Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes

it's a lie & anyone paying attention knows it. Now we even have an admission of that:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522680235765894.html

Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus.

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A24
 
Well....supposedly the public option is dead in the Senate. However, if a bill with the public option does become law, I am sure the Supreme Court is not going to find it unconstitutional."Commerce among the several states empowers the national government to adress all activity if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce". The commerce clause is pretty bullet-proof, so i would take it to court without worry.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Well....supposedly the public option is dead in the Senate. However, if a bill with the public option does become law, I am sure the Supreme Court is not going to find it unconstitutional."Commerce among the several states empowers the national government to adress all activity if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce". The commerce clause is pretty bullet-proof, so i would take it to court without worry.

If the commerce clause is bullet proof why is it then , by gov't regulation, illegal for insurance companies to allow coverage from a policy holder from one state to the next? Why would the gov't inhibit competition if a person would move and make it illegal for that person to take his insurance coverage with him/her? The only reason I can see is to stifle competition and make insurance cost more, thus create a artifical crisis.
 
the commerce clause claim is horse [beeep] in this case.

congress has the legitimate authority to do this, bc they pass a law requiring it. circular reasoning.

there is no constitutional authority to do this.
 
Reading this thread, seems like some people are mixing up health care with health insurance, a common problem in this whole topic. Two different things.

HB71, you need to do a little (well a LOT) more studying. Your first post wondered why this would be taken up by SCOTUS because it was clear that Congress had the authority to pass laws. Well, DUH, Congress is the national LEGISLATURE, of course it has authority to pass laws! The question is what kind of laws can Congress pass, since its authority over various topics is delineated and limited by the Constitution. The question is constitutionality not whether Congress can pass a law. I can't believe you wrote what you did.

Also you state that we have always had wealth redistribution, called taxes. Ummm, NOPE. The purpose of taxes is to give the government funds to operate to perform its necessary Constitionally mandated functions, pay its employees, form and equip the military, etc. Wealth redistribution is taking $ from you and giving it to someone else, usually for political profit. The tax system never was designed to do that. It has been corrupted to do that for longer than our lifetimes, so maybe you think that since it's been doing that for as long as you've been around, maybe wealth redistribution is its normal function. It's not.

And the commerce clause will have little to do with this. Even within the rightful exercise of that clause, the fed gov't still has to operate under all the other restrictions of the Constitution. The commerce clause and the 'general welfare' statement in the preamble (NOT an empowering clause) are not 'get out of jail free cards' for the government. There are legal boundaries on Congress and the Executive branch and this Frankenstein surpasses many if not most of them.

That is the underlying issue, and you will note it has nothing to do with either health care or health insurance.
 
Pete, where does the constitution 'delineate and limit' the powers of congress? "the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..." Most constitutional scholars believe the general welfare provision is an independent power of congress that allows it to adress issues of national concern. The supreme court has agreed with this interpretation many times. United States V Butler if you are interested.
Next up is the contention that the supreme court will take the case on the merits of the underlying principle of the ability of congress to make laws. Very wrong. The court would only hear the case as it applies to healthcare because to do otherwise would undermine the entire government. According to your interpretation of the constitution, medicare and social security would become unconstitutional. Also, the federal government would be unable to tax for infrastructure.
The belief that the Supreme Court can somehow nullify the efforts of Congress is not new. However, this is not the way power is distributed in our government. Article III, section 2 of the constitution allows that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court lies almost totally up to Congress. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only in cases involving disputes between the states and in cases where foreign diplomats are a party. Congress has bullied the court on numerous occasions and in the Norris-LaGuardia Act, they actually rescinded the power of the federal courts to issue injunctions in labor cases. The Supreme Court itself has ruled in McCardle that " we are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. we can only examine its power under the constitution;and the power to make exceptions to the appelate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words..."
Anyway, I do understand that healthcare reform is a very troubling issue to many people. However, it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court would even take this case as the issues have all been settled. This court has shown a willingness to take on hot political topics so anything is possible. But, to be honest, the Supreme Court does not have the power to thwart the desires of Congress and the American people. As a Jeffersonian, I firmly believe Congress should make laws concerning the welfare of this country.
 
