Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 188
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Rick Perry is throwing his hat into the ring

  1. #76
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,597
    Quote Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
    I'm not sure Rubio would sign on with Al Gores old buddy. I have some respect for Rubio. As a matter of fact, I was watching him tonight on cspan giving a speech. I like him and rooted for him in the last election. Perry is just Bush redux.
    Remember, Al Gore was the one who turned Perry into a Republican.

  2. #77
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,597
    Many experts have pointed to tort reform as a key element of any effort to hold down the costs of health care:

    Old Democratic presidential aspirant John Edwards won $175 million in judgments over a 12-year period suing doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, everyone but the candy stripers, over infant cerebral palsy cases allegedly caused by mishandled deliveries.

    As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted in a study in 2003, cerebral palsy could not be blamed on delivery trouble in the “vast majority” of cases.

    Using bad science, Edwards enriched himself by bankrupting innocent physicians.

    The effect is not restricted to insurance costs. Lawsuits cause doctors to run additional and possibly unessential procedures:

    The New York Times has reported that as a result of such lawsuits, “doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate cesarean.”

    Though an obvious contributor to health care problems, tort reform is not part of any of the Democratic Party bills for revising the United States health care system. Back in June, President Barack Obama said to the American Medical Association:

    Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they’re constantly looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits. I recognize that. (Applause.) Don’t get too excited yet. Now, I understand some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue. (Applause.) Now, just hold on to your horses here, guys. (Laughter.) I want to be honest with you. I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards — (boos from some in audience) — (laughter) — which I personally believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed.

    Fairness may very well be the president’s reason for not backing tort reform, but other elements of the plan seem unfair, such as the prospect of rationing health care, and that hasn’t stopped him. It seems that the president should be desperate to find some savings in his health care plan, as the Congressional Budget Office has said almost every Democratic Party idea increases rather than decreases spending. Tort reform may very well be the ticket to heath care savings that President Obama is looking for:

    The accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers says about 10 percent of the cost of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2 percent is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5 percent to 9 percent is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine.

    So why the lack of tort reform in ObamaCare? Start with the campaign dollars the president received from the legal industry.

    The latest Federal Election Commission data (released 7/13/09) reports that President Obama received the most cash of any candidate from lawyers or law firms — more than $43 million. He received almost three times more from them than Hillary Clinton ($15 million) and more than four times the amount John McCain received ($9.9 million). President Obama received almost 50 percent of all dollars from the legal industry, and two-thirds of all legal industry dollars went to Democrats Obama and Clinton.

    So which is it — fairness or campaign dollars? It’s difficult to present any logical reason Obama would not include tort reform in his health care planning, yet it is quite easy to fathom $43,071,129 financial reasons.

    The Democratic Party’s attack on the insurance industry is taking the public’s eye off a larger culprit — the party and the president’s relationship with the legal profession.

    Pajamas Media » Tort Reform Can Lower Costs Without Harming Health Care. So Why Isn’t It in Obama’s Plan?

  3. #78
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,597
    March 11, 2011 — A House bill that caps noneconomic damages in malpractice cases at $250,000 and enacts other reforms to curb frivolous lawsuits against clinicians would reduce the federal deficit by $40 billion from 2011 to 2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

    The bill, called the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011, would lower premiums for malpractice insurance and reduce the number of "defensive medicine" services ordered by clinicians to avoid getting sued, the CBO stated in an analysis released yesterday. As a result of these lower costs, direct federal spending on healthcare would decrease by $34 billion over 10 years.

    In addition, lower costs on the provider side would cause premiums for private health insurance to fall, which would allow employers to increase taxable wages for employees. That, in turn, would boost federal tax revenue by roughly $6 billion.

    Medscape: Medscape Access


  4. #79
    New Member
    Join Date
    27 Aug 11
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    8
    Is he really a Republican? Who cares. Repubs and Dems are much the same these days. Both of these parties think that EVERYTHING is the business of the federal government. Somehow they now think that it is the federal government's place to tell individuals what they can or cannot do. The state really shouldn't infringe on our rights either, but they sure do. Is Gay marriage the Commander in Chief's decision? How about Abortion? Schools? Diet? Mandated healthcare? I could go on...

    Immigration is supposed to be part of their job, and they admit to ignoring it because they spent too much money and resources on the Un-Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and the rest of the above. If an officer is convinced that a law has been broken, they say that they MUST act on it, it's their sworn duty. Now they refuse to uphold the law because they wasted our resources on the variety of things above that ARE NOT the fed's business. More upside down policies from our government.

  5. #80
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    Remember, Al Gore was the one who turned Perry into a Republican.
    But Perry still acts like a democrat. Makes an environment friendly for mexicans to come up and work, then wants the feds to pay for the damages they do. Talk about eating your cake and having it too.Perry Bills Feds $349M For Incarcerating Illegals | FoxNews.com

  6. #81
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    6,698
    More Perry stuff


    Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

    Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.

    Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.

    1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

    The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

    "The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

    Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

    "'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."

    2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

    Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")

    Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.

    "[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.

    3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

    The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

    Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

    4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

    Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

    Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."

    "The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.

    5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

    Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

    "The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."

    A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

    Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

    6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

    Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

    "I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

    In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

    7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

    Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."

  7. #82
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    13,036
    I agree with 5. 1 & 2 have merit, 6 & 7 are utter bollocks.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  8. #83
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,597
    Everyone, in one way another, disagrees with the Constitution mainly because it is often mis-interpreted.

    But, wanting to change it, and being able to, is two different issues entirely.

    I want a candidate who is not afraid to speak the truth, and can stand his/her ground on his/her convictions. We need reform in just about every area of our current government, and I don't think many can deny that. And I am sick and tired of politicians talking about what we need, but doing nothing about it because they are too weak and/or afraid.

    We need a big government shake-up, and I think Perry is the only candidate bold enough to do that.

    There is no perfect candidate to be found, so I'm not looking for one to fit that description.

  9. #84
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    1,676
    I disagree with all 7 points. On the other hand, how much of this can he actually pass? (None). How much will he actually try? (Probably not very much).

    For this election I care less about throwaway position taking and more about his actual ability to lead and manage. Can he get us out of the hole we are in?

    I agree with Julie. We need a shake up badly. This isn't the time to go looking for a Cinderella candidate who fits an ideological glass slipper.

  10. #85
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,866
    I think this is exactly the time. The last thing we need is "more of the same" and I see Perry becoming just another washington good ol' boy the second he steps into office...assuming he gets that far. Our government needs to clean house. A few better people here and there isn't going to cut it.

  11. #86
    New Member
    Join Date
    27 Aug 11
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    8
    While common sense people see that something drastic needs to be done, the media blasts Ron Paul and other libertarian. They are too "radical" to be elected. But minding our own business isn't radical or being isolationist. We are like the neighbor that went from standing neighborhood watch, to looking into everybody's homes and interfering with anything that resembles an argument, calling it domestic violence and being proactive with our "Department of DEFENSE". Do you like that neighbor?

  12. #87
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,082
    I agree with 3 and 4. After all, those actually revert the constitution back to how it was originally written and ratified. The 5th one is iffy. California has a balanced budget amendment but that didn't stop the spending. Just created a lot of government accounting that would make a mob accountant blush. The rest I can do without.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  13. #88
    New Member
    Join Date
    27 Aug 11
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    8
    Items 6 & 7 are not the federal government's business. We need a candidate that understands what the limitations are. Perry is not going to address balanced trade, and will advise lowering taxes for business. Most large companies have offshored as many jobs as they can, and Republicans are advising lower taxes for businesses. Our offshoring businesses need a spanking, and it's going to hurt. Democrats pitch the solution as taxing the rich, but there's just not enough rich people to really make a difference.

    It's amazing what politicians will do to our country to get votes and campaign money.

  14. #89
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5,229
    I don't understand support for a man whoose public statements put him at odds with the oath of office. It isn't even stuff that is debateable. I guess being in favor of the right of seccession isn't an issue to some. I also think a little light needs to be shined on his development slush fund. His policy of erasing all emails weekly reeks of a desire to avoid the scrutiny of the public. Texas leads the nation in uninsureds even after torte reform. All the pajamas media articles in the world doesn't change the fact less people are insured than before torte reform. The idea of over ruling SCOTUS flys in the face of the tea parties avowed respect for the founding Fathers. It would be a vehicle to allow tyranny. Brown vs the board of Ed would of been tossed out
    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

  15. #90
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    4,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Wattsyurz View Post
    Items 6 & 7 are not the federal government's business. We need a candidate that understands what the limitations are. Perry is not going to address balanced trade, and will advise lowering taxes for business. Most large companies have offshored as many jobs as they can, and Republicans are advising lower taxes for businesses. Our offshoring businesses need a spanking, and it's going to hurt. Democrats pitch the solution as taxing the rich, but there's just not enough rich people to really make a difference.

    It's amazing what politicians will do to our country to get votes and campaign money.
    #6 needs to be addressed by the feds. Say if a same sex couple get "married" Do they get spousal SS benefits? Can they file their taxes as married? What happens if the state they live in decides to nullify all such marriages. What about all those legal ramifications.

    #7 already has gone to the top court and has been decided. Time to move on.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Perry FFG7 Class w/o missile battery
    By BB64 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 14 Feb 13,, 17:49
  2. Rick Santorum goes toe to toe with Newt on gaffes
    By Roosveltrepub in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 22 May 11,, 19:18
  3. Rick Roll'd
    By Shek in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 20 Apr 10,, 02:51
  4. For Rick
    By Galrahn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 23 Oct 06,, 16:46

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •