It was the Republican-required mandate that everyone be forced to buy insurance (so that their insurance industry chums would still be guaranteed huge profits) that was deemed unconstitutiolnal. That was one Federal Court’s opinion. Two others ahve ruled it is constitutional.
Good Lord, Bluejayz, where do you get these false ideas? ObamaCare was a democrat creation from start to finish. The Republicans didn’t contribute a single thing.
Obama himself decries how the constitution is filled with “negative rights” (ones that tell the federal government what it cannot do). Obama and his kind (from both parties) hate the constitution, because they want to lord over us.
The constitution was created in order to protect us from an oligarchy that would enslave us. All of you who believe that the federal government is always looking out for you (so long as YOUR party is running it) are fools.
IMO the USSC should uphold this lower court ruling that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to MANDATE all citizens to buy health insurance.
I’m sure any effort the GOP made was to keep PRIVATE INSURANCE BUSINESSES in the HealthCare arena!
The true goal of the Democrats is Government Insured one-size-fits-all healthcare, to copy Great Britain’s and Canada’s systems. I doubt the GOP was for any MANDATE.
The Constitution is the Legal Protection for Americans’ God-given Rights as citizens. There are already too many unconstitutional Mandates in existence…for instance, the forcing of a worker at a preset age to be turned down by private insurance companies and forced to go into Medicare! At age 65 I learned the hard way that Congress made it illegal for private insurance to sell coverage that Medicare took over in 1965. I wanted to continue in the private insurance and avoid Medicare…..I thought I had been thrown into a Federal healthcare Gulag! Now at age 78 every medical decision by me, my doctors and my health treatment providers is totally controlled by the Feds.
Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is health care should be like education, a right for the people of the United States of America. It should be supported and treated in the same manner as public education. Property taxes and Federal subsidies should pay for it. Let’s stop fighting and posturing, and get serious. Congress’s duty is to provide for the Public Good. So get to work!!
Churchill I’ve seen that argument before. Where in the constitution does it say that you’re entitled to clean air and water? Where in the constitution does it say that the food you eat should be safe? It doesn’t. But it does say that Congress shall pass the laws that don’t conflict with the constitution. If that idiot reporter would have known that he would not have asked that dumb question and Pelosi would not have shot him dirty looks. This goes to show you that just because a person works for (insert news outlet here) doesn’t excuse them from asking or making silly assertions.
Owie this has to do with Pelosi. McCain and DADT has nothing to do with her. Entiende?
hmm, something around 700 pages of this bloated “health care bill”, NOT “Obamacare” was written by the Republicans. ONE judge, appointed by “w” wrote a 42 page “decision”. Everyone gets a Social Security card, and pays into the system- no Constitutional problem there. All the states require auto insurance.
We can still cross state lines without a passport, and make our own medical decisions, though EVERY insurance company or provider has their own “formulary” to render which drugs they will pay for- and most require advance notice before approving many medical procedures, which they may well deny. This bill says they have to do better.
No right winger today seems willing to read the preamble to the Constitution, which DOES state the premise of the “new government”.
Fish Ma, there is no federal requirement for motorists to acquire auto insurance. Yes, I have read the Constitution and over 100,000 pages of primary and secondary sources related to Early American history. Take a look at my usererid and take a guess. The liberal Whig tradition (Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, Price, Sidney, Jefferson, Madison etc.) is abhorant of big government. During Jefferson’s administration he actively worked to shrink the size of government, which at the time was unbelievably small. Yes, Jefferson would be opposed to Obama-care and would advocate a class of red wine or hard cider for what ails you.
^It is also notable that when banks were regulated, and restricted geographically, even though called “national banks”, to PREVENT huge conglomerates from monopolizing the banking industry, we were a tad safer. When Reagan came in I predicted we’d end up with only four “banks” in the U.S.==they’re working on it, and it’s largely responsible for our problems.
There is a place for federal oversight, with the individual states doing “their thing” to meet regional needs within that framework. It was indeed the Federalists that wanted a stronger “central” government.
@ Trout: Not all states require auto insurance, there are stragglers out there. Also, you don’t have to buy auto insurance if you don’t own an auto, and therein is your choice. You also can choose (illegally, I might add) to not purchase insurance when you get a car. But with Obamacare, you won’t have a choice. Big nanny state will fine you if you don’t have insurance. This fight isn’t about providing coverage for those who don’t have it (which I believe is not the government’s responsibility to do so), this fight is about the CHOICE to have it. It’s about free will.