So given the fact that americans are paying about 2-3 times more then countries with a single payer system, yet have worse access to health care then they do. What do you suggest can be done about it.

This bill hasn't done a whole lot, you'll have this debate in another 4 years or so, as cost continue to rise to the point of being unsustainable, if it hasn't got there already.
 
Craig, I don't know how you can say we have the worst access to health care than other countries, unless you have experienced some in several countries...

I recently went through a surgery that is considered as risky and complicated as a double lung transplant and while the doctors said that it may be a two year recovery, if ever 100%, my alternative was a sure coffin...my "wait time" was about a week while they ran pre-op screenings...I have Medicare (which I paid for most of my working life) and my NRA supplemental health insurance (one of the lowest premiums in the country) and I've never paid any 'Out of Pocket' fees past the monthly premium...

I've been treated medically in Egypt and several of the States and believe me, I'll stay with what we have here...It makes me wonder why so many Canadians, Britains, and Europeans come to Florida for their medical treatment....When I lived there, I saw plenty going in and out of the clinics and hospitals..It can't all be the weather...

In the case of the original point of contention between RED & HB about power of the Congress...HB is correct in his quote...However the point of the article that RED quoted, is that Congress, as we know it today is not representative of the general public and IMHO, does not have the welfare of "the People" at the forefront...

This, Constitutionally, is supposed to be a government "Of the People, By the People, and For the People" and many of our congressional leaders seem to have lost sight of that fact, and need to be replaced...

Before we get into taxes... I would suggest everyone get their copy of "Title XXVI" and read the initial comments of when and why taxation, as we currently know it, began....and from what sources the government had the right to levy taxes upon......As well as when the collection of those taxes were to cease...
 
Last edited:
mrz111209dAPR20091112015138.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: CraigSo given the fact that americans are paying about 2-3 times more then countries with a single payer system, yet have worse access to health care then they do. What do you suggest can be done about it.

This bill hasn't done a whole lot, you'll have this debate in another 4 years or so, as cost continue to rise to the point of being unsustainable, if it hasn't got there already.

Were do you get your "facts"?

How on earth can you claim our "access to health" care is worse than the socialist countries?

How's this for "access," average ER wait time in the US is 4 hours ( http://www.pressganey.com/galleries/ED_Pulse_2009_files/2009_ED_Pulse_Report.pdf ), whereas the Canadians have to wait one heckuva lot longer, commonly 20-25+ hours! ( http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/21/ot-er-waits-080521.html?ref=rss ).
 
If this becomes law as written, the federal govt can throw you in prison for not buying insurance.

Not for getting treatment without paying, not for sticking others with the cost of your care or any actual act on your part.

Just for not buying insurance.

How the [beeep] can you NOT be mad enough to revolt over that?
 
Originally Posted By: Stu FarishIf this becomes law as written, the federal govt can throw you in prison for not buying insurance.

Not for getting treatment without paying, not for sticking others with the cost of your care or any actual act on your part.

Just for not buying insurance.

How the [beeep] can you NOT be mad enough to revolt over that?

Try driving without auto insurance.
 
I can do that, on private land.

I can ride in a vehicle without buying insurance.

I can not drive at all & use public transportation.

I can even own a vehicle & not have insurance on it, I just can't legally drive it on a public road. And even if I do, I won't be thrown in prison for it.

5 year sentence, say goodbye to your gun rights.

There is no product that I am legally required to buy or face prison time for, under either state or federal laws.

I still have a spine. what happened to everyone else's?
 
Originally Posted By: Rim_RunnerOriginally Posted By: Stu FarishIf this becomes law as written, the federal govt can throw you in prison for not buying insurance.

Not for getting treatment without paying, not for sticking others with the cost of your care or any actual act on your part.

Just for not buying insurance.

How the [beeep] can you NOT be mad enough to revolt over that?

Try driving without auto insurance.

Now that's just retarded. What if you don't drive? Should you still have auto insurance? By your logic if you are alive, then you should have to buy health insurance. If you don't want to buy it, then you should die.
 
it's a great day
to kick somebody's [beeep]

it's a bad day
so you better get off my back

you might get cold cocked
so you better stay outa my way

it's a great day
to kick somebody's [beeep]
 
Back
Top