PDA

View Full Version : Federal judge throws out Obamacare!!!



huntinman
01-31-2011, 03:58 PM
Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

Published January 31, 2011 | FoxNews.com


A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The decision will likely face an immediate filing by the federal government for a stay, and the case is undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court.

But for now, opponents of President Obama's signature domestic legislation exalted while supporters denounced the decision.

"I applaud the ruling today by Judge Vinson," said Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who prior to getting elected in November, helped lead the charge against the law. "In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start -- Obamacare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people. ... Patients should have more control over health care decisions than a federal government that is spending money faster than it can be printed."

"Judge Vinson's decision is radical judicial activism run amok, and it will undoubtedly be reversed on appeal. The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families' health care security," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "If this decision were allowed to stand, it would have devastating consequences for America's families."

Vinson's decision, while surprising, was not unforeseen. In October, the judge dismissed four of the six counts in the suit led by then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 25 other states. But he allowed two counts, including one challenging the law's controversial requirement that Americans buy health insurance, to proceed. Arguments were heard in December.

In his earlier ruling, Vinson said that a government report called the requirement to buy insurance legally unprecedented and worth examining in court.

"The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive," he wrote.

Nearly two dozen suits have been filed in federal courts, but Monday's ruling is the biggest judicial decision to come down the pike since Congress last March passed the bill aimed at covering 30 million uninsured Americans whether they want insurance or not.

In other cases, a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional but left standing other parts of the law. In Michigan, the argument concerning the "individual mandate" -- the central tenet that requires Americans to start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty -- was thrown out by another federal judge.

"That judge, under his mind-set, said basically if someone thought that I were overweight, if they rule this way, the federal government would be able to mandate that I go down to the Gold's Gym and fill out an application and contract with Gold's Gym to lose weight and lower my cholesterol," said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, whose state is among the parties filing the multi-state suit. "That is the kind of logic that we're going to right now where you're actually telling people that they have to engage in an activity and that is simply too broad a policy for the federal government."

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a repeal of the 10-year, $1 trillion plan that critics say will cost closer to $2.6 trillion. But the repeal bill will likely die in the Senate, meaning Vinson's ruling is the newest grounds on which supporters and opponents proceed.

Defenders of the law say that Americans need to be covered from ruthless insurance companies that either refuse to insure children with illnesses and adults with pre-existing conditions or charge exorbitant amounts for individual coverage. The law aims to provide a federal umbrella under which Americans can purchase and keep insurance regardless of their health, career changes or ability to pay.

But Vinson said that is not the U.S. government's job.

"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the constitutional role of the federal government," he wrote.

Supporters of the law also note that Congressional Budget Office figures that show if repealed, government deficits will climb by $230 billion over the next 10 years.

Critics counter with a "junk in, junk out" description of the CBO's estimates, claiming the numbers used to reach the conclusions are bogus and based on best-case scenarios that don't realize additional spending and unlikely savings, particularly as the law, in the first decade, collects taxes for 10 years though it only pays for six years of coverage and relies on money to be collected for a separate health program -- Medicare.

In his State of the Union address, Obama said he was willing to open his mind to changes in the law if they made dollars and sense and didn't prevent patients with pre-existing conditions or other barriers to insurance companies from gaining coverage.

He pointed to the near-universally hated 1099 provision that orders businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service all purchases exceeding $600 as the first provision to be scrapped.

Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley repeated the president's position on Sunday, adding that the law was intended to help employers as much as patients.

"The president has said he's open to changes to this. He is not open to re-fighting the entire fight of health care," Daley told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I absolutely believe, having been in business and hearing from business people, the importance of a need for the reform of health care. It was the business community that was really saying to the politicians, this is costing us too much, it's too much of a wet blanket on the economy," he said.

Eric Johnson
01-31-2011, 04:17 PM
Months ago I raised the issue of the severability clause on this forum.

If Congress had inserted such a clause, this would not have been so drammatic. As it stands, the mandate has been declared un-constitutional and absent a severability clause, that means the whole thing is tossed out. Inserting a severability clause is so fundamental that I have to wonder if Congress didn't hope for this outcome...."We tried to pass a bill but the court threw it out" while breathing a sigh of relief.

