Jump to content

AZ Immigration law


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

Further Rick in some areas buying insurance across state lines is allowed provided the states meet requirements on regulations between them, there is also apparently some tort reform. Like I said their ideas have been included, they just want to say no for the sake of saying no. (To steal a line from the great satan Dick Cheny, Mitch McConnel can go fuck himself.)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

[quote]The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill

At this point, I don't think it's well understood how many of the GOP's central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in the health-care bill. But one good way is to look at the GOP's "Solutions for America" homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of them -- yes, you read that right -- are in the Senate health-care bill.

(1) "Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines." This is a long-running debate between liberals and conservatives. Currently, states regulate insurers. Liberals feel that's too weak and allows for too much variation, and they want federal regulation of insurers. Conservatives feel that states over-regulate insurers, and they want insurers to be able to cluster in the state with the least regulation and offer policies nationwide, much as credit card companies do today.

To the surprise and dismay of many liberals, the Senate health-care bill included a compromise with the conservative vision for insurance regulation. The relevant policy is in Section 1333, which allows the formation of interstate compacts. Under this provision, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho (for instance) could agree to allow insurers based in any of those states to sell plans in all of them. This prevents a race to the bottom, as Idaho has to be comfortable with Arizona's regulations, and the policies have to have a minimum level of benefits (something that even Rep. Paul Ryan believes), but it's a lot closer to the conservative ideal.

(2) "Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do." This is the very purpose of the exchanges, as defined in Section 1312. Insurers are required to pool the risk of all the small businesses and individuals in the new markets rather than treating them as small, single units. That gives the newly pooled consumers bargaining power akin to that of a massive corporation or labor union, just as conservatives want. It also gives insurers reason to compete aggressively for their business, which is key to the conservative vision. Finally, empowering the exchanges to use prudential purchasing maximizes the power and leverage that consumers will now enjoy.

(3) "Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs." Section 1302 of the Senate bill does this directly. The provision is entitled "the Waiver for State Innovation," and it gives states the power to junk the whole of the health-care plan -- that means the individual mandate, the Medicaid expansion, all of it -- if they can do it better and cheaper.

(4) "End junk lawsuits." It's not entirely clear what this means, as most malpractice lawsuits actually aren't junk lawsuits. The evidence on this is pretty clear: The malpractice problem is on operating tables, not in court rooms. Which isn't to deny that our current system is broken for patients and doctors alike. The Senate bill proposes to deal with this in Section 6801, which encourages states to develop new malpractice systems and suggests that Congress fund the most promising experiments. This compromise makes a lot of sense given the GOP's already-expressed preference for letting states "create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs," but since what the Republicans actually want is a national system capping damages, I can see how this compromise wouldn't be to their liking.

(5) To stop there, however, does the conservative vision a disservice. The solutions the GOP has on its Web site are not solutions at all, because Republicans don't want to be in the position of offering an alternative bill. But when Republicans are feeling bolder -- as they were in Bush's 2007 State of the Union, or John McCain's plan -- they generally take aim at one of the worst distortions in the health-care market: The tax break for employer-sponsored insurance. Bush capped it. McCain repealed it altogether. Democrats usually reject, and attack, both approaches.

Not this year, though. Senate Democrats initially attempted to cap the exclusion, which is what Bush proposed in 2007. There was no Republican support for the move, and Democrats backed off from the proposal. They quickly replaced it, however, with the excise tax, which does virtually the same thing. The excise tax only applies to employer-sponsored insurance above a certain price point, and it essentially erases the preferential tax treatment for every dollar above its threshold.

(6) And finally, we shouldn't forget the compromises that have been the most painful for Democrats, and the most substantive. This is a private-market plan. Not only is single-payer off the table, but at this point, so too is the public option. The thing that liberals want most in the world has been compromised away.

