Nancy's Health Bill

By Neal Boortz
October 29, 2009

Princess Nancy is going to unveil her healthcare bill today. I'm absolutely giddy with excitement. Just what we need ... another competing blue-print for a government takeover of healthcare and 18% of our economy. It also represents a huge shift in government entitlements ... a shift that will be impossible to reverse. Once you get the people hooked on government, there is no way to end it. This may the strongest and most addicition we have in this country .. and unfortunately it's legal. In fact, addiction to government could very well be the most dangerous addiction America has to deal with. Give me a good old fashioned coke addict any time. What's more, this is an addiction that is openly promoted by many politicians ... politicians who generally, an with inexplicable pride, call themselves Democrats.

The Aging Hollow-eyed Hippy from Haight-Ashbury says her government takeover of health care will cost over $1 trillion over the next ten years. That's a lie. She knows it's a lie. Our government has never introduced an entitlement program that didn't cost at least twice as much as the politicians who forced it on us said it would cost.

And just how will this monstrosity be paid for? Taxes, that's how. Taxes levied by the looters on the producers to buy votes from the moochers. That's the recipe for government growth.

Pelosi also plans to cut payments to Medicare providers. Medicare providers are, in case you haven't figured this out, are doctors. Under Nancy's plan more and more doctors will certainly decide to opt out of treating Medicare patients. Then the government will come along to tell them they can't. Then the doctors will tell the government to go pound sand and will simply retire. This will mean a shortage of doctors that will come at the exact same time demand for services will increase.

This will mean waiting lines. This will mean rationing. And all of this will come along because the Democrats steadfastly and absolutely refuse to consider any private sector options in their health care reform plan.

Why not private sector options? Simple ....

... because this has everything to do with controlling you and nothing to do with improving your health care.

So what exactly is she proposing to do with your tax dollars?

Employers would be required to offer health insurance to workers
Employers will pay fines for not offering health insurance
Americans will be fined for not purchasing insurance coverage (no word yet on enforcement)
Subsidies will be provided to poor people who can't afford health insurance
Insurance companies will not be able to discriminate against older people or pre-existing conditions
A government option will be available to "compete" with the private sector

(Can any of you figure out just where these actions are authorized in our Constitution? Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Our Constitution doesn't count anymore. K bye!)

Now these are all of the things that Nancy and the Democrats want us to know right now about Nancy's bill. But like any piece of legislation, there are hidden gems that are impossible to decipher without two lawyers, a psychic and the 3rd floor ward of your local mental institution to help make sense of it all.

I would respond but nobody would pay attention to it.

Try me.

"Taxes levied by the looters on the producers to buy votes from the moochers."

What a moot statement. Increasing taxes means that you would pay extra on that while saving on individual costs, therefore it would level out and would greatly benefit you in a case of emergency when you'd normally be stuck with a HUGE amount of Medical costs.


"Employers would be required to offer health insurance to workers.
Employers will pay fines for not offering health insurance."

And this is a bad thing? Not only do companies get away with distributing NONE of the HUGE economic growth the US has undergone over the last decades, now the also get to cut people's Health Care?
This guy is quick to point out that trusting the government is dangerous, yet he fails to acknowledge that it's just as dangerous to trust corporations too much.

"Subsidies will be provided to poor people who can't afford health insurance."

Is this a bad thing also? So the Garbage man, McDonald's Worker, Social Worker, etc. don't deserve Health INsurance?
What about the unemployed? Especially the unemployed that are not able to find a job.


"Insurance companies will not be able to discriminate against older people or pre-existing conditions."

Why should they? Should people with Asthma be punished? Should handicapped people be punished?
What if that was his mother that was suffering from Leukemia or something and your father's company, who he's been working for for decades, doesn't offer Insurance that would cover Leukemia treatment?
Is it fair for that woman to die a horrible, painful death?
Would you want that for your mother? What about your daughter? Your sister? Brother? Cousin?
The degree of selfishness in this article is nothing but absolutely disgusting. I hope somebody close to him gets a lifesaving treatment denied by their isurance, just so he can see what it's like to be in that position.


"A government option will be available to "compete" with the private sector."

A government option will indeed be able to compete with a private Insurance Co.
The fact of the matter is that Insurance Co.s will be able to supply benefits that the government will not, which will also result in the lowering of Health Care costs and the increase in benefits.
The free market is all about competition, yet when you actually try to throw some REAL competition in there, everybody screams bloody murder.

You're a lap dog for "social" democracy.

First off, we're not a democracy here. We're a constitutional republic. This gov't can't force ANY bullsh!t like this down people's throats such as they're planning. I know you just hate to hear that but that's a fact. You lovers of this sh!t will find out when this goes to the USSC after (if) this sh!t is passed.

