Liberal free for all coming to an end

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

Even if you cut taxes to zero and pay premiums for producing in USA you can’t compete with the low wages of some countries. It’s an illusion to think that alone would solve the problem.

Except for your distend sue everything and your peculiar jury decisions, Europe has similar problems with evil pharmacy concerns, dubious price arrangements, or “inventing” new product that do the same for double price, and so on.

But my question, you try to evade from, is about your former social health care plans. The idea all pay in, so that a single one, and in summation everyone, has to pay less.



Why they say it would get even more expensive? Why can every other country do it cheaper with a flood of different realizations?

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) It would take me some time to put anything together that would have a chance of working. Though give some time I bet I can. The place to start would be looking back to see just what got them moving over sea's in the first place. Though I know it had to with the drop of both import and export tax, I also know there was a lot more to it than that. This is not something we can just put a bandage on.

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.
Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. They now have lets say 1000 people working for them. They are paying out 100,000 a year to help the employees with health coverage. Now under Obama care, they can keep paying out the 100,000 or drop alll coverage and pay out only 10,000 a year to cover the fines. What would you do? So given that almost all will drop any coverage they now keep, you have another 1000 people that will be forced to except Obama care. Add to that the some, (lets make the math easy here, ) 1000 others like X Inc that will do the same, and the cost keeps going up. I am not talking the cost of care, I am talking the cost to the tax payer. The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rainrider

I never said that alone cutting taxes would bring jobs back to the USA. I know full well that we would have to pull out of NAFTA, there would have to be some kind of import tax, ( on home based companies as well as an export tax.) ?

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Not sure what you are asking on the next part. If you can make it bit more clear I will try to answer it.

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Like I stated before, the cost would have to go up to pay all the new taxes that will be imposed. Also it will end up costing more for the tax payer do to the large # of folks that will be placed on government insurances.

But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

Originally Posted by Rainrider

Let try to show what I mean.
I will work with a made up company here. Let call it X Inc. ?
? The Obama administration has already shown the world it can not run a used car lot, so what makes any one think they can run a national health care system?

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don?t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can?t be that simple and stupid.
I don?t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

[randolph]

We had full employment a few years back. True, alot of it was in the building industry. What pisses me off, is we gave billions to the banks so they could loan money to companies so they would hire more workers. The problem is that the companies aren't going to hire more workers unless there is more demand for their goods. So the money sits there while the bankers take huge bonuses with our money.
It's a backasswards situation. With all that money the government could have organized massive reconstruction projects (like WPA in 1930s) to hire the unemployed to build and repair infrastructure. Once people had jobs and income, they could buy more stuff causing the companies to hire more employees to meet the increased demand.
Seems simple doesn't it?
So why hasn't Obama implemented such a program?
Guess who really runs the country.

[TracyCoxx]

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

Ever considered becoming a comedian, Tracy?

[randolph]

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey Tracy, why was Obama elected? Could it have possibly had something to do with healthcare?

No, only 13% of americans want to keep the healthcare bill as it is. 46% not only want to change it but want it gone. The Tea Party movement was a grass roots organization that arose in part because the public did not want nationalized health care. Most Obama supporters voted for him because of his promise of Hope & Change. I don't know about hope. His stimulus packages did nothing for unemployment, and left us further in debt. How does that equal hope? But it definitely is a change so I'll give him points for that. People voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush. The fact that John McCain wasn't George Bush either didn't seem to occur to them. I saw NO evidence that people actually voted for Obama because of actual policies that he supported. The media never asked Obama the hard questions. They were too busy ooohing and aahhing over the tingle going up their leg.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Irrespective of the rest of his ruling, this is the important point with respect to Tracy Coxx's false statement. The ruling does include a suggestion that the government should heed the ruling, but by deciding to use declaratory relief Vinson deprived himself -- assumedly, by choice -- to use his contempt power to punish the government, should it choose to ignore his ruling, pending review by higher courts.

The ways in which our legal system works are complex, but this difference between declaring and enjoining is not so hard to understand.

Why would Vinson declare rather than enjoin. Of course, we cannot know for sure, but I believe reasonable speculation to be that because the provision of the law that he believes renders the entire thing unconstitutional -- i.e., the individual mandate -- does not go into effect until 2014, it gives time for appeals and further rulings. In other words, Vinson saw no need to stop something that isn't yet in effect, and to his credit will allow the two sides to continue their legal arguments before higher courts than his.

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, Tracy Coxx reserves for Tracy Coxx the "right" to a personal set of facts. The line above that I have bolded is simply not true.

In fact, the judge ""declared" the law unconstitutional. In legal terms, the use of that word is relevant. It means that Vinson expressly refused to enter an injunction. In other words, he declined to command the Obama administration to take any particular action.

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:

Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985)

Originally Posted by randolph

Thanks for the clarification. If people are going to post on specific political issues, they should get their facts straight.

The facts are now straight.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Wrong. Since this is against the federal government a declaratory judgement is the equivalent of an injunction: Page 75 of the ruling states:



The facts are now straight.

Bottom line: the judge DID NOT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION. Now the facts are really straight.

