Skip to comments.Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth
Posted on 04/01/2010 9:29:24 PM PDT by Nachum
It hasn't attracted much notice, but recently some prominent advocates of Obamacare have spoken more frankly than ever before about why they supported a national health care makeover. It wasn't just about making insurance more affordable. It wasn't just about bending the cost curve. It wasn't just about cutting the federal deficit. It was about redistributing wealth.
Health reform is "an income shift," Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. "It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
The list, ping
It wasn’t designed to redistribute wealth from the poor, middle class, and wealthy to the ultrarich.
Resdestributinbg wealth? Thats why its unconstitutional. The government has no constitutional authority to redistribute wealth.
as was the Porkulus bill
So this is the lie they will play to make you want to vote for them. The only distribution going on is into private slush funds to make the rich(them)richer.
Don’t believe them even when they start presenting fake proof of it. They lie, lie and lie.
It’s supposed to provide everyone with “the best healthcare available”, but nothing that was taken from someone else and given to you can be good as what you got by your own honest labor.
It is more than that, it is anti-family. Women and men with children will be a huge cost burden under the healthcare bill to corporations which has already been exposed. Single men and women who become married and have children provide a disincentive for corporations to allow and encourage their careers to continue to advance...demotions are encouraged from a cost point of view.
Here is an article on the abolition of the family itself as a result of the healthcare bill...without a family structure, TRIBALISM and CAVEMAN clans are not possible, much less nation-states. The gay agenda, abortions, joblessness, zero interest rates, profit turned to cultural sin, Bill Gates recommendation for sterility vaccines, higher taxes for married couples, all fit into a depopulation agenda in concert with a Marxist agenda:
Family relationships re Obama discussed by psychologist:
“”It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans”
An artificial leveling that rewards sloth and penalizes thrift and resourcefulness—naturally increasing the incentives of the former and decreasing the incentives of the latter.
In other words, a folly that would be punished in the individual but is rewarded and deemed praiseworthy by the diseased minds of all too many.
WE KNEW IT, I'm just surprised they are admitting it so readily now!
They got their vote, they don't care, we are now their prisoners!
Me too. The funny thing is that the White House talking points memo seems to have not been read recently. Obama is out discussing how wonderful the law is because of its cost/access benefits, while his cronies are telling a different story.
These guys are drunk with power and are frothing at the mouth.
They don’t seem to have their stories straight cause it’s all lies, once you tell one lie, you have to continue to tell more lies to cover it!
That’s why it has money for IRS thugs and no doctors.
ObummerCaries was mainly aimed at the rain falling on the plain in Spain, to redistribute bull manure evenly in the bullring so the matador will not slip on the bull ___ thus creating 41,000 new jobs [deep manure shovelers] in Seville.
In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years "the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind." The new health care legislation, Baucus promised, "will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America."
At about the same time, Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, said the health bill was needed to correct economic inequities. "The question is, in a democracy, what is the right balance between those at the top ... and those at the bottom?" Dean said during an appearance on CNBC. "When it gets out of whack, as it did in the 1920s, and it has now, you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution."
Summing things up in the New York Times, the liberal economics columnist David Leonhardt called Obamacare "the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."
Same effect as Reparations...just not using that word.
I love them!
The Compact never gave government the right to our money, our agriculture, our education system, our industry, OR our ability to contract with each other. Nor does government possess a legitimate ability to give such power to itself.
Now, they've decided they can take what we earn and give it to whom they deem to be 'underpriviledged'.
I have to wonder exactly how unconstituional our government must be before the people decide to act.
It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments. Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............
Wall Street Journal | Jan. 2, 2010 | Orin Hatch et al
FR Posted by Military family member
The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the statesto a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to statesand through them the peoplea greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendmentsand Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
America's liberty and prosperity for over 200 years was based on another idea, for the earnings of hardworking citizens were protected from the coercive hand of government by a written Constitution which did not allow the Baucuses of the world such "taking" power. Hear Samuel Adams:
?Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. - Samuel Adams
The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional. - Samuel Adams
Ooops! Substitute a “ mark for the ? in the first quotation, if copying.
Barry has said in the past that he prefers
“universal healthcare” and “free education”
instead of a reparations check. They affect the same groups as far as who gives and who gets,
but reparations would call the issue “done”, whereas government programs would be ongoing.
Satan hates the family, the REAL family - mother, father, children,
so it’s no surprise that his minions actively promote policies that destroy the family.
His comment that redistribution "schemes" (his words) are as "arbitrary and despotic as those which vest all property in the crown," reminds us that the practical effect of the "health care 'scheme'" is to do exactly that--"vest. . . property in the crown" (by "crown," one must substitute, "the federal government"). The Baucus/Pelosi/Reid/Obama "scheme" first "takes," through various taxes, fees, penalties, etc., the earnings (property) of earning citizens. Those earnings become "vested" government funds.
This is another of those "schemes" which purport to do good, but, in the process, enslave both the earners and the recipients to those in power.
Ideas have consequences! (Weaver)
The Founders' ideas of liberty brought freedom and plenty and brought millions to America's shores to find opportunity and success. The counterfeit ideas of the Progressives who enslave us with their "leveling" schemes bring deficits, debt, and misery.
"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40
"We are warranted, then, in affirming that this parody on the principle of 'a public debt being a public blessing,' and its mutation into the blessing of private instead of public debts, is as ridiculous as the original principle itself. In both cases, the truth is, that capital may be produced by industry, and accumulated by economy; but jugglers only will propose to create it by legerdemain tricks with paper." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:423
Let’s save some syllables, and not lose a bit of accuracy in definition:
The question is will it have traction?
WE KNEW IT, I’m just surprised they are admitting it so readily now!
Perhaps this is their plan to get us onboard. They think we’ll be in favor of a plan that purportedly lets the middle class get money from the upper class.
This is a desparate administration. They are trying every word known to mankind to make the Health Care Legislation stick.
You know the old adage. Enough monkeys with enough typwriters eventually will type up one of Shakespeare's classics.
“the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.”
And they don’t realize that this inequality is/was being caused by Welfare? Who wants to work when they can sit home on their butt and complain about not having as much money to throw around as the guy next door who works an 80 hour week?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.