Thankful

[Lonecowboy]

oldtimer wrote:

Yep-- but thats where the rightwingernuts don't understand the law-- A Law passed by Congress and signed by the President--- is the LAW OF THE LAND- and deemed Constitutional until overthrown by the appropriate court

U.S.Constitution says:

Article VI:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby

what you left wing nuts don't understand is that it is EVERY citizens right and duty to examine every law and make sure it is in "Pursuance thereof" our Constitution- I can read a simple document written by parochial or homeschooled kids written in plain english and know what it means. why can't you?

you just try and pervert and twist the words to suit yourselves. if the public really wants this then why don't you go get an ammendment giving the proper legal authority from the people to congress to do this? EH?

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abe Lincoln

 

[Lonecowboy]

Essentially, the issue is whether under the Commerce Clause the federal government, under threats of fine and jail, can order citizens to purchase a government-specified product – health insurance – from a private company. Critics say such power is unconstitutional, and if affirmed, there is nothing the government could not order, from which car to purchase to which food to each to how much exercise to do.

Boldin said his organization has drafted state-level legislation that allows states to reject "the notion of not just health insurance mandates from the federal government, but the very core idea that the federal government is authorized to be in the health care industry at all."

The organization's Federal Health Care Nullification Act declares that Obamacare "is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent."

It explains, "Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both."

North Dakota already has passed a version of the bill, as have several other states.

That such activities by states is effective is proven by the status of the Read ID Act made law in Congress.

"When Maine, New Hampshire, Utah and other states started passing resolutions and laws to ban participation in the Real ID Act, it was the strength of multiple states acting in unison that resulted in the federal government backing off – like the house of cards that it is," Boldin said.

The organization, however, said state lawmakers need to act soon.

"Sitting around and waiting, hoping, or begging the federal courts to limit federal power – is not the game plan of a patriot," Boldin said. "I strongly urge you to personally email AND call your state senators and representatives and demand that they introduce the federal health care nullification act in your state.

"When enough good people rise up and say no to tyranny, and enough states introduce and pass laws backing them up, there's not much that the feds can do to force their unconstitutional acts, regulations … and mandates down our throats," he said.

Just a few weeks ago, Ohio voters by a 2-1 margin approved a state constitutional amendment declaring Obamacare's requirement for Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance unconstitutional, joining a growing surge of state-level activity that could bode ill for the legislation – no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

full article:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=371573

 

[Whitewing]

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will reduce the national debt by $143 Billion in the first decade- and with the prolonged effects of the law a $1.3 Trillion dollar deduction in the second decade..

National debt? :roll:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/

Use the above link if you want to know what an analytical source with no axe to grind actually has to say about the CBO report. I'm sure you won't bother reading it OT as you've already made up your mind, and worse, have stated your opinion as fact.

This uncertainty in what may happen to provisions of the law in the future also casts doubt on the Democrats' boast that the law reduces the deficit by $1.3 trillion. That's the figure Rep. Nancy Pelosi used on Jan. 5, when she was passing the gavel to new Speaker John Boehner. Pelosi claimed the law "will save taxpayers $1.3 trillion."

She extrapolated that number from the CBO's analyses, but the agency didn't actually use that specific figure. As we said, CBO estimated the law would reduce the deficit by $230 billion over the 2012-2021 time period.

 

[Texan]

This was another good article, Whitewing:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41039

 

[Steve]

"Not only would repeal of health care reform add to our deficit, it would dump more than 30 million Americans from coverage who will be protected by our new health care reform act," protested Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (R-Ill.) on Thursday. "So more than 50 million Americans won't have the protection of health insurance. That is a personal family tragedy, even beyond our discussion of the deficit."

Boehner's report documents the fiscal and economic consequences of ObamaCare on the nation. The economic consequences include an estimated 650,000 jobs lost. Also, the report says the health care law when fully implemented will cost $2.6 trillion and add $701 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years.

