay? Considering that small business get sizable tax credits for providing health insurance in the bill and the fine for not providing is less than the cost how is that not a choice?

Where's your liberty rant against the health insurance industry deciding who gets care and who doesn't? Where's the liberty rant against those who want to use a biblical book to decide what services should be provided or researched?

And the flow of medical tourism is much more out of the US than into it.

You should read a bit more about our founding fathers, providing the basics and starting kids out on a good foot was a common platform.

Where to begin? The US Constitution does not grant authority to Congress to regulate or have anything to do with forcing healthcare choices on citizens.

Congress handed unconstitutional power to the Executive branch with HR4872 and State’s rights will be trampled under the bill. The Bill of Rights has just received a collective ‘nose thumb’ from Congress.

The RFID microchips will violate our rights to privacy and the direct debiting from our banking accounts will violate our rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The microchips will be mandatory and will be linked to our checking accounts (violating the 4th amendment). Furthermore, when the IRS decides a citizen has not purchased the government healthcare they will impose a ‘tax’ and collect it through the RFID microchip system – these will not be appealable and is literally Taxation Without Representation.

Here is H.R 4872: http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/1...2_reported.pdf

The RFID section is located on page 1013. In Table of Contents it is Subdivision C, Title V, Subtitle C- National medical device registry. You’re looking for Class II implantable device. That’s a RFID chip. Here is FDA info on Class II:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Medical.../ucm072191.pdf

Citizens over 45 years of age will be ineligible for transplant procedures and citizens over 65 will have healthcare rationed even more; the seniors will, in fact, have to undergo a yearly discussion about ‘end of life’ plans. People with special needs will not be able to have the same level of care as healthier people; sounds a lot like Hitler's plan regarding mentally and physically handicapped children, eh?

The 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution were just ignored when this bill was passed.

I believe our Founding Fathers made their intentions clear especially concerning taxation without representation (the IRC 'tax' on people that don't buy the government insurance -- it is really a fine but just called a tax -- a tax that can not be appealed) ... isn't that what sparked the Boston Tea Party in the first place?

To those who say it's taxation without representation, HELLO! ANYONE THERE?!?! YOU GET THE SAME DAMN VOTE THAT I DO TOWARDS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!

THERE'S YOUR REPRESENTATION!

QUIT YOUR !@#$%*ING.

Now that I've settled that:

All the republicans throwing bricks through congressmen's windows, calling them !@#$%*S (yes, !@#$%*s), "Oh no I didn't!," and saying that they are going to KILL THE PRESIDENT (yes, that has been said), goes past all my tolerance for freedom of speech, it's a threat on someone's life.

Just saying.

I support this bill, and so do a majority of americans who even hold an opinion on it (looked at recent polls).

I know that it's not a good deal for most people. How do I know that? Because the politicians who have decided that it should apply to everyone else have also decided that it should not apply to them.

You have to wear seatbelts by government mandate. You must carry homeowner's insurance by government mandate--unless you own it. You have to carry up-to-date automobile insurance via government mandate. You must have a registered SSAN via the government.

One thing that every one of these, and many, many other government mandates have in common is the cost to the taxpayer which people conveniently forget to remember--before these mandates were incurred. Don't own your own car, or your own home? No problem. Don't get sick? What are the chances?Don't like paying Federal taxes? Don't work for an employer who pays you "above the table". Don't like paying sales tax? Barter, and don't buy groceries.

