Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Care
A historic night for our country. Did anyone watch the speakers and the voting? And then the voting again after the Republicans tried to kill it with amendment wording? It was very enlightening. I was wondering how this new health care reform will affect your family personally. Will it help or hurt? For our family, the cost of living will rise and Idaho Power may choose to go ahead and pay the tax instead of health care for it's employees leaving us to go out and find our own package. Do you feel that it is just for the members of the parties to listen to the voice of the people on huge bills like this or listen to their own judgments? How do you feel about some Democrats and Republicans being offered certain incentives for their votes? Do you think that once the people of America feel and experience the affects of this reform will be happy, thankful, and more understanding? Did anyone feel that Pelosi was giving and acceptance speech to an award she just won? I am not trying to create a debate. Just want some honest answers and opinions. Sometimes I like politics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You really want to cook something up here? Okay, well here goes.
ReplyDeleteI am frustrated with the political process, as I think the majority of Americans are. I voted for Obama because I really did think that he could bring change to the process, not use the process to make change. I was hoping for a much more bipartisan ruler. I guess I didn't get it. Bi-partisanship be damned.
As far as the actual bill, I am still sorting through. The major thing I have to decide is where I stand on the penalties assessed by the Government for not getting health care. But I will address those in a moment.
I am glad that they are starting to fix a couple of things. First, something had to be done about pre-existing conditions. Both my wife and I have had to deal with this issue and it is incredibly frustrating. That being said, it is likely to drive up health care costs (the cost will now have to be shared among others rather than those with pre-existing conditions). Second, I think that there was a lot of waste in the medicare/medicaid process and that the system was going to break if nothing was done to fix it. While I can not point to the specifics, my research in the past has lead me to believe that the bill will at least help a little. Third, I think that it is good to give subsidies to young families (like me) who want health coverage but can not afford it, at least until some plan can be put into place that can help reduce the cost of health care. I think and hope that the insurance exchanges created by the bill will eventually replace any need for subsidies.
As far as the popular criticisms, I am not sure that most of them affect me. The CBO projected overall savings with the plan on two different occasions and I generally trust the CBO (though I try to corroborate their findings). Even if there were no savings, I think that health care is an important issue and would be willing to put money into it.
The "free market" arguments are not compelling to me. Insurance companies are already highly regulated and the purpose is to ensure that they don't take advantage of people. I think regulations are appropriate.
Now, as for requiring people to get Health insurance, I understand the logic. The more people you have in the system, the less each individual has to pay. It is not a new idea and is being utilized in other areas to at least minimal success (see Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts). We already deemed other similar actions Constitutional (see income tax, driver's liability insurance, and social security). This may be just a unique way to "tax" the people. I am not sure that you would have a very good Constitutional argument against it (especially if the Government says that they have a legitimate interest in protecting the health and welfare of the people be eliminating the need to force hospitals to pay for Emergency Room visitors who have no health insurance). The same argument applies to forcing business to buy insurance: They are already taxed in a number of ways with no direct benefit to them.
Then, the question remains, is it smart to force people to get Health Insurance? I think that it is, for the reasons that I cited above. I also hope that the Government has put enough safeguards in the bill so that people who can not really afford insurance will be subsidized or exempt from purchasing insurance (I know that the bill says that if you don't have to file taxes, you don't have to buy). Even if it does not, I would hope that there would be enough grumbling to get things fixed so that people are not left out in the cold.
Most of the same arguments apply to the taxes the Government is going to impose on "Cadillac" health care plans and other taxes they suggest. Here is a good layout of where the money is going to come from:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/20/news/economy/cbo_reconciliation/index.htm?hpt=C2
To be continued . . .
I already indicated that I did not like the way it was passed. I don't like that it was condensed into one giant bill instead of parsed out into individual propositions (though I don't think that ever happens). I don't like buying votes (but I am not naive and understand that that probably happens with the majority of votes). And I don't like Nancy Pelosi (she gets under my skin).
