Jump to content
I trusted him to keep our country safe but it appears his administration talks to Russia more than I am comfortable with. More importantly they keep lying about it. Hmmmm, why?
I trusted him to educate our children but Betsy seems more effective at demolition that coalition.
I trusted him to balance the budget, but his 1st proposal seems more like fiction than policy.
I trusted him to release his tax returns as promised. Still waiting on that one.
Eric, you fail to understand what cost of ownership really means. Throwing the "Special Assessment" into a tax discussion is just another example of "Alternative Facts"
Your choice in that regard to is to pay for those assessments, sell your unit or declare bankruptcy and lose it to your creditors. No matter what you choose, that is not a tax that any Gov't entity will receive.
No, you are welcome to participate in any discussions, but you do not represent a vote for any SS or CO office and you have already admitted that you did not bother to exercise your constitutional right to vote at all. If you will not even bother to participate in the process, then why should anyone actually listen to your opinions?
I have contacted my representatives more than 100 times over the last decade and have voted in every single election. Have you done anything besides writing comments in the blogs?
Go ahead and "opt out" Eric. How many missed property tax payments does it take to lose your Shadow Run Condominium?
Ken, you are 110? Congrats, but allow me to think maybe not.
Another exaggeration that gets added to the growing list along with the 100% GDP, and the "death panels" you invoke with your comments about resource allocation.
Why can the health insurance companies afford to offer such great prices to the employees at companies like GM, IBM or Harley Davidson? Are you aware of the HUGE discrepancy in pricing? The answer lies in actuarial math which allows for an analysis of future risk. When they allow the insurance companies to allocate the risk over small groups, premiums skyrocket. If insurance companies were forced to measure their risk against their entire population of insurance holders premiums would plummet. That is just one of the cost savings that a single payer system would provide. Remember, Medicare was created because no insurance company can make money insuring the elderly. Sounds a lot like the current discussion to me.
To quote Ronald Reagan:
"There you go again"
You keep thinking of this in terms of "sick people are responsible for their health" Yes, at 24 years of age, a lifetime of bad habits caused my cancer. Are you blaming Julie for her health problems on the other article today? We all know an individual with terrible health habits that never gets sick and another that lives the healthiest lifestyle imaginable but somehow manages to find themselves sick or injured.
The bottom line is that every single person alive today will at some time in their life encounter health related expenses. This topic is not about controlling behavior, it is about how best to pay for the expenses that each and every one of us will incur at some point in our lives.
It does not matter whether or not healthcare is a "Right". What do you want to call Medicare and Medicaid? The bottom line is that everyone would pay smaller premiums for better coverage if everyone paid into the system. Younger or older, sicker, healthy, rich and poor all pay based on income. That is the premise of "universal healthcare"
Make 1 simple change to Social Security and Medicare and they are solvent for the forseeable future. The change is to eliminate income caps so that everyone pays for what they earn and the problem is gone. You have the right to your opinion about social programs but the courts have upheld their constitutionality. Calling them entitlements is just another example of "alternative facts" The reality is that each and everyone of us pay into those programs it is our money paid in advance, not a government handout.
There is a fable about this if you remember the grasshopper and the ant. With healthcare the caveat is that if you waste your years and never save anything for your coming healthcare expenses then the rest of us end up paying your bills thru higher costs. Making it a tax or "mandatory" means that everyone will pay into the system based on their earnings. Conservatives should like that provision, it means no more free rides.
Ken, Cornell is a respected legal university but anything they publish is still "opinion" The only thing that matters here are actual Supreme Court decisions.
1824 Gibbons Vs. Ogden - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden
1937 Helvering Vs. Davis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis
1987 South Dakota Vs. Dole - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
2013 NFIB v. Sebelius - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius
Quoting from NFIB V. Sebelius
"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."
Quoting from Helvering V. Davis
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'... There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views... The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event... The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law....
Ken, you write: " The Preamble to the Constitution does not assign specific powers to government or provide limitations on government, which is the purpose of the Constitution. Therefore, the Preamble is generally not interpreted by the Courts and applied to law."
That statement is simply untrue. Even a tiny little bit of research and reading will turn up a large number of Supreme court cases concerning the general welfare clause starting during the Presidency of George Washington and ending with the most recent ACA decision.
There are of course many "opinion" articles to be found as well, but the Supreme Court has consistently and strongly supported the powers of the Federal Gov't in this arena. If Congress passed a Medicare for all bill, it would pass the Supreme Court. I respect that you hold a different opinion but nothing in past court decisions would lead to a different conclusion if you look only at the facts.
Thank you for your story Julie. Mine is older but the consequences follow me to this day. I have survived the dreaded cancer twice in my life, but it has now been over 15 years since the last treatment or diagnosis. I have been offered health insurance that would not pay for cancer of any flavor. I have been rejected by insurance companies and have had my employees forced to pay excessive premiums due to my personal health history(one of the reasons I no longer have employees, and yes that happened before the ACA). I have had insurance companies raise my rates to un-payable levels once they found out I had a cancer screening test to ensure I was still cancer free.
If you have been on the individual market in your lifetime with a pre-existing condition you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the health insurance market was fundamentally broken. The ACA is not what I would have passed but it is light years ahead of the previous system.
If republicans manage to break the current health insurance market, they own the outcome and will manage to show everyone just how much they love the needs of big business instead of middle class America. Kicking something like 20 million of us from our existing healthcare plans is enough to sway the next election or two in my opinion.
To quote the famous Clint Eastwood line "Go ahead, Make my day"
There were two Dems in the California race because they changed their primary system from two partisan primaries to a single primary vote with the top two candidates going to the general election regardless of party affiliation.
I personally would like to see this change take hold across the entire nation. It seems to me that this primary process would have the effect of eliminating the worst candidates from all sides and giving the middle of the spectrum candidates more voice regardless of party affiliation. In my opinion this would be a good thing for our politics.
Brian, I would not count your chickens too soon there. Just two years ago the Dems were crowing about how the Republican party was dead because of demographics and look how that turned out. The pendulum could just as easily swing left given the right circumstances and counting either party as down and out is a mistake.
Last login: Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |