Oldtimer said:Steve said:Historically the congress seldom makes rules on the direct issue- usually skirting around it to give their rules/opinions
I guess I wasn't clear enough...
(Encyclopedia of Everyday Law)Legislation
Federal
There is no federal seat belt law; such laws are left to the individual states
Check the laws/rules requiring the automakers to install seat belts in every vehicle made (with some exemptions-ex bus's)-- even with specifications the seat belts and their installation have to meet..... FEDERAL MANDATE
While there is no law requiring states to pass seat belt laws- they did withhold federal highway funds from any state that didn't meet the Federal minimum requirements... I remember it well- as Montana was one of the states that opposed a seat belt law- but with the lack of population and huge amount of highways finally had to acquiesce... Mandate ?
Not much different than if you can afford it you have to buy health insurance or in the alternative pay a fine/tax if you don't....
Steve said:well that explains New Hampshire... which nullified the 'request"
the gimmick the federal government uses on the sale of a product to require the manufacture is the commerce clause.
it allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce and the products that crosses state lines..
it is about the exact opposite of the ObamaCare law.
or are we just products,...to be bought, sold and traded,... to be regulated, ?
Oldtimer said:Steve said:well that explains New Hampshire... which nullified the 'request"
the gimmick the federal government uses on the sale of a product to require the manufacture is the commerce clause.
it allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce and the products that crosses state lines..
it is about the exact opposite of the ObamaCare law.
or are we just products,...to be bought, sold and traded,... to be regulated, ?
Aren't the majority of these insurance companies national- or international- and operate across state/international lines :???: ...Many are subsidies of the same large conglomerate operating sometimes under differing names in differing areas/states- but still owned by the same parent corporation.. This was one of the issues that came out in the hearings that seemed to surprise some of the Congressmen....
How about the medical providers- that take in patients from all over the world- besides every state :???: How many people travel across the country to go to Cancer Center of America- or the Mayo Clinic when they need serious treatment... I have to get cataract surgery in the future- and the nearest location I can have that done is Williston ND (if my insurance will approve a ND provider)....
Or the pharmaceutical and medical supply companies :???:
It looks to me like the health and health insurance fields are heavily involved in not only interstate commerce- but international commerce...
Steve said:Oldtimer said:Steve said:well that explains New Hampshire... which nullified the 'request"
the gimmick the federal government uses on the sale of a product to require the manufacture is the commerce clause.
it allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce and the products that crosses state lines..
it is about the exact opposite of the ObamaCare law.
or are we just products,...to be bought, sold and traded,... to be regulated, ?
Aren't the majority of these insurance companies national- or international- and operate across state/international lines :???: ...Many are subsidies of the same large conglomerate operating sometimes under differing names in differing areas/states- but still owned by the same parent corporation.. This was one of the issues that came out in the hearings that seemed to surprise some of the Congressmen....
How about the medical providers- that take in patients from all over the world- besides every state :???: How many people travel across the country to go to Cancer Center of America- or the Mayo Clinic when they need serious treatment... I have to get cataract surgery in the future- and the nearest location I can have that done is Williston ND (if my insurance will approve a ND provider)....
Or the pharmaceutical and medical supply companies :???:
It looks to me like the health and health insurance fields are heavily involved in not only interstate commerce- but international commerce...
yes they are, and the federal government could regulate them and force them to offer policies for everyone that "wanted" to buy one, and it would fit under the commerce clause..
but once again.. it is the "opposite" of what congress did..
congress can't regulate freedom of speech and shut down a newspaper,, but it can regulate (mandate) the paper, ink, labor laws and even disclaimers to the point when it is considered stifling to the newspaper industry,
but it can't force US to buy the newspaper..
It is no secret that this page is all for competition in the marketplace. If indeed that's the goal, allow us to suggest a path to it that will be a lot easier than erecting the impossible dream of a public option: [/b]Let insurance companies sell health-care policies across state lines.
This excellent idea has been before Congress since at least 2005, when Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona proposed it. It came up again recently in an exchange between Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday and John Rother, executive vice president of AARP.
Mr. Wallace: "If you really want competition why not remove the restriction which now says that if I live in Washington, D.C. I've got to buy a D.C. health plan, and instead create a national market for health insurance, so that if there's a cheaper plan in Pennsylvania, I could buy in Pennsylvania?"
