Thread: If Obamacare passes... so does amnesty

MW,

The answer to your question is Medicare.

MW,

How about vacinations. We are required to go and puchase medical services to have our kids vaccinated.

How about auto emissions. Here in CA we are required to take our cars to private companies and have the emission levels checked.

How about flood insurance. We are required to buy it by government decree here in CA.

How about kid obtaining a drivers license? Here in CA kids have to, by law, take a private drivers ed course before they can apply for a license.

and on... and on... and on..

MW,

You have not answered my questions:

Are you saying that the government has no right to say that we cannot purchase an abortion?

Are you saying the government has no right to say we may not buy crack cocaine?

Are you saying the government has no right to say we cannot pucharse child sex?

Originally Posted by alisab

For obama, this isn't about helping Americans on this healthcare bill. It is about his legacy, his historical value. To h*ll with hard working Americans, he wants his way and to be remembered as the great one.

he and nancy want this to prove they are supreme.

His legacy will be right down there with Jimmy Carter's. I think he's surpassed Jimmy as the worst President in this generation.

Bush Jr is probably the worst President of this generation and maybe of all time.

Originally Posted by Bettybb

"NoBueno" wrote
Ditto! Besides, what's one more so called tough vote when you've already sold your soul. They have nothing left to lose, no political career to salvage and many of them know it. So why not go out with a bang

Passing health care reform is the winning out of common sense over fear fueled by propoganda and lies.

Amnesty defies common sense.

Let's hope I am correct and amnesty goes down.

Your position relies on the assumption our so called leaders are in possession of any common sense. I guess you give them more credit than I do.

I sure do hope you're correct!

Bettybb wrote:

MW,

How about vacinations. We are required to go and puchase medical services to have our kids vaccinated.

How about auto emissions. Here in CA we are required to take our cars to private companies and have the emission levels checked.

How about flood insurance. We are required to buy it by government decree here in CA.

How about kid obtaining a drivers license? Here in CA kids have to, by law, take a private drivers ed course before they can apply for a license.

and on... and on... and on..

The privileges of democracy, including individual freedoms, must be enjoyed in ways that do not interfere with or create risks for others. Immunization provides protection not only to the person immunized, but for many diseases, also to the people with whom the immunized person comes in contact. Requiring immunization to stop the spread of disease is not even closely related to the requirement that all individuals be forced to purchase health insurance from private industry. Not requiring immunization puts everyones health at risk, not just the individual. In a nutshell, immunization is necessary to protect society as a whole. Individual health care choices should be left to the individual because it does not impact society as a whole, only the individual.

Vehicle emissions also impact the health of everyone, not just the individual. Regardless, you are not required by law to operate a motor vehicle. Emission testing is not required for non-drivers.

Flood insurance requirements are made by local government, not federal. Everyone in the country is not required to purchase flood insurance. If you decide to reside in a flood zone, it's your choice.

Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. If the rules are not acceptable to the individual, they don't have to apply for a license or drive.

All your examples are non-arguments.

Bettybb wrote:

MW,

The answer to your question is Medicare.

Wrong again, Bettybb. Medicare is not private insurance.

Bush Jr is probably the worst President of this generation and maybe of all time.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I tend to agree with Miguelina, Carter was the worst President of this generation. Besides that, Obama's term is far from complete.

Bettybb wrote:

MW,

You have not answered my questions:

Are you saying that the government has no right to say that we cannot purchase an abortion?

Are you saying the government has no right to say we may not buy crack cocaine?

Are you saying the government has no right to say we cannot pucharse child sex?

The above questions are not related to the question of government requiring individuals to purchase health insurance from private industry.

Bettybb
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:23 am Post subject:
MW,

How about vacinations. We are required to go and puchase medical services to have our kids vaccinated.

How about auto emissions. Here in CA we are required to take our cars to private companies and have the emission levels checked.

How about flood insurance. We are required to buy it by government decree here in CA.

How about kid obtaining a drivers license? Here in CA kids have to, by law, take a private drivers ed course before they can apply for a license.

and on... and on... and on..