Of course, i have faith in moderate Democrats. They'll stand up for what the constitution calls for. My representative s one who doesn't support this looter bill. And he's a Dem

If Social Democracy would ensure fairness and the well being to society, then yes, I'm a lab dog for it.

So you'd rather have people keep paying more and more for insurance? Innocent people die? Innocent people suffer? More Middle Class people slip into the Lower Class?

It's clear that the Constitutional measures just aren't doing what the Constitution was written for: Ensure the well being of the American people.

But trying to tell you that is like telling an Al Qaida member that the Koran is wrong...

<groan>

You just don't seem to get it in two fashions. I've said (as well as dbl) that we need insurance reform! You keep ignoring that! Why? I know why. Because you prefer the socialist system of gov't providing and forcing things upon people. There's no other explanation for it. Plus, you apparently hate our constitution. It is what it is and you can't change it.

Nobody has ever explained this "health care debate" to me.
I'm sure it didn't need to be fixed or changed and the politicians decided to create even more of a rift between the two parties by doing this.

I have continually addressed this point, you have just ignored my response to it:

The fact of the matter is that insurance reform, a.k.a. pulling all regulations off the Insruance Market, will NOT result in this great improvement of care, like Dbl and you keep saying.
What you'll see is that the insurance companies will be even more selective on their patients, prices will likely go up in certain areas where there's only 1 insurance provider, the customer will virtually have no protection and guarantees from the insurance companies, and denying coverage or treatment will still be legal, which is why this whole debate is partially about.

But it's always good to know that you accuse me of ignoring this point, preferring Socialst systems, and hating the constitution. All of the above are flat out lies. Thanks, Tex, I'll remember that for future reference.



It's clear. Democrats want the insurance system to be changed because thousands of Americans are suffering under the current system and the US system is the worst in the Western world. Hell, even some moderately developed countries have better systems than the US.
The Republicans don't mention or waste a thought on Insurance reform, because the people who suffer the most from it are mostly the people who do not vote for them. Now that the Democrats propsed a Health bill, Insurance companies are pouring millions of dollars into the Republican's pockets in order to stop Insurance reform.

So when the public starts yelling at these town hall meetings and they say they are not for the proposed bill, are the public not liking the ideas and wants of the left or the right?

Those people don't want the proposed bill of the Democrats.

So let's see here:
The public does not want the Democratic idea
The public does not want the Republicans getting richer through insurance company payoffs.

The public doesn't want either of the sides yet they agree it has to be fixed?

I'm thinking the public doesn't know what they want.

Well the public is split. The Democratic Public wants this bill, the Republican Public does not.

Nobody wants anybody to get paid off except for the ones who are getting paid off.

Well some people don't want reform at all, they think the system is fine the way it is, and they'll do anything to stop reforms.

It ain't all Republicans/conservatives against this. There's a sizable amount of Democrat voters who hate the idea, too.

True.
I was just simplifying for the purpose of explaining the situation.

What's the matter, Tex?
First you accuse me of ignoring your argument and now you're committing the crime you tried to accuse me of?
Or are you waiting for Dbl to step in and save the day?

Once again, a group (or organization) is considered greater than the public.
This time the AARP is in favor of this and gets more airplay even though the general public doesn't like it and people that looked like AARP members yelled about it during the summer recess.

Ain't ignoring sh!t. Been busy and haven't had time to go thru all this stuff on here. I've been selective. That ok or do i need persmission?

And dbl to save the day? Bwah. He's AWOL and he doesn't save anything if haven't noticed. Nobody ever bails me out on here or defends me for that matter... even when i should have a half-assed defense.

My point, and i've been pounding it over and over, is NOT reform like the Dems have been trying to do. Insurance reform. Get the gov't out of it! You've been told that time and time again. It's a waste to even repeat any of it because you have your European viewpoint and i don't and never will.

We're talking the constitutionality of it all. You ignore that. During the Bush admin, left wingers yapped continuously about the constitutionality of detaining several hundred alleged enemy combatants in Guantanamo. Whenever legal restrictions on abortion are proposed, moonbats yap about the constitutionality of interjecting government between patients and their doctors. But those same voices have been silent about the constitutionality of empowering the federal government with decisions over the life, death, and health of three hundred million Americans.

The Constitution grants the federal government about 35 specific powers... 18 of them in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that if Congress were to use its legitimate powers as a "pretext" for assuming an unauthorized power, "it would become the painful duty" of the Court "to say that such an act was not the law of the land."

But health care bills such as the Bama-favored HB 3200 don't even offer a pretext. The only reference to the Constitution in HB 3200 is a 'severability' clause that purports to save the remainder of the bill if part is declared unconstitutional. HB 3200 contains no reference to the Commerce Power or to any other enumerated power. None.

