When will you so called libs stand up?
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
When are you liberal democrats going to stand up to this tyranny that is taking place in our country.when you will stand up on principal?
Have you become so superficial and partisan as a matter of party that you can't even see your own liberty slipping away?
Don't some of you have children or loved ones? They will be affected by this sooner or later.
Don't you care?
I realize that our health ins industry isn't perfect. But do you want a panel of 15 unelected faceless buaercrate hacks dressed up as experts that know nothing about you making decisions for you?
Do you want to live in a constitutional republic, or do you want totolatarinism.?
Government by the ‘experts’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
“Second Treatise of Government”
Here, however, is a paradox of sovereignty: The sovereign people, possessing the right to be governed as they choose, might find the exercise of that right tiresome and so might choose to be governed in perpetuity by a despot they cannot subsequently remove. Congress did something like that in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.
The point of PPACA is cost containment. This supposedly depends on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, which is a perfect expression of the progressive mind, is to be composed of 15 presidential appointees empowered to reduce Medicare spending — which is 13 percent of federal spending — to certain stipulated targets. IPAB is to do this by making “proposals” or “recommendations” to limit costs by limiting reimbursements to doctors. This, inevitably, will limit available treatments — and access to care when physicians leave the Medicare system.
The PPACA repeatedly refers to any IPAB proposal as a “legislative proposal” and speaks of “the legislation introduced” by the IPAB. Each proposal automatically becomes law unless Congress passes — with a three-fifths supermajority required in the Senate — a measure cutting medical spending as much as the IPAB proposal would.
This is a travesty of constitutional lawmaking: An executive branch agency makes laws unless Congress enacts legislation to achieve the executive agency’s aim.
And it gets worse. Any resolution to abolish the IPAB must pass both houses of Congress. And no such resolution can be introduced before 2017 or after Feb. 1, 2017, and must be enacted by Aug. 15 of that year. And if passed, it cannot take effect until 2020. Defenders of all this audaciously call it a “fast track” process for considering termination of IPAB. It is, however, transparently designed to permanently entrench IPAB — never mind the principle that one Congress cannot by statute bind another Congress from altering that statute.
That principle may cause courts to dismiss the challenge by the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute to Congress’s delegation of its powers, because courts may say that Congress can just change its mind. Hence the court may spurn the institute’s argument on behalf of two Arizona congressmen, Jeff Flake and Trent Franks, that the entrenchment of the IPAB seriously burdens the legislators’ First Amendment rights.
Diane Cohen, the institute’s senior attorney, demonstrates that the IPAB is doubly anti-constitutional. It derogates the powers of Congress. And it ignores the principle of separation of powers: It is an executive agency, its members appointed by the president, exercising legislative powers over which neither Congress nor the judiciary can exercise proper control.
Unfortunately, the IPAB may not be unconstitutional. This is because the Supreme Court, having slight interest in policing Congress’s incontinent desire to give to others the power to make difficult decisions, has become excessively permissive about delegation. Cohen notes this from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a 1989 case wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the U.S. Sentencing Commission to set “guidelines” that, being binding, have the effect of statutes:
“I anticipate that Congress will find delegation of its lawmaking powers much more attractive in the future. . . . I foresee all manner of ‘expert’ bodies, insulated from the political process, to which Congress will delegate various portions of its lawmaking responsibility. How tempting to create an expert Medical Commission . . . to dispose of such thorny, ‘no-win’ political issues as the withholding of life-support systems in federally funded hospitals.”
The Supreme Court said that the legislative power of Congress does not include the power to delegate legislative authority to an executive agency without “intelligible principles” to constrain such authority. The only principle — if such it can be called — constraining the IPAB is that its mission is to cut medical costs as it sees fit.
The Goldwater Institute’s challenge to the IPAB serves the high purpose of highlighting some of Obamacare’s most grotesque provisions, which radiate distrust of the public and its elected representatives. The essence of progressivism, and of the administrative state that is progressivism’s project, is this doctrine: Modern society is too complex for popular sovereignty, so government of, by and for supposedly disinterested experts must not perish from the earth.
By George F. Will, Published: June 10
“The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. . . . The power of the legislative, being derived from the people . . . [is] only to make laws, and not to make legislators.”
— John Locke
Have you become so superficial and partisan as a matter of party that you can't even see your own liberty slipping away?
Don't some of you have children or loved ones? They will be affected by this sooner or later.
Don't you care?
I realize that our health ins industry isn't perfect. But do you want a panel of 15 unelected faceless buaercrate hacks dressed up as experts that know nothing about you making decisions for you?
Do you want to live in a constitutional republic, or do you want totolatarinism.?
Government by the ‘experts’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
“Second Treatise of Government”
Here, however, is a paradox of sovereignty: The sovereign people, possessing the right to be governed as they choose, might find the exercise of that right tiresome and so might choose to be governed in perpetuity by a despot they cannot subsequently remove. Congress did something like that in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.
