H. R. 1503 is still making its way through the halls of Congress

[PLC1]

Obviously, this bill is more important to its sponsors than other legislation, like health care reform, for example.

3/12/2009--Introduced.
Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the Office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.

Isn't it great to know that the House has its priorities straight?

 

[Pandora]

Obviously, this bill is more important to its sponsors than other legislation, like health care reform, for example.



Isn't it great to know that the House has its priorities straight?

I bet they pass it, I hope every one who votes for it is voted out of office!

 

[r0beph]

Obviously, this bill is more important to its sponsors than other legislation, like health care reform, for example.



Isn't it great to know that the House has its priorities straight?

What makes it more important? Why would this short bill be something that would take more than a few minutes to look at, agree or disagree, or add your opinion to. It is less than 1 page in its full text, the abstract PLC linked is almost as long as the bill itself [[ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1503 .

I really don't see the big deal. Or what leads you to think this would be more important to anyone than the healthcare bill; it may be, but I see no evidence of such, nor do I see a method in which much time could be spent on this bill in any form before running out of things to do concerning it.

 

[PLC1]

What makes it more important? Why would this short bill be something that would take more than a few minutes to look at, agree or disagree, or add your opinion to. It is less than 1 page in its full text, the abstract PLC linked is almost as long as the bill itself [[ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1503 .

I really don't see the big deal. Or what leads you to think this would be more important to anyone than the healthcare bill; it may be, but I see no evidence of such, nor do I see a method in which much time could be spent on this bill in any form before running out of things to do concerning it.

Perhaps this will help to clarify my position on this issue.

 

[r0beph]

Perhaps this will help to clarify my position on this issue.

I should've known that coming from you. But sometimes in general on this board it is truly hard to tell when someone is making a completely nonsense joke or that they seriously believe what they're saying. The latter usually seems to be how it goes, disturbing. It is nonetheless understandable why I made the mistake.

 

[Dr.Who]

Obviously, this bill is more important to its sponsors than other legislation, like health care reform, for example.



Isn't it great to know that the House has its priorities straight?

In the last election both McCain and Obama ran amidst doubts that they met the constitutional requirements to be President. Presently there is no law to require that we determine a candidate meets the requirements before they run.

Making sure that we elect presidents according to our constitution would and should be more important than passing a bill that violates our constitution.

 

[PLC1]

In the last election both McCain and Obama ran amidst doubts that they met the constitutional requirements to be President. Presently there is no law to require that we determine a candidate meets the requirements before they run.

Making sure that we elect presidents according to our constitution would and should be more important than passing a bill that violates our constitution.

You don't seriously believe that is what this bill is really all about, do you?

Hint: Pure dumb partisan politics.

 

[Dr.Who]

You don't seriously believe that is what this bill is really all about, do you?

Hint: Pure dumb partisan politics.[/QUOTE
It would not effect the president in any way since he is no longer a candidate. Based on your description in the first post that is a reasonable way to interpret the law.

Are you implying that by passing the law they would be making the statement "we don't ever want to get another president who is not a citizen in office so we will stop it from ever happening again"

If so how do you know that they are not just saying " we don't ever want to have these kinds of doubts again"


The second statement makes more sense since McCain faced the same problem as Obama and most people accept that Obama was born in Hawaii.

 

[Kool aid kid]

I heard last night that they have taken single payer off the table and now are talking about some co-op. I dont know what that means but it sounds like a drastic change from what they had been talking about.

If they had their way this would have been signed into law a month ago and now what ever they are doing is nothing like what they were first doing. Do they even know what they are doing?

 

[BigRob]

I heard last night that they have taken single payer off the table and now are talking about some co-op. I dont know what that means but it sounds like a drastic change from what they had been talking about.

If they had their way this would have been signed into law a month ago and now what ever they are doing is nothing like what they were first doing. Do they even know what they are doing?

The Co-op has been on the table for some time now actually. Also, there are other plans put forth by Republicans (HR 2520 and S. 1099) that propose other ideas as well.

In terms of the public option, I would not bank on that being off the table as of yet completely.

 

[r0beph]

I heard last night that they have taken single payer off the table and now are talking about some co-op. I dont know what that means but it sounds like a drastic change from what they had been talking about.

If they had their way this would have been signed into law a month ago and now what ever they are doing is nothing like what they were first doing. Do they even know what they are doing?

Was single payer ever on the table? The difference between the public (government run option) and Co-op is the management control. Public is completely under government control, co-op is managed by a non-government NPO that is held under federal regulation, garners subsidies instead of interoffice funding. It will function in the same manner as the public option except for its structure which isn't really a big deal either way, so it isn't a huge change if this is what is going on.

 

[BigRob]

Was single payer ever on the table? The difference between the public (government run option) and Co-op is the management control. Public is completely under government control, co-op is managed by a non-government NPO that is held under federal regulation, garners subsidies instead of interoffice funding. It will function in the same manner as the public option except for its structure which isn't really a big deal either way, so it isn't a huge change if this is what is going on.

