Obama and the Spineless Republicans

[Teresa]

CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress -- while pushing their own health care overhauls -- have criticized Republicans as offering only opposition and no ideas for reform, but the GOP, despite the lack of media attention, has introduced three health care bills.

The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page "Patients Choice Act of 2009."

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the "Health Care Freedom Plan," a 41-page proposal.
                                   
And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the "Empowering Patients First Act," a 130-page plan.

Some of the provisions included in one or more of the bills include:

Read the story:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52896

[Teresa]

The Problem is that if the proposed bill is less than 1000 pages they can't slip in things like this

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_23-2009_08_29.shtml#1251206908


James Peasley [1]uncovers another goody buried in the House health
   care reform bill: Strict liability for accidental underpayment of
   income taxes.

     Under current law, taxpayers who lose an argument with the IRS can
     generally avoid penalties by showing they tried in good faith to
     comply with the tax law. In a broad range of circumstances, the
     health-care bill would change the law to impose strict liability
     penalties for income-tax underpayments, meaning that taxpayers will
     no longer have the luxury of making an honest mistake. The ability
     of even the IRS to waive penalties in sympathetic cases would be
     sharply curtailed.

     The proposed changes in penalty rules have largely escaped notice
     because they are buried in a part of the bill that purports to deal
     with abusive tax shelters. They are barely mentioned in the Ways
     and Means Committee summary. Their inclusion in the bill
     underscores the need to read it closely. If anyone had doubts about
     the value of loading the text of the bill into a wheelbarrow and
     bringing it to the beach this August, the proposed changes to tax
     penalties should dispel them.

   Of course, it would be silly to expect legislators to actually [2]read
   the whole bill before they vote for it (that would prevent them from
   blaming the IRS for enforcing the law as Congress enacted it).

References

   1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550604574358882642883214.html
   2. http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_28-2009_07_04.shtml#1246236289

[flintauqua]

Sorry Teresa, I was at the bottom of the previous page when I started this reply, totally missed your two posts above.

My take on the Health-Care quasi debate going on in Congress, in so-called town hall meetings, here on the forum, and in the mainstream media:

Doing nothing is worse than doing something.  The old saying is, if it ain't broke . . . don't fix it.  Well IMHO the American health care system ( health insurance costs and coverage, provision of care, malpractice premiums, . . ) is broke, and needs fixing.

Do I have a inkling of an idea as to how to do it.  No.

Do I believe the true left liberals have the answer.  Not just no, but h... no.

Do I believe the answer lies somewhere between "Do Nothing" and what others call "ObamaCare"  YES!

This nation, in the aggregate, spends way too much of it's Gross Demestic Product on health care.  And for many the level of care is way less than what it should be for the price being paid.  For others the care doesn't exist at all, or not at a cost that is within their means.  We can't go on with the status quo.

Did I just restate other points espoused on this thread?  Probably.

Do I have links to information that would refute certain parts of specific posts?  Yes.

Could I post them just to show everyone I can?  Yes.

Am I going to?  Not unless I read a post that is, IMO, so patently false, inflamatory, or intentionally misleading that I feel compelled to respond.

From the Center

Charles