The first opinion poll about the bill after its House passage is in. 49% in favour versus 40% opposed. Other numbers look just as negative for Republicans.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
The first opinion poll about the bill after its House passage is in. 49% in favour versus 40% opposed. Other numbers look just as negative for Republicans.
No, no, no. You got it wrong. Fox has it 49% in favor and 140% opposed.
__________________
Beware the Plutocrat Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
The first opinion poll about the bill after its House passage is in. 49% in favour versus 40% opposed. Other numbers look just as negative for Republicans.
Ha, I was just on my way in here to post that, and also this:
The first opinion poll about the bill after its House passage is in. 49% in favour versus 40% opposed. Other numbers look just as negative for Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linked article
8% say the health care system doesn't need reform.
Those are people who have never had an insurance claim, I reckon.
Joining a distinguished group of state attorneys general in challenging the constitutionality of the health reform legislation, now comes Orly Taitz, who in a new federal court filing argues that the bill violates her "right" to practice dentistry.
Along with her lawyerly pursuits, Taitz operates a dental office in Rancho Santa Margarita, California.
The challenge comes in the form of an amended complaint in a Birther case in district court in Washington, Taitz v. Obama, that challenges the president's citizenship.
Along with raising the specter of death panels and charging that Obama, as an illegitimate president, does not have the right to sign the health bill into law, Taitz writes in the new section of the complaint, titled, "VIOLATION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE AND OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS TO GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AS A DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY UPON DEFENDANT'S IMMINENT SIGHNING OF THE HEALTH BILL":
__________________
Beware the Plutocrat Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
You know, every time I try to imagine how a person could possibly be more batshit crazy than Orly Taitz, I remember that there are, presumably, people who willingly pay good money to have a batshit crazy person wield sharp instruments in their fucking mouths and I'm like, oh, yah, that's how.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Can anyone explain how she believes the bill violates her right to practice dentistry? I haven't had enough crazy pills today to attempt to decipher that one myself.
Probably that since there is a health care bill that mandates coverage, and she may not care to participate in said coverage or accept the payments made by that coverage.
Plus she's hoping that for some nooky.
That's all I got.
I didn't hear anything about dentistry being covered in the health care bill, for real.
Now we know what Sarah meant with Drill Baby Drill!
__________________
Beware the Plutocrat Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
And if she does for the anti-healthcare reform movement what's she's done for the birfer movement, we'll have us a full-blown single payer system in about a week.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Can anyone explain how she believes the bill violates her right to practice dentistry? I haven't had enough crazy pills today to attempt to decipher that one myself.
Well, let's see here. She's complaining that she'll be subject to many, many dental malpractice lawsuits because healthcare reform will bring down the standard of care. How that works I don't know. Seems to me that lowering the standard of care can only HELP Orly.
Also -- and please correct me if I'm wrong on this -- she seems to be making (in her own magnificently hebephrenic Pottsylvania way) a "dormant Commerce Clause" argument against FEDERAL legislation. I didn't think you could do that!
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
And if she does for the anti-healthcare reform movement what's she's done for the birfer movement, we'll have us a full-blown single payer system in about a week.
Orly is truly one of my favorite things, ever. The world is way funnier with her in it.
If one accepts the logic that the feds (or states for that matter) can mandate the purchase of something merely because they have the legal right to regulate, then what is to stop the federal government from mandating we all purchase 10,000 candy canes every xmas?
Nothing, provided the House and Senate approved it, the President signed it into law, and the judiciary ruled that the law is constitutional. Like it or not, that's how our system works. Health insurance is to candy canes as seat-belts are to Spiderman Underoos. Hence 30 states require citizens to wear seat belts and 0 require citizens to wear Spiderman Underoos, despite the fact that they have the authority to mandate both.
If one accepts the logic that the feds (or states for that matter) can mandate the purchase of something merely because they have the legal right to regulate, then what is to stop the federal government from mandating we all purchase 10,000 candy canes every xmas?
Nothing, provided the House and Senate approved it, the President signed it into law, and the judiciary ruled that the law is constitutional. Like it or not, that's how our system works. Health insurance is to candy canes as seat-belts are to Spiderman Underoos. Hence 30 states require citizens to wear seat belts and 0 require citizens to wear Spiderman Underoos, despite the fact that they have the authority to mandate both.
