PDA

View Full Version : Fast-Tracking of Socialized Healthcare




Pepsi
04-29-2009, 12:39 AM
House and Senate Democrats struck a back-room deal that puts socialized healthcare on the fast track as part of Obama's massive, tax-increasing budget.

The budget resolution now moves to the floor of the House and Senate for final votes that could take place any time in the next 48 hours.

This back-room deal means Democrats will only need 50 votes to pass socialized healthcare (not the normal 60 votes), and any real debate will be stifled.

Sen. Judd Gregg compared the fast-track trickery to "embracing"
Hugo Chavez' political strong-arming tactics, and added:

"What you've essentially got here is negotiations where one side decides to pick up a gun and load it, and the other side has the gun pointed at its head."

http://www.grassfire.org/12097/offer.asp?Ref_ID=2424&CID=112&RID=17324969

Pepsi
04-29-2009, 10:05 AM
In a year when trillion dollar bailouts have become routine, many Americans have become almost numb to our acceleration towards socialism.

But gun rights activists aren't in that crowd, and so GOA has to inform you of yet ANOTHER threat to your privacy, the Second Amendment, and even your wallet.

It is called an "individual mandate" or, alternatively, the "Massachusetts plan." And over the weekend, both the Washington Post and the New York Times worked hard to build momentum for it.

First, a little history.

We alerted you a few weeks ago to the gun control provisions in the stimulus bill that President Obama signed in February. Our government will now spend between $12 and $20 BILLION to require the medical community to retroactively put our most confidential medical records into a government database -- a database that could easily be used to deny veterans (and other law-abiding Americans) who have sought psychiatric treatment for things such as PTSD.

Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place your records in a national database.

But that's all about to change. A budget resolution -- to be voted on this Friday in the Senate -- will be the first domino in a process that could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it impossible to avoid the medical database.

Put another way: If you do not have health insurance -- or, potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants you to have -- the government will force you to purchase what it regards as "acceptable" health insurance. And, in most cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

What would all this cost? Based on comparable insurance currently on the market, it could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.

If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten grand. But if you are middle class and can't pay $10,000 because of your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids' college education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in Massachusetts). And, if you couldn't pay the confiscatory fine, you could ultimately be imprisoned.

Scary, you say. But why is this a Second Amendment issue? Under the Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your medical data into a centralized database -- freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws.

So... remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a firearm in the home? Or when your dad was given a prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer's? Or when your wife mentioned to her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago?

All of this would be in a centralized database. And all of it could potentially be used to vastly expand the "prohibited persons" list maintained by the FBI in West Virginia.

How serious a threat is this?

If it gets into the budget resolution the Senate will consider on Friday, it will be almost impossible to strip out later. It will be as much of a done-deal as the stimulus package was.

We have asked senators to introduce language to prohibit such an individual mandate for socialized medicine that would violate the privacy of gun owners. In the absence of such an amendment, we are asking senators to vote against the budget resolution.

ACTION: Write your U.S. Senators. Urge them to vote against the budget resolution if it does not contain language prohibiting a mandate that Americans buy government-approved health insurance against their will.

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=13066811

Don't Tread on Mike
04-29-2009, 10:57 AM
No! No socialized healthcare! It doesn't solve problems it makes everything worse, listen to Daniel Hannan who had first hand experience of this. LET THE FREE MARKET WORK!

heavenlyboy34
04-29-2009, 12:01 PM
I'm not surprised, but I am disgusted. :p Another FAIL for the statists!

Pepsi
04-29-2009, 01:35 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/house.budget/index.html?eref=rss_latest

The House of Representatives passed a $3.44 trillion budget resolution for fiscal year 2010 Wednesday, approving most of President Obama's key spending priorities and setting the federal government in a new direction with major increases for energy, education and health care programs.

The resolution, which was approved by a vote of 233 to 193, passed in a virtual party-line vote. All but 17 House Democrats supported it, and no House Republicans voted in favor.

The measure passed two days after congressional Democrats reached an agreement reconciling earlier House and Senate versions of the budget package. The Senate is also expected to approve final passage of the compromise measure on Wednesday, Obama's 100th day in office.

"Today, for the first time in many, many years, we have a president's budget ... that is a statement of our national values," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said during the final debate on the House floor.

"What is important to us as a nation is reflected in this budget. It's a very happy day for our country."

Republicans said the budget reflected reckless taxing and spending priorities that would leave the country in a more fiscally precarious position.

"Budgets are supposed to be about tough decisions, and there are no tough decisions in this budget," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"It spends an awful lot of money, it raises a lot of taxes, and it puts all of this debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. This is not the American way. The American way has been about a more limited government."

In one of the most contentious and politically polarizing decisions so far this year, Democratic budget negotiators decided to fast-track a key part of the budget process.

Major health care reform is likely to pass this year, because the special process -- known as budget reconciliation -- won't allow Republicans to filibuster the legislation, as was widely expected.

Democrats, who control 59 seats in the Senate, will be able to pass it with a simple majority vote, instead of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, said he didn't believe the Senate would need to use reconciliation, but noted that it is "there as an insurance policy."

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, speaking for most of his GOP Senate colleagues, warned earlier in the budget debate that if a health care "reconciliation winds up in the budget bill, it'll be like a declaration of war."