ReplyDeleteOkay, so, now that I have basically said that I think the bill is an okay idea, I am now confronted with the underlying ideology of Government welfare programs in general. And here is my dilemma. There are poor people. Poor people need help. I want to help them. There are two ways to do that: Rely on individual philanthropy or have a government that supports its citizens. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) individual philanthropy will never curb the massive ills that we have in our society. If we relied only upon that, I fear our streets would flood with poor, homeless, hungry people. Oppositely, Government is cumbersome, inefficient, and expensive. But, they have the ability to produce the means to help more people. So this is where I struggle. Do i support a Government that is hands of or hands on? Ultimately, I wish for a Government that is hands on, but does it in a way that teaches people values and work. Individual philanthropy can do that to a certain extent, but it is plagues with inconsistency and disorganization. At least the Government has a consistent (in that I mean it will always be there) body that can marshall the ranks and help people. So, I want an altruistic welfare system. Impossible, I know, so what do I do?
Maybe you can help. I am stuck in the middle, hence, my political independence. Please convince me one way or the other (if you even got this far, holy crap I wrote a lot).
Love, Greg
From Blair (yes really from me) I understand Gregs dilema...I to want to help people. It is our "calling" if you will as members that we help those in need. Jesus would want us to help, but not at the point of a Roman (gov't) spear. That's my beaf....Like Jen said the gov't screws everything...and I mean everything it touches. We all agree that the process they chose is beyond the Gadianton Robbers so we don't need to discuss that. Please keep in mind that there will always be rich and poor. Like men and women, the gov't tries to make them alike and they are not. For many reasons, we all went or are at school....if someone chooses not to go and jump into the work force, who's responsible for them when they make $24K against Greg fighting through school but ultimately making $60K'ish. I heard a saying that says "Your freedom to be you also includes my freedom to be free from you". When people fall on hard times I am all for helping by choice...not being mandated by Law (that's santans way). I am not willing to be forced to help people that do something stupid. If gov't wants to do something, start by having people show responsibility. Example: Everyone knows that drugs are bad...so with gov't..I have to pay for those morons for willingly doing something that hurts them. There are many examples: Sex out of wedlock, drunk driving, smoking, and the like. With that said, if I pay for them they are my employees. Like my employees, for me to pay them, there WILL be restrictions. I will control them if they want me to pay for them. Obviously no one wants that. Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. RESPONSIBILITY....you teach it to your kids. This is not about Health Care....this is all about control. And it won't stop here. They will go after other things.....legalization of illegals, guns, free speach (already happening). The gov't has restrictions for a reason...people become powerful and go nuts. I like this idea....if there are those that want to participate, let them. But keep those of us who don't want out...There are enough overly rich snobby liberals that could afford to pay for this that they easily pay for it. Why doesn't the congress participate???? As I told my representatives.....LEAVE ME ALONE !!!!! I DON'T NEED YOUR HELP........PEACE!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteGreg, I just remembered a book that I had that really helped me out....I will send you my copy.....PEACE!!!!!!! Blair
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Jen. I don't know much about politics but I know enough about right and wrong to know that the way the democrats and the president went to get this bill passed was wrong. Bribery and essentially black mail are things that we don't want or need in the government. If they will resort to that what does it say about they're character and even more about what they will do to get their way. It is an issue of control and the federal government has more control than they ever had. Now there are some good points as greg pointed out. The health care system does need to be reformed, it sucks right now. But I think they could have done it in a different way. I think that they should have had a public vote. Americas is for the people and of the the people not of the government. The majority of Americans don't want this but apparently we're to stupid to know what's best for us. What makes this country great is that we are free to choose for ourselves what is best for ourselves and our families. This health care bill doesn't allow me to choose my way. It forces me to choose theirs. I think they went overboard and I pray that things end on a positive note.
ReplyDeleteA public vote would be grand, if it were a viable option. The framers of the constitution set our system up in this way on purpose because it isn't logistically feasible to have public referendums on issues like this. The idea is that we will control legislation by voting representatives in and out of office rather than having to deal with the mess ourselves.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I have to admit I watched C-Span for two hours Sunday night watching the debate and subsequent vote on the bill. I was skeptical, and honestly against it, until it passed and I actually decided to look up what was in the bill. After I educated myself, I can say I mostly agree with it. Because of this experience, I also tend to believe that most of the people who disagree with it do so because they don't know what's in it either. Ignorance breeds fear and hatred.
As for Blair's argument, I agree in principle, but I don't think it applies here. The reason the system is broke is as follows. Healthy people decided not to buy health insurance because of the cost. That left only sick people in the pool. Therefore, the only people left in the pool are the ones drawing the most from it. This naturally drives costs up even more. This is not only bad for the sick people (or in Blair's case, the people who made bad decisions in the first place) but it is bad for the healthy people. With the current system, even when healthy people get sick and should go to a doctor, they don't because they don't have insurance. They figure they will ride out their illnesses, and often times they do. However, life could be easier for them if they had bought into the system in the first place. When the government requires everyone to join the system, the cost will decrease for everyone. Even if someone disagrees with the program because they don't want to subsidize people who have made poor health decisions, they should agree with it because it will still make their health care more affordable.