The real bottom line is that this wasn't about healthcare but about health insurance. What good is universal health insurance if you live in the vast parts of the country that are medically underserved? You can have health insurance but what good does it do you if no physicians are available. Pair this with the fact that the bill was encouraging physicians to retire.

Eric

TxHillHunter
01-31-2011, 04:38 PM
Months ago I raised the issue of the severability clause on this forum.

If Congress had inserted such a clause, this would not have been so drammatic. As it stands, the mandate has been declared un-constitutional and absent a severability clause, that means the whole thing is tossed out. Inserting a severability clause is so fundamental that I have to wonder if Congress didn't hope for this outcome...."We tried to pass a bill but the court threw it out" while breathing a sigh of relief.

The real bottom line is that this wasn't about healthcare but about health insurance. What good is universal health insurance if you live in the vast parts of the country that are medically underserved? You can have health insurance but what good does it do you if no physicians are available. Pair this with the fact that the bill was encouraging physicians to retire.

Eric

Interesting theory in the first paragraph Eric. But something tells me that neither "side" likes having any legislation...much less a cornerstone accomplishment of an Administration....ruled unconstitutional. But who knows....DC never ceases to amaze me.

As for the medically underserved....it is possible that the poor payment and constant battles endured by physicians who would otherwise serve these patients has "run them out". While I personally know many physicians who make the vast majority of their income from the MMS crowd, they would say it's a very tough way to make a living.....especially if they have $200-300k in student loans to pay off.

Buzz
01-31-2011, 04:48 PM
Months ago I raised the issue of the severability clause on this forum.

If Congress had inserted such a clause, this would not have been so drammatic. As it stands, the mandate has been declared un-constitutional and absent a severability clause, that means the whole thing is tossed out. Inserting a severability clause is so fundamental that I have to wonder if Congress didn't hope for this outcome...."We tried to pass a bill but the court threw it out" while breathing a sigh of relief.

The real bottom line is that this wasn't about healthcare but about health insurance. What good is universal health insurance if you live in the vast parts of the country that are medically underserved? You can have health insurance but what good does it do you if no physicians are available. Pair this with the fact that the bill was encouraging physicians to retire.

Eric

I'll have to look, but I thought we talked about this before, and I pointed out that there actually was a severability clause. Maybe I'm mixing it up with something else...

Uncle Bill
01-31-2011, 04:49 PM
You nailed it Eric. It may have some conspiratorial aspects to it, but I suspect it was mostly ignorance, stupidity, and arrogance that was involved in the fashioning of this fiasco. The fact that it wasn't read by the vast majority of those that voted in favor of it, made it suspect from the getgo.

By that token, it was just an Obama attempt at upholding a campaign promise. And since he had the numbers in both houses of congress, and a couple of truly air-headed leaders pushing the bill through, he flexed his bully pulpit powers and shoved it down the throats of the people.

This judge's decision should be upheld in the SCOTUS as well. In fact, the strength of this judge's decision, may do more to start the ball rolling towards more jobs opening up soon, than any of the Obama musings in the SOTU address. With that apparent monkey off the back of business, many small companies can go forward with plans to expand, and not be penalized. Let's all hope so.

UB

Eric Johnson
01-31-2011, 05:00 PM
Here's part of my first post on the issue of the severability clause...

********
The absence of a severability or severence clause means that if any of the various suits filed by the states results in a section being declared unconstitutional.....the whole thing is thrown out! What is not clear to me is whether this would apply to all the states or just to the state that had filed that particular suit.

Mr Cuccinelli said that there were two possible reasons for this. First of all, sheer short-sightedness.

The second reason is that he suspects the Senate bill really wasn't supposed to pass. They voted it out in the middle of the night during Christmas. The expectation was that the House would pass a bill and then the houses would have to resolve the differences. The election of Scott Brown meant that the House couldn't send an amended bill back to the Senate with any hope of passage so the House just passed it. Now everyone is learning just how screwed up it is.
********

I actually feel that the second reason Cuccinelli gave is probably the real truth. The Senate forgot the clause and then couldn't bring it up for amendment with Scott Brown's election. Then the House took it up and as then-Speaker Pelosi argued, "Pass it and then read it."