Of course our society does not exist in a vacuum, and the value of insurance is the concept of "shared risk". Everyone pays a little, so that a pool of available funds exists to cover those who cannot afford to pay for themselves. It is now, and has always been, in our best interests to do so, for the better good of society as a whole. This trandscends all political discussion. This is the platform upon which political differences build their foundation. But, at every moment such a determination was required in our past, it eventually was made. Some believe that heathcare is not an issue. Or, someone else's healthcare is not an issue to them. If a person cannot afford the healthcare required to maintain a quality of life generally referred to as "usual and reasonable", then many people genuinely believe they should not have it, or a suitable alternative paid for from a common pool. Some people believe that "you can determine the health of a nation by nothing more difficult than observing the condition of its weakest member". Those beliefs tend to polarize into two principal but general classifications of political doctrine. Until the most recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in "Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee", it has always been presumed that, regardless of political stance, the court was a fair and final arbiter of those things Constitutional. It remains to be seen if the Court's frustration with current politics continues in an attempt at "levelling" or not. It is my personal belief as a long time court-watcher that the Court, having vented it's wrath, will retire back into "black robe" territory and stick to the business of interpreting the constitution rather than revising it.

There are many Attorneys General who are in diametric opposition in their opinions regarding the constitutional basis of this new legislation. I find it instructive to see who the plaintiffs might be, however. Ralph Nader gave birth to several industries because of a deeply held personal concern. We no longer have Corsairs, but we all have seat belts. If this new law acts as the cause of a significant pendulum swing, then so be it.

But, I do truly wish posters could at least get the facts straight about what this comprehensive Healthcare Reform Bill actually contains. Arguing factionary talking points is not reasonable to the discussion, and only demeans the speakers. This is a particularly important piece of Legislation for every American citizen, for reasons that each side will summarily dismiss as insignificant, at the cost of their own prejudice and/or political bent. But, at least debate honestly about it. There is just too much at stake for the American people. I'm much too concerned about that to worry about a Healthcare, or Medical, or Insurance lobby not getting another billion tagged onto their bottom line profits in the next 4 quarters.

How come nobody seems to be enflamed about that, or the criminals that are being paid ridiculous amounts to continue the rape of the american financial system without the first moment's accountability? Is it really only a matter of whose pockets are being picked, and/or by whom?

It seems the mis information campaign has worked wonders. Tell me where in the bill does it state people will not get treatment? Do you have a choice with your current insurance company? How much do you pay? Considering that small business get sizable tax credits for providing health insurance in the bill and the fine for not providing is less than the cost how is that not a choice?

Where's your liberty rant against the health insurance industry deciding who gets care and who doesn't? Where's the liberty rant against those who want to use a biblical book to decide what services should be provided or researched?

And the flow of medical tourism is much more out of the US than into it.

You should read a bit more about our founding fathers, providing the basics and starting kids out on a good foot was a common platform.

I have read and do understand. Hence why Federalist #10 is being used to try and stop this bill. Our founding fathers understood the human condition and knew that at some time it was probable that those elected would not follow the will of the people.

Yes i do have a choice with my current insurance provider on what i want to pay based on the coverage that i would like to have. I pay about $220.00 a month for myself and my daughter. I am on a 90/10 insurance plan which has so far limited my out of pocket costs. Please try and keep this on topic as i oppose the biblical as well and this topic has nothing to do with abortion or treatment for Scientology or other factions who try and limit health care. This is about a destructive bill that is not only unconstitutional but it is also going to cost the working people more money and will leave our senior citizens out in the cold after age 65 except those in Americas Government who are not required to follow this plan. In no way am i saying that America itself doesn't need some reform in the health care industry but this bill is defiantly not in the benefit of the American people and will hurt us and violates our founding principles. This bill was passed against the will of the people and done so by those who are supposed to represent their will. Come November we will see a shift in our government as these people who knowingly voted for their own benefit and not that of their constituents will be removed from office.

RCP Average

Approve

47.7

Disapprove

46.6

Spread +1.1

Congressional Job Approval

RCP Average

Approve

17.4

Disapprove

77.0

Spread -59.6

Generic Congressional Vote

RCP Average

Republicans

44.8

Democrats

42.2

Republicans +2.6

Direction of Country

RCP Average

Right Direction

33.0

Wrong Track

60.8

Spread -27.8

Link to page for these numbers

Taken from msnbc article march 15

Weighing the health care vote

On health care, 46 percent say it would be better to pass the president’s plan and make changes to the nation’s health care system, versus 45 percent who would prefer not to pass it and keep the system as it is now.