I also agree with the Bill's mandate that I can remain on Mom and Dad's health insurance till I am 26. The other benefits have been highlighted by others above and I will not waste time outlining them again.
The biggest potential problems I have with the bill don't have to do with the meat of the bill itself, but rather with externalities. For example, being somewhat conservative, I struggle with the idea of deficit spending and taxes. This, however, is not a concern for me because A-the bill is paid for largely by cutting current spending on ineffective parts of Medicare and Medicaid, B-What costs aren't covered by these cuts will be covered by taxes on unjust "Cadillac" health care plans (I'll write more on that later if anyone expresses interest, but it's a good thing, I promise), and C-ultimately, I think little to no deficit spending will be needed. I'm with Greg in that I trust the CBO's estimates. Perhaps not implicitly, but I believe they are in the ballpark.
Finally, A common question I get asked is how this bill will affect the economics of the healt care industry. The answer is Positively. The New York Times wrote a great article today about how adding millions more into the health care pool will mean millions more using the system. Larger markets are not only good for the consumer as prices go down, but good for the producer as proffits go up. I am concerned that there will be a temporary strain on the system as more people try to use a limited number of doctors, but I think the free market will naturally compensate for this over time.
I could ramble about more, but I will withhold unless debate gets stirred in those areas.
There, I wrote enough to cover my months of inactivity on this subject.
The following is a link that I think people will find helpful if they are wondering what the heck is in this bill:
Five top benefits of the bill:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_five_most_promising_cost_c.html
I disagree with believing the CBO- they have stated themselves that this is a cost "estimate" and won't have a final projection until they see what the senate/house come up with compromises. How many times do we hear that they "have a balanced budget" only to have nothing of the sort. I agree that having healthy people as aprt of the "plan" would be great. Why not do like MT where we can all band together and buy a group policy that is much cheaper? My tax people who choose to buy cadillac plans- that's like saying because mike bought a rock instead of a pebble he should have to pay more taxes. it's his choice, it's his money.
ReplyDeleteSorry, me again. I do need to say that like Brian, I do agree with a lot of what is in the bill. I do think that there are good things in there, and I do agree that there are changes that need to happen. It's the little stuff that has NOTHING to do with healthcare that got promised that gets to me, and it's the 5% of crap that makes this bill hard for me to swallow. My own senator believes that the Gov. should control weight and eating habits. I don't like that they have more access to my bank accounts, Dr.'s records, etc. I just think that I have to accept a "little" bad to get some good. A cake can be THE BEST cake, until you pull someone's really long hair out of it, or a dirty bandaid. the cake is still good, but's now ruined by just a little bad!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, where in the constition does the gov't have the right to mandate me to buy something specific? Example: you must buy this type of car...you must buy this type of TV. No where.....they CAN'T do it. There is not "right" to health care. Think of it this way.....if this is a "right", than the doctors work is conscripted and enslaved just on the bases of someone living. Lets take this is to the ultimate end result.....people have a right to a housing....let all builders build houses and not be compensated correctly....people have the right to water, make all the bottling companies give it away....people have the right to be helped paying for babysitters so mom can work...people have the right to healthy teeth, enslave dentists.......As you can see it doesn't end. It has been bred into the population (especially to those in school....no offense to anyone) that wants equals needs and needs equal rights. I want a burger so I need a burger, so I have the right to a burger. Someday those in school will be making real money.....they will learn a hard lesson when they are trying to support a family and the gov't is sucking %50 or more of your wages for gov't programs. There is a recipient and producer class.....everyone critizes the producer class because they happened to put their own money on the line and happened to be successful and XYZ wigget making. Then there is the recipient class that all the can say in gimme gimme gimme and sit on there fat !@#$% sucking off the producer....Who is the most productive of the two classes...obviously the producer....The upper 5% or so already pay for 90% of the taxes....is that not enough???? The gov't is punishing success...we applaude the poor and punish the successful. How am I supposed to teach my kids that hard work will produce good things. There are things in this bill that are OK.....purchasing plans across state lines, insurances dropping people after a sickness arises and others.....this is called the free market....get the gov't out of the way and this will happen automatically. I have finite $$ to pay my employees...with this bill I will fire 3 of 6 people because I cannot afford to pay for them. This will crush businesses, I have spoken with many people I know that own businesses and they will all cut employees by at least a third. Mean you might say.....maybe...but don't worry the gov't will pay for them. Companies will drop employee coverage because it is cheaper to pay the fine than cover employees (by gov't design). Insurance companies than will go down (by gov't design) because there are no participants. The gov't says you can have your own insurance if you like it....if there is no insurance companies you are SOL....Example: if there are two teams playing basketball, there is a ref....if a ref has a desired outcome he will affect the game to his advantage. Gov't will do exactly the same........Besides what has gov't ever touched that succeeded? Nothing, nada, zero point zero. Look at Massachusetts and Hawaii, they all tried it and it was bankrupt instantly..........PEACE!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe above was Blair. :)
ReplyDeleteIs the health care bill an issue of control? What's next? I hate to engage in a slippery-slope fallacy but it's difficult to see bureaucracy limiting itself of its own accord after this.
