Obama Admits Government Will Take Over Health Care

[Lumi]

Obama Admits Government Will Take Over Health Care

Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

 

[Duff Miver]

And a damned good idea it is.

Here's a quiz for you -

What is the largest insurer in the USA?

What is the only insurer that guarantees you will never be canceled or refused coverage for any reason?

What insurer has the lowest overhead?

What insurer controls costs best?

What insurer is accepted by the most physicians and hospitals?

What insurer does not get between physicians and patients?

What insurer is preferred by physicians and hospitals?

What insurer is preferred by patients?

What insurer does not bribe politicians?

Yep, it's that socialist, government run Medicare.

Go gettum Obama. Burn some for-profit ass!!

 

[Trench]

I like your quiz Duff.

Btw... I got all of 'em right. :142smilie

 

[Lumi]

Go sit in a VA Hospital and see the DOTFA that goes on there. I dropped that coverage and got private insurance. And BTW, if you have private insurance, the VA will try to charge that first before using VA benefits, if your insurance won't cover you being at a VA Hospital or Clinic, you recieve a bill from the VA, except for meds, which are/were $3.00 a script.

 

[Duff Miver]

You didn't answer any of the questions Illum.

why not?

 

[Lumi]

because you already did

 

[Lumi]

THE OAS TREATY?BLUEPRIINT FOR DISMANTLING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE OAS TREATY?BLUEPRIINT FOR DISMANTLING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE OAS TREATY?BLUEPRIINT FOR DISMANTLING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Administration support for a dangerous international treaty shows its disdain for the Constitution and America?s law-abiding gun owners.

America's 1st Freedom. August 2009

By Dave Kopel

The Obama administration?s offensive against the Second Amendment has begun.

As was predicted, the strategy uses international law to create a foundation for repressive and extreme gun control. The mechanism is an international treaty, the ?Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials.?

If the plan succeeds, police sales of confiscated firearms would be prohibited, and anyone who reloads ammunition at home would need a federal license. In addition, the treaty would create an international law requirement that almost every American firearm owner be licensed as if he were a manufacturer.

Founded in 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) includes all of the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere. (Cuba?s participation has been suspended since 1962.) In 1997, President Clinton signed a gun control treaty, which had been negotiated by OAS. Subsequently, neither he nor President George W. Bush sent the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.

The treaty is commonly known as ?CIFTA,? for its Spanish acronym, Convenci?n Interamericana Contra La Fabricaci?n Y El Tr?fico Il?citos De Armas De Fuego, Municiones, Explosivos Y Otros Materiales Relacionados. The document is called a ?convention? rather than a ?treaty? because ?convention? is a term of art for a multilateral treaty created by a multinational organization.

At the OAS meeting in April 2009, President Obama said that he would send CIFTA to the U.S. Senate and urge ratification. The White House claimed that the convention was merely an expression of international goodwill, and that it had been negotiated with the participation of the National Rifle Association.

Both statements were false.

In the United States, it is common for police and sheriffs? departments to sell confiscated firearms to federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs). The FFLs then resell the guns to lawful consumers. Of course, when any FFL sells a gun to a customer, the sale must be approved by the National Instant Check System, or its state equivalent.

Police and sheriff sales of confiscated guns would be outlawed by CIFTA which mandates: ?State Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.?

Another target of CIFTA is reloading. The millions of Americans who reload include competitive target shooters, hunters, trainers who want to craft milder ammunition for beginners and many other hobbyists who enjoy making things themselves and saving money. Due to the present shortage of ammunition, more and more people are taking up reloading?so many that reloading equipment manufacturers are having difficulty keeping their products in stock.

Reloading is entirely lawful in every state, and no state requires a specific permit for those reloading ammunition. CIFTA, however, declares that ?illicit manufacturing? is the ?manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials? that takes place without ?a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place.?