On Sunday, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell responded to Barack Obama's summit invitation by demanding Obama scrap the health-care reform bill entirely. This is the context for that demand. What they want isn't a bill that incorporates their ideas. They've already got that. What they want is no bill at all. And that's a hard position for the White House to compromise with.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='06 May 2010 - 12:08 PM' timestamp='1273162114' post='886553']
Further Rick in some areas buying insurance across state lines is allowed provided the states meet requirements on regulations between them, there is also apparently some tort reform. Like I said their ideas have been included, [b]they just want to say no for the sake of saying no[/b]. (To steal a line from the great satan Dick Cheny, Mitch McConnel can go fuck himself.)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html
[/quote]
that is different from business as usual, how? The same shit happened when Bush was in office. Do you see a pattern yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='06 May 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1273171537' post='886586']
that is different from business as usual, how? The same shit happened when Bush was in office. Do you see a pattern yet?
[/quote]


In such uniformity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='06 May 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1273171649' post='886588']
In such uniformity?
[/quote]
Do you recall any landmark legislation that Bush pushed out that had such far-reaching implications as this healthcare bill did? Would be akin to repubs attempting to modify how Social Security and allowing citizens to determine which funds the government put their money in... hell, it never even got to a vote! Discussion of such an idea had dems screaming madness the very night it was suggested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='06 May 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1273172271' post='886592']
Do you recall any landmark legislation that Bush pushed out that had such far-reaching implications as this healthcare bill did? Would be akin to repubs attempting to modify how Social Security and allowing citizens to determine which funds the government put their money in... hell, it never even got to a vote! Discussion of such an idea had dems screaming madness the very night it was suggested.
[/quote]


Are you referring to the privatization of SS?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='06 May 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1273173522' post='886604']
yes.
[/quote]


Here is the difference for me anyway.

I am relieved the privatization of SS didnt happen, can you imagine with the way the economy has collapsed people's SS collapsing with it? Further that wasnt a dem idea that was included in some rep legislation. The healthcare bill had alot of republican ideas in it. Personally some of us felt like if all they were going to do was say no the dems should have just passed the bill many of us wanted to begin with. If they did that and then if the reps then said no, then yes you would have a point, but they were voting against their own ideas just to say no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='06 May 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1273173829' post='886605']
Here is the difference for me anyway.

I am relieved the privatization of SS didnt happen, can you imagine with the way the economy has collapsed people's SS collapsing with it? Further that wasnt a dem idea that was included in some rep legislation. The healthcare bill had alot of republican ideas in it. Personally some of us felt like if all they were going to do was say no the dems should have just passed the bill many of us wanted to begin with. If they did that and then if the reps then said no, then yes you would have a point, but they were voting against their own ideas just to say no.
[/quote]
They voted against "their own ideas" only 6 of which we've documented here in a 1900+ page document... how many ideas in total in the bill? Again, I'll be the first to say that a big part of the way they voted was for sheer stubbornness and to not give the dems / Obama a "political victory"... but to act like that doesn't flow both ways is either being naive or hard-headed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='06 May 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1273174401' post='886609']
They voted against "their own ideas" only 6 of which we've documented here in a 1900+ page document... how many ideas in total in the bill? Again, I'll be the first to say that a big part of the way they voted was for sheer stubbornness and to not give the dems / Obama a "political victory"... but to act like that doesn't flow both ways is either being naive or hard-headed.
[/quote]


I think you misunderstand, I full acknowledge it exists on the other side, I question whether its exists across the scope of the entire party though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='06 May 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1273174850' post='886612']
I think you misunderstand, I full acknowledge it exists on the other side, I question whether its exists across the scope of the entire party though.
[/quote]
I think you give dems too much credit to assume it doesn't! repubs can't afford to have too many dem political victories so they battle them tooth and nail. dems can't afford too many repub victories so they battle them tooth and nail as well.

Come on Jamie...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='06 May 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1273176163' post='886617']
I think you give dems too much credit to assume it doesn't! repubs can't afford to have too many dem political victories so they battle them tooth and nail. dems can't afford too many repub victories so they battle them tooth and nail as well.

Come on Jamie...
[/quote]


Aside from the one bill you mentioned, show me a vote that has 0 in the dem column where they voted for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/05/06/glenn-beck-immigration-and-social-justice/


[quote]Glenn Beck, Immigration, and Social Justice
by Jim Wallis 05-06-2010
After Glenn Beck said “social justice is a perversion of the gospel” and a “code” for Marxism, communism, and Nazism, I invited him to a public dialogue to discuss the true meaning of social justice, which I said was at the heart of the gospel and integral to biblical faith.
In response, Beck promised on his radio show that “the hammer” would be coming down on me and my organization, and that he would devote a week of his television show to bringing me down. I took that as a “no” to dialogue.

But I would still like to have this discussion with Beck. Since he has attacked the whole concept of “social justice,” I think it would be a great opportunity to have a serious public conversation about what biblical social justice really means. But since he has so far refused to have that conversation, I have decided to go ahead with it anyway — even without him — with the hope that he will eventually join the discussion. In the meantime, let me take some of the things he has recently said about social justice and begin to respond to him. And I hope he will take this as an open and standing invitation to a civil and moral dialogue with him about the topic of social justice. This is a challenge to Glenn Beck to have a real and honest two-way public discussion.