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts.....
A reason for our democratic republic setup was for a system of checks and balances, not just within the federal government itself,(legislative,judicial,executive) but also a balance between federal and state power. The concept was to allow the states autonomy, barring a few exceptions, citing the logistic inability of the federal government to affect effective action at a state level. The knowledge of the particular issues and the plausible solution(s) also were best thought to be discussed and administered at the state level.
Why would such a government be set up? A government is a reflection of the society of the governed.
The Founding Fathers saw government and governed fail each other. They had experienced corrupt centralized government. They were aware of the difficulties of the French Revolution. They were well acquainted with the tendency of power to corrupt even a well intentioned ruler/rulers.
The government, our government, was designed with the foibles of humanity as a central theme. The checks and balances were used to limit the damage we would cause each other person to person and government to governed.
When the government gains power, the governed loose power. Are we giving up power with the passing of the health care bill? I believe we are. I don't know how much we've given up. Congress, of it's own admission, doesn't know the ramifications of this bill. I am unsettled about the direction we are allowing ourselves to be herded toward.
Have we slipped away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers? Has humanity changed in its tendencies since their time? Do we have or are we employing better ideals? Again, "What happens now?". Josh
I agree with points both of you (Blair and Alisha) make. Blair, you've brought up something I hadn't considered before, and that is the Bill's effect on small business. I researched it to find out more. I don't know where you fall in line because, while you only employ a small amount of people, you are a part of a larger company. I'm sure you were awar, but businesses that employ ten or fewer people recieve a 35% tax break for covering their employees insurance. If your business is under 25 people, you get a partial break, but if it is over 25, you got no tax break. Furthermore, penalties for not providing are not imposed on all businesses. The rule is, if you have over 50 employees, you must pay a $750 annual fine for every worker past 20. So if I were a business with 20 employees and I chose not to provide health insurance, I would recieve no pentalty, but I would be missing out on some greaet tax breaks. If I were a business who employed 40 people and I chose not to provide insurance, I would still loose nothing, nor would I gain anything. If I were a business who emplolyed 60 people, I would have to pay a $750 fine on 30 of those people every year. As such, I don't see that many really small businesses will have to lay off workers. Furthermore, one of the most immediate effects of the bill is to mandate states to create a forum for an open market of health insurance so that small businesses can come, and even pool together, to buy cheaper health insurance for their employees. What's more is that these systems will be in place long before you have to go buy health care for employees (2014) The following are links if you care to read more about where my numbers come from:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589826,00.html
http://www.kpho.com/news/22925693/detail.html
Now, I think you have a good point about rights. We are extremely right-happy in this country, and I dont' think that will go away any time soon. I don't, however, think that rights imply that people should be given something for nothing. I think that people do have a right to BASIC healh care. Without basic bodily security, no other right we have in this country can be experienced. However, society should only have an obligation to fulfill this right if they CANNOT provide it for themselves and they can prove such. Where does that fit in my view of the legislation? I'm not sure.