Thus, either the federal government or all 50 state governments would have to enact legislation to impose reloading licenses, and to define unlicensed reloading as crime. According to Article IV of CIFTA, ?State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) charges $10 per year for a license to manufacture most ammunition. Also under existing law, the premises of firearms and ammunition manufacturers may be inspected without notice once per year by the BATFE, and an unlimited number of times in cases involving a criminal investigation. Thus, anyone who reloads ammunition would be taxed and subject to home inspection by the federal government.

Reloaders are not the only ones who would be required to have a manufacturing license. So would every company or individual that makes any part of a firearm or an accessory. In fact, so would almost every firearm owner in the nation.

CIFTA Article I requires licensing for the manufacture of ?other related materials.? These are defined as ?any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.?

That definition straightforwardly includes all spare firearm parts. It also includes accessories that are attached to firearms, such as scopes, ammunition magazines, sights, recoil pads, bipods and slings.

Current U.S. law requires a license to manufacture a firearm, with a ?firearm? being defined as the receiver?no federal license is needed to make other parts of a firearm, such as barrels or stocks.

But CIFTA?s plain language requires federal licensing of the manufacturers and sellers of barrels, stocks, screws, springs and everything else that is used to make firearms.

Likewise, the manufacture of all accessories?such as scopes, sights, lasers, slings, bipods and so on?would have to be licensed.

In the United States, the manufacture of a firearm or ammunition for one?s personal use does not require a license, since the licensing requirements apply to persons who ?engage in the business? by engaging in repeated transactions for profit. (18 U.S. Code sect. 923(a).) Yet CIFTA would require licensing for everyone.

Many, perhaps most, firearm owners occasionally tinker with their guns. They might replace a worn-out spring, or install a better barrel. Or they might add accessories such as a scope, a laser aiming device, a recoil pad or a sling. All of these simple activities would require a government license. The CIFTA definition of ?Illicit manufacturing? is ?the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.? (Emphasis added.)

Even if putting an attachment on a firearm were not considered in itself to be ?assembly,? the addition of most components necessarily requires some assembly; for example, scope rings consist of several pieces that must be assembled. Replacing one grip with another requires, at the least, the use of screws.

Because the definition of ?manufacturing? is so broad, nearly all gun owners would eventually be required to obtain a manufacturing license.

CIFTA mandates that ?State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials ? the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses.?

Yet the preamble of CIFTA says: ?this Convention does not commit State Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character.?

Does the preamble negate the comprehensive licensing system that CIFTA demands? Not really. The exemptions are for ?ownership, possession, or trade.? There is no exemption for ?manufacturing.? As detailed above, ?manufacturing? is defined broadly enough as to include the home manufacture of ammunition, as well as repair of one?s own firearm, or assembling an accessory for attachment to one?s firearm.

Notably, even if CIFTA were read so that the ?does not commit? language also pertained to manufacturing, there is nothing that prevents a state party from choosing to enact manufacturing regulations.

The nations that have ratified CIFTA so far have not necessarily fully implemented the literal requirements of language regarding firearms and related material manufacturing. It is hardly unusual for nations to make a show of ratifying a treaty, but then do little to carry out the treaty?s requirements. However, in a culture such as the United States, with a strong commitment to the rule of law, CIFTA might have greater practical effect.

If ratified by the Senate, CIFTA would become the law of the land. Would the BATFE then be empowered to write regulations implementing the convention?without waiting for Congress to pass a new statute?

If a treaty is ?self-executing,? then it is an independent source of authority for domestic regulations. By traditional views of international law, CIFTA is not self-executing, since its language anticipates that ratifying governments will have to enact future laws to comply with CIFTA.

On the other hand, CIFTA does not explicitly declare itself to be non-self-executing. Harold Koh, who has been nominated as legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State, has challenged the doctrine of ?so-called self-executing treaties? and argues that the Supreme Court decisions creating the doctrine are incorrect. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2360-61, 2383-84; see also35 University of California at Davis Law Review, page 1111 n. 114; 35 Houston Law Review, page 666.)