Is it a good idea to let Americans buy health insurance across state lines – something that isn't allowed currently?
hypocritexposer said:Steve said:Oldtimer said:Aren't the majority of these insurance companies national- or international- and operate across state/international lines :???: ...Many are subsidies of the same large conglomerate operating sometimes under differing names in differing areas/states- but still owned by the same parent corporation.. This was one of the issues that came out in the hearings that seemed to surprise some of the Congressmen....
How about the medical providers- that take in patients from all over the world- besides every state :???: How many people travel across the country to go to Cancer Center of America- or the Mayo Clinic when they need serious treatment... I have to get cataract surgery in the future- and the nearest location I can have that done is Williston ND (if my insurance will approve a ND provider)....
Or the pharmaceutical and medical supply companies :???:
It looks to me like the health and health insurance fields are heavily involved in not only interstate commerce- but international commerce...
yes they are, and the federal government could regulate them and force them to offer policies for everyone that "wanted" to buy one, and it would fit under the commerce clause..
but once again.. it is the "opposite" of what congress did..
congress can't regulate freedom of speech and shut down a newspaper,, but it can regulate (mandate) the paper, ink, labor laws and even disclaimers to the point when it is considered stifling to the newspaper industry,
but it can't force US to buy the newspaper..
I'm not sure it is correct that insurance companies can sell across state lines. I believe they have to be located, or at least licenced, in the state to sell in that state, whether that is only an office, with a head office somewhere else, I'm not sure.....there is an average of 2 per state. If there were more, then there would be competition and most likely lower prices......
It is no secret that this page is all for competition in the marketplace. If indeed that's the goal, allow us to suggest a path to it that will be a lot easier than erecting the impossible dream of a public option: [/b]Let insurance companies sell health-care policies across state lines.
This excellent idea has been before Congress since at least 2005, when Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona proposed it. It came up again recently in an exchange between Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday and John Rother, executive vice president of AARP.
Mr. Wallace: "If you really want competition why not remove the restriction which now says that if I live in Washington, D.C. I've got to buy a D.C. health plan, and instead create a national market for health insurance, so that if there's a cheaper plan in Pennsylvania, I could buy in Pennsylvania?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360923109310680.html
Is it a good idea to let Americans buy health insurance across state lines – something that isn't allowed currently?
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/10/purchasing-insu.html
the way this has been explained to me in the past, is that the Federal government has restricted this competition across state lines for 50 years or more, and use as justification, their authority under the "Commerce Clause" to do so, but now want to change that so they are the providers across state lines.......
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:Steve said:yes they are, and the federal government could regulate them and force them to offer policies for everyone that "wanted" to buy one, and it would fit under the commerce clause..
but once again.. it is the "opposite" of what congress did..
congress can't regulate freedom of speech and shut down a newspaper,, but it can regulate (mandate) the paper, ink, labor laws and even disclaimers to the point when it is considered stifling to the newspaper industry,
but it can't force US to buy the newspaper..
I'm not sure it is correct that insurance companies can sell across state lines. I believe they have to be located, or at least licenced, in the state to sell in that state, whether that is only an office, with a head office somewhere else, I'm not sure.....there is an average of 2 per state. If there were more, then there would be competition and most likely lower prices......
It is no secret that this page is all for competition in the marketplace. If indeed that's the goal, allow us to suggest a path to it that will be a lot easier than erecting the impossible dream of a public option: [/b]Let insurance companies sell health-care policies across state lines.
This excellent idea has been before Congress since at least 2005, when Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona proposed it. It came up again recently in an exchange between Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday and John Rother, executive vice president of AARP.
Mr. Wallace: "If you really want competition why not remove the restriction which now says that if I live in Washington, D.C. I've got to buy a D.C. health plan, and instead create a national market for health insurance, so that if there's a cheaper plan in Pennsylvania, I could buy in Pennsylvania?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574360923109310680.html
Is it a good idea to let Americans buy health insurance across state lines – something that isn't allowed currently?
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/10/purchasing-insu.html
the way this has been explained to me in the past, is that the Federal government has restricted this competition across state lines for 50 years or more, and use as justification, their authority under the "Commerce Clause" to do so, but now want to change that so they are the providers across state lines.......
BUT- with the current mismash of state rules/regulations and population disparities- the same companies can not offer the same (even tho folks have to go across state lines for medical care)-- so the reason the same Corporate Conglomerate owned companies operate under different company names- state to state- area to area...