Now, Alisha, I also agree with you about constitutionality. However, we have to remember that it was signed into law today. Nothing was ever found unconstitutional by the Supreme Courth the day it was passed. We may well find down the line provisions in the bill will be found unconstitutional, but it will take time for the checks and ballances to work the way the framers of the constitution set it up. That being said, I doubt it will be found unconstitutional even when this process is followed. There is far too much precident in past Supreme Court cases to deny it. The constitution allows for the Federal Government to regulate inter-state commerce within the United States. Over time, the nation's courts have adopted a very loose definition of "interstate commerce" The social welfare programs we have right now have no initial grounding in the constitution whatsoever, but over time, the courts have ruled that these and other laws provide protection and regulation of many different forms of inter-state commerce.
I still stand fairly firmly in support of the bill, and I think that it has nothing to do with me being uneducated, young, "in school" or any of the like. I spend a great deal of time studying these issues and feel my opinion is educated and informed.
The bill will be found unconstitutional simply based on the way it was done. Laws must be started in certain bodies and then ratified in other bodies in its exact wordage. This was completely bibased. All laws are to voted on and those who voted will be listed and how they voted....they completely bipassed this to. As far as the interstate commerce clause, it has been misused and abused enough. Just because it was used as a mistake in the past doesn't make it right....just because....I am a constitutionalist...I believe in strict adherence to that document. If there is a basic right to health care....who has to pay for it....why are my rights limited??? Maybe I would rather take MY MONEY and put it towards the benefit of MY family....This may sound mean but I am tired of people throwing around all these emotional stories.....I simply have the right to not care...If this is supposed to be so good 1) why don't the elected officials have to participate (because socialist programs are for everyone else other than the socialist) and 2) make it optional (and its not going to be optional, this notion that you can stay is hogwash...Obama himself said he wants a single payer system....meaning you are forced in whether or not you want to be.....just like social security - a dieing menace) What about the doctors??? There will be a massive retirement as well as people working in Medical Tourism....me and my doctor will make a trip to the caribean. Where is their right to say NO??Look at Canada...their system sucks, thats why they always come here. There will be rationing because even the CBO said the under $1 trillion is an estimate... I have seen numbers as high as $2.4 trillion. The $500 billion from Medicare is counted twice when talking about the debt. They U.S. is broke. Don't get me wrong we need some changes...some big...but why take a sledge hammer when all you need is a tack hammer. To much!!!!! We need to help people, I'm all for it. But the gov't is not the way, it never has been and never will be...what if anything gives anyone the security that the gov't can pull this off??? (Isn't it funny that out of 300 million people, the people in gov't is the best we can do...Sad!!! :) ..get a bunch of the super rich, pool their money and they should be able to buy coverage for everyone.....its 10:30 and 2 hrs past my bed time.....PEACE!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteOkay, this is really Jen this time. I just have to say, we are a family with strong opinions and high education. It's great that we can all feel strongly on everything, and I really do think discussions like this are important. I have learned a lot, and have even changed my thinking on somethings. Although i don't like the bill, I think that there are good things and maybe we'll all be surprised in the future. I am so tired of it all, that I am almost ready to say "fine" just so we can move on with life as a country (just scared of what is next, hehehe).
ReplyDelete***********************************************
All That Being Said- I am the oldest, the worry wart, the person who is always concerned that if I ha
ng up the phone before saying good bye 100 times then I might have hurt someone's feelings. SOOO- I don't want anyone to think that Blair, or myself, or anyone else, was trying to put people down about their thoughts and beliefs. It is often shown in polls that people that are in school and just starting out are more likely to be willing to support gov. then those that have been in the work force for a long time. Who knows why, just what polls say. That being said, when it comes to our family- and many members of the church- I don't think that any judgements can be passed or polls applied. I think that we all look at the law and the goverment with a much bigger picture, the law of the gospel. We understand that in the end, his plan is what matters- and applying his truths to our thoughts makes our views very different from the world. Any-who. This is just me, saying I love you all, and I don't want anyone's feelings to be hurt. I do think discussing is good though...
Good bye (x100)
:)
Ok, so no one told me the rules of the blog. I realize this is a potentially heated subject but I thank you for your info,ideas,opinions,and links. I think it is good to discuss and to learn. You guys have kept it real and that makes this a success. With that said I think that we won't have to discuss this issue over Easter weekend.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part you all have very strong feelings about things. I am (as feelings go) mostly confused. I too feel things about these changes are good mixed with signs of bad. That is Satan's way. I understand that these health care changes can mean great things for a lot of people and some minor disturbances for others. I understand that the voting process is becoming obsolete, I understand that the government is "fixed", I understand that socialism is a real possibility under our current president, I understand that my voice as a single citizen and collectively with others does not make a difference when it should, I understand that there are others who think nothing is wrong with the Nation and that these are the greatest times in a hundred years. I also understand things from a very different point of view and it helps me wrap my mind around all these "understandings".