Under the Democratic plan, the federal government will run an anticipated deficit of $1.2 trillion in the next fiscal year. Their plan promises to cut the deficit by more than half by 2012.

"It is clear that more will be needed to address the long-term fiscal imbalance confronting the nation beyond the five-year budget window," Conrad said.

Under the compromise plan, increases in non-defense discretionary spending are limited to 2.9 percent through 2014. Obama's signature tax cuts from the stimulus plan -- $400 for individuals and $800 for couples -- are slated to expire after 2010.

The measure also allows former President George W. Bush's tax cuts for couples who make more than $250,000 to expire in 2010.

The budget compromise largely tracks the Obama administration's initial $3.67 billion proposed spending plan, with the notable exception to drop his $250 billion request for potential future bailouts of struggling financial institutions.

Fiscally conservative House Democrats, known as Blue Dogs, also negotiated with Democratic leaders to cut $10 billion from the president's $540 billion request for non-defense discretionary spending.

In an additional nod to her caucus's conservatives, Pelosi and House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer sent a letter to Senate leaders "throwing down the gauntlet" to insist that a pay-as-you-go system be followed, which would require new federal spending to be offset with budget cuts or tax increases, a Democratic aide told CNN.

Obama called for the so-called "PAYGO" legislation in his weekend radio address.

The president also gathered his Cabinet members last week and challenged them to cut a total of $100 million in the next 90 days.

In the context of the federal budget, $100 million in savings is a tiny amount, critics say. It is the equivalent, according to one example, of having a car dealer offer to shave $1 from the cost of a $36,700 vehicle.

"Any amount of savings is obviously welcome," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said at the time. "But [$100 million is] about the average amount we'll spend every single day just covering the interest on the stimulus package that we passed earlier this year."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said ordinary Americans would nevertheless appreciate the savings effort.

"Only in Washington, D.C., is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans."

angelatc
04-29-2009, 01:37 PM
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said ordinary Americans would nevertheless appreciate the savings effort.

Because he knows we're stupid.

Todd
04-29-2009, 01:43 PM
No! No socialized healthcare! It doesn't solve problems it makes everything worse, listen to Daniel Hannan who had first hand experience of this. LET THE FREE MARKET WORK!

Not gonna be much of a problem for Democrats now that the house is filibuster proof with Spectre. :(

Deborah K
04-29-2009, 01:47 PM
House and Senate Democrats struck a back-room deal that puts socialized healthcare on the fast track as part of Obama's massive, tax-increasing budget.

The budget resolution now moves to the floor of the House and Senate for final votes that could take place any time in the next 48 hours.

This back-room deal means Democrats will only need 50 votes to pass socialized healthcare (not the normal 60 votes), and any real debate will be stifled.

Sen. Judd Gregg compared the fast-track trickery to "embracing"
Hugo Chavez' political strong-arming tactics, and added:

"What you've essentially got here is negotiations where one side decides to pick up a gun and load it, and the other side has the gun pointed at its head."

http://www.grassfire.org/12097/offer.asp?Ref_ID=2424&CID=112&RID=17324969

Thank you Pepsi. I wish everyone on this forum would subscribe to grassfire.org. I've been a member since 2007. A really great organization. They helped so much in preventing the first amnesty bill from getting passed.

Deborah K
04-29-2009, 01:50 PM
And while I will still call and write my useless POS Senators Boxer and Feinstein, I already know these commie fascists will disregard the will of the people and vote according to their globalist agenda.

homah
04-29-2009, 01:54 PM
I can't believe you are all against socialized healthcare. Do you want millions of people to die from the swine flu?

Todd
04-29-2009, 02:00 PM
Thank you Pepsi. I wish everyone on this forum would subscribe to grassfire.org. I've been a member since 2007. A really great organization. They helped so much in preventing the first amnesty bill from getting passed.

QFT

I got into them about a year ago during the primaries....Good info and support organization.

Deborah K
04-29-2009, 02:31 PM
I can't believe you are all against socialized healthcare. Do you want millions of people to die from the swine flu?

Do you not realize that all hospitals are legally obligated to treat emergency situations? You need to do a little research on the Swine Flu if you think millions of people will die from this.

Deborah K
04-29-2009, 02:36 PM
Here's Ron Paul's take on the Swine Flu. OP please forgive the digression:

YouTube - Congressman Paul on the Recent Swine Flu Scare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5-Y08qbjo)

homah
04-29-2009, 02:42 PM
Do you not realize that all hospitals are legally obligated to treat emergency situations? You need to do a little research on the Swine Flu if you think millions of people will die from this.

I was being sarcastic. Will use the eye-roll smiley next time, I guess.

mellamojuana
04-29-2009, 02:55 PM
I thought you were being funny, Homah, & I chuckled. :)

Any-Who, I will die from the coming poverty & Greater Depression, etc., before swine flu gets me. If we can't afford hellth care insurance (mistake intentional), do we go to jail without passing "Go"? I haven't had a drop of hc insurance in almost a decade and a half. I don't live off other people, and I want to choose when and if I get insurance.

What a gubmunt racket. :eek:

Agree, Deborah. DC doesn't listen, but we can make noise anyway. We must.

Deborah K
04-29-2009, 03:37 PM
I was being sarcastic. Will use the eye-roll smiley next time, I guess.


Sorry. Not familiar with your posts yet. :)