Rather, Koh writes, legislatures ?should ratify treaties with a presumption that they are self-executing.? Further, domestic courts should ?construe domestic statutes consistently with international law? and ?should employ international human rights norms to guide interpretation of domestic constitutional norms.? (106 Yale Law Journal, page 2658 n. 297.) As detailed in last month?s issue of America?s 1<SUP>st</SUP> Freedom, Koh considers stringent gun control to be a very important international human right (July 2009, p. 32).

In Koh?s view, even when Congress has not created a statute to implement a treaty, courts should recognize a right of private plaintiffs to bring lawsuits under the treaty. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2383-84.) Thus, Koh and his allies could argue that Senate ratification of CIFTA trumps the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which outlaws abusive lawsuits against gun manufacturers and stores.

Suppose that the Senate, when ratifying CIFTA, added specific reservations declaring that CIFTA is not self-executing, that CIFTA authorizes no additional regulations and that CIFTA does not authorize any new lawsuits. The United States executive branch, under Koh?s guidance, might ignore the reservations. When the Senate added a reservation to another treaty, Koh wrote, ?Many scholars question persuasively whether the United States declaration has either domestic or international legal effect.? (111 Harvard Law Review, pages 1828-29 n. 24.)

Ultimately, the question of whether BATFE can promulgate regulations under CIFTA might be decided in court cases. One way for a court to resolve the issue would be to acknowledge that federal statutes already authorized regulation of manufacturing, and that CIFTA, as the latter-enacted law, simply expanded the definition of manufacturing so that the licensing requirement now applies to persons who are not engaged in the firearm business, and to manufacture or assembly of firearms attachments and spare parts.

It is not hard to foresee Obama-appointed federal judges upholding massive new BATFE gun control regulations, especially when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the State Department?s top legal adviser (Harold Koh) insist to the courts that the expanded federal regulations are necessary for the United States to comply with its international law obligations.

CIFTA does not specifically require gun registration. But once you impose manufacturing licenses, registration comes along for the ride. Existing federal regulations for manufacturers of firearms and ammunition require that manufacturers keep records of all products they produce, and these records must be available for government inspection.

Thus, those who reload ammunition would have to keep records of every round they made, and gun owners would have to keep a record of everything they ?assembled? (e.g., putting a scope on a rifle). These records would then be open to BATFE inspection.

Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., (formerly a gun criminal for the terrorist group The Black Panthers), introduced H.R. 45, to set up a national licensing and registration system for handguns and for self-loading long guns. As implemented under the direction of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and State Department legal adviser Koh, CIFTA could go even further?it also covers ammunition reloading as well as long guns that are not semi-automatic.

Further, CIFTA could be used to impose national licensing, registration and taxation of gun owners without members of Congress having to cast a vote that explicitly creates such laws. Indeed, because treaties need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, yet need no approval from the House of Representatives, the House could be cut out of the law-making process altogether.<!-- #EndEditable -->
<TABLE id=table2 border=0 width="100%"><!-- MSTableType="nolayout" --><TBODY><TR><TD><HR><!--webbot bot="Navigation" S-Type="sequence" S-Orientation="horizontal" S-Rendering="graphics" B-Include-Home="FALSE" B-Include-Up="FALSE" U-Page="sid:1001" startspan --><NOBR>[ Home ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Blog ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Short articles 1986-2000 ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Short 2001-06 ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Short articles 1986-2000 ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Short 2001-06 ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Books & journal articles ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Newsletter ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Mobile ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ RSS feed ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Criminal Justice ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Digital Economy ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Multimedia/podcasts ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Environment ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Health, Education, Welfare ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ History ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ International ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Media analysis ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Religion ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Right to arms: USA ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Right to Arms: International ]</NOBR> <NOBR>[ Terrorism ]</NOBR> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Lush Rimbough]

THE OAS TREATY?BLUEPRIINT FOR DISMANTLING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

I like that, this ole boy can't answer any questions, so he changes the subject with a mindless BS cut and paste.

Yellow.
:mj07:

 

[Lumi]

No I mistakenly replied instead of posted the story,
and go fuck off you pogue.

I am sick of your hit and run insults

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

And a damned good idea it is.