The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress. Congress is not permitted to delegate that authority to the executive branch. The 10th Amendment is a declaration that the federal government has no powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution!!!!

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights limit government power, especially federal power. National health care proposals would increase that power greatly. This bill will have constitutional difficulties on huge proprtions.

The proper way to make such a change is not through an ordinary congressional bill. The proper way is by constitutional amendment.

I've said this in some form or fashion time and time again. What more do you want? When you propose sh!t outside of our constitutional realm, you'll get the same answers from me.

lol
The constitution is greater than the republic. If a group or an organization was, this would be a mob rule country.

Just checking. Givin ya a taste of your own medicine, ya know?



Well it's just that normally you let Dbl fill in for you when it comes to questions like this so I was just wondering...



Good lord!
I've said time and time again that getting the gov't out will not fix every problem there is.
Let me quote Adam Smith, the creator of Free Market Capitalism on this one, maybe I can make it a little clearer:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

That's what happens when you provide the public with an inelastic good, the prices stay high because the suppliers work together and figure out how to get the best profits.

I've said this time and time again, yet YOU're the one that keeps ignoring this over and over again, so maybe you shouldn't be so quick in accusing me of ignoring what you and Dbl have pointed out to me.



No, we're not.

You said:



So we're clearly not only discussing the constitutionality of it.



I don't ignore that, you're the one that ignores the fact that the "Constitutional" way of doing won't actually accomplish jackshit.



Well what can I say?
I don't care.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed; it's long overdue. I just find it ironic that the Constitution grants the Federal government to throw millions of Dollars into the Israeli economy, yet it forbids the government to invest in its own people's health.
Whether you prefer this bill or not, something needs to be done and what you and dbl have proposed would simply NOT get the job DONE.



And that's a reason to let American citizens suffer? You'd rather have big corporations and insurance companies exploit your people while you sit there and watch because that's all you can do?



And thousands of Americans would remain in misery... GREAT PLAN!



It's not specifically this bill, it's the whole insurance question in general.



But it allows corporations and insurance companies to make money off of people's pain and need?
THAT's Patriotic!



I've given you time and time again the system of "sickness funds" and how that would not grant the government this "immense" amount of power, yet all you refer back to is insurance reform in the sense of getting the gov't out of the industry.



So go ahead and do that!



The fact that you keep insisting that your Constitutional way would work, that's what keeps me going with this, because it's simply NOT true.

I never 'let' anyone fill in for me. If someone jumps in and makes a better point or can explain it better than me, then what's the point in drudging up more sh!t. That's a liberal way of debating... what you just said.



And how many times have we said what the gov't can do to off the people's backs on this? Numerous. And you ignore those points. You never can come up with a reasonable debate on that. You just keep yapping the Euro way of things and sh!t on our system. The gov't has far too many regulations on the medical industry and insurance industry. That's been pointed out time and gain. You sidestep that, as usual.



Yeah, we are. This bill is unconstitutional. That's the reason for the debate. The bill. And it's un-fuqqing-constitutional.
You said:








How so? By legislating an unconstitutional bill? You're a real hoot. I've posted the Bills from the constitution that shows you the limitations of congress. You just keep sidestepping that sh!t again.



Article 1 - Section 8; go find it





That's the best you can come up with? You hate our constitution. That's obvious. You'd subvert it to pursue your agenda. You're just like the Democrats.





That's the all you can come up with?





Yeah, when the gov't created the mess by it's f*cked regulations... that you love so much.





Making people have something is unconstitutional. And don't go using the drivers license or auto insurance as an example again. That's been shot down. States require that. Not the fed.





LMAO!



How so? You haven't addressed the thousands of regulations that the gov't has on the industry. I know for a fact that dbl has pointed that over and over and over... with links. You ignore that... again.


I'm telling ya, it's getting to be useless to argue with you on this. The facts have been pointed out and linked time and time again. You never address any of that except to keep on with your broken record tirade of sh!tting on our supreme law of the land. How would you like it if i started in on your constitution based on my ideology? You'd gear up and slam me with this and that related to your constitution. It's hard for me to argue on a foreign nations law. Yet you do it here... probably for sh!ts and giggles.

Until you address the gov'ts massive regulations on the med and insurance industries and then address the unconstitutionality of this Democrat congress, i won't even bother debating you anymore on this subject.

Well I'm sorry but when you say "I'm gonna let Dbl take it form here because he can explain it better", that's letting somebody fill in for me.
How is that a Liberal way of debating? Unlike you and Dbl, I didn't say that you weren't qualified to explain your reasoning or dismiss your point because of you profession.




Did I not just say EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO PULL ALL REGULATIONS, IT WOULD NOT MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE! EVEN ADAM SMITH SAID SO!!!!