More and more we see things around us that are becoming less free will. Speech is now becoming censored (indirectly through lawsuit, hurt feelings, etc.), our right to pursue happiness (more taxes are being layered on to provide more bennies for those who don’t rate it; taking from those who have and giving to those who have not. Whose happiness trumps whose? Is my happiness more important than anyone else’s on these boards? Less?), and now we are losing our right to decide for ourselves.
This country was founded on the belief that we pave our own way, establish ourselves and then prosper or not based on the sweat of our own brow. Now we have people prospering who don’t do a bleeep thing, and we have people who are busting their rumps who are barely making it by. The government should get out of our lives and let us determine our own destinies.
Do you want to have someone make the decisions for you? No? That’s free will, in a nutshell. I don’t see what’s so complex about wanting to make decisions for yourself. What gives a beaurocrat in Washington the authority, infinite wisdom, and foresight to make decisions for me as an individual? After all, most of them are lawyers who have their own personal agendas.
Re: my last paragraph, I don’t understand what you don’t get. We should keep what we earn, not have it given to those who don’t earn a blasted thing and are given everything. If we are going to succeed, let us succeed. If we are going to fail, let us fail.
Bluejayz over 13 years ago
It was the Republican-required mandate that everyone be forced to buy insurance (so that their insurance industry chums would still be guaranteed huge profits) that was deemed unconstitutiolnal. That was one Federal Court’s opinion. Two others ahve ruled it is constitutional.
blackash2004-tree Premium Member over 13 years ago
Good Lord, Bluejayz, where do you get these false ideas? ObamaCare was a democrat creation from start to finish. The Republicans didn’t contribute a single thing.
Keith Messamer over 13 years ago
As one of those eeeevil people who don’t have health insurance: whew!
EdZakery69 over 13 years ago
blackash, I don’t usually comment but it’s nice to hear the truth on these pages, once in awhile. Thank you!
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
Hey, the Constitution! The article that DADT also violates that Republicans fervently defend, along with DOMA.
Loco80 over 13 years ago
My biggest objection STILL is that if it wasn’t good enough for the congressmen (they exempted themselves), why do WE have to tolerate it? Anybody?
yohannbiimu over 13 years ago
Obama himself decries how the constitution is filled with “negative rights” (ones that tell the federal government what it cannot do). Obama and his kind (from both parties) hate the constitution, because they want to lord over us.
The constitution was created in order to protect us from an oligarchy that would enslave us. All of you who believe that the federal government is always looking out for you (so long as YOUR party is running it) are fools.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
IMO the USSC should uphold this lower court ruling that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to MANDATE all citizens to buy health insurance.
I’m sure any effort the GOP made was to keep PRIVATE INSURANCE BUSINESSES in the HealthCare arena! The true goal of the Democrats is Government Insured one-size-fits-all healthcare, to copy Great Britain’s and Canada’s systems. I doubt the GOP was for any MANDATE.
The Constitution is the Legal Protection for Americans’ God-given Rights as citizens. There are already too many unconstitutional Mandates in existence…for instance, the forcing of a worker at a preset age to be turned down by private insurance companies and forced to go into Medicare! At age 65 I learned the hard way that Congress made it illegal for private insurance to sell coverage that Medicare took over in 1965. I wanted to continue in the private insurance and avoid Medicare…..I thought I had been thrown into a Federal healthcare Gulag! Now at age 78 every medical decision by me, my doctors and my health treatment providers is totally controlled by the Feds.
ssragona over 13 years ago
Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is health care should be like education, a right for the people of the United States of America. It should be supported and treated in the same manner as public education. Property taxes and Federal subsidies should pay for it. Let’s stop fighting and posturing, and get serious. Congress’s duty is to provide for the Public Good. So get to work!!
WarBush over 13 years ago
M Kitt that’s socialism!
