Why did I start a Facebook battle. Look at this response I don't even know where to begin?!

[vaberella]

None of the statements, I've made are false. 1) States are suing. 2) That claim has been made, I never said that were was an amendment, I pointed out that the claim was made.

I'm going to start this off with the basics of any government program. Funding. Where will the money come from with the U.S. face a nation debt of $12,676,744,486,281.69, ... See moreand programs like MediCare, MedicAid, and Social Security running out of money there is little to no money to pay for a budget increase of estimates between 90 billion to $1 trillion dollars, I say estimates, because the Obama Administration have taken liberties to differ with the DoL (Department of Labor) on the unemployment numbers. But guess where that money will come from? That's right, tax payers, and with the number of unemployment going at a steady rate, the tax paying public will be smaller and smaller. Tax the rich, you say? Well, the "rich" people talk about are the people who run the 26.8 million businesses in America already struggling with the bad economy and the rising cost of overhead, and the few "celebrities" who go around the taxes by donating or taking part in "charity" events for a tax break. Along the line with the small business argument, the program calls for owners to provide health care insurance for their employees -- private or federal (with certain discounts available). Failure by the employer to cover them, either on the part of the employee refusing the private health care or the program, the employer faces a fine of up to $750 or $2000 per full time employee. These are the small businesses that the current administration claims that are so high in percentage that it's "too big to fail".
Now let's talk about man power for the hospitals. There is a health care professional shortage in America; nurses, doctors, and specialists. The demand of health care professionals will cause a bottle neck and a drop in quality of care. Well, let's just pipeline medical professionals, then. That's the wrong answer, quality over quantity is preferred in health care. You can have an overflow of crappy professionals and continue treating patients but that will mean more pain and suffering for the patients, the medical field is competitive for a reason, hospitals want the best and pay for the best. Allowing those who barely graduated to treat patients will more than likely cause further injury or death, which will lead to the rising cost of malpractice suits, which will mean two things, A) they'll need more money to cover that cost or B) Doctors and nurses take the same pay and use more to pay the malpractice insurance -- affect both good and bad professionals. What about facilities? Well, there sure as hell not enough of them to yield the increase in users which will mean building more, again at the cost of the tax payer. This program will cost the states already facing a budget crisis and the tax payers, getting smaller and smaller due to the unemployment numbers. The states are suing the Federal Government for 2 reasons, the cost and a violation of the 10th Amendment on the Bill of Rights -- you know the U.S. Constitution, that piece of paper this administration have ignored. The 10th Amendment says "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." That means, the Federal Government has explicit, clear cut powers they have over states, and health care is an implied power. The government can not, should not, and has never, ever required a person to purchase anything at the risk of fine or imprisonment, which is what the ObamaCare plan will do if you do not purchase this insurance through them or a private party. Many Americans have little information to go on about the health care bill because there has been little information put out, the democrats babied this bill and released only information that made the bill appealing to the public. As of March 9, 2010, the gallop poll found that 49% of Americans would tell their representatives to vote no on the bill with 7% having no opinion and 40% saying yes (with +/- 4 error margin). This is not the "united voice" congress has led the public to believe, this is a divided country yearning for more transparency with the bill, which is now conveniently happening now that it will soon be the law of the land to the public. The cart before the horse is the worst way to approach law making.

He added a correction to the 10 Amendment: Correction on previous comment regarding 10th Amendment it 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 is referring to the Articles of Confederation, the first U.S. Constitution.

[democrat_patriot]

1. Sound slike he/she is saying:

It's going to cost jobs, while simultaneously creating jobs in healthcare Dr's/Nurses. Which is it?

The $750-$2000 fine doesn't apply to companies with under 50 employees - a vast majority of companies. If $750-$2000 a year per employee is going to 'kill' a company? Don't believe it. 32 million AMERICANS will now have health insurance. That's a good thing.

The HCR bill is estimated to cut the deficit by 1.38 Trillion over 20 years. Somehow that is bad?

How does the status quo solve any of these problems he/she is complaining about? It doesn't.

Polls out today show support for the bill to be 49% positive, 40% negative.