That is done by the State not the Federal Government

Apparently you approve the Federal Government controlling our lives from the "Cradle to the Grave"

Sounds like you are one of those people that need or want Government control of your life because you can't do it on your own...



Well glad your glad... here is just part of what you will get but wait don't forget there is a full 2400 pages of this stuff...have fun

Subject: Texas Judge Interprets Healthcare...






Wait till you read this one...



THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL
Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59



JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find it unbelievable that our Congress,
led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements."

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible
for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons.
To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to
work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there."


JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with
this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance
to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have
real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by
the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this
section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272.! section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration
care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a
prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates
advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counceling)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not
apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls, Texas

And I need to add this: as far as I am concerned there has been NO good President in my Lifetime( and I am older than dirt as far as my grand kids think anyways) that actually worked for We The People....Not a one, that didn't or doesn't have some other agenda..against "we the People" So far each one has been worse than the previous one....

Kathyet

Wrong.The Bill does not permit taxpayer funds to be used for abortion and there is going to be an executive order confirming that.

Answer to that is this!!!!! Executive order means nothing....

Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'
Published on 03-22-2010 Email To Friend Print Version

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Source: PRNewswire

Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a "yes" vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House:

"It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion."

"Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."

"Barack Obama has lined every existing federal agency with the most dedicated pro-abortion ideologues, and we know that he will continue this pattern of pro-abortion appointments when it comes time for him to fill the over-100 bureaucracies created to administer his socialized health care program."

"Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."

"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."

"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."

http://www.roguegovernment.com/Schlafly ... 7/Y/M.html

Kathyet


PS On a side note I need to say that I have to consider myself pro-choice...I firmly believe a women needs to have the right to choose and that is between her and her doctor not some third party not involved in her life......but then I firmly believe in freedom of choice for everything....

kathyet wrote

That is done by the State not the Federal Government

How about the Federal government requiring people hire private companies to do environmental impact reports?

The fact is, the Constitution, and it is well established, gives the Federal government the authority under the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce, and tax people. This health care bill requiring everyone to buy insurance is drafted by Congress as a tax. It is legal, and the hoopla about it not being constitutional is just the head honchos in the right wing conning their base, and making it appear like they are doing something.

kathyet wrote

Apparently you approve the Federal Government controlling our lives from the "Cradle to the Grave"

Why do you say that? Just because I support health care reform does not mean that I "approve the Federal Government controlling our lives from the "Cradle to the Grave"". That is like me saying, since you do not support health care reform, you support all freeloaders, like those who use our health care system without paying for it, and welfare gueens and all the others who game our system.

kathyet wrote

Sounds like you are one of those people that need or want Government control of your life because you can't do it on your own...

You know, I don't find gratuitious insults to be very enlightening. I, for one, have decided I will not engage in this type of "demonizing" tactic. I control my life very well, thank you very much.

kathyet wrote

Well glad your glad... here is just part of what you will get but wait don't forget there is a full 2400 pages of this stuff...have fun

Actually, I think this bill stinks, but it is better that what we have now which really stinks. We should just expand Medicare to cover everyone.

kathyet wrote

[quote:1eytpck7]Subject: Texas Judge Interprets Healthcare...

[/quote:1eytpck7]

I would have to read the bill itself to see if the Judge is blowing right wing smoke or whether any of his points are valid.

But the fact is, American ranks around 55th world wide in health care, along with third world nations. Our health care is terrible.. though the "elite" goes around saying it is the best on the earth, so the rip off of regular folks can continue. Do you know a woman is 10 times more likely to die in childbirth in the US than in Ireland? Why? Because our health care sucks.

kathyet wrote
And I need to add this: as far as I am concerned there has been NO good President in my Lifetime( and I am older than dirt as far as my grand kids think anyways) that actually worked for We The People....Not a one, that didn't or doesn't have some other agenda..against "we the People" So far each one has been worse than the previous one....

Well, we might actually agree on that point, though certain Presidents have done some isolated things that were for the comman man.