Journal pudge's Journal: How Do I Oppose Thee? 17
The health insurance reform bill should be opposed on many grounds. The most obvious to those of us who put a priority on liberty is that it violates our rights: our right to not buy insurance, our right to buy whatever insurance products we want, our right to not offer certain benefits as employers, and more.
Another big problem, if you're pro-life, is that the bill pays for abortions. The Democrats have been saying all along they would not pass a bill that pays for abortions, but they lied. This bill does precisly that, because it pays for insurance coverage that pays for abortions. There's no wiggling out of this lie.
Speaking of big lies, the Democrats have been saying their health insurance reform would cut the deficit. Obama said he wouldn't vote for it unless it did. But it only cuts the deficit because they cut out the Medicare "doctor fix"
Of course, Democrats will say "we were talking about THIS bill, not the separate 'doctor fix' bill," but letting them get away with that argument would allow any Congress to make any major legislation reduce the deficit: just cut out the parts that increase the deficit, pass them separately, and surprise! You saved money!
Democrats who vote for this because it reduces the deficit are lying
For most people, though, the biggest problem is that it simply doesn't do anything good for most Americans, becase costs don't come down. The CBO says premiums stay essentially static, with or without this bill. Literally, the Democrats have been touting a bill to address the high cost of health insurance, without actually reducing the cost of that insurance.
Anyone who votes for this bill is voting for deficit increases, tax increases, and a complete absence of actual cost-cutting.
There's a lot more that can and has and should be said about this bill, but these are the primary reasons why the Democrats are killing themselves in the elections this November.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
The CBO hasn't got a clue (Score:1, Flamebait)
The bill is trash and I've got nothing more to say about it, but
is pure unadulterated bullshit. Premiums haven't been "static" for years. With or without the bill, I think it doesn't take a psychic to "guess" that next year, premiums will be raised yet again, and yet again it will increase over the recognized rate of inflation [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
pure unadulterated bullshit. Premiums haven't been "static" for years
You misunderstand what I wrote, which is understandable. By "static" I meant that the increases will be the same. So they project, for example, that average premiums will be $15,200 in 2014 without the bill and $15,100 in 2014 WITH the bill.
moof (Score:1)
Anyone who votes for this bill is also voting for opening the door to the ultimate goal, of maybe about a third of us, to eventually have a completely govt.-run healthcare system. If you're gonna look at what Progressives say that are obvious lies [hint: a complete waste of time], you should also look at what they say that they're obviously dead serious about. Opposition on individual details like abortion and debt [not deficits -- their trying to get us to focus on that instead, is a distraction tactic] is
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone who votes for this bill is also voting for opening the door to the ultimate goal, of maybe about a third of us, to eventually have a completely govt.-run healthcare system.
It basically IS that. This bill mandates everyone get insurance, with minimum and maximum levels of services, with cost and profit controls.
Opposition on individual details like abortion and debt [not deficits -- their trying to get us to focus on that instead, is a distraction tactic] is valid
Deficit is valid too.
Just say no to an agenda of more of America being socialized, and then there's no real need to bother with individual details.
Except that many people won't believe you, or don't care, about that "socialized" argument. So we say, yep, this is wrong on all these levels, but even by their own standards -- covering everyone, reducing costs, reducing deficits, not paying for abortion -- it's a total failure.
The people who are likely to believe you about socialization are alre
Re: (Score:1)
Deficit is valid too.
It's as valid as the fed focusing our attention on fewer people being laid off than last month, vs. the tangible fact that unemployment just got worse. "Cutting the deficit" is not "good news", as unless it's cut to zero or negative it still means we're barrelling at breakneck speeds down the road to financial ruin. In which case who cares what particular breakneck speed it is, when it's still a breakneck speed, and still towards ruin. So talking about/in terms of the deficit is playing
Re: (Score:1)
"Cutting the deficit" is not "good news", as unless it's cut to zero or negative it still means we're barrelling at breakneck speeds down the road to financial ruin.
But they are NOT cutting the deficit, they are INCREASING it. It's in that context that I said it's a valid issue, but I see where you are coming from now.
No, because one side is a useless whack-a-mole game -- you may win one particular battle but then another just sprouts up.