Thirty-six percent believe Obama’s plan is a good idea, versus 48 percent who think it’s a bad idea. That’s a slight (but statistically insignificant) change from January, when 31 percent said it was a good idea and 46 percent said it was a bad one.

To say americans support this plan is an out and out lie. If there was so much support Mr. Obama would not have to hit the road and attempt to sell it.

Absent a large influx of "Nay" votes, I conclude that Planet Bob is relatively evenly split on this matter, but that more favor the bill than reject it.

Thanks for taking the time to vote everyone. Look for my next blog post.

Arrivederci!

Only thing about this poll is that its not a good representation of those this bill effects as we have many european south american and other nationalities that play the game.

The biggest problem with the new bill is that it does not cost less. It will cost more in jobs and services. People will be disqualified from getting treatment due to age or previous known illness. The Government will now decide who gets treatment and who does not. It will take away our personal choice of what we wish to have. If and when this bill comes in to effect it will kill the private insurance agencies and will cost 1000s of people their jobs. Not only will it cost people there jobs but because the gov will provides sub par health care options companies will be dropping insurance for there employees and everyone will be worse off. People in the United States are entitled to one thing and one thing only. It is the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not a right it is something that needs to be worked for no one here is entitled to be taken care of on some one else s hard work. I have no problem with fed money helping the under insured or uninsured but this plan will only destroy a good model of health care. Why do you think people from Canada and all over the world come to America for treatment it is because its available here with no wait. My self and my for fathers did not fight for a socialist country we fought to defend liberty and the American way. This bill spits in the face of the constitution by forcing people to purchase something they may not want. It is a dangerous step in a direction our founding fathers escaped over 200 years ago.

I like how you summed that up, Bud. This violates the Constitution, is burdensome for small businesses (job losses, watch for it), and has to end in either ending certain personal freedoms and/or even bigger tax hikes. (think it through, do you really want to pay for the fact that your neighbor smokes 2 packs a day, refuses to exercise, & ingests & imbibes nothing but greasy junk food & mountain dew? Personal lifestyle choices will be regulated and/or additionally taxed, no way around it)

Think I'm paranoid? It's true, I am, but... no fast food for fat people! It got shot down before. Now that folks are paying for other people's habits, I think it might just have a shot. How about this done deal in LA? Check out the rationale for this fast food ban. Oooh, healthcare costs again, surprise surprise. Now that we have to pay for other people's food habits, it's only a matter of time before it gets bigger. How very nice of folks to decide what's right for those people; I'm sure glad we have a government to tell us that Big Macs are fattening, and when we've had one too many stuffed crusts. Wonder when they'll hit our grocery stores.

You cigarette smokers might want to check out the trend of folks that don't want to foot your health bills. It's not just that; as of today, there is a new bill up for law in South Carolina, raising their cigarette tax from 7c to 57c. That's a whopping big increase. Course, some of that money is targeted for smoking cessation programs, as well as offsetting healthcare costs from smoking. States are strapped for cash, & this will help them generate revenue, PLUS lower healthcare costs. Win all around. Unless you're a smoker. For kicks, I recommend checking out what smoking costs us in terms of healthcare.

For clarity, I am completely against this bill, and here's why: The side effects must include additional restrictions on personal freedoms (HATE that). I don't smoke, but I fully support your right to live the way you choose; it's your body, do what you want with it. However, I shouldn't have to pay for your irresponsible choices. You shouldn't have to pay for mine. Nor do I see anywhere in the Constitution, the right of the federal government to force me to purchase a service I do not want, or tax me for NOT buying something. (I'm SO glad my state is protecting my Constitutional rights by suing!)

ps, nice job Repepe