Do Senate Democrats think they are royalty? It would seem so.

[Gangularis]

Seriously, BAC?? You think Democrats are the only political party that act this way? Seriously???? Wow..

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seriously, BAC?? You think Democrats are the only political party that act this way? Seriously???? Wow..

Well sure. Everyone knows Senate Republicans have all opted out of the healthcare benefits available to them as U.S. senators. . . .

 

[BeAChooser]

Everyone knows Senate Republicans have all opted out of the healthcare benefits available to them as U.S. senators.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...emocrats-are-opposed-giving-their-health-car/

In every committee when the health care bill was considered, Democrats voted against an amendment that would require members of Congress and their staff to take the government-run public option as their health care plan.
Newt Gingrich on Sunday, August 9th, 2009 in an interview with This Week.

... snip ...

That brings us back to Gingrich's claim. He's correct that Democrats in the House and Senate have generally voted against proposals to make the public plan mandatory for members of Congress. Even when Coburn's motion narrowly passed, nine of 12 Democrats voted against it. We can't assess the Democrats' positions on the voice vote in the House education committee or the energy and commerce panel where the motion was ruled irrelevant. So we can't be sure that Democrats voted against it in every committee. But based on the counts that are available, Gingrich's underlying point is correct that Democrats have generally opposed it. So we find his claim Mostly True.

 

[BeAChooser]

If Congress can force everyone to purchase health insurance (even when 60% of people indicate they don't want that), what can't Congress do? Wasn't the main purpose of the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government, leaving all undefined powers to the states and the people? If the power of the federal government is expandable by their own whim, then the Constitution has no real purpose anymore. What democrats are now in the process of doing is turning it into just another scrap of paper.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

1) Yes, they don't have to take stupid grandstanding

2) No, it's allowed in the Constitution.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/12/24/obamacare_freedom_on_life_support?page=full

What words in the U.S. Constitution allow the federal government to compel every American to purchase health insurance? Where does the Constitution allow the federal government to take money from some Americans and give it to others so that they may purchase health insurance?

... snip ...

The left tells us that "health care is a right, not a privilege." Surely the Constitution says so. No, it does not. Article I, Section 8 details the limited power, duties and responsibilities of the federal government. Extracting money from your paycheck and giving it back to you when you retire -- Social Security? Not there. Taxing workers to pay for the health care of seniors -- Medicare? Not there. Mandating that employers pay workers a minimum wage? Not there.

This is not hypothetical. During the Great Depression, the Supreme Court struck down much of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal on constitutional grounds. No, said the Court, the federal government cannot use the Constitution's commerce clause to regulate virtually all economic activity. No, said the Court, the federal government cannot use the welfare clause to redistribute wealth, whether or not it accomplishes a socially or economically desirable objective.

... snip ...

By design, the federal government plays a limited role. The rest is up to us. Our country was founded in opposition to tyranny by government.

Today we submit to it.

Bow before the President and Congress. The New Royalty.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...emocrats-are-opposed-giving-their-health-car/

I think you're confused. The Senate plan doesn't even have a public option.

I've already shown that they're not exempt (by being Senators anyway) from the individual mandate. No one will get the public option. (Again, there is no public option in the Senate bill passed today, and since Lieberman won't change his mind, it's almost certain there will be no public option in the merged version.)

When you say Senate Democrats refuse "ObamaCare" for themselves but force it on the rest of us, what exactly are you talking about?

 

[fuelair]

I think you're confused. The Senate plan doesn't even have a public option.

I've already shown that they're not exempt (by being Senators anyway) from the individual mandate. No one will get the public option. (Again, there is no public option in the Senate bill passed today, and since Lieberman won't change his mind, it's almost certain there will be no public option in the merged version.)

When you say Senate Democrats refuse "ObamaCare" for themselves but force it on the rest of us, what exactly are you talking about?

talking about 'dat ol Republicker talkin' point blues.......

 

[BeAChooser]

I think you're confused. The Senate plan doesn't even have a public option.

You are the one who is confused, Joe. It's apparent that the whole bill is designed to promote a government run ... i.e., public ... option. Eventually. Because it's designed from the ground up to destroy the viability of the private health care insurance industry so that eventually only the government will be left to provide the bulk of all *insurance*. And the government will determine what is and isn't covered. True, this won't happen over night ... but it will happen. And top democrats have in fact admitted as much ... at least when speaking to their own base. Don't you remember the video clips?

When you say Senate Democrats refuse "ObamaCare" for themselves but force it on the rest of us, what exactly are you talking about?

Tell us, Joe, when the federal health plan that Senators have changes slightly ... alters some deductible or what's covered ... or when a Senator changes his choices or who is covered, will he be automatically thrown into the Federal Exchange like the rest of us will be when that happens to our private insurance (at least that's what language in previous versions of the health care reform bill indicated would happen)? Will the consequences of this bill drive the Senate's insurance provider out of business ... like is likely to happen to our non-public insurance providers? Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Do you really think that's a viable business model for private companies?

