It isn't too late to urge them to vote against the 2000-page monstrosity that Speaker Pelosi is calling health insurance reform. The Democratic leadership is trying to rush the vote, but has not twisted enough arms to have 218 votes for the bill, even with all the Democrats in the House.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer still expects the House to approve its sweeping health care bill Saturday, but conceded the vote could slip until Sunday or even early next week.
Hoyer acknowledged House leaders were still shy of the 218 votes needed, amid flare-ups among anti-abortion Democrats and immigration advocates. Hoyer also warned of Republican delaying tactics that he said could push off plans to vote Saturday evening.
You don't have to analyze the bill to know that it is not something most Americans want; you just have to note that the Democratic leaders are trying to rush this through — even though the "benefits" from the bill mostly won't start until 2013.
They are rushing the vote on the bill because they fear even more of us will catch on.
Pelosi and company are twisting arms; we should make an effort to untwist some of those arms. Polite calls are generally the most effective. In mine, I intend to emphasize the unseemly rush to a vote.
If you don't have their phone number handy, you can find it here.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at November 06, 2009 11:18 AM | Email ThisWith at least 10.2% unemployed and no end in sight to job losses, some of the brighter bulbs in the socialist chandelier may be figuring-out the job killing aspects of Obama's government controlled healthcare scheme.
By all means, lets spend another Obama trillion!
Call our so-called-Reps and ask what happened to the 72-hour posting promise (should be 72 days!). Ask how they voted on any of the amendments that would have put themselves on the public..er...competitive option. Ask if they will take personal responsibility for the quality of their health care going south and the waiting lines. Ask if it is even Constitutional to do what they are doing to us.
Posted by: yaddacubed on November 6, 2009 12:25 PMThe bill was posted last week. The amendment was posted a few days ago. The 72-hour promise was fulfilled. You're going to have to find something else meaningless to complain about.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 12:34 PM(And she appears to have a happy marriage. In part, perhaps, because her political career has done so much for his business career, and vice versa. But I think they got along well even before she was in a position to do him favors.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on November 6, 2009 02:09 PMHope and Change, comrade, Hope and Change!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 6, 2009 02:21 PMYou are lying. It is a tax penalty to not buy health insurance.
yaddacubed, Prove it. You forgot to provide the link.
House Dem Health Care Bill Posted Online - October 29, 2009 - http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 02:40 PM"I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you."
That's what happens when he goes off the teleprompter. The man is not a Medal of Honor winner.
Back on topic
Where is his health care plan? And why is the House arguing about abortion funding when he assured us it wasn't there?
"Press Releases
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats' Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years....."
Posted by: katomar on November 6, 2009 02:57 PM- - - - - - - - - -
"If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply..." [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
"Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years." [page 3]
Posted by: Gary on November 6, 2009 03:02 PM(I know off topic.)
On topic:
The President said he is against individual mandates. Therefore I expect him to veto any bill with them.
He is a man of his word after all.
How many other rights does government compel its citizens to exercise through fines or jail?
What a farce.
It is incorrect to say "not having insurance will put you in jail," since the actual crime that puts you in jail is failing to pay your taxes. I'm glad the GOP is promoting folks skipping their tax payments, implying that it is a choice (choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax). What other taxes should you be able to choose not to pay?
I really don't understand why you have to resort to scare tactics. How about you just tell the truth: If you don't have health insurance, you'll get a tax penalty. I think plenty of people will that's stupid and wrong without you being so plainly dishonest about the outcome.
It's a lot like saying that selling a stock, I could face five years in jail. Yeah, if I don't pay my capital gain taxes.
Or how about this: If you make any income at all, you could face five years in jail. I feel like I'm missing a pretty important qualifier that you guys are missing too.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 03:21 PMDo you feel differently? Please cite the Constitution. Please explain what the Massachusetts individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 03:31 PM"Democrats cajoled dozens of party moderates concerned about abortion and immigration provisions in the bill, as well as its $1 trillion price tag and its possible effect on budget deficits."
-
But how can that be? Was Joe Wilson right?
Obama said no individual mandates. No funded abortion. $900 billion total. No illegal immigrant coverage.
