the Affordable HealthCare Act was duly enacted with bipartisanship…. in my humble opinion, it has accomplished great things: extended children’s coverage, prevented coverage denial for pre-existing conditions, fully covering preventive screenings. Continuing the current system denies access to health & wellness to those in need. Do we want a system that provides ealth care for only the rich? Don’t we require people who drive cars to be licensed and carry insurance? Shouldn’t health be as much as a right as driving?
Mr. Obama is simply pandering to the most ignorant of the U.S. population and hoping they have enough wits about them to at least know how to check his name in the ballot box this November. If you aren’t outraged, you’re not paying close enough attention! Time to vote this clown out of office before he damages our country any further.
We had a health care system that was destroying the lives of anyone who needed expensive care and was told by the insurance company that they were not covered due to $ limits, pre-existing conditions or just that the CEO needed another yacht. Obama tried to fix that. The Repugs of course tried to block it. What was able to be passed was this abortion of a health care law which pleases few and angers many. Single payer is the only way. Medicare for all and let’s get on with fixing the rest of the economy.
Don’t agree with the REPUBLICAN (see Chafee et al) "individual mandate to profit corporations, but “Single Payer” should have been the “Constitutional” substitute.
But is Ramirez using a bear’s paw supposed to represent the “Russian bear” ripping the Constitution? Yep, better a Fascist “Patriot Act” and “Military Commissions Act” , and “Citizens United”, than actual acceptance of that document’s intent.
0bama is playing to the dumbest, the most ignorant gutter slime which is so well represented by his apologists hereon. .Only a constitutional scholar of 0bama’s ilk can utter an intellectually and factually dishonest quip, and get away with it – he might even get reelected..Any doubt about America’s decline is about to be refuted?
Historically, the test of constitutionality in terms of the commerce clause is:
1. Is “health care” an item of interstate commerce, or does it have a substantial effect on commerce?; and2. Is there a rational basis for the regulation congress has proposed?
If the answer is yes to both, a law stands.
Most “experts” I’ve seen think the neutral arbiter’s answer to both, based on existing precedent, should be “yes”. Hence the AHA would stand as written.
“health care” an item of interstate commerce" The answer is NO. Today, a Health Insurance company is regulated by the State. A company cannot sell out of state- it has to be incorporated in the state that it does business in.
“quit paying for your Emergency Medical Care with my Tax Dollars!” AGREED. Unfortunately, ObamaCare will use your tax $ to give free care to those that do not have insurance today. Fortunately, they will be going to a clinic instead of the Emergency Room- that will be some savings.
The Supreme Court case is not about healthcare – it’s about Constitutionality. Had the Dems written the law to fund Obamacare through raised taxes, there’s no question it would be entirely legal (not good, not effective, but legal). But they knew they couldn’t pass a tax hike of that size in a recession, and so they tried to invoke the commerce clause as a way of forcing Americans, for the first time ever, to purchase a product (and usurping the police power of the states in the process). People here can debate all they want about healthcare – but the issue here is whether or not the law is Constitutional. Hint: it isn’t.
SusanCraig about 12 years ago
the Affordable HealthCare Act was duly enacted with bipartisanship…. in my humble opinion, it has accomplished great things: extended children’s coverage, prevented coverage denial for pre-existing conditions, fully covering preventive screenings. Continuing the current system denies access to health & wellness to those in need. Do we want a system that provides ealth care for only the rich? Don’t we require people who drive cars to be licensed and carry insurance? Shouldn’t health be as much as a right as driving?
hanmari about 12 years ago
Mr. Obama is simply pandering to the most ignorant of the U.S. population and hoping they have enough wits about them to at least know how to check his name in the ballot box this November. If you aren’t outraged, you’re not paying close enough attention! Time to vote this clown out of office before he damages our country any further.
joe vignone about 12 years ago
We had a health care system that was destroying the lives of anyone who needed expensive care and was told by the insurance company that they were not covered due to $ limits, pre-existing conditions or just that the CEO needed another yacht. Obama tried to fix that. The Repugs of course tried to block it. What was able to be passed was this abortion of a health care law which pleases few and angers many. Single payer is the only way. Medicare for all and let’s get on with fixing the rest of the economy.
NoTimeTheBook_com about 12 years ago
Really?
It’s ok for other civilized country to have healthcare, but it’s unconstitutional for the USA to have healthcare?
All that this means is that the rich 1% do not want to help pay for the healthcare costs of the poorer 99%.
rockngolfer about 12 years ago
Rameriz took one day off yesterday from criticizing Obama (sort of) and now it is the same old bull.
Dtroutma about 12 years ago
Don’t agree with the REPUBLICAN (see Chafee et al) "individual mandate to profit corporations, but “Single Payer” should have been the “Constitutional” substitute.
But is Ramirez using a bear’s paw supposed to represent the “Russian bear” ripping the Constitution? Yep, better a Fascist “Patriot Act” and “Military Commissions Act” , and “Citizens United”, than actual acceptance of that document’s intent.
petergrt about 12 years ago
0bama is playing to the dumbest, the most ignorant gutter slime which is so well represented by his apologists hereon. .Only a constitutional scholar of 0bama’s ilk can utter an intellectually and factually dishonest quip, and get away with it – he might even get reelected..Any doubt about America’s decline is about to be refuted?
gary wolner about 12 years ago
Another Ramirez Strikeout for a triple play!
charliekane about 12 years ago
Historically, the test of constitutionality in terms of the commerce clause is:
1. Is “health care” an item of interstate commerce, or does it have a substantial effect on commerce?; and2. Is there a rational basis for the regulation congress has proposed?
If the answer is yes to both, a law stands.
Most “experts” I’ve seen think the neutral arbiter’s answer to both, based on existing precedent, should be “yes”. Hence the AHA would stand as written.
But politics may intervene. . .
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member about 12 years ago
“Patriot Act and suspension of Habeas corpus was all right” NO! Both R and D have gone too far in govt over reaching.
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member about 12 years ago
“health care” an item of interstate commerce" The answer is NO. Today, a Health Insurance company is regulated by the State. A company cannot sell out of state- it has to be incorporated in the state that it does business in.
Fuzzy Thinker Premium Member about 12 years ago
“quit paying for your Emergency Medical Care with my Tax Dollars!” AGREED. Unfortunately, ObamaCare will use your tax $ to give free care to those that do not have insurance today. Fortunately, they will be going to a clinic instead of the Emergency Room- that will be some savings.
Yammo Premium Member about 12 years ago
Commerce claws indeed
PlainBill about 12 years ago
Not quite true. The RSCOTUS has decided you can be strip searched TWICE even if you DIDN’T commit a minor infraction.
Farley55 about 12 years ago
The Supreme Court case is not about healthcare – it’s about Constitutionality. Had the Dems written the law to fund Obamacare through raised taxes, there’s no question it would be entirely legal (not good, not effective, but legal). But they knew they couldn’t pass a tax hike of that size in a recession, and so they tried to invoke the commerce clause as a way of forcing Americans, for the first time ever, to purchase a product (and usurping the police power of the states in the process). People here can debate all they want about healthcare – but the issue here is whether or not the law is Constitutional. Hint: it isn’t.
maple.lander about 12 years ago
Couldn’t have said it better.