tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post1836056165092336439..comments2023-12-06T02:22:41.121-06:00Comments on The Hamburg Post: Sen. Ortman’s plea against the Federal Health Care Billtthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-82509510812783618622010-03-25T16:54:45.533-05:002010-03-25T16:54:45.533-05:00Kevin..I love the devil’s advocate as I have am on...Kevin..I love the devil’s advocate as I have am one two. The logic you attempt to apply, as I see it, is flawed because you are comparing two different types of unfunded mandates. Actually the health care mandate is partially funded depending on your income level but I digress.<br /><br />The issue before Hamburg is that we cannot increase our tax base - either through new housing or business - because our I/I ratio is maxed out. Now the Government as mandated that all cities must meet certain I/I ratios or face fines if they go beyond the threshold. That being said, the Government is placing a burden upon the city that is different than the burden the Government is placing on the individual in regards to health care.<br /><br />Since the mandate restricts the city’s ability to grow and I can leave the city at any time, I do not see funding from the Government to assist or pay for the entire improvement as a socialist program. I see this unfunded mandate assistance no different than Federal funds used for interstate roads.<br /><br />Now, in regards to health care mandate. Although for the most part it is unfunded, I as an individual cannot leave my current location for another within the United States to avoid the health care mandate. To require the citizenry, by the Government, to purchase a single product goes against the very fabric of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of justice. Once we allow the Government to dictate to us what we have to buy then we lose our freedoms and start down a slippery slope. What will be the next item the Government will tell us we must buy or face a fine and/or imprisonment?<br /><br />So that is how I rationalize it and stay principled to my ideals of freedom and the American way.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-4549048344674792012010-03-23T21:19:04.586-05:002010-03-23T21:19:04.586-05:00Chris, remember how I told you I like to play devi...Chris, remember how I told you I like to play devil's advocate? Here we go, I'm going to try to follow your logic.<br /><br />You stated above that you're for a the government paying for Hamburg's waste treatment fix because it's mandated by the government. This makes your partaking in a socialist behavior ok, because as stated above, it's mandated. I think I paraphrased that right. <br /><br />So therefore, by that logic, you are for this healthcare bill because it is government mandated socialist program. I say that because your stance on issue #1 is pro-socialist as long as it's government mandated. Therefore, if #1 is true, as you stated it, then logically #2 would also be true. <br /><br />Unless of course your willing to admit that principals change depending upon the circumstances. And you're only willing to accept government aid if it benefits you and unwilling to contribute when it doesn't.<br /><br />Which is it? I'm dying to know.<br /><br />You see, I want to agree with you on this one, I really do. I don't like this healthcare bill and I question it's constitutionality. But what you said above I find reprehensible (your having the right to determine americanism) and feel a need to call you out on it. Combine that with the blatantly contradictory nature of your stance on socialist programs I pointed out above and you have what I'd call a connundrum.<br /><br />I just wonder how you can reconcile it and stay principled.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-7861953861787891272010-03-23T08:22:47.318-05:002010-03-23T08:22:47.318-05:00If the document that defines American gives me the...If the document that defines American gives me the right to do it, how is doing so unamerican? <br /><br />Feel free to consider what you want, but it doesn't mean it's right. You might think it's bad for American, but that doesn't mean others agree and that it's unamerican.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-19572926276604264462010-03-23T08:15:26.103-05:002010-03-23T08:15:26.103-05:00Anon...Yes, the US Consititution does allow for th...Anon...Yes, the US Consititution does allow for those that subscribe to Socialism to assemble and participate in America. Now, one who believes in Capitalism and Democracy also has the right to consider Socialism unamerican too. <br /><br />Perhaps we need to define what is "American".tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-30146816971774961082010-03-23T08:12:10.790-05:002010-03-23T08:12:10.790-05:00"I acknowledge that socialism has every right..."I acknowledge that socialism has every right to exist in America as any other view. " If socialsim has every right to exist in America, and America is about the rights we have, then socialism isn't unamerican.