Eric

Granddaddy
01-31-2011, 05:03 PM
"Supporters of the law also note that Congressional Budget Office figures that show if repealed, government deficits will climb by $230 billion over the next 10 years.

Critics counter with a "junk in, junk out" description of the CBO's estimates, claiming the numbers used to reach the conclusions are bogus and based on best-case scenarios that don't realize additional spending and unlikely savings, particularly as the law, in the first decade, collects taxes for 10 years though it only pays for six years of coverage and relies on money to be collected for a separate health program -- Medicare."


From the article cited in the OP's original post, this statement is the crux of what bothers me the most associated with politicians that support Obamacare. Obama himself quoted that the healthcare bill "reduced the deficit" - bogus to say the least, more like an outright lie.

A 1st grader could correctly reason that if the government decides its going to provide free health care to 30,000,000 who currently don't have it, that it will cost & cost dearly.

road kill
01-31-2011, 06:03 PM
"Supporters of the law also note that Congressional Budget Office figures that show if repealed, government deficits will climb by $230 billion over the next 10 years.

Critics counter with a "junk in, junk out" description of the CBO's estimates, claiming the numbers used to reach the conclusions are bogus and based on best-case scenarios that don't realize additional spending and unlikely savings, particularly as the law, in the first decade, collects taxes for 10 years though it only pays for six years of coverage and relies on money to be collected for a separate health program -- Medicare."


From the article cited in the OP's original post, this statement is the crux of what bothers me the most associated with politicians that support Obamacare. Obama himself quoted that the healthcare bill "reduced the deficit" - bogus to say the least, more like an outright lie.

A 1st grader could correctly reason that if the government decides its going to provide free health care to 30,000,000 who currently don't have it, that it will cost & cost dearly.

That's assuming he had even the vaguest of ideas what was in the bill.
I propose he did not.
He did what he was told, he said what was written on the teleprompter.



RK

BonMallari
01-31-2011, 07:16 PM
if this doesnt prove that the country needs to vote a conservative into the White House in 2012 because a SCOTUS swing vote will be up for grabs, it will also give candidates something to use to show that the debate over this bill is FAR from over

Eric Johnson
01-31-2011, 11:28 PM
Here's an interesting quote from Judge Vinson's decision (footnote on page 76).

********
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.
*********

Hoist!

Eric

BrianW
02-01-2011, 09:53 AM
Fwiw, this ruling just furthers my opinion that this "reform act" while under cover of "giving" health care, was most simply about taking more control.
I don't think it was carelessness, stupidity or ignorance. It was "the audacity of arrogance" (to paraphrase) and the power of precedence.
Because once you have the force, you don't have to bother with persuasion anymore. US.gov knows what's best for you and you will buy insurance. Or any other "choice" they decide to make for your "benefit" in the future.

Look at "The government's bloated new dietary guidelines "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105224.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105224.html?hpid=opinionsbox1The)

The govt wants you to change your diet, reduce salt, increase fruits & veggies. That's fine and an admirable goal.

Vilsack said he can help fellow Americans to do the same - as long as they are willing to share with the government a few intimate details about themselves, such as how much they weigh, every morsel of food that passes their lips, and how they occupy themselves every minute of the day and night.
"At the USDA website (http://www.usda.gov/), you have the ability to actually type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis," he said. "So there are ways at which you can at usda.gov sort of determine for yourself a personal eating. That's what my wife and I are basically doing right now."

Well whoop to do and good for you Tom!


"Undoubtedly, Americans would be healthier if they would follow the recommendations, but this sounds like TMI at the USDA. Using the drop-down "activity" menu on the website, you are asked to enter how many minutes a day you do such things as "dressing/undressing," "sitting on toilet," "sleeping," "sitting quietly and watching television," "slow dancing," "singing in church," "casino gambling," "coal mining," "washing dishes," "wrestling" and "butchering animals."


But what if "I" or "you don't want to change my/our eating habits? What if you don't want to share 'a few intimate details" with Big Bro/Sis? What if we want to 'live large" (pun intended) and party like a rock star, like Michelle & Co, chowing on an ice ream cone while she tells us to eat a celery stick?
Well, when the power of persuasion doesn't work, they'll use the persuasion of power.