 

[Uzzy]

Bow before the President and Congress. The New Royalty.

Check out Obama's new crown!

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Ah, slippery slope fallacy

That's all I'm going to say.

 

[rwguinn]

All I can say is my rate went down by $20 a month (<2%) . Deductible went up to $500, my drug costs tripled, and I now pay 15% of all costs (after deductible). At the end of the year, sometime in 2011, I will get a check for everything I spent over $1500 each for my wife and myself.
Wife just had knee replacements (as in both) and had a fall that set her back. Right now, PT costs me $120 a week ($40/visit copay) Starting Jan 1, it will cost me $450 a week--and I am unemployed...
I am real happy, indeed...

 

[Ladewig]

If the power of the federal government is expandable by their own whim, then the Constitution has no real purpose anymore. What democrats are now in the process of doing is turning it into just another scrap of paper.

So when Cheney and Bush decided that a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil did not have the right to a trial, was that also turning the Constitution into a just another scrap of paper?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: Extra points go to you for referring to Universal Health Care as a whim.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ah, slippery slope fallacy

That's all I'm going to say.

This whole thread is a fallacy

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are the one who is confused, Joe.

Nuh-uhn, you are.

Come on--you cited a Politifact article that said, "In every committee when the health care bill was considered, Democrats voted against an amendment that would require members of Congress and their staff to take the government-run public option as their health care plan."

I pointed out that there is no longer a public option in the Senate plan. I further pointed out that the individual mandate (what it seemed you were referring to earlier) also applies to Senators and other people who already have insurance just as it does to people who currently have no health insurance. It's just that people with it, already comply.

It's apparent that the whole bill is designed to promote a government run ... i.e., public ... option.

Nonsense. There is no public option in the Senate plan.

Eventually.

Nope. If a bill passes without a public option (which is likely given that every Democratic vote in the Senate--including Lieberman's--will be necessary to pass it), in this rare Congress where the Democratic Party enjoys a supermajority, it won't happen under Congresses less favorable to it.

Because it's designed from the ground up to destroy the viability of the private health care insurance industry

That's absurd. It requires millions of people to purchase private health care insurance.

When you say Senate Democrats refuse "ObamaCare" for themselves but force it on the rest of us, what exactly are you talking about?

Tell us, Joe, when the federal health plan that Senators have changes slightly ... alters some deductible or what's covered ... or when a Senator changes his choices or who is covered, will he be automatically thrown into the Federal Exchange like the rest of us will be when that happens to our private insurance (at least that's what language in previous versions of the health care reform bill indicated would happen)? Will the consequences of this bill drive the Senate's insurance provider out of business ... like is likely to happen to our non-public insurance providers? Tell us, Joe, how are private insurance companies supposed to be competitive if they have to (by law) offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as they do those without pre-existing conditions? Do you really think that's a viable business model for private companies?

Why bother quoting my very simple and direct question about the statement you made in the OP if you're simply going to ignore it?

You argue like a kindergardener.

 

[Dr Adequate]

LOL! The new laws will assess penalties against employers that don't provide health benefits.

So why do you think that the U.S. Senate should be the one employer that is exempt from this law? Do you think the Senate should be treated differently from every other employer with more than 50 workers? Why should they be the one exception? Should there be one law for the Senate and another law for everyone else?

And the bill requires employers with health plans to provide cash vouchers to lower-income workers to obtain insurance on the exchange. Both individuals and employers are being forced to obtain health insurance ... or else. That's the reality. And again, the provisions/penalties are such that employers are going to be more likely to drop employer coverage ... throwing individuals onto the individual mandate and the whims of the federal exchange.

Your limited grasp of the present does not encourage me to believe that you can foresee the future.

And where do you think the government gets that money?

Taxation, what's your point?

My point was that people such as veterans who get their health care provided by the government will not in fact be required to purchase it. What was yours?

 

[Tricky]

I want to see those Republican Senate Anti-hypocrites argue to give the public the same health care they get. When I see that, I'll belive that this is an issue. Until then, I will not pay particular attention to the call of the pots who rail at the kettles.

 

[Thunder]

I want to see those Republican Senate Anti-hypocrites argue to give the public the same health care they get. When I see that, I'll belive that this is an issue. Until then, I will not pay particular attention to the call of the pots who rail at the kettles.

yes. i don't see why my tax dollars should pay for their healthcare.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. and from the opposite end..

 

[Puppycow]

Speaking of which, why are military beneficiaries and vets so eager to be shielded from the *wonders* of Health Care Reform?

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,206499,00.html

I guess they're happy with their single-payer socialized medicine.