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-30757096409542795422010-03-23T08:11:04.647-05:002010-03-23T08:11:04.647-05:00Anon..who asked about Implied Power clause..I did ...Anon..who asked about Implied Power clause..I did write a bit about it on Jan 7th of 2010. See my blog entry McCullough vs. Maryland: Implied Power Clause Established – Constitutional?tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-4560295982879623792010-03-23T08:08:34.518-05:002010-03-23T08:08:34.518-05:00Kevin...this is the beauty of the US Consititution...Kevin...this is the beauty of the US Consititution. I can define, frame, and say my view on socialism being unamerican just as you or anyone else can argue against my interpretation. What we are doing is exactly what the US Consitution allows us to do. <br /><br />How am I being an adulterer? I acknowledge that socialism has every right to exist in America as any other view. I can speak out against socialism without risking being hypocritical. <br /><br />As for the reference to state paying for Hamburg's I/I problem dives deeper than simply state. The deal with our I/I problem is a direct result of unfunded mandates places upon cities by the State and Federal Government. If the State and Federal Government is going to dictate to cities of what they must do then, I feel, they best establish a way to assist cities to accomplish the new unfunded mandate.<br /><br />This is no different then the Medicare and Medicaid mandates that the Federal Government has and will be putting on the States. The new Senate bill puts unfunded mandates with expansion of Medicare on the States which is partly why nearly 30 Attorney State Generals are looking into suing the Federal Government.<br /><br />Part of the reason I consider myself an Independant is because I do not fit the mold of a Republican, Tea Party, Coffee Party or a Libertarian or even a Democrat.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-3375245075149544972010-03-22T22:48:54.061-05:002010-03-22T22:48:54.061-05:00"You asked what give me the right to define s..."You asked what give me the right to define socialism as unamerican; the US Constitution does that."<br /><br />Wow, just wow. I'm shocked beyond belief. May I point out that you are acting as judge to the adulterer even though you too are an adulterer in your Gods eyes? Or are you only principled when judging others? I suspect we both know the answer to this question? <br /><br />Now, please cite precisely where in the constitution it states that socialism is unconstitutional and unamerican? I'm just DYING to hear this one from you because your statement above is indefensible.<br /><br />You sound like a McCarthy'ist which makes you nothing more than a fascist since you believe that there is only one truth and you hold it and anyone that disagrees with you is a "traitor" and "unamerican". That's very telling about where you stand on these issues.<br /><br />But it begs the question - who made you judge, jury and arbiter of what the constitution means and doesn't mean? Where does your plethora of expertise come from? Sadly I suspect it's Glenn Beck.<br /><br />The fact is, you are not the arbiter of what is or is not american. Moreover, your hypocrisy of railing against socialism all the while attempting to profit from it tells of just how principled you are on this regard. I'm referencing your support for the state paying for the waste treatment upgrades in Hamburg. You want it upgraded, pay the taxes yourself. Dont ask me to pay for you to have something - that's socialism.<br /><br />Or didn't you know that?<br /><br />And to the "fan" I'm not trying to be mean here. But my issue is this. Most tea partiers claim to be libertarians and as a card carrying libertarian I'm disgusted by them for the most part. They make those of us who truly believe the ideology to look like right wing nutjobs when we're not. Chris said something above that scares the crap outa me. It means that people who are completely rational (which Chris is) can believe that they have the right to judge my patriotism since I disagree with him. Mind you I don't support socialism, but I do disagree with his constitutional interpretation of it being unamerican. <br /><br />Twisting my ideology to suit your own distorted political ends is disgusting and I wish all of the tea partiers would go back to their crappy Republican party where they belong. They're hypocrites.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-3507049799895871142010-03-22T22:05:16.107-05:002010-03-22T22:05:16.107-05:00I find it interesting that you find a right to abo...I find it interesting that you find a right to abortion in the constitution but yet rail against implied powers and reading into the constitution things that are not explicitly stated. Where in the constitution is abortion found? Only through an expanded reading do we find that right to privacy. As they say, in the penumbras of rights. <br /><br />And to the other annon, pretty sure you know this, but you won't find implied consent because there is no such doctrine in constitutional interpretation. Implied powers, yes. <br /><br />It's far less of leap to conclude that the necessary and proper clause gives congress the ability to pass this legislation than the a right of privacy existing that includes the right to abortion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-1029003126561027272010-03-22T19:55:46.997-05:002010-03-22T19:55:46.997-05:00Stop invoking the U.S. Constitution when its blata...Stop invoking the U.S. Constitution when its blatantly obvious that you have no detailed knowledge or understanding of its contents. <br /><br />I'm still waiting for an answer to my question on the exact citation for the establishment of the "implied consent" clause in McCulloch v. Maryland. I find your statement interesting in an of itself since it sounds like a bit of judicial activism to "establish" something so foundational. <br /><br />By the way Kevin, I'm a big fan. I was waiting for the Viper to respond with something to the effect of "without people like me to call attention to these issues we'd all be doomed to a socialist, fascist, communist nightmare of an existence." It's the Glenn Beck style. "I don't want to tell you this, but I feel I have to."