How long until instead of the above it's
"At the USDA website (http://www.usda.gov/), you have the requirement to type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis," he said. "So there are ways that usda.gov will determine a personal eating (plan) for yourself.

" and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal"

Laugh and call me the paranoid ID "ath-hole" if you want but if the SCOTUS doesn't uphold this judge's ruling and nullify this whole power play, this is where we'll be headed, slowly but surely. If SecHHS has the power over your your health care, it won't be long before SecAg has the power over your diet.

Just one little reeeeasonable step at a time.

road kill
02-01-2011, 10:11 AM
Fwiw, this ruling just furthers my opinion that this "reform act" while under cover of "giving" health care, was most simply about taking more control.
I don't think it was carelessness, stupidity or ignorance. It was "the audacity of arrogance" (to paraphrase) and the power of precedence.
Because once you have the force, you don't have to bother with persuasion anymore. US.gov knows what's best for you and you will buy insurance. Or any other "choice" they decide to make for your "benefit" in the future.

Look at "The government's bloated new dietary guidelines "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105224.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105224.html?hpid=opinionsbox1The)

The govt wants you to change your diet, reduce salt, increase fruits & veggies. That's fine and an admirable goal.

Vilsack said he can help fellow Americans to do the same - as long as they are willing to share with the government a few intimate details about themselves, such as how much they weigh, every morsel of food that passes their lips, and how they occupy themselves every minute of the day and night.
"At the USDA website (http://www.usda.gov/), you have the ability to actually type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis," he said. "So there are ways at which you can at usda.gov sort of determine for yourself a personal eating. That's what my wife and I are basically doing right now."

Well whoop to do and good for you Tom!


"Undoubtedly, Americans would be healthier if they would follow the recommendations, but this sounds like TMI at the USDA. Using the drop-down "activity" menu on the website, you are asked to enter how many minutes a day you do such things as "dressing/undressing," "sitting on toilet," "sleeping," "sitting quietly and watching television," "slow dancing," "singing in church," "casino gambling," "coal mining," "washing dishes," "wrestling" and "butchering animals."


But what if "I" or "you don't want to change my/our eating habits? What if you don't want to share 'a few intimate details" with Big Bro/Sis? What if we want to 'live large" (pun intended) and party like a rock star, like Michelle & Co, chowing on an ice ream cone while she tells us to eat a celery stick?
Well, when the power of persuasion doesn't work, they'll use the persuasion of power.

How long until instead of the above it's
"At the USDA website (http://www.usda.gov/), you have the requirement to type in information about yourself, what kind of lifestyle you have, how much physical activity you are engaged in on a daily basis," he said. "So there are ways that usda.gov will determine a personal eating (plan) for yourself.

" and it's been deemed that anything not good for you is bad; hence, illegal"

Laugh and call me the paranoid ID "ath-hole" if you want but if the SCOTUS doesn't uphold this judge's ruling and nullify this whole power play, this is where we'll be headed, slowly but surely. If SecHHS has the power over your your health care, it won't be long before SecAg has the power over your diet.

Just one little reeeeasonable step at a time.

Of course we all know that this will NOT apply to women.
Hasn't the SCOTUS already ruled that they have the right to do what they want with their bodys????


Just askin'.........

RK

ducknwork
02-01-2011, 12:05 PM
The last two posts are pure genius.

Uncle Bill
02-01-2011, 12:41 PM
This Florida judge has the MSP and the rest of the Obama sycophants fit to be tied. Yuk, yuk,yuk.

Here's a telling column:

UB

Health Judge Uses Obama's Words Against Him


Tuesday, 01 Feb 2011 09:19 AM




In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.

White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling.

“There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

M&K's Retrievers
02-01-2011, 01:15 PM
Diane Sawyer did not even mention the decision on ABC's news program yesterday. CBS and NBC had brief one or two sentence statements.

BonMallari
02-01-2011, 02:44 PM
the Dems bullied through healthcare, and then the elections showed them the American public didnt like the way they did business, now a Federal judge has stopped the process (for now)...so we either wait for SCOTUS to hold up the ruling and /or we vote for a change in leadership in 2012 at both the Executive level and the Senate and put an end to it altogether...may end up being a Roe vs Wade type of ruling, which may shape the way laws are written for our kids and even their kids

Gerry Clinchy
02-01-2011, 03:29 PM
What if we want to 'live large" (pun intended) and party like a rock star, like Michelle & Co, chowing on an ice ream cone while she tells us to eat a celery stick?