Single payer was and still is on the table depending on who you ask. There has been a debate about it among democrats, but I would not completely count it out as of yet.

 

[r0beph]

Single payer was and still is on the table depending on who you ask. There has been a debate about it among democrats, but I would not completely count it out as of yet.

By on the table do you mean a bill has been drawn up and is there? Or do you mean the colloquial "it has been mentioned by some people who are democrats."

To be quite honest, I fully support the idea. I'll be happy with a public option. The gross neglect of the citizens of the United States by the free-market insurance companies, MUST stop. I'm a prime example of this. I was lied to, I was told I'd be okay to switch plans from individual to employer and that after my job was over I could switch back with no problems. By no problems they meant that i'd have to completely start over with years wait for my preexisting, higher premiums I can't afford AND pay the medical bills I do and will have, or for my expensive treatment (humalog/lantis insulin 1000ml mo each, appx 250$mo / test strips 90$mo, / syringes 30$ mo / glucose tablets around 40$ mo / occasional ambulance rides to the hospital 800-2000 every 2mo on avg. ) With my bills I cannot afford the rate increase for insurance that won't cover the only thing I need covered for a couple years. They lied to me, directly. They told me it would be NO problem to come back to MY plan, even with the preexisting condition. Apparently since it was said "with" instead of "we won't exclude coverage for the preexisting" then I didn't ask an explicit enough question, even though the entire 20 minute convo was about this very thing. Screw them. They're no good. 44,999,999 other Americans are in the same position I'm in. We need care.

 

[BigRob]

By on the table do you mean a bill has been drawn up and is there? Or do you mean the colloquial "it has been mentioned by some people who are democrats."

It has been mentioned by those Democrats who are in leadership. Pelosi stated that without the option there are not enough votes for a bill to pass the House.

President Obama has been wavering on the idea, but without the support of Pelosi, the bill is probably dead anyway. I think we have not seen the end of that debate yet.

To be quite honest, I fully support the idea. I'll be happy with a public option. The gross neglect of the citizens of the United States by the free-market insurance companies, MUST stop. I'm a prime example of this. I was lied to, I was told I'd be okay to switch plans from individual to employer and that after my job was over I could switch back with no problems. By no problems they meant that i'd have to completely start over with years wait for my preexisting, higher premiums I can't afford AND pay the medical bills I do and will have, or for my expensive treatment (humalog/lantis insulin 1000ml mo each, appx 250$mo / test strips 90$mo, / syringes 30$ mo / glucose tablets around 40$ mo / occasional ambulance rides to the hospital 800-2000 every 2mo on avg. ) With my bills I cannot afford the rate increase for insurance that won't cover the only thing I need covered for a couple years. They lied to me, directly. They told me it would be NO problem to come back to MY plan, even with the preexisting condition. Apparently since it was said "with" instead of "we won't exclude coverage for the preexisting" then I didn't ask an explicit enough question, even though the entire 20 minute convo was about this very thing. Screw them. They're no good. 44,999,999 other Americans are in the same position I'm in. We need care.

I feel that your situation can be addressed in a manner that does not require a government run public option. Reform is needed, but I question that particular reform.

 

[Dr.Who]

By on the table do you mean a bill has been drawn up and is there? Or do you mean the colloquial "it has been mentioned by some people who are democrats."

To be quite honest, I fully support the idea. I'll be happy with a public option. The gross neglect of the citizens of the United States by the free-market insurance companies, MUST stop. I'm a prime example of this. I was lied to, I was told I'd be okay to switch plans from individual to employer and that after my job was over I could switch back with no problems. By no problems they meant that i'd have to completely start over with years wait for my preexisting, higher premiums I can't afford AND pay the medical bills I do and will have, or for my expensive treatment (humalog/lantis insulin 1000ml mo each, appx 250$mo / test strips 90$mo, / syringes 30$ mo / glucose tablets around 40$ mo / occasional ambulance rides to the hospital 800-2000 every 2mo on avg. ) With my bills I cannot afford the rate increase for insurance that won't cover the only thing I need covered for a couple years. They lied to me, directly. They told me it would be NO problem to come back to MY plan, even with the preexisting condition. Apparently since it was said "with" instead of "we won't exclude coverage for the preexisting" then I didn't ask an explicit enough question, even though the entire 20 minute convo was about this very thing. Screw them. They're no good. 44,999,999 other Americans are in the same position I'm in. We need care.

Sorry you got lied to. That is not a reason to convert to socialism so that we can be lied to by another group of people though. At least if the liar is a private company when you get something in writing you can take them to court.

And the 44,999,999 other Americans are actually a very diverse group with very few of them sharing your situation. Some of them just don't want insurance and you would infringe on their freedom; a direct violation of several constitutional rights so that a non-constitutional "right" to health care can be provided.

I feel that your situation can be addressed in a manner that does not require a government run public option. Reform is needed, but I question that particular reform.