So Glenn… you recently talked about the new Arizona law requiring all state law enforcement officers to ask for identity documents of anyone they have “lawful contact” with and “reasonably suspect” of being undocumented, and to detain them if they are. Many fear racial profiling and are concerned that the only people required to carry papers will be those who might look illegal, i.e. have brown skin. The new law also makes it illegal to “harbor” or “transport” undocumented people, or even to be found with them. This has made many Christian clergy and church workers say the new law would make Christian compassion and ministry illegal, and if it does, they won’t obey it.

You are vigorously in favor of the new law. But I would suggest that the solution to the 12 million undocumented workers now in this country isn’t demanding identity papers and threatening deportation, but working to change the conditions that lead people to come here without papers in the first place. Decades of neglect and irresponsibility by both parties — liberals and conservatives — have created this inhumane and complicated problem. We have had two invisible signs on our southern border: “No Trespassing” and “Help Wanted.” Those conflicting messages have ensnared many vulnerable and sometimes desperate people. And now we need to fix that broken immigration system that is grinding up vulnerable families.

You said, “America, this is what you have to understand: equal justice, not social justice. Equal justice of the law demands that law-breakers not be rewarded for their illegal activity, that instead they be treated like everyone else,” and that “equal justice” means when anyone comes to the United States illegally, they should be deported.

Glenn, I wish you could have been with me to meet a woman in Phoenix just two weeks ago. Yes, she came here illegally — as an infant, on her farm-worker father’s back 47 years ago. Her whole life has been here, her children are here, and now she works for a Christian ministry taking care of vulnerable people. Is she really a threat to us? Should she just be deported? Or should we together reform the immigration system in a fair, humane, and compassionate way?

You said, “Equal justice says she’s got to go home.” Glenn, she is home.

You said, “Equal justice means if you live in the U.S. — I’ve got to be here legally. I can’t commit identity theft and fraud and neither should illegal aliens.” Well, we all want to be a nation of laws, so let’s find a way to bring people out of the shadows. Let’s be tough on crime, but give those whose lives are now here, and who are law-abiding and are contributing to our society, a chance to start an earned path to citizenship. Wouldn’t that be social justice?

In a letter to you that you never answered I said, “Social justice [is] a personal commitment both to serve the poor and to attack the conditions that lead to poverty” and that “biblical justice also involves changing structures, institutions, systems, and policies, as well as changing hearts to be more generous.” What do you think about that?

Serving the poor, as you said, is a fundamental spiritual requirement of faith; but challenging the conditions that create poverty, or bad messy problems like our current immigration system, is also part of biblical social justice. Isn’t it?

Glenn, this new Arizona law would break up families. You don’t want to see that, do you?

You said, “You know the statue of justice? She is blindfolded. She doesn’t care if it’s religion or race or whatever. Justice is blind. Stop using justice as a political weapon or for doing favors for those who agree with your ideology.” Do you really think that the execution of justice in the U.S. has always been colorblind? Will this new law be colorblind? I think you know better than that.
Your definition of “equal justice” requires that every person be treated equally. So in Arizona, that means the police should be authorized to ask every person they stop for a traffic violation for proof of citizenship. There should be no discretion for those who they have a “reasonable suspicion” are undocumented. In practice, “reasonable suspicion” likely means those with darker skin or a Spanish accent. How do they know that the Caucasian who just ran a red light is not an undocumented immigrant from Canada or France? Or that the darker-skinned Hispanic isn’t a third-generation U.S. citizen? Do we really want a society like Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa, where all people are required to carry passbooks with documentation of their status? “Reasonable suspicion” is not equal justice; it is a false solution to a real problem. The law itself is unjust, and “equal” application of an unjust law is still unjust, regardless of how “equally” it is applied.

Equal justice focuses on individuals. Social justice urges that we work to change the conditions that lead people to come to this country, rather than singling out people that the authorities suspect might be undocumented. The solution to 12 million undocumented people is to fix a broken immigration system, not to demand identity papers. Biblical justice involves standing with the most vulnerable, as well as changing structures, institutions, systems, and policies, especially in democratic governments where we have the opportunity to do so.