Sounds a little like Al Gore running a $12,000/month electric bill, while telling the rest of us we should conserve energy. Then the govt gives us no choice because its energy policies sends the cost of energy through the roof. Mission accomplished.

Roger Perry
02-02-2011, 09:28 AM
Governor Romney signed a similar law in effect in Massachusetts yet he opposes a federal bill go figure:confused:

Romney signed legislation while governor that required all citizens of the state to obtain insurance, and while he points to differences between that law and the one Obama won from Congress, it looms as a potential handicap as he seeks support from primary voters in 2012.

I guess the difference between the health care plans is that Obamacare does not include tax payer abortions.:rolleyes: And you righties want him for President???????????????

Gov. Romney's universal health care program for Massachusetts includes taxpayer-funded abortions

Legislation names Planned Parenthood as member of advisory board

The cornerstone of Gov. Mitt Romney's new universal health care law for Massachusetts is a program titled "Commonwealth Care", a plan for thousands of low-income people who could not afford regular health insurance, funded by the taxpayers.
One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is "abortions." And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the "payment policy advisory board."
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/health_ins/Romney_health_bill.jpg



April 12, 2006. Gov. Mitt Romney signs Massachusetts Universal Health Care law, as Sen. Ted Kennedy, standing behind him, gives his approval and support.

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/health_ins/

BrianW
02-02-2011, 09:50 AM
I'm NOT speaking for Romney's view(s) and have not supported him for prez.
But =
The Federal government does not have the "charter" to mandate that all American citizens buy health insurance

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the State of Mass chose to do that to themselves, fine.
But not Uncle Sam.

road kill
02-02-2011, 10:03 AM
I'm NOT speaking for Romney's view(s) and have not supported him for prez.
But =
The Federal government does not have the "charter" to mandate that all American citizens buy health insurance

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the State of Mass chose to do that to themselves, fine.
But not Uncle Sam.
Don't let the FACTS get in the way of Roger SOILING a thread.
(you know, like he does his depends)
And it's a waste fo time to point it out to him, he only listens to the nurses.


Besides, if anyone would know how POORLY this kind of thing functions, it would be a guy that has actually tried it........


RK

Roger Perry
02-02-2011, 10:09 AM
Don't let the FACTS get in the way of Roger SOILING a thread.
(you know, like he does his depends)
And it's a waste fo time to point it out to him, he only listens to the nurses.


RK

OK Mr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWhgyGWkgE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWhgyGWkgE)

I was right on topic of Health insurance. What's your problem??????????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=737532#post737532)
Green Bay Going To SB

"Roger, do you have to soil every thread???
RK"


GET OVER IT RK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roger Perry
02-02-2011, 11:27 AM
I'm NOT speaking for Romney's view(s) and have not supported him for prez.
But =
The Federal government does not have the "charter" to mandate that all American citizens buy health insurance

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the State of Mass chose to do that to themselves, fine.
But not Uncle Sam.

Legislation names Planned Parenthood as member of advisory board

The cornerstone of Gov. Mitt Romney's new universal health care law for Massachusetts is a program titled "Commonwealth Care", a plan for thousands of low-income people who could not afford regular health insurance, funded by the taxpayers.
One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is "abortions." And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the "payment policy advisory board."

Romney sounds like a Republican I could support for President assuming he is for forming a universal health care plan for the U.S. as he has in his state. :cool:

ducknwork
02-02-2011, 11:48 AM
Romney sounds like a Republican I could support for President assuming he is for forming a universal health care plan for the U.S. as he has in his state. :cool:

So you support violations of the Constitution? Did Brian's explanation completely go over your head?

M&K's Retrievers
02-02-2011, 11:59 AM
So you support violations of the Constitution? Did Brian's explanation completely go over your head?

What has RP ever posted to make you think he cares about violations on the Constitution?

Roger Perry
02-02-2011, 12:01 PM
So you support violations of the Constitution? Did Brian's explanation completely go over your head?