I don't sidestep sh!t, I would call that directly addressing it. I'm saying that if the gov't pulled all regulations (I acknowledged your point, not ignore it), it still wouldn't help because they offer what are called "inelastic goods", goods that are not 100% subject to competition and the normal market rules of say a Soda company (I there rejected your point and proved it wrong).

So how did I ignore or sidestep your point over and over again?????????????
It's like pulling teeth here...

Now you're sidestepping the things I have presented you with, as you have done numerous tmies by accusing me of sidestepping your points.
THAT's a conservative way of debating.... what you just did.



No, we're not. You and Dbl keep insisting on the fact that insurance reform in the sense of pulling the gov't out of the industry would achieve everything the people need and therefore fix the problem.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEBATING ON, NOT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IT.




You think you feel like that? I have to explain every little detail of it and you still keep ignoring and sidestepping my points.

How about you just address the point that pulling gov't regulations out of the industry would indeed NOT solve all the problems?
You've ignored this over and over again, and now you're trying to delude the subject.



What kind of a response is that to a statements like this:

"you're the one that ignores the fact that the "Constitutional" way of doing won't actually accomplish jackshit."



I never denied that it's against the Constitution, I just feel that this is a necessary action that must be taken to assure the well being of the American people.
Would it actually change anything if a Constitutional ammendment were indeed proposed giving the government this power?




Well I'm sorry but I'd rather have the government power over me than big Corporations and COmpanies BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS THERE TO REPRESENT YOU AND TAKE CARE OF YOU!!!!!!
I don't hate the Constitution, I just think that something that was written decades ago needs a little bit of updating, and that includes available Health Insurance for ALL American people.

Yea, I'm just like the Democrats, just like you're just like the Republicans trying to stop everything the Dems are doing, even if it means that your own people still have to suffer and be exploited.



That's pretty much the biggest point about the whole debate. People live in misery in this great country of yours, yet when somebody wants to do something about it, Republicans are screaming bloody murder and do everything in their power to stop this.
The US government should be ashamed of letting its citizens suffer like this all because they're being paid off by some corporations. THAT's the ULTIMATE sign that the public is being used or exploited, when Corporations have to pay Politicians to not take action.
But in your view, of course, everything is peachy.



Ha! It's the fact that the government let's them get away with it, not the government's regulations.
These Corporations probably praise the government regulations because they can use that excuse to jack up the prices and keep them there.
If the companies are so affected by these regulations, how come their top dogs still get billion dollar bonuses? And where did all that economic growth go that's been going on since the 70s?? Look at people's wages and the cost of living, one of them stayed the same, one of them increased.
So yes, it's the regulations. That's why the profit by immense economic growth haven't actually benefitted the lower 99% of Americans, only the Top 1%.



STILL SIDESTEPPING THE POINT.



Would it actually change your point of view if the government would receive such powers through a constitutional amendment?





Yes I have. I have addressed that pulling these regulations won't actually accomplish anything.
YOU're the one that ignores that point again and again.



Good lord! You're approaching impossible-to-debate-with very rapidly here, Tex.
I've addressed this point numerous times now and I'm tired of doing on.



HA!



The facts have also been pointed out to you that pulling the regulations wouldn't work, but you keep ignoring that.
I don't keep on with anything but refuting your point. You're the one trying to delude the subject by pulling up the Constitution, even though this debate is not about the Constitution, it's about your method of Health Insurance reform, and that's it. If you say that that's the only Constitutional way of doing it, then just go ahead and say so!!!!



If it would benefit the citizens and even myself, go right ahead. You need an outside source sometimes to recognize the problem.



And do what? Defend greedy businesses? No, sir, that's not me. If there's a glitch in my Constitution and it's allowing my Citizens to be treated unfairly and suffer, then PLEASE go ahead and tell me because that's what the Constitution is there for: Protect and Provide for the Citizens.



That's because this nation isn't all that foreign to me, remember?



Well how about you start by addressing my response to those "massive regulations" and the effect it would have on the industry, then we'll go from there.

Texas, could you post a more a one-sided article next time? This is a caricature. Government taking over, doctors opting out, taxes skyrocket...writer stops short of drawing horns on Obama's evil government.

We're in deep sh!t. Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but the alternative is no good.

It's like letting little kids play in schoolyard. Private companies are just after shiny things or in their cases, money, money, and more money. But once we're in the mess we are, you get the grumbly schoolyard supervisor involved. Nobody likes it but we need some order and regulation before we can go playing around again. Yeah I know it's a simplistic example but I'm saying that government control is a necessary evil right now.

Why do they even debate these things?
They're gonna push it through no matter what happens (and why don't we the people get to vote on what version we want?)