Churchill I’ve seen that argument before. Where in the constitution does it say that you’re entitled to clean air and water? Where in the constitution does it say that the food you eat should be safe? It doesn’t. But it does say that Congress shall pass the laws that don’t conflict with the constitution. If that idiot reporter would have known that he would not have asked that dumb question and Pelosi would not have shot him dirty looks. This goes to show you that just because a person works for (insert news outlet here) doesn’t excuse them from asking or making silly assertions.
Owie this has to do with Pelosi. McCain and DADT has nothing to do with her. Entiende?
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
hmm, something around 700 pages of this bloated “health care bill”, NOT “Obamacare” was written by the Republicans. ONE judge, appointed by “w” wrote a 42 page “decision”. Everyone gets a Social Security card, and pays into the system- no Constitutional problem there. All the states require auto insurance.
We can still cross state lines without a passport, and make our own medical decisions, though EVERY insurance company or provider has their own “formulary” to render which drugs they will pay for- and most require advance notice before approving many medical procedures, which they may well deny. This bill says they have to do better.
No right winger today seems willing to read the preamble to the Constitution, which DOES state the premise of the “new government”.
WarBush over 13 years ago
Owie you can’t seriously be that dense.
phdtogo over 13 years ago
Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Obama!
phdtogo over 13 years ago
Fish Ma, there is no federal requirement for motorists to acquire auto insurance. Yes, I have read the Constitution and over 100,000 pages of primary and secondary sources related to Early American history. Take a look at my usererid and take a guess. The liberal Whig tradition (Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, Price, Sidney, Jefferson, Madison etc.) is abhorant of big government. During Jefferson’s administration he actively worked to shrink the size of government, which at the time was unbelievably small. Yes, Jefferson would be opposed to Obama-care and would advocate a class of red wine or hard cider for what ails you.
phdtogo over 13 years ago
abhorred big government…. been a long day
phdtogo over 13 years ago
glass, not class. Laptop cursor jumps like a flying fish
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
^It is also notable that when banks were regulated, and restricted geographically, even though called “national banks”, to PREVENT huge conglomerates from monopolizing the banking industry, we were a tad safer. When Reagan came in I predicted we’d end up with only four “banks” in the U.S.==they’re working on it, and it’s largely responsible for our problems.
There is a place for federal oversight, with the individual states doing “their thing” to meet regional needs within that framework. It was indeed the Federalists that wanted a stronger “central” government.
cjkinsey over 13 years ago
senor, I just wanted to say thanks for posting the link and being diligent with facts.
blackash and EdZakery69, did we clarify where the notion comes from that the idea is a republican.
PlainBill over 13 years ago
Ramirez is so stupid he’s hilarious. Obviously the twit hasn’t even read the Preamble to the Constitution.
Wraithkin over 13 years ago
@ Trout: Not all states require auto insurance, there are stragglers out there. Also, you don’t have to buy auto insurance if you don’t own an auto, and therein is your choice. You also can choose (illegally, I might add) to not purchase insurance when you get a car. But with Obamacare, you won’t have a choice. Big nanny state will fine you if you don’t have insurance. This fight isn’t about providing coverage for those who don’t have it (which I believe is not the government’s responsibility to do so), this fight is about the CHOICE to have it. It’s about free will.
More and more we see things around us that are becoming less free will. Speech is now becoming censored (indirectly through lawsuit, hurt feelings, etc.), our right to pursue happiness (more taxes are being layered on to provide more bennies for those who don’t rate it; taking from those who have and giving to those who have not. Whose happiness trumps whose? Is my happiness more important than anyone else’s on these boards? Less?), and now we are losing our right to decide for ourselves.
This country was founded on the belief that we pave our own way, establish ourselves and then prosper or not based on the sweat of our own brow. Now we have people prospering who don’t do a bleeep thing, and we have people who are busting their rumps who are barely making it by. The government should get out of our lives and let us determine our own destinies.
Wraithkin over 13 years ago
Do you want to have someone make the decisions for you? No? That’s free will, in a nutshell. I don’t see what’s so complex about wanting to make decisions for yourself. What gives a beaurocrat in Washington the authority, infinite wisdom, and foresight to make decisions for me as an individual? After all, most of them are lawyers who have their own personal agendas.
Re: my last paragraph, I don’t understand what you don’t get. We should keep what we earn, not have it given to those who don’t earn a blasted thing and are given everything. If we are going to succeed, let us succeed. If we are going to fail, let us fail.