So Glenn, let’s talk about this.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' date='06 May 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1273160717' post='886547']
I have been paying some attention. They ARE voting on disagreements in policy. Granted they did get rid of the shittiest parts, but they also left out the main things that would have bridged the gap and solved some of the problems. If they would allow people to purchase HC out of state that would cut costs and help many people. If they would tackle tort reform more, even though it is a small part of the problem, it is a problem and a real bridge. And why were they trying to take away HSA's? I have one and I think it is great. It shows me the true costs of health care. Luckily this was taken out, but I just don't see how this is a bipartisan bill. And if it weren't for the American people standing up, it would look much, much different.

as far as wanting them to fail to retake power... pot meet kettle. What did the dem's do after 2004? I hope that when rep's take back over, they don't fall into the same trap.
[/quote]

No, they are voting NO because it is politically expiedient. Obama could have folded and said he was going with the health care reform ideas that the republicans had, if they had a plan, and they STILL would have voted against it. Voting NO makes the MORONS on the conservative side HAPPY, because the MORONS don't believe he's a legitimate president primarily because of RACE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kennethmw' date='06 May 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1273188176' post='886671']
because the MORONS don't believe he's a legitimate president primarily because of RACE.
[/quote]

Man you like to throw the race card out a lot. In fact, from what I can tell, you are one of the most racist people posting on this board.

I havent heard a single person, anywhere, friend or stranger, say anything about not liking him because he is only half white. No one gives a shit about the president being biracial dude- get over your bullshit. You're pathetic.

People who consider themselves conservative dont like him for the same reason they dont like Nancy Pelosi, or Barney Frank, or the rest of the uber-liberals. They flat out dont agree with their stances on issues. Conservatives would have been perfectly happy to have Colin Powell as president over Obama, at which point you would probably say thats only because his middle name isnt Hussein and there is no Arab blood in him.

Ignorant, racist piece of shit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' date='06 May 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1273198580' post='886702']
Man you like to throw the race card out a lot. In fact, from what I can tell, you are one of the most racist people posting on this board.

I havent heard a single person, anywhere, friend or stranger, say anything about not liking him because he is only half white. No one gives a shit about the president being biracial dude- get over your bullshit. You're pathetic.

People who consider themselves conservative dont like him for the same reason they dont like Nancy Pelosi, or Barney Frank, or the rest of the uber-liberals. They flat out dont agree with their stances on issues. [color="#FF0000"]Conservatives would have been perfectly happy to have Colin Powell as president over Obama[/color], at which point you would probably say thats only because his middle name isnt Hussein and there is no Arab blood in him.

Ignorant, racist piece of shit.
[/quote]


uhm you know Powell was a Obama advisor and supports him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='06 May 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1273199164' post='886703']
uhm you know Powell was a Obama advisor and supports him?
[/quote]

That doesnt have any bearing on anything- he is still a conservative/not a liberal, and conservatives would be happy with him as president [u]over[/u] Obama- because Obama is Left. You dont have to be liberal to support the President.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' date='06 May 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1273203045' post='886718']
That doesnt have any bearing on anything- he is still a conservative/not a liberal, and conservatives would be happy with him as president [u]over[/u] Obama- because Obama is Left. You dont have to be liberal to support the President.
[/quote]


It doest? It seems to me this man you're supporting is supporting the guy you seem to hate has alot of bearing on it. Further Powel is more moderate than conservative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='06 May 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1273199164' post='886703']
uhm you know Powell was a Obama advisor and supports him?
[/quote]

Supported him because of his stance on issues? Or the fact that he was potentially breaking another barrier in our history?

Because Colin Powell and Barack Obama are pretty distant on their stances on issues... If Colin Powell had been running I'd have voted for him.

He is one of the few that in my heart of hearts feel like actually cares about each person's interests... and not just his own. I may be completely off base in that regard. But he is just one of the few I feel that way about.

Like it or not, you had a strong contingent of folks support Obama simply because he was going to potentially be the first black president. Which is completely fine - that needed to occur so we could get over that being a sticking point and continually brought up. Let's move past that. When a legitimate woman makes a run, you'll have a lot of supporters, from both parties that are female, support that candidate. That is fine too - that needs to happen as well so we can get past all of this nonsense that is being bickered about and actually look after Americans' interests and fixing some of our many problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' date='07 May 2010 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1273233328' post='886746']
Supported him because of his stance on issues? Or the fact that he was potentially breaking another barrier in our history?

Because Colin Powell and Barack Obama are pretty distant on their stances on issues... If Colin Powell had been running I'd have voted for him.