You can't be serious.
If the house and senate approved a law that said every citizen must purchase 10,000 candy canes per year and the president signed it into law you would just roll over and buy your 10,000 candy canes?
The purpose of the US constitution is to establish what the powers of the federal government are. The 10th amendment to the US constitution (part of the bill of rights) says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A plain reading of the constitution makes it quite clear the federal government has no authority to force you or I to purchase 10,000 candy canes each year. I would submit it also makes it quite clear the federal government has no authority to force you or I to purchase health care insurance we do not want.
That is what the lawsuit from the 11 states is about.
Again, I support health care reform and would like a public option, but the federal government requiring individuals pay for private health plans they do not want is flatly unconstitutional. It would appear at least 11 states agree. We shall see what the courts say.
The first opinion poll about the bill after its House passage is in. 49% in favour versus 40% opposed. Other numbers look just as negative for Republicans.
Digby at Hullabaloo has a post on CNN's Rick Sanchez' confusion as to the lack of higher 'opposed' numbers after the bill passed, and Wolf Blitzer's explanation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Blitzer
Well, you know, when people are asked, we did that poll CNN Opinion Research Poll, that said, "you like this health care bill or not like it", we just assumed, a lot of us, that the people who said they didn't like it didn't like it because it was too much interference, or too much taxes or whatever.
"But if you take a closer look at people who didn't like it, about 12% of those people who said they didn't like it they didn't like it because they didn't think it went far enough. They wanted a single payer option, they wanted the so-called public option, they didn't like not from the right, they didn't like it because it wasn't left or liberal enough.
All we've been hearing for months now is that the "American people" don't like the bill because it's a government takeover. The Republicans turned that into their entire rationale for opposition, claiming that the Democrats are going against "the will of the people" and somehow usurped the Democratic process. And here it turns out that it's only the Republicans and a few conservative "independents", 38% or so of the country, who think the bill is a government takeover.
That's quite a different story don't you think? One that might have been told before now by the news networks? It might have changed the whole damned debate, actually.
Blitzer admits that they just "assumed" that everyone in the country held this wingnut view. After all, the pictures showed a bunch of angry middle aged white people screaming about socialism, and they look like their perception of Real America, so why bother to drill down into the numbers any further?
All us Company employees received this email from Human Resources last week:
Quote:
Dear fellow employees,
As you know, the Health Care Reform legislation has resurfaced and the Administration is working with the House and the Senate to pursue passage through a legislative process known as reconciliation facilitated by what you may have heard as a “deem and pass” procedure. This special legislative approach is being pursued despite considerable opposition in Congress and public opinion opposing the legislation. While Congress is still waiting for revenue and cost projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the President and certain Congressional leaders are aggressively pushing for a vote as early as late this week. I am writing to again let you know of our concerns with the legislation.
In its current form, the legislation would:
· Increase the cost of employer-provided health benefits (raising our costs)
· Cause a greater shift of the cost of these services to the private payers in the system
· Introduce a series of new fees, taxes and administrative requirements that will increase the cost to our Company and our employees
· Over time, potentially expose our medical plan to a 40% excise tax
· Significantly reduce the Medicare reimbursements to health care providers further below market rates
· Let the government dictate certain aspects of the health benefits we offer
· Cap pre-tax contributions to health care flexible spending accounts at $2,500
We believe the proposed legislation shifts too much of the cost for health care to employer-based health plans which could eventually contribute to affecting the design of our programs. We would prefer an approach that preserves what is good about the current health care system, like employer-based coverage, while addressing the high costs and inefficient aspects of our system to achieve lower costs and greater access to care.
Congress’ focus has been to expand access to health care coverage. This is absolutely an important goal, but without meaningful control of health care costs, it can only be accomplished through the introduction of costly taxes and fees. We would prefer to see meaningful reform addressing medical liability (tort) reform, leveraging technology to improve the efficiency of the health care system, elimination of fraud and abuse in federal and state programs, and an increased focus on wellness and prevention.