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-80766707027763167612010-03-22T19:29:41.526-05:002010-03-22T19:29:41.526-05:00Kevin..why do you lump the decision of the Republi...Kevin..why do you lump the decision of the Republicans to pass anti-abortion with my view? While I personally do not approve of abortion, I do acknowledge that people have the right to do so. At the same time, I do not see where the government should provide money for someone to have one as part of those dollars being spent is mine. <br /><br />I agree that the world won't end tomorrow, partly because the changes do not get implemented for 4 years down the road. I do acknowledge that certain aspect of the changes will take time to implement; like training 16,000 IRS agents to ensure everyone has health insurance.<br /><br />You asked what give me the right to define socialism as unamerican; the US Constitution does that.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-20084235901004531782010-03-22T17:19:44.990-05:002010-03-22T17:19:44.990-05:00Oh, and a point I find reprehensible on your part ...Oh, and a point I find reprehensible on your part is the following type of commentary.<br /><br />"My anger is not toward Democrats; rather my words are directed at those that openly call themselves Americans while in secret promote ideals of Socialism."<br /><br />While you may not like socialism, you were raised in it. Your education through high school was government funded and managed which is socialism. Your parents probably partake in social security or medicare and if they don't they will that's socialism. Hell, if you took unemployment ever, or collected any type of social assistance that's socialism. How again is socialism this big bad evil monster? <br /><br />How is someone unpatriotic because they don't agree with your interpretation of "american ideals"? <br /><br />The whole point of america is that I can think the way I choose, live the way I choose and believe the way I choose. So how again is socialism un-american and what gives you the right to define it as such? <br /><br />Again, you are a product of "socialist" mechanisms in society. It seems more than a little hypocritic to suddenly decry them as "un-american". <br /><br />Just some food for thought.Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-85867294551000327772010-03-22T17:14:23.701-05:002010-03-22T17:14:23.701-05:00Chris, I struggle to see how increasing the IRS is...Chris, I struggle to see how increasing the IRS is socialism but I'm sure you'll tell me.<br /><br />I wish you could read what you're writing from an outsiders perspective Chris. You sound like chicken little squacking that the sky is about to fall. Here's the thing though, it's not. This type of "world ending" demagoguery has been around since John Adam's said that the nation would fail should Jefferson take the Presidential office. It didn't happen then, it didn't happen when Social Security passed, it didn't happen when Bush passed his tax cuts. Its just not going to happen.<br /><br />You seem to only see the world in black and white. And if you are white, and someone disagrees with you then they must be black. I hate to tell you this though, but the world is grey and nothing is as simple or cut and dry as you seem to want it to be. There are constitutional scholars who have studied that document for 40+ years who disagree on it's meaning. I will leave it to my betters to determine what is constitutional about this bill and what is not. In the end, the supreme court will rule on this, I have no doubt. <br /><br />But here's the thing you need to consider. Much of this bill was touted by the Republicans prior to Obama taking office. Only after he adopted these stances did they turn against them. This is all for political theater to get more seats in the fall. Once they get those seats do you really think they're going to repeal this bill? It's highly unlikely. The theater paid off. They will see no value in dredging up old legislations in order to look like complete obstructionists. At best, they'll pass amending legislation to appease the anti-abortion contingent of their base. I might point out that doing this goes against the libertarian principals you seem to stand for since it infringes on personal liberties. <br /><br />So the question is, why are you running around like a chicken with your head cut off squacking about this bill? It passsed and will likely be signed just like Bush passed his tax cuts and prescription drug plan. The world won't end tomorrow and ranting about this won't change the outcome. So why expend all the energies on it?