"The Democrats' health care law is a budget-buster. Misleading claims on its deficit impact exclude the $115 billion needed to implement the law and over $500 billion in double-counting Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare reductions," said Ryan in a statement.

so if it is going to reduce the deficit by $143 billion.. but needs $115 billion to be implemented.. (leaving $28 billion) and they double counted $500 billion) it would only cost $472 billion if OT and Pislosi are right..

The law was written on assuming 10 years of tax increases to offset six years of new spending, which makes for fuzzy accounting. Also, the Democrats took out some of the bill's more expensive spending provisions and enacted them separately, which increased the deficit.

In fact, Obama's own appointees at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that ObamaCare would increase spending by more than $311 billion over the next 10 years.

I am already "paying more"

millions are already hit with some of the upfront "savings"

 

[TSR]

Mine went down some. But if everyone is not required to pay as has been argued before, won't they just hit the emergency rooms and then those that do pay will see even more of an increase. I might add haven't waivers been granted?? From what I have heard the proponents of the healthcare bill say, it was never supposed to be a perfect piece of legislation but a work in progress with future changes imminent.

 

[Steve]

we already had a work in progress... it was supposed to be a major reform..

not create more problems..

 

[hypocritexposer]

there are not 30 million AMERICANS without coverage......there are maybe 30 million inhabitants of the US without coverage.......


add some tariffs on foreign made goods and see how many can afford Health insurance......


are union wages and Federal taxes included in the price of US made goods?

 

[Anonymous]

"Not only would repeal of health care reform add to our deficit, it would dump more than 30 million Americans from coverage who will be protected by our new health care reform act," protested Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (R-Ill.) on Thursday. "So more than 50 million Americans won't have the protection of health insurance. That is a personal family tragedy, even beyond our discussion of the deficit."

Boehner's report documents the fiscal and economic consequences of ObamaCare on the nation. The economic consequences include an estimated 650,000 jobs lost. Also, the report says the health care law when fully implemented will cost $2.6 trillion and add $701 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years.

"The Democrats' health care law is a budget-buster. Misleading claims on its deficit impact exclude the $115 billion needed to implement the law and over $500 billion in double-counting Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare reductions," said Ryan in a statement.

so if it is going to reduce the deficit by $143 billion.. but needs $115 billion to be implemented.. (leaving $28 billion) and they double counted $500 billion) it would only cost $472 billion if OT and Pislosi are right..

The law was written on assuming 10 years of tax increases to offset six years of new spending, which makes for fuzzy accounting. Also, the Democrats took out some of the bill's more expensive spending provisions and enacted them separately, which increased the deficit.

In fact, Obama's own appointees at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated that ObamaCare would increase spending by more than $311 billion over the next 10 years.

I am already "paying more"

millions are already hit with some of the upfront "savings"

Did your tri-care go up. From what to where.

 

[redrobin]

As Obamacare now stands it is Constitutional...The Court rulings against it are split- and until the SCOTUS rules it otherwise is constitutional under the Commerce clause...

Do I like Obamacare? I don't know yet- but just like in most new laws I've dealt with- they need additions and subtractions as they go into effect before they will work the way they were intended... Lot of things would have been different if I had wrote it- both additions and subtractions... Like I would have included major medical tort reform- but with 300 attorneys in Congress that will never pass...
But I do know we did need/do need health care and health insurance reform...There never was a question about that- and was even agreed on by most Republicans...Both Clinton and Bush ran with that as their #1 campaign issue- and until the Bush Bust economy beat it out, was the number one voter issue in the major polls....

And because we do not live in a perfect world where everyone will accept responsibility as the are asked to do- or should do- which then puts a greater burden on everyone else to pay for them when they become the ones needing medical aid - I think the mandatory part might be deemed constitutional... Its passed the test on other mandatory national laws for specific issues- and on the Massachusetts health care law- Romneycare..
Since making sure health care services are available to everyone is now deemed a duty of a civilized society- the courts may rule that requiring everyone to take responsibility for paying to the best of their ability (without it bankrupting anyone like it does now) for that may be mandatory...

Somebody in here smells like BO.