"Relax and enjoy the ride". I tell myself. "These are indeed great times of change. Isn't it amazing to be here at this time to see how it's all unfolding"? "Don't worry about not being able to change things and not having a voice. Try for your own moral obligations but our Lord has a plan. He does not want us to sit idol and watch, He wants us to fight for righteousness and truth. But, He has a plan. This is his Nation and His world not Obama's or any other form of ruler's. Thing will go the way they should in order for the Lord to come, it doesn't matter how much we fight though we should stand for truth and righteousness. So, relax, enjoy the ride". We may not be able to control things outside our home but we can control what goes on inside. If ye are prepared, ye shall not fear. Standard primary answers apply and a steady supply of ammo and food. Ha Ha. And that is how your simple minded second sister thinks and feels. Oh and here's a funny little diddy I came up with.
I pledge aggrivation to the flag
of the Un-United Socialistic States of America.
And to the government for which it stands,
An unconstitutional Nation, under Obama, divide, with health care and control over all. Amen
Steph, you crack me up! I LOVE YOU!
ReplyDeleteOK, Mom here, do I want to support abortions with my taxes or cut off health care to the oldest of Americans? I think not. As was stated above, it's the small percentage in the bill that will eventually lead us down to hell.
ReplyDeleteAfter what Steph said, I have a hard time speaking overly pationately about the issue, which is good. Steph, you are a very good peacemaker and I appreciate your thoughts and feelings. It's very valuable to take a step back some times.
ReplyDeleteThat said, mom, you will NOT be paying for abortions, I promise. There were too many people in Congress against the abortion provisions. The only way they could get it passed was for Obama to promise ten congressmen he would sign an executive order enforcing the government's policy not to use federal funding for abortion. Thus, you can rest asured we are not being "led to Hell."
And Blair, I think I can agree with you in principle. In general, I'm more in favor of states rights than big federal government (the same as almost all conservatives). As such I don't think the bill SHOULD be found completely constitutional, but I think it will be. The process by which it was passed was perfectly legal.
Now, though different versions were passed in the House and Senate, the bill was reworked in what they call a conference committee. Members of both parties from both the house and senate get together to reconcile differences in the bill. The reformed bill is then sent through the House and Senate without changes to the language so both sides can pass the same bill. This is what passed on Sunday. Since the House has controll over funding issues, sometimes they have power to make changes in the funding of a bill that the Senate can't. There were a few funding changes made in the House's version which will be debated in the Senate shortly, but on the baseline, healthcare passed legally, and any changes that come in the future will also be done legally.
Lastly, for everyone, be careful what examples you pull and what countries you compare us to. Though many countries have socialist health care, not one is alike, and most are FAR more socialist than what we just passed. It isn't a fair comparison to say we will end up like "country X", because our new health care system is completely different.
Greg, where are you? I know I'm not the only one who favors this bill, i'd like to hear your thoughts as well.
ReplyDeleteThere have been so many comments one way and the other, it would take ma a half hour just to sift through all the arguments, let alone examine them and dissect them. I still stick to what I said in my first post. And, Brian, if you want to create a list of arguing points, I could more easily discuss them. I know you are more busy than I, though. I still stick to what I said in the first post.
ReplyDeleteI'm (this is Jen) thinking that they can't find it un-constitutional. If they had passed it the other way, then yes, but this followed every law that I think you could imagine. The only question will be the consititionality of states/federal laws. I hope that you are right Brian, with Obama putting out an executive order. When that happens- let me know, would you? I am being serious here, as I have pulled myself out of the political arena for a few weeks cuz it makes me a little crazy. It will be interesting what happens with the CBO projection when they had all of the newly added amnesty illegal aliens (40+million people is what I am hearing projected, and that sounds high to me, but no matter, it's still WAY more people who are on the gov. needing end then the contributing end). I think that we will be very different then many countries, but in the end, I still think that they will have to ration what things they can offer just on the cost basis. Either way, it's here, and so like steph says- sit back and enjoy the ride (and buy lots of food and ammo...and we're trying to find a way to stock pile antibiotics...j/k...sort of...)
ReplyDelete