<br /><br />What I find more interesting is that you seem to have ignored a point I made addressing the 4 year delay in implementation. Care to go back and address that? Delaying 4 years is a practical decision isn't it - based upon what I put forth?Kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-905139231728066762010-03-22T15:48:07.767-05:002010-03-22T15:48:07.767-05:00What specific text from that decision? The word &...What specific text from that decision? The word "implied" is used several times but the word "consent" is never used. Please cite the specific text in the decision that sets forth the "implied consent clause".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-20357616852339542382010-03-22T12:31:09.486-05:002010-03-22T12:31:09.486-05:00I refer to McCulloch v. Maryland as what I am talk...I refer to McCulloch v. Maryland as what I am talking about.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-8357032621661208012010-03-22T11:31:34.640-05:002010-03-22T11:31:34.640-05:00Do you mean implied powers? The concept that Wash...Do you mean implied powers? The concept that Washington asked Hamilton to come up with that helps give flexibility to the Constitution. Two of those Founding Fathers you are fond of invoking. . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-45116882796976024402010-03-22T11:16:33.529-05:002010-03-22T11:16:33.529-05:00I've taken multiple courses in Con Law and we&...I've taken multiple courses in Con Law and we've never talked about an Implied Consent Clause. What are you referring to? <br /><br />One of those powers is the Necessary and Proper clause, which you are aware of. <br /><br />There is a difference between not undestanding and disagreeing about constitutional interpretation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-58784358581792481282010-03-22T11:05:35.498-05:002010-03-22T11:05:35.498-05:00This is why the Implied Consent Clause established...This is why the Implied Consent Clause established by the US Supreme Court is so damaging. The US Constitution does not give Congress the power to mandate that Americans buy a certain product. The US Consitution does clearly list out powers that Congress can engage in and mandating anything is not on the list.<br /><br />Why is that concept so difficult to understand?tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-14639334839311735932010-03-22T10:56:13.851-05:002010-03-22T10:56:13.851-05:00Please provide the US Supreme Court case that spec...Please provide the US Supreme Court case that specifically rules in your favor? The mandate might not have happened yet in our history, but that doesn't mean it's automatically unconstitutional. Until the Supreme Court rules, it's only a matter of opinion that the mandate is unconstitutional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-33851182222275183222010-03-22T10:52:20.458-05:002010-03-22T10:52:20.458-05:00I agree that we need to comply with the laws of th...I agree that we need to comply with the laws of the land no matter how unconstitutional they may be. The bill also provides for people, as high as $80K, to recieve assistance if their employer does not provide insurance. These people would not face a fine as you allude to above; rather the only ones that will are those that flat out reject the notion. As for the IRS, it will give them more power and it will give the President temptation to use that power to beat down his opponents. <br /><br />The bottom line is that our Constitution does not allow for Congress or the President through executive order to mandate Americans purchase a specific product(Congress) or restrict the use of taxpayer money on aborition (Executive Order).Then again Obama has proven one thing in regards to change in Washington, that the US Constitution need not apply.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-63610705364673309052010-03-22T10:28:35.047-05:002010-03-22T10:28:35.047-05:00As a small business owner, here are 3 reasons I wo...As a small business owner, here are 3 reasons I would comply.<br /><br />1) You understand and accept that in order to live in a civilized society you have to comply with all of the laws, even the ones you don’t agree with.<br />2) Individuals have to pay fines if they don’t have coverage. Who is going to work for a company that disregards their legal obligation? Coverage will be necessary to attract and retain top talent, resulting in a more profitable and better business. <br />3) Do you really think the IRS cares much about the individuals fines? It will audit the heck out of you going back, and every year forward, resulting in financial costs to defend the audit plus possible other fines and interest related to those returns. Plus, I think they can send you to jail for tax fraud. Basically, failure to do so is dropping your pants and inviting the IRS to have its way with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-80663866074645398782010-03-22T09:34:19.967-05:002010-03-22T09:34:19.967-05:00A statement released last week by Rep. Brady, memb...A statement released last week by Rep. Brady, member of the House Ways & Means Committee, stated that "a new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates 16,500 new IRS personnel is needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses..."