So, are you saying Romney violated the Constitution when he signed into law a health care bill that requires everyone in his State to pay for health insurance????????????? Last time I looked Massachettes was a part of the United States and has to abide by the laws of the Constitution.;-)

ducknwork
02-02-2011, 12:07 PM
So, are you saying Romney violated the Constitution when he signed into law a health care bill that requires everyone in his State to pay for health insurance????????????? Last time I looked Massachettes was a part of the United States and has to abide by the laws of the Constitution.;-)

Let me help you out...read Brian's post again.

BTW, this japanese guy has a special message for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx_UJxuQGXo


The Federal government does not have the "charter" to mandate that all American citizens buy health insurance

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the State of Mass chose to do that to themselves, fine.
But not Uncle Sam.

M&K's Retrievers
02-02-2011, 12:07 PM
So, are you saying Romney violated the Constitution when he signed into law a health care bill that requires everyone in his State to pay for health insurance????????????? Last time I looked Massachettes was a part of the United States and has to abide by the laws of the Constitution.;-)

Pretty much.

mjh345
02-02-2011, 12:07 PM
So, are you saying Romney violated the Constitution when he signed into law a health care bill that requires everyone in his State to pay for health insurance????????????? Last time I looked Massachettes was a part of the United States and has to abide by the laws of the Constitution.;-)

Read the 10th Amendment Roger

Leddyman
02-02-2011, 12:47 PM
Just a little FYI. Never have and never will support Romney for president.

If he runs against Obama I will not vote. Promise.

George bush's liberal policies and liberal republicans are the reason we got a socialist president and both houses of congress. Freakin McCain is a democrat at least half of the time. When he sees which way the wind is blowing he starts talking tough. People are sick of liberal republicans. At least the people who vote republican. I realize Roger would like nothing more than a Romney as a republican nominee. BTW I didn't vote for McCain. Rather have a Dem in the WH than another liberal republican. If the republican party doesn't have enough sense to send a conservative candidate up after the midterm elections then screw 'em.

Besides, Romney belongs to a cult regards,

dnf777
02-02-2011, 12:55 PM
I always wondered what was just beyond the edge of the universe. Now I know what's to the right side. ;)

Leddyman
02-02-2011, 08:37 PM
I always wondered what was just beyond the edge of the universe. Now I know what's to the right side. ;)

Freakin' A Skippy. At least I'm consistent.

BrianW
02-03-2011, 09:35 AM
George bush's liberal policies and liberal republicans are the reason we got a socialist president and both houses of congress. Freakin McCain is a democrat at least half of the time. When he sees which way the wind is blowing he starts talking tough. People are sick of liberal republicans. At least the people who vote republican,,,
I didn't vote for McCain. Rather have a Dem in the WH than another liberal republican. If the republican party doesn't have enough sense to send a conservative candidate up after the midterm elections then screw 'em.

...., ya got a point?;)

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals & policies...is a foolish idea. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then, it should be possible to replace it every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things, but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same base policies."
Professor Carroll Quigley from "Tragedy & Hope" (and self described by Bill Clinton as an important influence on his political goals & aspirations)

"That’s what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all -– for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.
At stake right now is not who wins the next election -– after all, we just had an election...
That’s the project the American people want us to work on. Together."

President Obama SoTU 2011

Did PBO repudiate any of his positions from before the elections?
Imo, no.
Did he admit to any mistakes? Again, no.
So he's being praised by many as "a Clintonesque centrist" :rolleyes:
And wants RINO's like McCain, who are all to happy to flip back to their true progressive selves after talking tough prior to Nov., to help him solidify his accomplishments and achieve his "new" goals (which are really the same as the old ones) , because parties don't matter.
Hmmm, isn't that what Quigley postulated?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/23/ftn/main7274843.shtml
Arizona Senator John McCain said on Sunday he thought President Obama had "learned a lot" in his first two years as president, and that he saw adjustments in the president's politics following the November midterm elections.
I think he's doing a lot of right things.
"I think the president has already changed a great deal," McCain said. :rolleyes:
"He'll be saying some things that we don't agree with, but obviously with the new appointments, with an agenda where he wants free trade agreements passed … I think there's going to be a number of areas that we can at least find common ground on."


"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,"