Here's a quiz for you -

What is the largest insurer in the USA?

What is the only insurer that guarantees you will never be canceled or refused coverage for any reason?

What insurer has the lowest overhead?

What insurer controls costs best?

What insurer is accepted by the most physicians and hospitals?

What insurer does not get between physicians and patients?

What insurer is preferred by physicians and hospitals?

What insurer is preferred by patients?

What insurer does not bribe politicians?

Yep, it's that socialist, government run Medicare.

Go gettum Obama. Burn some for-profit ass!!

--and here is quiz for you --if its so efficiently run why is Gumby even admitting--

"Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and the federal debt by a huge margin."


--and you say---can we have more please

 

[hedgehog]

the man is on a power trip like no other and has to be stopped before it is too late

 

[Duff Miver]

--and here is quiz for you --if its so efficiently run why is Gumby even admitting--

"Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and the federal debt by a huge margin."


--and you say---can we have more please

Medicare and medicaid are running deficits because they don't take in enough money. Look at your medicare payments and then compare that to what equivalent for-profit health insurance costs.

If we took all the premiums paid to for-profit companies and used it to fund Medicare for everyone, there would be lots of money left over, and every person would have guaranteed health coverage.

Of course Republicans want only the wealthy to have coverage. Working folks who develop a serious illness or lose their job or are rejected by for-profit insurance? The Republican answer is "fukkem".

The voting public is on to Republicans, ans gave them a good stiff dose of "fukkem" the past two elections. Republicans still don't get it. They'll get another dose in 2010.

Republicans say they oppose socialized income and health protection. Can you name even one over-65 Republican who isn't feeding at the socialist troughs of Social Security and Medicare? Of course not.

Republicans, the party of hypocrisy.


And don't get me started on Republican "fambly values". LOL!!

 

[layinwood]

Duff, what kind of business are you in? I can tell you this that medicare isn't the preferred insurer of physicians(not sure about hospitals), that's totally dependent on what region of the country you live in. I know this, for a physicians office Medicare isn't the best on reimbursement time and rates which makes me wonder why you would think they are the preferred insurer.

I could go into others but I doubt you would listen because you already have your mind made up. If you want an actual breakdown of some numbers and it would help you, please let me know but don't come in here spewing bs and not expect to get called on it.

I know a good number of groups I work with will not accept medicare because the reimbursement sucks and there are too many times they lose money on the siutation. This ends up making it hard on Medicare patients to find physicians they can see and also makes the wait time to get in even longer. I would think this would make people prefer PPOs or other good insurance over medicare. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe some like to wait months to get in and not have great choices in docs.

 

[ImFeklhr]

Republicans say they oppose socialized income and health protection. Can you name even one over-65 Republican who isn't feeding at the socialist troughs of Social Security and Medicare? Of course not.

I am not a Republican, but this point is of some interest to me. I am moderately opposed to government run health-care and several other social programs. But, money comes out of my paycheck every week for these programs.

I don't think I have ever "taken advantage" of a government program at the cost of other taxpayers.

So the question becomes, when my time comes, should I refuse social security? Should I refuse medicare? on philosophical grounds...

Tough call.

Anyway I am a pretty young guy, so the country will clearly go bankrupt years before I am of retiring age, so this is the least of my worries.

 

[Duff Miver]

I am not a Republican, but this point is of some interest to me. I am moderately opposed to government run health-care and several other social programs. But, money comes out of my paycheck every week for these programs.

I don't think I have ever "taken advantage" of a government program at the cost of other taxpayers.

So the question becomes, when my time comes, should I refuse social security? Should I refuse medicare? on philosophical grounds...

Tough call.

Anyway I am a pretty young guy, so the country will clearly go bankrupt years before I am of retiring age, so this is the least of my worries.

Sure, you "take advantage", if that's the way you see it, every day.

Have you attended public schools? Do you have/had children in public schools, schools which are paid for by all taxpayers whether they have children or not?

Do you use medications which are approved by the FDA? Eat foods inspected by the USDA? Drive on taxpayer-funded roads? Are you protected by taxpayer funded Fire and Police?