The point of PPACA is cost containment. This supposedly depends on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, which is a perfect expression of the progressive mind, is to be composed of 15 presidential appointees empowered to reduce Medicare spending — which is 13 percent of federal spending — to certain stipulated targets. IPAB is to do this by making “proposals” or “recommendations” to limit costs by limiting reimbursements to doctors. This, inevitably, will limit available treatments — and access to care when physicians leave the Medicare system.
The PPACA repeatedly refers to any IPAB proposal as a “legislative proposal” and speaks of “the legislation introduced” by the IPAB. Each proposal automatically becomes law unless Congress passes — with a three-fifths supermajority required in the Senate — a measure cutting medical spending as much as the IPAB proposal would.
This is a travesty of constitutional lawmaking: An executive branch agency makes laws unless Congress enacts legislation to achieve the executive agency’s aim.
And it gets worse. Any resolution to abolish the IPAB must pass both houses of Congress. And no such resolution can be introduced before 2017 or after Feb. 1, 2017, and must be enacted by Aug. 15 of that year. And if passed, it cannot take effect until 2020. Defenders of all this audaciously call it a “fast track” process for considering termination of IPAB. It is, however, transparently designed to permanently entrench IPAB — never mind the principle that one Congress cannot by statute bind another Congress from altering that statute.
That principle may cause courts to dismiss the challenge by the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute to Congress’s delegation of its powers, because courts may say that Congress can just change its mind. Hence the court may spurn the institute’s argument on behalf of two Arizona congressmen, Jeff Flake and Trent Franks, that the entrenchment of the IPAB seriously burdens the legislators’ First Amendment rights.
Diane Cohen, the institute’s senior attorney, demonstrates that the IPAB is doubly anti-constitutional. It derogates the powers of Congress. And it ignores the principle of separation of powers: It is an executive agency, its members appointed by the president, exercising legislative powers over which neither Congress nor the judiciary can exercise proper control.
Unfortunately, the IPAB may not be unconstitutional. This is because the Supreme Court, having slight interest in policing Congress’s incontinent desire to give to others the power to make difficult decisions, has become excessively permissive about delegation. Cohen notes this from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a 1989 case wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the U.S. Sentencing Commission to set “guidelines” that, being binding, have the effect of statutes:
“I anticipate that Congress will find delegation of its lawmaking powers much more attractive in the future. . . . I foresee all manner of ‘expert’ bodies, insulated from the political process, to which Congress will delegate various portions of its lawmaking responsibility. How tempting to create an expert Medical Commission . . . to dispose of such thorny, ‘no-win’ political issues as the withholding of life-support systems in federally funded hospitals.”
The Supreme Court said that the legislative power of Congress does not include the power to delegate legislative authority to an executive agency without “intelligible principles” to constrain such authority. The only principle — if such it can be called — constraining the IPAB is that its mission is to cut medical costs as it sees fit.
The Goldwater Institute’s challenge to the IPAB serves the high purpose of highlighting some of Obamacare’s most grotesque provisions, which radiate distrust of the public and its elected representatives. The essence of progressivism, and of the administrative state that is progressivism’s project, is this doctrine: Modern society is too complex for popular sovereignty, so government of, by and for supposedly disinterested experts must not perish from the earth.
By George F. Will, Published: June 10
“The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. . . . The power of the legislative, being derived from the people . . . [is] only to make laws, and not to make legislators.”
— John Locke
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
or are we supposed to stand up because some "conservative" pundit tells you to stand up so naturally i have to stand up too????
:?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Key Arena - Nov 05, 2000
Gorge Amphitheater - Sep 01, 2005, Jul 22,23, 2006
Key Arena - Sept 21,22, 2009
Alpine Valley - Sept 3, 4 2011
Well... I stood up as an American when I saw my country march off to a War of choosing, rather than focusing the extinction of Al Qaeda. I stood up against the intrusion of warrantless wiretaps in the name of security. I stood up when my nation used Soviet style tactics of torture.
I STILL stand up against our expansion of force in the Middle East... against the continued powers of the so-called Patriot Act... against the government restriction on who gets to marry whom and the choice being left to the woman on what she decides, not the government. I stand for the American principle that the strong helps the weak, instead of trampling them underfoot.
I believe that business has proven to us that they are unwilling to regulate themselves and have the power to place all of us in peril while lining their pockets.
You warn us of faceless bureaucrats when it was the face of insurance accountants that were more concerned about earnings reports than whether or not you get reimbursed for your health. We are under tryanny. The tyranny of oil companies that determine foriegn policy, insurance companies that collect premiums and withhold claims and Wall Street douchbags that gamble with our 401K plans.
If these are the things you stand for... then we are brothers in arms. If not, I remain standing alone.
Hail, Hail!!!
Um... you mean like it was before with the insurance companies having LOTS of people whose job it was to pour through policy claims and as soon as someone needed help to cut them off?
Like that?
I'm rather glad now that I don't have to worry about paying my insurance premiums until I get sick and then suddenly being told "oh.. sorry... you forgot to tell us you had acne as a teenager... your cancer treatment isn't covered."