He is one of the few that in my heart of hearts feel like actually cares about each person's interests... and not just his own. I may be completely off base in that regard. But he is just one of the few I feel that way about.

Like it or not, you had a strong contingent of folks support Obama simply because he was going to potentially be the first black president. Which is completely fine - that needed to occur so we could get over that being a sticking point and continually brought up. Let's move past that. When a legitimate woman makes a run, you'll have a lot of supporters, from both parties that are female, support that candidate. That is fine too - that needs to happen as well so we can get past all of this nonsense that is being bickered about and actually look after Americans' interests and fixing some of our many problems.
[/quote]


Have you watched powel interviews on the subject? He was in his corner for a reason and I'm pretty sure it wasnt because their both black.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 May 2010 - 08:16 AM' timestamp='1273234580' post='886757']
[b]The party has moved more to the right than I would like to see it..."

Powel is moderate, not a conservative.[/b]
[/quote]

I'll agree with that 100%... and I like that about him. Typically, you can't have your cake and eat it to in politics so you try and get everything you can while not conceding as much as possible. I'd love to have fiscal conservative, moderate social... but I'd rather have moderate, moderate... than liberal, liberal or even moderate, liberal. Make sense?

That being the case - Obama is more liberal than moderate. But, we're arguing semantics. The case has been made that a lot of this hatred is because Obama is black and the counter-argument is being made that if Colin Powell had been running several folks that don't care for Obama would have voted for Powell. How could you hate the one because he's black, yet openly state you'd vote for another guy that is also black? Maybe it has to do with his stances on several issues...

Who Powell endorses or doesn't endorse when he's not running isn't the issue, at all. You can make the argument that Powell was putting the screws to the repubs because Bush threw his ass under the bus in front of the UN... IMO, he had a right to screw them, honestly. But, that is just one way of looking at that endorsement as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 May 2010 - 07:58 AM' timestamp='1273233497' post='886748']
Have you watched powel interviews on the subject? He was in his corner for a reason and I'm pretty sure it wasnt because their both black.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure he's not going to openly state that he's supporting him because he's black and breaking a color barrier, Jamie...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think Obama is liberal at all, this is why he is getting flack from the liberal base of the party.

When I think liberal I think Cynthia Mckinney and Obama is nowhere near that.


I think he gave a pretty good list of reasons in that interview of why he supported him that had nothing to do with him being black.


Futher, if were going to make the argument that blacks voted for Obama because he is black then the argument that those opposed to him are opposed to him because he is black is a argument to be made too.

Both those arguments are gigantic generalizations that do a disservice to peoples reasons for voting or not voting, but in some [b]small[/b] part both those arguments do exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='07 May 2010 - 09:17 AM' timestamp='1273238233' post='886776']
I dont think Obama is liberal at all, this is why he is getting flack from the liberal base of the party.

When I think liberal I think Cynthia Mckinney and Obama is nowhere near that.


I think he gave a pretty good list of reasons in that interview of why he supported him that had nothing to do with him being black.


Futher, if were going to make the argument that blacks voted for Obama because he is black then the argument that those opposed to him are opposed to him because he is black is a argument to be made too.

Both those arguments are gigantic generalizations that do a disservice to peoples reasons for voting or not voting, but in some [b]small[/b] part both those arguments do exist.
[/quote]


Obama is PRETTY liberal- as president he cant go to the extreme without being ostracised, but the man is a pretty liberal dude. Much farther left then center, thats for sure. He's a very smart man, it would be suicide for the Democrats if he went on a liberal vendetta- just too many people to alienate. That said- the health care fiasco and the way it was pushed though was about all they fire they can handle, and come election time, it likely will prove too controversial to recover from.

You are correct in your assessment of the argument going both ways- there are shithead racists in this country no doubt. Also, as ridiculous as I feel it is on the surface for blacks voting for him just because he was somewhat black, I dont think I can blame the thought process I guess. Its not the way I would do things, but whatever. And I am also glad it happened if for no other reason to get some of these racist morons to stop playing the race card every damn opportunity they have. If a bi-racial "black" man can become President, then many of the so-called barriers have been broken and at this point you truly have no one to blame if you dont succeed but yourself. I think very few people see race as an issue whatsoever with Obama. But everytime someone plays the race card, they extend racism by that much more. I wish I was born into America 200 years from now when we are all basically the same color and race cant be used as an excuse for anything anymore. If America is still around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...