The testimony of the Insurance Industry representatives was that if ALL were required to have insurance (rather than have the irresponsible bloodsuckers that now could afford insurance- but have none- and when seriously ill or in a major accident take advantage on having other people pay their medical costs- sometimes amounting to millions- thus raising what the rates the responsible folks pay)- it would create a much larger POOL and lower the rates to all insurance payers....
The insurance industry testified they could do it a lot cheaper with a mandate- while opposing a universal public health care law.....
The testimony of the Insurance Industry representatives was that if ALL were required to have insurance (rather than have the irresponsible bloodsuckers that now could afford insurance- but have none- and when seriously ill or in a major accident take advantage on having other people pay their medical costs- sometimes amounting to millions- thus raising what the rates the responsible folks pay)- it would create a much larger POOL and lower the rates to all insurance payers....
Steve said:The testimony of the Insurance Industry representatives was that if ALL were required to have insurance (rather than have the irresponsible bloodsuckers that now could afford insurance- but have none- and when seriously ill or in a major accident take advantage on having other people pay their medical costs- sometimes amounting to millions- thus raising what the rates the responsible folks pay)- it would create a much larger POOL and lower the rates to all insurance payers....
??? if a person doesn't have insurance, the insurance company does not pay for their care, so why should they care?
it would not raise the cost of their policy holders..
Oldtimer said:Steve said:The testimony of the Insurance Industry representatives was that if ALL were required to have insurance (rather than have the irresponsible bloodsuckers that now could afford insurance- but have none- and when seriously ill or in a major accident take advantage on having other people pay their medical costs- sometimes amounting to millions- thus raising what the rates the responsible folks pay)- it would create a much larger POOL and lower the rates to all insurance payers....
??? if a person doesn't have insurance, the insurance company does not pay for their care, so why should they care?
it would not raise the cost of their policy holders..
The hospitals and doctors have to get paid from somewhere- so they raise their prices they charge insured persons and the persons that can pay their bills- to cover the costs of the bills the deadbeats and non insurance holders don't pay...
And with the increased hospital bills to cover the nonpayers costs- the insurance companies in turn then have to raise their premiums to insurance buyers to provide coverage...
Its a Catch 22 that needs to be stopped..
Lonecowboy said:Oldtimer said:Steve said:??? if a person doesn't have insurance, the insurance company does not pay for their care, so why should they care?
it would not raise the cost of their policy holders..
The hospitals and doctors have to get paid from somewhere- so they raise their prices they charge insured persons and the persons that can pay their bills- to cover the costs of the bills the deadbeats and non insurance holders don't pay...
And with the increased hospital bills to cover the nonpayers costs- the insurance companies in turn then have to raise their premiums to insurance buyers to provide coverage...
Its a Catch 22 that needs to be stopped..
say give me a tip oldtimer- how do I get away from paying my own bills and get others to pay them for me? I'd be interested to know how that works. do I use a false name when I check in? how do I do it and not have bill collectors come after me and legal action taken against me?
Sarah Palin told Judge Jeanine this weekend that Obama and the mainstream media want Romney to win the GOP primary so that they can then portray Romney as someone who is out of touch with regular Americans.
Human Events reported:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said the mainstream media and President Barack Obama "want to face Mitt Romney in the general election." She made those comments on "Justice With Judge " on FOX News on Saturday during the same time the Republican presidential candidates were debating in New Hampshire on ABC.
Palin said the mainstream media would take a hands-off approach to Romney "in order to bolster Romney's chances" to "finally face Obama."
Rush Limbaugh agreed with Sarah Palin today on his show.
Via Free Republic:
RUSH: There is a story on the Drudge Report today from Sarah Palin in which Sarah Palin says that the White House wants Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. Now, not only did I tell you that the Broncos were gonna beat the Steelers, for months I have been telling you that the Democrats want Romney — and you all know it. You've been listening here and you've heard people call me and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm full of it, that they're scared of Romney. "Romney is the only guy who can win." And I have said, "No," and I've stood tough, and I've said, "They can't wait for him. What's Occupy Wall Street all about but running against Romney? He's the Wall Street guy on our roster — and then Romneycare," and I've laid it all out. So here comes Palin, she says it, and makes news — and Donna Brazile has said it. This is post-debate coverage on ABC Saturday night. George Stephanopoulos, Democrat Party hack disguised as the debate moderator on ABC, had this discussion with Jon Karl and Donna Brazile.
BRAZILE: Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him — and for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us.
KARL: Why is that?
BRAZILE: Because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attackin', and that's Mitt Romney.