Ask him/her if we should get rid of SS, medicare and medicaid? Now that's really killing grandma.

Where were his concerns about the constitution when they rammed through the Patriot Act? Iraq war? (Which could have paid for health care).

Name 1 thing Republicans have done to help ANYONE. 1 thing.

Go sit down and let the adults get some shit done.

[vaberella]

2. This doesn't affect Americans right...just the people. n/t

[vaberella]

3. here is my response..so long.

I'm not arguing the point that states are suing. So far there are 13 stupid states suing and as a result wasting state money. As for the second statement---you did say there was an amendment placed in the bill which keeps it from being appealed. Show me where in the bill this is found. If you have the lawyers statements..provide links to those. Because there has been nothing of the sort. The main issue from the Republicans was that it would affect SS which therefore make the vote on the bill invalid. This was struck by the House Rules committee.

Okay there is a lot of stuff you say that I have to sift through.

Wow, you say a lot of things...that are...hmmm. Whatever. Okay, first off we do have a massive national debt and we have moved from being a credit- nation to a debtor-nation. That has been brewing for over 30 years and was escalated and basically started under Reagan, pushed back a bit by Clinton and exemplified by Bush stupidity and bloody wars. We had a surplus turned into massive trillion dollar debts. That was not done under the Obama admin. Many are arguing that Obama is adding to it. The second most costly expenditure to the American people after the war (s) is health costs. So when one person gets sick, they don't have bloody insurance, they get free medical care (since no hospital can turn them away and if you suggest a hospital does that I would consider you inhumane) which then means the cost of the procedure will increase to balance the books of the hospital which increases premiums and costs for all of us who do have insurance. Nasty little domino affect that goes on. Hence the reason citizens in Texans, who I believe is one of the highest uninsured rate are a burden on the insured citizens of let's say Massachusetts. ... See more

Secondly, I don't know if you've been paying attention but there has been a steady decrease on the number of people unemployed and Congress has recently passed a jobs bill of the billions. Not to mention the amount of jobs the Stimulus package has helped sustain or create. However to move directly to the tax argument you speak of. I have no clue what you're talking about because you seem to be giving me a straw-man argument. I don't know what your going on about in taxes since the argument is incoherent so I'll move ahead to your statement on the mandate/tax penalty.

I mean your entire statement regarding the employer/employee insurance is a massive strawman.

Let's get the language to dispel your argument first off.

HR 3590 EAS/PP
(c) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.—

323
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty determined
1
under this subsection for any month with respect to
2
any individual is an amount equal to 1⁄12 of the ap-
3
plicable dollar amount for the calendar year.
4
‘‘(2) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—The amount of the
5
penalty imposed by this section on any taxpayer for
6
any taxable year with respect to all individuals for
7
whom the taxpayer is liable under subsection (b)(3)
8
shall not exceed an amount equal to 300 percent the
9
applicable dollar amount (determined without regard
10
to paragraph (3)(C)) for the calendar year with or
11
within which the taxable year ends.
12
‘‘(3) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT.—For pur-
13
poses of paragraph (1)—
14
‘‘(A) INGENERAL.—Except as provided in
15
subparagraphs (B) and (C), the applicable dollar
16
amount is $750.
However this tax is not imposed on the American people. Mainly because 85% already have insurance, most of them are expected to join some plan at some point in time and lastly those who have an low income which make up the rest will not be affected by said tax. Hence the American people are not facing a tax penalty.
The $750-$2000 fine doesn't apply to companies with under 50 employees - a vast majority of companies and small businesses. Another thing, I get the feel that you don't like the fact that employers should provide workers with insurance. I'm sorry to say I find that utterly inhumane. If a someone wakes up early and stays late to work for you and for you to get more money---and rather than providing them with insurance you'd rather them not have insurance---it's a bit inhumane. Some companies just can't afford it, and because that is understood there are provisions in place in order to protect said employers. If $750-$2000 a year per employee is going to 'kill' a company? I don't believe it. 32 million AMERICANS will now have health insurance.
--------------------------------------------------------------
You're argument on health care providers----is a another straw-man. ... See more

You're argument is suggesting that if there are more people who need health insurance then quality will go down . So you're argument is to let 32 million people die because of your assumption without any facts. Hmm...some people have questionable morality.