So I'm sure he'll veto any of this crap that they try to pass.
Screw your tax penalty for not buying something the government wants me to buy. Screw that.
Posted by: Gary on November 6, 2009 03:32 PMI'm glad you've apologized for misrepresenting the truth and trying to scare people.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 03:38 PMAnd they're the same ones who *want* single payer. So they are either really clueless, or something else.
Posted by: Gary on November 6, 2009 04:26 PM"Boiled down to reality, the jail time is for selling stocks." "Boiled down to reality, the jail time is for making income."
You're just being dishonest. The jail time is for not paying your taxes. The bill does not once mention jail time -- already existing US Code for failing to pay your taxes does. This is not a new penalty inventing for insurance reform -- it's a penalty that has been long-standing so people don't break the law and skip paying their taxes.
Gary, Obama is a liar. What's your point? His health care reform plan is still much better policy than anything or your party has suggested.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 04:35 PMOh! Where is it? Does he finally have one???
My point is that he will veto the bill before the House as it stands now. It has too many things it that he is opposed to.
Perhaps he should present his bill instead. I'm eager to see it!
Posted by: Gary on November 6, 2009 04:39 PMGood that he's just a liar. Expanding health care to 36 million folks, bringing down the cost of medicine for everyone, and reining in Medicare spending are good policy positions.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 04:45 PMUm. What's stopped them? And why?
Posted by: Gary on November 6, 2009 04:55 PMI don't know if you've noticed but health care reform has been the first major legislative priority since getting a Democratic administration.
Crusader, this bill will put people in JAIL for not buying healthcare.
There are no penalties at all for not buying health care. No one has to go to do the doctor or get a surgery or anything like that.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 05:50 PMJohn Jensen, #14:
"It is a tax penalty to not buy health insurance."
Is this John Kerry?
Sort of how fires and fire insurance are two different things.
Posted by: John Jensen on November 6, 2009 06:12 PM-
Still meeting? So... after they iron all this out (I thought Obama said there was no abortion issue in the bill?) then they will post the bill and wait 72 hours before voting?
Cool. We're into next week then.
What can Waxman and Stupak be disagreeing about if Obama said there was issue with abortion?
Posted by: Gary on November 6, 2009 07:09 PM90. "Oh grow up, KDS. I cited a very simple fact and you flipped because you apparently didn't understand what I wrote."
Jensen, Bla, bla bla. Make me laugh. What are you talking about ? Where is your reading comprehension ? Stop being defensive and go back and read my posts #79 and #80. It's really a simple point that you try to ignore. Try making your posts more concise and stop spewing half truths. Why don't man you up and acknowledge HOW COME the Federal deficit will be less under the Dem bill ? As I said, it may cut the Federal deficit - OK, but at the cost of increasing the deficit of every state which nore than offsets the Federal deficit it cuts. There's your answer.
For the 3rd time; You have yet to address the points I made about the draconian measures and the unconstitutionality of Pelosicare.
I understand that the CBO has not scored the final version of the House bill yet simply because its not final yet. They need to do some more wheeling and dealing for Dem Votes. So, until then your hand waving remains smoke and mirrors and arrogance, not to mention your liberal fascist bent. I'll cite some examples if you'd like.
You know and I know that is the last thing the Democratic leadership would do - but it would be downright embarrassing to them if they had to compromise, but a relief for a majority of Americans.
Posted by: KDS on November 6, 2009 08:14 PM90. "Oh grow up, KDS. I cited a very simple fact and you flipped because you apparently didn't understand what I wrote."
Jensen, Bla, bla bla. Make me laugh. What are you talking about ? Where is your reading comprehension ? Stop being defensive and go back and read my posts #79 and #80 on Hebron's post. It's really a simple point that you ignore because it takes the wind out of your argument. Try making your posts more concise and stick to the facts w/o half truths - I know that for you, it is akin to tap dancing on a pin. Why don't man you up and acknowledge HOW COME the Federal deficit will be less under the Dem bill ? As I said, it may cut the Federal deficit - OK, but at the cost of increasing the deficit of every state which nore than offsets the Federal deficit it cuts. That is the inconvenient truth, guy.