[scott441]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, Judge Vinson ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional and ordered all implementation of the bill to be stopped immediately. Until it goes to the Supreme Court this is the law. Any further work done towards implementing Obamacare is illegal. Yet the Obama administration announced that it will not comply with the court order. And this is while another federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling after the Gulf oil spill held the Interior Department in contempt. He also directed Nasa to continue canceling successors to the space shuttle despite congress' order to stop. Why does Obama think he is above the law? Has only 2 years of power gone to his head? The voters spoke loudly last election that they did not want Obamacare. The House voted to repeal Obamacare. 26 states sued the government over Obamacare and two federal judges found the bill unconstitutional. Yet the democrats in the senate and the president continue to snub their noses at the American people, the judicial branch and the Constitution. This is what a dictator does. A dictator answers to no one, and neither does Obama.

You know what i find amazing in this debate on healthcare is, the health industry always says "We don't make any money on this", hospitals are the same, no one makes any money, we just get by. Doctors too say the same. You know for an industry that makes no money, they sure are fighting hard to stop this. Lets look at healthcare in a new way. They make sure they empty your bank account if your sick, and have to go to the hospital. They are making billions on your, mothers cancer, or your grannies bad joints. I notice you say its the will of the American people, your math is like most of your quote, full of Russ,

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by scott441

You know what i find amazing in this debate on healthcare is, the health industry always says "We don't make any money on this", hospitals are the same, no one makes any money, we just get by. Doctors too say the same. You know for an industry that makes no money, they sure are fighting hard to stop this.

Because doctors don't want a load of bureaucratic BS to get between them and their patients.

Originally Posted by scott441

Lets look at healthcare in a new way. They make sure they empty your bank account if your sick, and have to go to the hospital. They are making billions on your, mothers cancer, or your grannies bad joints.

This is obviously full of emotion and devoid of any objectivity. To which no response will be heard.

Originally Posted by scott441

I notice you say its the will of the American people, your math is like most of your quote, full of Russ,

According to the polls, about 10% of Americans want to health care bill to stay as it is, and 56% want it repealed. Put that in your calculator.

[ila]

I would think that a lot of the resistance to any US universal healthcare is fear of the unknown. I've read and heard the debate in many different media and there seems to be a lot of fearmongering on both the pro and con sides.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

According to the polls, about 10% of Americans want to health care bill to stay as it is, and 56% want it repealed. Put that in your calculator.

Once again, Tracy proves that Tracy will twist anything in an attempt to prove a point. This undoubtedly comes from the latest Rasmussen poll, released today (February 21, 2010).

Here's what it says on the Rasmussen Reports own page:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty percent (40%) oppose repeal of the law, including 27% who are Strongly Opposed."

Regarding Rasmussen, other pollsters who have never been accused by anyone of having a bias often speak of Rasmussen as being biased. Many news organizations -- also, not Fox or MSNBC, but ones that are not typically accused of having a bias -- will not cite Rasmussen polls because the surveys it conducts are automated (known as IVRs for "interactive voice response") rather than the kind of live telephone interview polls that are used by organizations like Gallup, Pew Research, Quinnipiac University, and the major newspapers and television networks.

During 2010 election polling, some Rasmussen polls were revealed to have asked only self-identified Republican voters about congressional races. Do you think the Republican would come out on top in such polls?

[Rainrider]

Originally Posted by Tread

I got the impression that some of you US Americans think tax changes make companies produce more in the USA. But the profit made out of low wages in overseas is multiple higher for the companies. (btw not the topic I want to talk about.)

Well as I said it would take some time. Tax cuts by them self won't bring the jobs back, though with the use of other things like import taxes and so on we might be able to.

There was no question. Only want to say that your pharmacy problems are no excuse for your high costs, (and a little backbite to your judiciary). Ignore it.

Well that makes it even better. I am always talking badly of how things are done in this nation.



But why? I know nearly nothing about Obama care.
There are also more people who pay the taxes, that would make it cheaper. More people would mean lower bills, too. Less people would get bankrupt, who cause losses in many places. In my opinion it would even decrease crime to some degree, because of that.

To the individual the cost would go up, as the hospitals rais the cost of care to pay the new tax placed on them so the Feds could bring what would be needed to pay for every one Government insurances.

So you say that companies usually supporting the health insurance of every employer, and with Obama care they don’t have to, but instead would have to pay a much smaller fine to the government? And in the end companies has more money, the government or the tax payer have to pay the missing money? And the insurance company bills stay the same, but more people pay in?
Obama care can’t be that simple and stupid.

Companies now offer a benefits package. The insurances is not forced on you can ether take or simply opt out. They do this to attract new employees. After all the benefits package is added into your wages, only you never see the cash. Let try to show it this way. If you get your health insurance, and it cost you 500 a mouth, then your company offers you the same coverage for 200, they pay the other 300, then you just got a raise of 300 a mouth.
Now with Obama care if that same company drops all insurance from the benefits package. Opting to pay the tax/ fine imposed on them, it would drop their cost to some thing like 150 per mouth per employ. A savings of 150 per mouth per employ. Their employees still get health insurances through Obama care, and the company saves 1/2 of they had been paing out.

I don’t know what you mean with the run a used car lot.

Obumer, in his sad attempt to push GM sales up, did what called cars for clunkers.The idea was that you could bring in any car, over 15 or 20 years old. (Please don't hold to the age of the car I may be wrong) You would get 1500 I think it was for that car. Only if you traded it for a smart car. One that used electricity to run. Well a lot of people jumped on it, and the feds still have got that paid for. In a way what they did was give you 1500 for a car they were going to crush and sell for scrap. Much the same as me giving you 1500 to bring me a 100. Sad but true.