<br /><br />The trouble with any entitlement program, the greedy Congress members cannot leave it alone which is why it is best left to the private sector. Looks at SSN as another example and the TARP fund is being used as a slush fund as well.<br /><br />Ask your HR person, check that because they won't come out and say it, but do the math. When I was laid off and offered Cobra I found out how much my former employer was paying to cover me and my family. The amount they paid was three to four times, depending on which number is being applied, more than the fine they'd have to pay if they did not offer it. Are you really trying to say that companies that are looking to cut costs will not turn to this? Besides if they do the health care entitlement will become portable.tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-86924218683301738932010-03-22T08:57:31.776-05:002010-03-22T08:57:31.776-05:00Could you show me what section of this bill increa...Could you show me what section of this bill increases the IRS and how their powers are expanded?<br /><br />Also, is Medicare to blame or is it the Congress who runs and funds it to blame. I get a sense that the program has been quite successful. It was never intended to be a slush fund for members of Congress to fund wars with.<br /><br />I would also like to know how you believe that companies are going to move away from coverage. Is your implication that small businesses who don't have coverage now are simply not going to be interested in supplying it and pay the fine instead? How are large companies who do supply healthcare going to care?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-76515821521568919702010-03-22T06:24:50.681-05:002010-03-22T06:24:50.681-05:00Yes, I did say that the talking points that Sen. O...Yes, I did say that the talking points that Sen. Ortman highlighted are the Republican talking points and not using Fox talking points. Now, are the Republicans using Fox news pundits, like Democrats use MSNBC pundits, to spout their talking points; yes.<br /><br />If this bill stays intact and survives constitutional review, we will see companies moving away from offering health care coverage. The fine for a company that does not provide insurance will be far less than what it would be if they provided it. <br /><br />Kevin..the passing of the bill lays the groundwork for Medicare expansion to all. I agree with you that Medicare needs to go. The passing of this bill also grows the IRS by 16K and expands their powers, how does that not push us toward Socialism?tthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917268285666551114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075324469668918466.post-53887343031321909342010-03-21T23:48:14.352-05:002010-03-21T23:48:14.352-05:00Chris, did you just say the following:
"Sen....Chris, did you just say the following:<br /><br />"Sen. Ortman is not using Fox talking points; rather those are the talking points established by the Republican Party."<br /><br />Really? Even I will admit that Fox news isn't news as much as it is propaganda. Who is their president again? And what was his former occupation? Enough said.<br /><br />And obviously fox news didn't cover the AMA statement in support of this bill or discuss the reasons why they felt that delaying the implementation was critical did they? <br /><br />So I'll paraphrase a portion of their opinion in support. A major reason why the bill takes 4 years to implement actually has practical reasons. Currently the healthcare system is strained in many cities. Adding 30 million people to the healthcare system overnight could break it. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the AMA. The delay was in part due to their request for it to be delayed so that the system could be built up to better support an additional 20% more patients. From that perspective, the delay seems well thought out don't you think? So how exactly does your point make any sense given this fact?<br /><br />Again, the devil is in the details.<br /><br />Chris, I shudder at the constitutional rammifications of this bill. I truly do. But it's not socialism, I'll admit that. It's not communism, I'll admit that. And those programs that you point to that are losing funding (IE. Medicare) well that is socialism. So why aren't you ok with that fact? Personally I think medicare is a disgrace and am OK with it losing some of it's funding.<br /><br />Here's the thing though in all of this that you seem to be missing. I have enough faith in our coutry and it's system of governance that I believe that if this is unconstitutional it will be struck down on appeal. You seem to not have faith in our system of government which makes me question what you are standing for then.<br /><br />Here's the true issue that bothers me and it's not healthcare. I know you're a Tea partier and so my question to the tea party members is are they proud of their behavior during this debate? Was it the kind of debate they think moves this country forward or backwards? <br /><br />Personally, I see them as nothing but right wing wacko's who had a podium to scream from for a few minutes of history but who offered nothing of substance. They'll be forgotten when the dust settles. But in the process they set those of us who truly tried to stand for the constitution back 20 years with their bile, hate and venom. And I despise them for that.Kevinnoreply@blogger.com