For the 3rd time; You have yet to address the points I made about the draconian measures and the unconstitutionality of Pelosicare.
I understand that the CBO has not scored the final version of the House bill yet simply because its not final yet. They need to do some more wheeling and dealing for Dem Votes. So, until then your hand waving remains smoke and mirrors. The GOP now has a bill and if given the opportunity it will give us (not you and your ilk) a better Health Care plan with more choices with Tort reform with a plan that doesn't include illegal aliens and doesn't fund abortion at a lower costs to both Federal and State Governments. You know and I know that is the last thing the Democratic leadership would do - but it would be downright embarrassing to them if they had to compromise, but a relief for a majority of Americans. Liberal Fascism from you and your ilk will pay the price in the long run and if this thing goes down -it will be immediate, we will have slayed the dragon on the left - Botox-face Pelosi, who is so much of a biotch that she makes GW Bush look popular. We will pray and work for Pelosicare monster to have a stake run through its heart.
Posted by: KD on November 6, 2009 08:24 PMI understand that the CBO has not scored the final version of the House bill yet simply because its not final yet.
Precisely. This "final bill" was $300 billion MORE than the bill the CBO scored, and didn't add anything in terms of revenue - just expenditures. So now the bill is not revenue neutral; it will blow the budget deficit by hundreds of billions.
And it still leaves tens of millions uncovered.
Back in the summer, Centrifuge John swore up and down he'd never support a bill that wasn't revenue neutral or didn't cover the vast majority of those without insurance. Now that we have a bill that does neither, he's shown his true Slavery Party colors and is all "rah rah" for the takeover...
You know, liberals and leftists would be taken a lot more seriously if they'd just be honest about what they want, and what they're willing to sacrifice to get it. Lying, hiding, obfuscating, misleading make them look like the scum sucking vermin they are...
Oh and John?
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 6, 2009 09:02 PMNixon was democratically elected too; that doesn't automatically mean they aren't or weren't a terrible leader and totalitarian and/or collectivist by nature. A can think of more than a few dictators who grasped power through democratic means.
The problem with the current crop of collectivists (in both parties) is that the power structures they are creating will get beyond their control. The massive redistribution of wealth, combined with pervasive centralized planning necessary to make it happen, prepares the field for a totalitarian takeover. Any future crisis, financial or otherwise, will make a perfect setting for a strong man/woman to make a play. My guess is that our representatives in Washington will happily hand over the keys when the time comes.
The one thing that has kept liberty safe over the last two centuries is that American ingenuity has never been so sharply focused on consolidating power. We have such inventive brilliance that when it comes, American totalitarianism will be so perfect that the people--though ruled by a computer designed, laser-cut, carbon fiber fist--will lovingly tend to it each and every "election". It will be a stable, "benevolent" dictatorship like none the world has ever seen.
We are witnessing individualism as a philosophy, and individual liberty as a foundational governing principle, taking its last breaths. I blame both parties equally. Neither party in the last century has willingly diminished the scope of government power nor has any attempt been made to rig the government to prevent further expansion of power.
I knew, even before Obama did, that he wouldn't sign a law repealing the Patriot Act; he expanded it's scope instead. I knew, even before Obama did, that he wouldn't pull the military out of Iraq or Afghanistan; he will commit to more troops in a couple of weeks. I knew, even before Obama did, that he would lean on the Federal Reserve to print more money and to price fix interest rates artificially low in an attempt to inflate our way out of financial crisis. I knew, even before Obama did, that he would sign into law, bills that expanded the federal deficit to a point that will force a massive financial failure if any serious move is made to stop the inflation of the currency. Everything he ran against, he has embraced. Either the world is far more dangerous and the situation far more dire than we are ever told, or there is so much power residing in the oval office that it corrupts absolutely.
McCain would have done almost exactly the same. The only difference would have been the names on the government checks. The private hedge funds, military contractors, and corporations would have received the government's largess rather than Acorn, the UAW, the SEIU, and the trial lawyers. The only notable difference between the two parties is who they whore themselves out to.