But in the process, we get a lot of people to support killing/repealing it. Sounds good to me.
We need to win the war, or America is lost.
And the people we win during that debate are necessary to win that war.
The only ultimate solution for saving the country is to convince the mushy middle and arm them with principles, so that *they* can fight off the bad ideas and arguments themselves.
That's part of the process, but you have to show them that the principles lead to good PRACTICAL outcomes. We didn't have most of our predecessors favor liberty just for the sake of liberty
Rule of law. It used to mean something. (Score:2)
The exercise of a true right (speech, bare arms, etc.) by one person does not diminish the rights held by another. Nationalized health care does not meet that litmus test. It is an entitlement, nothing more.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/IsHealthCareARight.htm [gmu.edu]
Never mind that passing this type of largess is not one of Congress' enumerated powers. Why do we bother to consider the Constitution as being the highest authority of the land, any more?
Rule of law. It used to mean something.
Re: (Score:1)
The exercise of a true right (speech, bare arms, etc.) by one person does not diminish the rights held by another. Nationalized health care does not meet that litmus test. It is an entitlement, nothing more.
Indeed. And the dishonesty is doubled here because if everyone has comprehensive INSURANCE, then it is not INSURANCE anymore at all, but, as you say, a mere entitlement.
Never mind that passing this type of largess is not one of Congress' enumerated powers.
But but but GENERAL WELFARE ZOMG!
Rule of law. It used to mean something.
Not to many of these people. Justice Breyer, whose JOB it is to make sure the Constitution is upheld, wrote a whole book explaining why it's OK to ignore the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Article 1, section 8:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Re: (Score:1)
Are you saying that general welfare is an enumerated power?
Because if so ... you're wrong. As James Madison, author of the Tenth Amendment and "father of the Constitution" wrote, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
And in a longer quote, he got more specific and brutal:
Re: (Score:2)
Because if so ... you're wrong.
If so, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, and I don't think that's what the founding fathers meant, either. But I'd bet that's how the current folks in power would interpret it. After all, SCOTUS ruled against logic and reason that wheat grown in one's own back yard for personal use is subject to the interstate commerce clause. Which is, as you point out, where they say they get the power to regulate damned near anything from. It's said that "terrorism" and "child porn
Re: (Score:1)
SCOTUS ruled against logic and reason that wheat grown in one's own back yard for personal use is subject to the interstate commerce clause
The logic of that decision aside (it's fairly complex), yes, my point is that our Supreme Court interprets that very broadly, and has a long history of doing so, but have very little history of accepting "general welfare" as an enumerated power (I found one example, and no history of using that as precedent).
Re: (Score:2)
After giving it thought, I have to say that you've convinced me. The mandatory insurance idea probably won't pass muster with SCOTUS. I hope it won't, anyway.
Pudge, have a look at this (Score:3, Interesting)
The Texas AG says a bunch of states are going to file a joint suit [facebook.com] to stop this horrible thing:
"Just got off the AG conference call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights."
Re: (Score:1)
I hope my Republican AG, Rob McKenna, joins. WA is a "blue" state and he wants to run for governor in 2012, but I hope he ignores the politics and does what is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Your hope is fulfilled, sir! [oregonlive.com]
You know, Pudge, I don't want the GOP to repeal this first. I want this to go to SCOTUS and be decided there first. This bill is so blatantly unconstitutional, so completely mocks the idea of limited government, that if SCOTUS can't even shoot a monstrosity like this down, then well and truly, limited government is dead. If Congress can decree this, they can quite literally do anything they want. I want SCOTUS to put a stake in the heart of this bill and fire a shot across the li
Re: (Score:1)
Your hope is fulfilled, sir! [oregonlive.com]
Yeah, I saw. :D
You know, Pudge, I don't want the GOP to repeal this first. I want this to go to SCOTUS and be decided there first.
As appealing as that sounds, I don't want to wait. The longer you wait, the fewer opportunities you have for success.
This bill is so blatantly unconstitutional, so completely mocks the idea of limited government, that if SCOTUS can't even shoot a monstrosity like this down, then well and truly, limited government is dead.
Well, even if the SCOTUS shoots down SOME of it, it won't kill the rest of the bill ... so I don't see that as a good way to kill the bill anyway.