In any event it will be easy to address all your arguments in one fell swoop. You do realize there was money put aside within the stimulus package, jobs creation bill, and various other bills to increase the number of medical facilities in this nation. Why? Because there is already a lack of medical facilities for those who do have insurance especially in rural areas. That being said...either without the other parts of the bill...that was already receiving funding. Then we move on to the problems you state as for medical doctors. Your assumption is just that an assumption. An assumption that insults the works of medical profession. You assume that unqualified practitioners will be put on patients because of the flood of people. Well that's a weak argument.

First off, majority of the 32 million who will be insured are two types of people. Young adults and the poor, more of which are young adults since many of the poor were already on medicaid anyway. So the dramatic increase is young adults. Most people are aware that young adults do not run to the doctor every two seconds and most often visit only if they get hit by a car or something. That being said. I doubt the increase your claim will cause this domino affect is substantial enough to occur. Not to mention there will be people who are not on the plan just because and even the people join medicaid won't be going often enough. So to assume that we're going to see a steady decrease in quality because of quantity is a fallacy that has been unproven.

As for cost...most of the cost are covered in the bill. Actually they are considering that there will be a 140 billion + increase in the first ten years----which doesn't even count the preventative care measures. And an estimated 1.3 Trillion + in the following 20 years. Why is that more believable than your statements?! For various reasons. There are cut backs on the amount of testing, there is a new regulation board which will look into fraud. Obama has already created said body through executive order and has found about 3 billion in dollars that were previously lost to fraud. So all of that together will increase the surplus and decrease this expense you keep suggesting that will affect the American people.

Lastly unemployment numbers are decreasing...which makes me wonder what you've been reading. Secondly there is a jobs bill that will be going into affect and the stimulus package has aided in saving millions of jobs and creating more. And once again, any economist you speak too will tell you that job creation is always last to come into affect during any recession or economic disruption.

On another point. You make mention of purchasing insurance through them (the government) or a private party. Where are you getting this?! Once again another false hood. If we were purchasing insurance from them we would then have a public option. There is no public option there is a public hub to search for fair priced insurance plans. That is it. And again they are not forcing anyone since mandates have been removed and the only "mandate" left is for big businesses. And since businesses are not people, they are not affected by the 10th Amendment..I don't know if you realize that the President was a constitutional lawyer.

On your final points..which I find utterly entertaining. The bills have been on the net for public viewing for OVER A YEAR. I don't know how much more transparency you want. So please don't sit there and tell me they've been hiding it or babying it for the American people. They have not. If you have the internet you can download it. How do you think the Republicans were able to showboat massive stacks of paper in order to say how horrible the 2700+ legislation is. So yes, it is there for the American people, the only thing is it's complicated and long. Why? Because it's massive reorganization of health care, but not even necessarily a reform. But it has been out there and there have been site after site after site created in order to highlight the major points---unbiased websites. So this is not something that sprung up out of nowhere and the American people were unaware. Anyone who can read and take some time out can understand what's in the bill.

And as another statement...the gallup poll today states: 49% support the bill, 40% don't, and 11% no opinion. Which trashes your poll. It seems the American people are learning more about the bill and changing their minds on it.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

[hatrack]

4. Here's my response . . . "Dude, paragraphs are your friend. And learn to edit."

nt

[Fire1]

6. You ain't lying! I don't have the stomach or the stamina to

read through all of that.

[kestrel91316]

7. Yeah. Life's too short to spend it reading 5000-word paragraphs.

[damonm]

5. Try this for the legality of mandates:

Wickard v. Filburn, 1942, is the controlling precedent here. The mandates are Constitutional because the Constitution's commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. As the exchanges are set up to operate across state lines, and an individual opting out affects the price of health insurance for everybody across said state lines(by shrinking the pool), this affects interstate commerce and is thus in Congress' authority to legislate.

[Whisp]

8. that pic of Pelosi is insulting and stupid.

what are you, 13?