House votes to pass Dem Health Bill.

The House voted to pass the Senate plan which now goes to Obama to sign into law.

In a separate vote the House voted to send a list of "fixes" to the Senate to vote on. No guarantee the Senate will do as they wish. If they do so, it is expected that Obama will sign that as well.

Numerous challenges are reportedly in the works from State governments.

Virginia has passed a law exempting it's citizens from compliance. Several House Dems have laughed at that idea.

It is expected that the battle will move to the US Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of forcing citizens to purchase insurance from 3rd parties as well as several other aspects of the bill.

The fall out from this will drag on and effect this years campaign season with the House and a 3rd of the Senate up for grabs. Republicans stand to gain the most as voter disappointment is currently directed at Democrats. 3rd parties stand a chance to make significant gains for the first time in decades, provided they don't self destruct in the process.

It is truly interesting times.

Dem Health Plan Proposal has some Issues....

 

 

Dem Health Plan Proposal has some Issues....

---

Lets see, some problems....

# Riddled with Taxes: This legislation is riddled with tax hikes. They start by taxing those earning over $10,831 year who don’t buy health insurance $750—a tax that escalates to $3,800 as income rises. Health insurance, health care devices and drugs are also taxed, adding to the cost of health care, and decreasing the competitiveness of these businesses.

# Medicare Cuts: The bill cuts $500 billion in Medicare spending, including over $130 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage and nearly $120 billion in Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says they “expected the Medicare Advantage plans to lose 2.7 million enrollees over the next decade” as a result.... See More

# Raises Insurance Prices: CBO also finds “premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market…”

# Force, Not Choice: This legislation includes an “individual mandate” forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance, like the Massachusetts law. Taxpayer subsidies will be given to those earning up to three times the federal poverty level. Those not qualifying for subsides will be taxed up to $3,800 if they do not buy insurance, and the Joint Tax Committee has confirmed failure to pay your fine could result in jail time. The experience in Massachusetts has left those caught in between unable to afford insurance and having to pay the tax.

# Big Insurance Boondoggle: Forcing all the uninsured into insurance could bring as much as $200 billion a year in new premiums to insurance companies, including $465 billion in subsidies over 10 years.

# Privacy Violation: This legislation would allow law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Department of Justice unprecedented unfettered access to medical records.

Could a Liberal who supports this Bill please refute these talking points?

If this goes through:
- Your taxes WILL go up.
- Your insurance premiums WILL go up.
- The Deficit WILL go up.
- Small Businesses WILL close.

With more people impoverished, more people unemployed, and more people dependent on the Government for their existence....how is this an improvement? 

 

More at http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85339

You're not allowed to pay us back in clunkers!

You're not allowed to pay us back in clunkers!

---

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...-open/1178451/

SNL hits a bullseye on things.

The Joke that is Pelosi II

"Before she left for China, reporters repeatedly questioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about her claim the CIA lied to her. But Pelosi remained tight-lipped. She also remained tight-foreheaded and tight-eyelided." --Jay Leno

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in Shanghai to debate climate change with Chinese government officials. I think she'll do fine. These negotiations always come down to whoever blinks first." --Jimmy Fallon

"Yesterday, during a speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the CIA misleads us all the time...You know, unlike Congress." --Jay Leno

The Joke that is Pelosi

The Joke that is Pelosi

---

Love this joke:

The Pope & Pelosi are on stage in front of a huge crowd.

The Pope says to Pelosi, "Do you know that with 1 wave of my hand I can make everyone here go wild with joy? For the rest of their lives, when they speak of this day they will rejoice!"

Pelosi replied, "I seriously doubt that with one little wave of your hand you can do that. Show me."

So the Pope slapped her.

What would a Real Universal Health Plan look like?

What would a Real Universal Health Plan look like?
11-08-2009, 05:13 PM

---

The current plans being tossed around fall far short of what would really help America. It creates a huge bloated bureaucracy and does little to solve the real problems with health care in America today.

Here are my thoughts on what a real system might look like.

First, it would cover all American's, not just some.

Costs would be done through a separate tax.
Those under 18, and those earning less than $15,000 would pay nothing.
Those who choose to have private insurance receive a fair tax credit.
Cost is deducted via payroll tax like FICA/SSI/etc.
FICA taxes are collected at a rate of 7.65% on gross earnings - earnings before any deductions. The breakdown of FICA is 6.2% for Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or OASDI) and 1.45% for Medicare. There are upper limits to what is taxed. This system can be used here.
Using a 2% rate, someone grossing $20k would pay about $34/month in costs.

The plan would cover:
1 eye exam and 1 pair of glasses every 2 years.
Basic Dental Care
Basic Drug Care
Recommended Primary visits
Basic tests
Emergency Services.

Depending on your plan level, a copay may apply.

Some drugs, treatments and services may not be covered.
Cosmetic treatments, as well as vanity services would not be covered.

This is much like any other policy.

Doctors may choose to opt-out of accepting the insurance.

Your Social Security number could (though shouldn't be) all you need to access for treatment. As long as you file a tax return, you are covered.



I still dispute the constitutionality of a forced health plan, and I dispute the constitutionality of a forced retirement plan, however, if we are to be forced to have something, this seems at the moment the less intrusive manner. It retains choice, it allows for the purchasing of superior coverage through a private firm, and it allows for the ones most in need to get the basics needed.



Thoughts?

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

1930's & 1940's

Quote:

Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin. Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938. Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents. ... In 1941, U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson called on Congress to enact national registration of all firearms.8 Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to protect the Second Amendment. Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka."9 Rep. John W. Patman added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves. . . ."10

Source: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...tist/id14.html

2000
CALIFORNIA ORDERS STATE-WIDE CONFISCATION



Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies

Quote:

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph) In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions. On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed. "Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999) Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson) More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)

________

Dear Ms. Pelosi....

Dear Ms. Pelosi, the corrupt media, and other enemies of the People.
A long time ago, in another place, people were ordered to lay down their arms and submit.

They refused.

Today you ask that We The People give you an inventory of what we have in preparation to impose hardship upon Us and open Us to violation by criminals and Traitors to our Constitution.

Our answer, is as theirs was.

You want them?

Come and take them.



We will follow the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, wisdom that you in your cowardice and fear, have chosen to ignore or forgot.

We strongly suggest that you remember the lessons of history, lest you painfully relearn it.

Signed,
We The People.

Nancy Pelosi & Eric Holder: We want gun registration, 2nd amendment will be ignored

Nancy Pelosi & Eric Holder: We want gun registration, 2nd amendment will be ignored

Pelosi: We want registration; Holder: 2A won’t stand in our way

4.9.09 / Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

“These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.”

Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines.

“But that doesn’t really matter,” he observed. “History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation.”

Read the rest of the article.

Seems Ms. Pelosi and other members of our government are looking to follow guidelines from the 1930's....a place called Germany.....

Dear Mrs. Pelosi - You may wish to refresh yourself on the limits of the law....

Dear Mrs. Pelosi - You may wish to refresh yourself on the limits of the law....

---

Calling for justice, a livid House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed a bill through the House today to tax at 90 percent most of the bonuses paid to executives of companies receiving taxpayer money.


But legal experts say the bill might be of dubious constitutionality, and it could complicate the administration's plans to fix banking problems at the heart of the nation's economic contraction.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...politics&tsp=1