U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 10-26-2009, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 76,852,967 times
Reputation: 27652

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Can you source your claim that without the "opt out" option it's unconstitutional?.
Only the Supreme Court can make that decision.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2009, 07:23 PM
 
27,985 posts, read 36,099,948 times
Reputation: 4092
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
The new "thing" about health care reform is that states can opt-out... what does that mean? I know its funded in part by a specific number of groups of people... does that mean taxes will be only for those who live in the states that "opt-in"??? Whats the point of opting out if you are going to have to pay for it? Or does it work differently? Anyone know?
GSE were made to keep rates low and give easy access to loans. They eventually became the too big to fail company we have now. The same train of thought is at work for these "new" ideas...
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 07:43 PM
 
10,720 posts, read 18,466,433 times
Reputation: 9978
To answer the original question

1. States could opt out of using the Public Option plan. Residents of that state would not be able to purchase health insurance through the Public Option

2. Residents of States that opted out would still be required to purchase health insurance.

3. Translation: No state is going to opt out if the government requires people to purchase health insurance. Why would they? If they are required to purchase health insurance, then what state would not allow it's residents to purchase the cheapest health insurance possible.

4. This is a political tactic aimed at Blue Dog Democrats to let them off the hook. Currently, Blue Dogs are under pressure by their conservative base to reject any legislation with the Public Option.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,765 posts, read 26,327,841 times
Reputation: 12287
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
...Currently, Blue Dogs are under pressure by their conservative base to reject any legislation with the Public Option.
As in their corporate interests/lobbyists.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,162 posts, read 11,861,981 times
Reputation: 3971
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
That's because your a victim of right wing propaganda.

You're too apathetic or lazy to research the subject yourself to see if your Social Security benefits are at risk of you not receiving "a single penny"..


Here let me toss you a bone.....Read the "Conclusion"................Table of Contents
In the very first paragraph of the "Conclusion" you recommended reading, is the following sentence;
Quote:
Social Security’s combined trust funds are projected to allow full payment of scheduled benefits until they become exhausted in 2037
That's just 28 years from now. If you're 34 years old or younger, you will not be eligible to collect Social Security (age 62) until after 2037. In which case, according to the very link you posted, there is a possibility you will never receive a penny from Social Security.
Yumm, what a tastey bone.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 09:49 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 13,742,116 times
Reputation: 4537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
In the very first paragraph of the "Conclusion" you recommended reading, is the following sentence;

That's just 28 years from now. If you're 34 years old or younger, you will not be eligible to collect Social Security (age 62) until after 2037. In which case, according to the very link you posted, there is a possibility you will never receive a penny from Social Security.
Yumm, what a tastey bone.
That's if we do NOTHING to correct the problem in the next 28 years.

And what happens if we do NOTHING???

Well they tell us that too..................................... Benefits will be reduced by 25%.

How is that not getting a .................."single penny"?

{ Why must we have to hold these right wingers hand through every single policy issue? ......This is not that complex...Yet they still don't get it. }
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 10:23 PM
 
10,720 posts, read 18,466,433 times
Reputation: 9978
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
As in their corporate interests/lobbyists.
As in the conservative voters who will vote them out of office if they support a public option.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 22,457,643 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I found this evil. I don't know your feelings on Fox but please just read the content. It is fairly detailed on explaining why the states want to opt out.

One interesting tidbit in this article..the Supreme Court ruled against FDR with some of his programs during the Great Depression. I wasn't aware of that.

State Lawmakers Considering Move to Opt Out of Federal Health Care - Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/25/state-lawmakers-considering-opt-federal-healthcare/ - broken link)

snippet about FDR:
"The Tenth Amendment ensures that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's the same constitutional roadblock Franklin D. Roosevelt ran into during the Great Depression when he tried to ram through the first round of recovery programs under the New Deal. In a series of rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court found the National Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act and several other recovery programs unconstitutional.

But constitutional scholars say it's unlikely history will repeat itself with health care reform efforts. "It's hard to imagine Congress passing anything that would be plausibly challengeable under the Tenth Amendment, but it's certainly theoretically possible," said Paul Bender, professor of constitutional law at Arizona State University. He said Congress has broad powers to regulate interstate commerce, which would include something as big as health care."
The opt out should be for ALL Federal health programs and not just this one. If a state chooses, it may opt out of Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. I have no problem with that.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 22,457,643 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Even better idea! Forget states... leave it up to individuals. Self-defeaters ought to get a taste of everything they scream for.
Can't do that because the losers will always show up in the ER anyway.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2009, 08:47 AM
 
20,194 posts, read 21,572,808 times
Reputation: 9234
But I don't get it ... WHO pays then if states can OPT-OUT? Do states who Opt-out STOP paying ANY taxes and fees to the federal government?

I know why Reid is mandating the 2014 or whatever time before opting out is allowed... cause if states are allowed to opt-out early on, the program will fail because it does not get enough revenue to work... once they get people hooked on however, they are hoping people will be too lazy to find another...

I still don't get it... who pays? Does someone who have private insurance pay for someone else's public option? Does someone who is in a opt-out state still pay for someone else's public option? They are being incredibly VAGUE about it... and if that's any indicator, it means they are slimebags for trying to deceive the public about it...
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top