No polician is ever on your side.
Posted by: blindman on November 6, 2009 10:49 PMUm, that is a state law and the last time I checked, there is still enough federalism that states can experiment like that.
Article 1, section 8 of the constitution plainly lists the powers of congress http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html. Hamilton's argument over the general welfare clause was that congress could spend money, independent of the enumerated powers as long as it was for things uniform throughout the country. Madison argued that the general welfare clause was not a grant of power to congress because it is so broad that it renders pointless the enumeration of the powers that follow it.
When combined with the 9th and 10th amendments, I think Madison's argument holds much more water since those amendments were intended to grant the states and the people all of the rights and powers except for those that are specifically enumerated in the constitution. Under English common law, which was the basis for our legal system and the constitution itself, enumerate lists were always considered exhaustive.
Forming a national healthcare system is not constitution in my opinion, but that argument is very weak since the constitution is only a piece of paper. If judges don't hold fast to strict construction, and nobody challenges the government, any law passed by congress is constitutional by default.
Posted by: blindman on November 6, 2009 11:33 PMThe reason the 9th and 10th amendments apply to the argument over the general welfare clause is because they were concessions to the states that didn't want a strong central government. The arguments for those amendments specifically state that they are intended to contain the congress to the enumerated list of powers.
Posted by: blindman on November 6, 2009 11:39 PMThe reason the 9th and 10th amendments apply to the argument over the general welfare clause is because they were concessions to the states that didn't want a strong central government. The arguments for those amendments specifically state that they are intended to contain the congress to the enumerated list of powers.
There would be no point in having a 9th and 10th amendment to contain the powers of the federal government if the general welfare clause granted unlimited powers to the congress.
A national healthcare system is unconstitutional.
Posted by: blindman on November 6, 2009 11:40 PMOwens in NY23 broke four campaign promises one day after being elected. One of them concerning the Public Option. Said he was against it to get elected. Now he's for it.
It's maddening debating people who say one thing and mean another.
Posted by: Gary on November 7, 2009 09:00 AM"[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
Madison's best quote on the subject:
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
Why is no one in the media questioning politicians about this? Pelosi responded to a question by another Congressman about the Constitutionality of nationalized healthcare:
"Are you serious? Are you serious?"
I guess that's her response when she know there is no Constitutional provision for this. Her spokesmouth later said, "That is not a serious question." Of course, none of them, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al have ever answered it.
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2009 09:35 AMPeople need to connect the dots. There is on such thing as a "benevolent dictator".
Posted by: Gary on November 7, 2009 09:42 AM#56 David Matthews was a wretched excuse for a human being and maybe he has been sufficiently bludgeoned with a gunny sack of doorknobs by now, more virulent than mike or demo kid or other one world order liberal progressives. They are pining for a legacy on this blog like Matthews has. Noticed that Pudge has not been engaging Jensen - not sure what that means.
Posted by: KDS on November 7, 2009 09:46 AMhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/11/JEC_Health_Chart_11-7-09.php
Posted by: Palouse on November 7, 2009 09:48 AMGive up. JJ is the socialist "rain man".
Posted by: Attila on November 7, 2009 10:09 AMAt a time when we have 10.2% unemployment, and credit is tight for small businesses that make up 60% of the jobs, we don't need to threaten people with jail time for failing to add even more cost to their already overburdened businesses.
Open the insurance market up across state lines, increase competition, stop frivolous lawsuits against doctors. It's all pretty simple, but Dems want to Rush through and anything but simple, 2000 page bill that no one has read.
And since when have any of the other massive Dem programs been a success? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Porkulus, Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, all failures. Democrats never met a failure they didn't love, as long as it adds to Statism.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 7, 2009 11:30 AMIt must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a
new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.
-Niccolò Machiavelli
only a kood aid drinking goy would say something asinine like, Keep worshiping at the vacuous altar of ObaMao
Posted by: mike on November 7, 2009 01:43 PMonly a kood-aid drinking goy would say something asinine like, Keep worshiping at the vacuous altar of ObaMao
Posted by: mike on November 7, 2009 01:44 PM