Oldtimer said:Lonecowboy said:Oldtimer said:The hospitals and doctors have to get paid from somewhere- so they raise their prices they charge insured persons and the persons that can pay their bills- to cover the costs of the bills the deadbeats and non insurance holders don't pay...
And with the increased hospital bills to cover the nonpayers costs- the insurance companies in turn then have to raise their premiums to insurance buyers to provide coverage...
Its a Catch 22 that needs to be stopped..
say give me a tip oldtimer- how do I get away from paying my own bills and get others to pay them for me? I'd be interested to know how that works. do I use a false name when I check in? how do I do it and not have bill collectors come after me and legal action taken against me?
Just take off to another state- get another job- some work for cash- no bank accounts- happens all the time with the transient workers...Hospitals/Credit agencies can't keep track of them to keep getting new wage garnishment orders- or by the time they get an order for the state they've found them in- they've already moved to somewhere else...
Major medical bill- declare bankruptcy...Many of those oweing big bills don't have any property or holdings worth even doing that...
It doesn't work for the stable responsible individuals-- but a large part of the noninsured are the young who think they are invincible and those jumping from job to job...
and when seriously ill or in a major accident take advantage on having other people pay their medical costs- sometimes amounting to millions- thus raising what the rates the responsible folks pay)-
hypocritexposer said:the Dems. know that they can attack Romney on is Bain Capital relationship during the general.......if they were not saving these attacks, they would be putting them out there now.....so as to have a candidate win that they think does not have a chance of beating obama.......
People like OT are falling for this strategy.....
Oldtimer said:And like I said before- if I was doing this to support Obama- I'd be praising Santorum and/or Gingrich-- as just like the Dem party believes I don't think they stand a chance of winning against Obama in a general election... The reason they are putting all their money into fighting Romney already...
the best thing that could happen at this point is for at least one more of the conservatives that are splitting the vote to drop out and for the other 2 left to expose Romney for what he is......take over the strategy that the obama campaign is hoping to use later on.....
obama will have to campaign on his record against a true conservative, instead of personal attacks against a liberal republican later.......
the occupy movement that groups that are campaigning for obama are spearheading are all part of the same strategy.....
"Romney is part of the 1%, for big business, and part of the collapse of 2008"
they'd rather campaign against someone like romney and continue their class warfare, than campaign against a Tea Partier
Let's see how it is going. :wink:hypocritexposer said:How's that attack on Bain Capital going so far? Will obama continue to attack capitalism, yet take huge donations from some of the biggest, if not the biggest equity firms in the World?
How many people did obama layoff at GM, to "save the company"
:lol:
Are "job destroyers" sitting on President Obama's jobs council?
There could be, if you believe the argument from Democrats and the Obama campaign that private equity executives are profit seekers who often run roughshod over workers, companies and communities.
Two Obama-appointed members of the White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, an advisory committee, are leading figures in the private equity industry.
Richard Parsons, chairman of Citigroup, is a senior advisor at Providence Equity Partners, "a leading private equity investment firm, specializing in media, communications and information companies," according to his bio on the White House website.
He joined the firm in 2009 shortly after it completed what news reports describe as the "biggest leveraged buyout in history," the $51 billion acquisition of Bell Canada.
Mark Gallogly, the co-founder of Centerbridge Partners and formerly with Blackstone Group, the nation's largest private equity firm, also sits on the panel. He served on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, his official bio states.
Gallogly is also a major Obama campaign contributor and fundraiser, collecting more than $500,000 for the 2012 race.
Obama's inclusion of these men on his Jobs Council highlights a potential sticking point in his case against GOP rival Mitt Romney, a former private equity executive who says his 15-year experience in the industry qualifies him as a "job creator," a claim that is a cornerstone of his campaign.
While neither Gallogly nor Parsons is running for office, Democrats and the Obama campaign have sought in some ways to demonize the industry itself, part of an aggressive effort to discredit Romney's top selling point.
They have highlighted Bain investments that led to layoffs and outsourcing and devastated some communities. One Obama campaign TV ad attacking Romney's record called him a "job destroyer."
The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll found just 21 percent of voters say Romney's Bain experience is a reason to support him. An equal number called it reason to oppose him.
In the poll, 54 percent of voters said Bain wasn't a major factor
smalltime said:Its not to late yet.RON PAUL
HAY MAKER said:I dont give a damn where he was born, I want his ass gone.
good luck