The Company medical plans are self-insured. This means the Company and our plan members pay the cost of our medical benefits. UHC simply administers our plan and provides us with access to lower negotiated rates through their provider networks. Our medical costs have grown significantly in the past decade and we are very concerned about new taxes and fees that would add to our growing costs.
All of us know that our Company has been successful, relative to the marketplace, in holding down the costs of health benefits we provide to employees – and we’ve expanded the types of coverage we offer. It’s important that we continue to have the ability to deliver the kind of health benefits that are so meaningful to our Company employees and their families.
There are ways that you can participate in the legislative process and make sure that elected officials hear your voice. Due to the aggressive timeline being pursued by Congress, your prompt action is encouraged.
At the Government Affairs site on our intranet, you’ll find additional information about health care reform as well as resources (click on the “Take Action” tab) that make it easy to contact your elected officials. You can share your point of view by sending a message via e-mail, completing a form on the legislator’s Web site, or calling his or her office. The link below takes you right to the Web site.
Our Company respects and values the individuality of every employee. We recognize that there will be some issues on which individual employees may advocate positions that are different from the company’s.
As always, our Company encourages employees to be active participants in their communities and the political process in a positive and respectful way.
I hope you’ll take the opportunity to reflect on the company’s perspective on health care reform. Consider conveying your thoughts on these issues to the individuals who represent you in Congress.
If you have any questions about how to take action, you can send an e-mail to Government Affairs, and you’ll get a response from our Government Affairs staff.
Link to the Government Affairs site on our Company intranet
Stephanie Gobbledygook
Vice President, Human Resources
Stephanie needs to get her news from other sources than Fox News, there was no majority opposing health care reform.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
In his defense, Wolf Blitzer is a pharmaceutical grade moron. Anyone smarter than Wolf Blitzer, though, probably realized that a fair sized chunk of the people unhappy with it were unhappy because it was so watered down.
And anyone who didn't realize early on that the opposition to healthcare reform consists almost entirely of violent idiots surely knows about it now, though.
I went to the Metcalf gun show last weekend, the teabaggers are stockpiling guns and ammo, or so it looked to me. Me, I was looking at cowboy guns and chatting up the old WW2 vet age old guys, who are a lot more interesting than the yahoos wearing camouflage hats and t-shirts begging me to pry their gun out of their cold dead hands.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
I went to the Metcalf gun show last weekend, the teabaggers are stockpiling guns and ammo, or so it looked to me. Me, I was looking at cowboy guns and chatting up the old WW2 vet age old guys, who are a lot more interesting than the yahoos wearing camouflage hats and t-shirts begging me to pry their gun out of their cold dead hands.
Yeah, all of my guns and ammo are purchased from the old farts who simply feared communists. I never buy my guns and ammo from tea baggers even if they have a lower price
I can't speak for vm, but his post read seriously enough to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by just me
If the house and senate approved a law that said every citizen must purchase 10,000 candy canes per year and the president signed it into law you would just roll over and buy your 10,000 candy canes?
Seems to me part of vm's point is that Congress wouldn't do that in the first place. In any event, "rolling over" is a law-n-order v. civil disobedience issue that has nothing to do with whether Congress has the authority to pass that law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by just me
The 10th amendment to the US constitution (part of the bill of rights) says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which simply reiterates what the unamended Constitution already made pretty clear, namely that the federal government is one of enumerated powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by just me
A plain reading of the constitution makes it quite clear the federal government has no authority to force you or I to purchase 10,000 candy canes each year.
If by that you mean a plain reading of the Constitution reveals that the sentence "Congress may require citizens of the United States to purchase up to 10,000 candy canes per year" is nowhere to be found, you're absolutely right. Otherwise, you're basing your conclusion not on "plain reading" but rather on some unstated assumptions about what the various provisions of Article I, Section 8 mean (or ought to mean).
Quote:
Originally Posted by just me
That is what the lawsuit from the 11 states is about.
Last time I looked, which was late yesterday afternoon, the numbers were two lawsuits and fourteen states. It's not really fourteen "states," though; it's fourteen state attorneys general, thirteen of which are Republicans. That, I suspect, is what the cases are really about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by just me
We shall see what the courts say.
Indeed we will. Place your bets!
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Re: Health Care Reform Dead
Linear Mode