You can add probably a hundred other programs which are taxpayer funded, and which you take advantage of.

You should not think of taxes that way. It's more a matter that we all pay a part of the cost so we can share those things which we could not afford as individuals.

If your personal moral principle is opposed to socialism at all times, and in every way, then it's hard to see how you can justify benefiting from SS and Medicare.

I'll be you're not really all that opposed.

 

[Duff Miver]

Duff, what kind of business are you in? I can tell you this that medicare isn't the preferred insurer of physicians(not sure about hospitals), that's totally dependent on what region of the country you live in. I know this, for a physicians office Medicare isn't the best on reimbursement time and rates which makes me wonder why you would think they are the preferred insurer.

I could go into others but I doubt you would listen because you already have your mind made up. If you want an actual breakdown of some numbers and it would help you, please let me know but don't come in here spewing bs and not expect to get called on it.

Spewing BS? Okay, Ill accept your offer.

Here's what I asked - What insurer is accepted by the most physicians and hospitals? And I answered: Medicare

So, if I'm spewing BS, please help me out. Show me some numbers, from any reliable source, which demonstrate that there is any for-profit insurer which is accepted by more hospitals or physicians than Medicare.

Do you think BC/BS is? United Healthcare? Aetna? Show me the numbers.....please.

If you can't produce such numbers, then I'll have to assume you are spewing BS. Fair enough?

 

[ImFeklhr]

Have you attended public schools?

no

Do you have/had children in public schools, schools which are paid for by all taxpayers whether they have children or not?

No

Do you use medications which are approved by the FDA? Eat foods inspected by the USDA?

Of course

Drive on taxpayer-funded roads?

Nope

Are you protected by taxpayer funded Fire and Police?

Yes

You can add probably a hundred other programs which are taxpayer funded, and which you take advantage of.

You should not think of taxes that way. It's more a matter that we all pay a part of the cost so we can share those things which we could not afford as individuals.

If your personal moral principle is opposed to socialism at all times, and in every way, then it's hard to see how you can justify benefiting from SS and Medicare.

Look, I understand the point you are making, and obviously I don't think I live completely "off the grid"... I wasn't trying to make that claim. And yes, of course, I know there are a lot of programs that collectively help us all. I typically support local and state taxes more readily, because they impact me on a more relevant level. Federal money seems quite "distant" in it's impact. I'm a 10th Amendment kinda guy.

I will admit to occasionally feeling like I have the worst of both worlds sometimes: Not poor enough to benefit from entitlement social programs, not rich enough to ignore the taxes and fees the government charges us. Plus I don't have a traditional family. So there is pretty much nobody the government attends to less than someone like me.

The point I was originally making was in response to something you said about republicans over 65 taking advantage of social security and medicare. While I am a small government type of guy, and have mixed feelings about the feasibility of large federal programs, I am coerced into paying the taxes. We all are. So it can't quite be considered hypocritical to take advantage of the programs when you are of age... you spent a lifetime paying for them via taxes.

It might be a internal decision based on how deeply held your political beliefs are, but as even you have said, rarely does anyone opt out of those programs by choice.

 

[layinwood]

Duff, I didn't say anything about the number of offices and hospitals that accept medicare. On that part we can agree on but it doesn't make it a good insurance becuase of the number that accept it. There are a number of specialties that have no other choice than to accept medicare otherwise they wouldn't have any patients.

What I did say was that offices and hospitals as well as patients not preferring Medicare of private insurance.

 

[Woodson]

Medicare - 44 million Americans :shrug:

Well Point - 34.6 million :shrug:


:0corn

 

[layinwood]

Woodson, I was just getting ready to post those except I saw Medicare covered almost 40 not 44. Now, that's 1 private insurance company vs the only insurance for the elderly.

That's how many are insured. That says nothing about how many docs and hospitals accpet them. I'm willing to bet that more docs and hospitals accept Wellpoints BCBS and Aetna(depends on your location as to what Wellpoint uses) than accept medicare.